Explorations in Linguistic Relativity (review)

Zden�k Salzmann

Language, Volume 77, Number 4, December 2001, pp. 853-854 (Article)

Published by Linguistic Society of AmericaDOI: 10.1353/lan.2001.0244

For additional information about this article

Access provided by Marshall University (26 Aug 2013 02:47 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lan/summary/v077/77.4salzmann05.html

BOOK NOTICES 853

worker may not be able to obtain help from even apartially bilingual consultant) and (2) learning a fieldlanguage for which textbooks and dictionaries areavailable.For a fieldworker who is not linguistically sophis-

ticated and has not had previous experience in a for-eign society, B’s suggestions should prove valuable.[ZDENEK SALZMANN, Northern Arizona University.]

Evidence for linguistic relativity. Ed. bySUSANNE NIEMEIER and RENE DIRVEN.(Amsterdam studies in the theory andhistory of linguistic science. Series IV,Current issues in linguistic theory 198.)Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000. Pp.xxi, 240.

Most of the ten contributions to this volume wereoriginally presented at the 26th International LAUDSymposium entitled ‘Humboldt andWhorf revisited’(1–5 April, 1998, Gerhard Mercator University,Duisburg, Germany). Proceedings of the meetinghave appeared in two volumes; the fifteen contribu-tors to this volume (including the two editors) comefrom ten countries on four continents.The volume is divided into two parts: Part 1 con-

tains papers dealing with evidence from languagestructure; Part 2 has papers that draw on data fromcognition, discourse, and culture. In his introduction(ix–xxi), JOHN A. LUCY characterizes linguistic rela-tivity and discusses its empirical evaluations. Beforecommenting on the papers of the volume, he men-tions three types of empirical studies of linguisticrelativity—approaches that are structure-oriented,domain-oriented, and behavior-oriented.To sample the contents of Part 1: In one of the

papers JAN SCHROTEN studies semantic structure andits relation to the conceptual structure of body-partnouns in English, Spanish, and Dutch. According tohim, it is necessary to understand how the semanticstructure is organized before one attempts to studythe relationship between language and thought.GABOR GYORI views the cognitive function of lan-guage as also serving ‘to provide the speakers withrelatively stable, ready-made categories that reflectthe environment the language users live in’ (76).Then by studying semantic change, we learn not only‘how cognition influences what categories will becreated in language, . . . [but also] how the linguisti-cally established categories influence our view of theworld’ (77).In Part 2, DAN I. SLOBIN in ‘Verbalized events: A

dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and deter-minism’ (107–38) gives an example of how lan-guages shape their speakers’ way of thinking. Heexamines the event of human motion and explores

differences in ‘thinking for speaking’ between ‘verb-framed’ languages like French and ‘satellite-framed’languages like English (this typology originated withLeonard Talmy in 1985). BALTHASAR BICKEL offersevidence from his fieldwork among a Tibeto-Burmanpeople, the Belhare, that cultural forms of socialpractices (e.g. locating things or persons) show affin-ity to linguistic patterns. And in ‘ ‘‘S’engager’’ vs.‘‘to show restraint’’: Linguistic and cultural relativityin discourse management’ (193–222), BERT PEETERScontrasts communicative norms of French and En-glish speakers. The French ideal is one of engage-ment in order to defend individual expression; theAnglo-Saxon ideal is to avoid the risk of venturingan erroneous opinion and getting drawn into otherpeople’s business. Ultimately, Peeters’s thesis is that‘selected aspects of language . . . because of linguis-tic relativity, generate cultural relativity, which itselfgenerates linguistic diversity’ (217).Papers in this volume will prove to be of interest

because they suggest new ways of approaching theissue of linguistic relativity. [ZDENEK SALZMANN,Northern Arizona University.]

Explorations in linguistic relativity. Ed.by MARTIN PUTZ and MARJOLIJN H.VERSPOOR. (Amsterdam studies in thetheory and history of linguistic science.Series IV, Current issues in linguistictheory 199.) Amsterdam: John Benja-mins, 2000. Pp. xvi, 369.

This is a companion volume to Evidence for lin-guistic relativity (ed. by Susanne Niemeier and ReneDirven. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000). Thenineteen contributors of the fifteen papers of this vol-ume come from three continents.The first five papers take a historical view of lin-

guistic relativity. In ‘Towards a ‘‘full pedigree’’ ofthe ‘‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’’: From Locke toLucy’ (1–23), E. F. K. KOERNER discusses the Hum-boldtian tradition of linguistic worldview but alsomentions some of the earlier thinkers who contrib-uted essential elements to what later came to be re-ferred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. (Lockefigures in the title but is not mentioned in the text.)The following paper (25–44) by JURGEN TRABANTexamines Humboldt’s views in the context of histime and points out some of the similarities and dif-ferences between Humboldt’s thinking and the ap-proaches of those who explored more recently theissue of the relationship between particular languagesand thinking. Moving forward in time, PENNY LEEreviewsWhorf’s formulation of the linguistic relativ-ity principle in order to clarify to what extent thisprinciple corresponds in particular studies to what

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 77, NUMBER 4, (2001)854

Whorf himself meant by it (45–68). In ‘Linguisticrelativity and translation’ (69–88), JULIANE HOUSEfirst gives a brief overview of Humboldtian, neo-Humboldtian, and Whorfian views, which cast seri-ous doubt on translatability, and then proposes thatthe process of translating become a process of cul-tural recontextualization. The last of this set of papersis PETER MUHLHAUSLER’s ‘Humboldt, Whorf and theroots of ecolinguistics’ (89–99). According to M,‘ecolinguistics is probably best defined by its refusalto privilege a single perspective . . . on language andcommunication’ (89). Muhlhauser supports PennyLee’s argument and concludes that while Whorf didrefer to the intrinsic value of cultural diversity, no-where did he mention any connection between di-verse conceptual systems and the diversity of naturalkinds.The other ten papers deal with particular theoreti-

cal and methodological issues. Two of them investi-gate in some detail specific Whorfian constructs:LINDA L. THORNBURG and KLAUS-UWE PANTHER con-clude that ‘claims about how language shapesthought should not be based solely on superficialstructural differences among languages . . . but onin-depth analyses of linguistic systems’ (339);MINGLANG ZHOU, drawing on data from China, chal-lenges both Whorf’s hierarchy of susceptibility oflinguistic categories to awareness and Michael Sil-verstein’s hypothesized universal constraining fac-tors regarding the role of metalinguistic awarenessin linguistic relativity.A few brief comments about some of the remain-

ing papers: BRUCE W. HAWKINS concludes that‘meanings are not immutable structure . . . [and] canchange significantly when there is a change in theexperiential base and . . . in the grounding context’(316). WALLACE CHAFE contributes a well-thought-out article with supporting data as widely divergentas Tlingit and Mohawk consonants, Seneca syntax,and an English translation of a paragraph from FranzKafka’s novel Amerika. Finally, NICK J. ENFIELD ad-dresses some methodological and theoretical issuesthat have emerged from two current conflicting posi-tions on linguistic relativity. [ZDENEK SALZMANN,Northern Arizona University].

Language death. By DAVID CRYSTAL.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2000. Pp. x, 198.

At present, well over 1,500 species of animals andplants are threatened or endangered, and more than700 recovery plans to prevent or at least reduce therate of extinction have been approved and are beingimplemented. This book is concerned with the threatof extinction faced by many members of the humanlanguage ‘species’: It is estimated that over the next

century (between 2001 and 2100), two languages arelikely to die each month, with only about 600 of the6,000 to 7,000 languages of the world ‘safe’ fromthe threat of extinction.David Crystal is a well-known authority on lan-

guage, and the rapid endangerment or death of manyminority languages he discusses is alarming. Thebook is divided into five chapters. In Ch. 1, ‘Whatis language death?’ (1–26), C explains why it is diffi-cult to arrive at a fairly accurate number of languagesstill spoken and provides the reader with some inter-esting statistics—e.g. 96% of the world’s languagesare spoken by only 4% of the world’s population.To put it another way, approximately 1,500 lan-guages have fewer than 1,000 speakers. But the dan-ger of extinction is due not only to low numbers ofspeakers. Just as important is the overall context inwhich the speakers of a language find themselves.Accordingly, a classification of languages as to theirendangerment has a number of degrees (the follow-ing is a composite of three classifications): safe, via-ble, viable but small, potentially endangered,endangered, seriously endangered, moribund, andextinct.‘Why should we care?’ is the title of Ch. 2

(27–67). In it C first refutes those who hold that areduction in the number of languages would benefithumankind. Then he answers the question in thechapter title: because languages (1) express ethnicidentity, (2) are repositories of history, (3) contributeto the sum of human knowledge, (4) are interestingin themselves, and (5) contribute to diversity. C’spoints are supported by convincing examples.Before something can be done to help languages

survive, we must understand the reasons for theirever-increasing endangerment, and these reasons arediscussed in Ch. 3, ‘Why do languages die?’ (68–90).It is to C’s credit that he not only sounds the alarmbut also offers practical advice on how to slow therapid demise of many languages. His advice is thesubject of Chs. 4 and 5, ‘Where do we begin?’(91–126) and ‘What can be done?’ (127–66). Wheredoes one begin? Of top priority is information gather-ing—the number of speakers of a given language,the political and cultural context in which they live,their attitudes toward the viability of their language,the attitudes of the members of the larger societywhich surrounds them, the degree of speaker fluency,and others. But in addition to the need for gatheringsuch data, there are other desiderata: fostering posi-tive community attitudes, promoting the authenticityof the whole community, and acknowledging lan-guage as an important part of culture.And what can be done? Here, C attaches special

significance to six factors that usually figure in lan-guage revitalization. An endangered language willprogress if its speakers (1) increase their prestigewithin the dominant community, (2) increase their