Editing Linguistic relativity (section)

== Cognitive linguistics ==
{{main|cognitive linguistics}}

During the late 1980s and early 1990s, advances in [[cognitive psychology]] and cognitive linguistics renewed interest in the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.{{sfn|Seidner|1982}} One of those who adopted a more Whorfian philosophy was [[George Lakoff]]. He argued that language is often used metaphorically and that languages use different [[conceptual metaphor|cultural metaphors]] that reveal something about how speakers of that language think. For example, English employs conceptual metaphors likening time to money, so that time can be saved and spent and invested, whereas other languages do not talk about time in that manner. Other such metaphors are common to many languages because they are based on general human experience, for example, metaphors associating ''up'' with ''good'' and ''bad'' with ''down''. Lakoff also argued that metaphor plays an important part in political debates such as the "right to life" or the "right to choose"; or "illegal aliens" or "undocumented workers".<ref>{{Cite book|last=Lakoff|first=George|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/6042798|title=Metaphors we live by|date=1980|publisher=University of Chicago Press|others=Mark Johnson|isbn=0-226-46801-1|location=Chicago|oclc=6042798}}</ref>

An unpublished study by Boroditsky et al. in 2003 reported finding empirical evidence favoring the hypothesis and demonstrating that differences in languages' systems of [[grammatical gender]] can affect the way speakers of those languages think about objects. Speakers of Spanish and German (which have different gender systems) were asked to use adjectives to describe various objects designated by words that were either masculine or feminine in their respective languages. Speakers tended to describe objects in ways that were consistent with the gender of the noun in their language, indicating that the gender system of a language can influence speakers' perceptions of objects. Despite numerous citations, the experiment was criticised after the reported effects could not be replicated by independent trials.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1= Mickan |first1= Anne |last2= Schiefke |first2= Maren |last3= Stefanowitsch |first3= Anatol |date= 2014-11-01 |title= Key is a llave is a Schlüssel: A failure to replicate an experiment from Boroditsky et al. 2003 |url= https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/gcla-2014-0004/html |journal =Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association |language =en |volume =2 |issue =1 |pages =39–50 |doi =10.1515/gcla-2014-0004 |s2cid =147302364 |issn =2197-2796|url-access= subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1 =Elpers |first1 =Nan |last2 =Jensen |first2 =Greg |last3 =Holmes |first3 =Kevin J. |date =2022-12-01 |title =Does grammatical gender affect object concepts? Registered replication of Phillips and Boroditsky (2003) |url =https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X22000444 |journal =Journal of Memory and Language |volume =127 |pages =104357 |doi =10.1016/j.jml.2022.104357 |s2cid =251419363 |issn =0749-596X|url-access =subscription }}</ref> Additionally, a large-scale data analysis using [[word embedding]]s of language models found no correlation between adjectives and inanimate noun genders,<ref>{{Cite arXiv |last =Kann |first =Katharina |date =2019 |title =Grammatical Gender, Neo-Whorfianism, and Word Embeddings: A Data-Driven Approach to Linguistic Relativity |class =cs.CL |eprint =1910.09729}}</ref> while another study using large text corpora found a slight correlation between the gender of animate and inanimate nouns and their adjectives as well as verbs by measuring their [[mutual information]].<ref>{{Cite arXiv |last1 =Williams |first1 =Adina |last2 =Cotterell |first2 =Ryan |last3 =Wolf-Sonkin |first3 =Lawrence |last4 =Blasi |first4 =Damián |last5 =Wallach |first5 =Hanna |date =2020 |title =On the Relationships Between the Grammatical Genders of Inanimate Nouns and Their Co-Occurring Adjectives and Verbs |class =cs.CL |eprint =2005.01204}}</ref>

[[Colin Murray Turbayne]] also argued that the pervasive use of ancient "[[dead metaphor]]s" by researchers within different linguistic traditions has contributed to needless confusion in the development of modern empirical theories over time.<ref>[https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Search/Home?type%5B%5D=author&lookfor%5B%5D=Colin%20Murray%20Turbayne&page=1&pagesize=100&ft=ft] ''The Myth of Metaphor''. Turbayne, Colin Murray. Yale University Press, London (1962) pp. 3-8  ISBN 62-8265 '' The Myth of Metaphor'' - Introduction on Hathitrust.org</ref> He points to several examples within the [[Romance languages|Romance]] and [[Germanic language|Germanic]] languages of the subtle manner in which mankind has become unknowingly victimized by such "unmasked metaphors". Cases include the incorporation of mechanistic metaphors first introduced by [[Rene Descartes]] and [[Isaac Newton]] during the 17th century into scientific theories which were subsequently developed by [[George Berkeley]], [[David Hume]] and [[Immanuel Kant]] during the 18th century;<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=DsKvAwAAQBAJ&dq=Colin+Murray+Turbayne&pg=PA2451 ''Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers'' Shook, John. 2005  p. 2451 Biography of Colin Murray Turbayne on Google Books]</ref><ref name=Hesse1966>{{cite journal |last1 =Hesse |first1 =Mary |title =Review of The Myth of Metaphor |journal =Foundations of Language |date =1966 |volume =2 |issue =3 |pages =282–284 |jstor =25000234 }}</ref><ref>[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/#MetaMakeBeli "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Metaphor"  Stanford University, August 19, 2011 Revised August 12, 2022 "Section 5. Recent Developments 5.3 Metaphor and Make Believe" ISSN 1095-5054. Colin Turbayne's "The Myth of Metaphor" and "Metaphor"  See Hills, David, "Metaphor", ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Fall 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/metaphor/>. on plato.stanford.edu]</ref> and the influence exerted by [[Plato|Platonic]] metaphors in the dialogue [[Timaeus (dialogue)| ''Timaeus'']] upon the development of contemporary theories of ''language'' in modern times.<ref name="Turbayne1991">{{cite book | last =Turbayne | first =Colin Murray | title =Metaphors for the Mind : the Creative Mind and its Origins | publisher =University of South Carolina Press | publication-place =Columbia, S.C. | date =1991 | isbn =0-87249-699-6 | oclc =21675468}}</ref><ref name="Bracken1994">{{cite journal | last =Bracken | first =Harry M. | title =Colin Murray Turbayne., Metaphors for the Mind: The Creative Mind and Its Origins | journal =International Studies in Philosophy | publisher =Philosophy Documentation Center | volume =26 | issue =2 | year =1994 | issn=0270-5664 | doi=10.5840/intstudphil1994262171 | pages=151}}</ref> 

=== Parameters ===
In his 1987 book ''[[Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things]]: What Categories Reveal About the Mind'',{{sfn|Lakoff|1987}} Lakoff reappraised linguistic relativity and especially Whorf's ideas about how linguistic categorization represents and/or influences mental categories. He concluded that the debate had been confused. He identified four parameters on which researchers differed in their opinions about what constitutes linguistic relativity:

* The degree and intensity of linguistic relativity. Perhaps a few examples of superficial differences in language and associated behavior are enough to demonstrate the existence of linguistic relativity. Alternatively, perhaps only great differences that permeate the linguistic and cultural system suffice.
* Whether conceptual systems are absolute or whether they can evolve.
* Whether the similarity criterion is [[translatability]] or the use of linguistic expressions.
* Whether the emphasis of linguistic relativity is language or the brain.
Lakoff concluded that many of Whorf's critics had criticized him using novel definitions of linguistic relativity, rendering their criticisms moot.