Editing Linguistic relativity (section)

=== Behavior-centered research ===
Recent studies have also used a "behavior-based" method, which starts by comparing behavior across linguistic groups and then searches for causes for that behavior in the linguistic system.<ref name=":3" /> In an early example of this method, Whorf attributed the occurrence of fires at a chemical plant to the workers' use of the word 'empty' to describe barrels containing only explosive vapors.

More recently, Bloom noticed that speakers of Chinese had unexpected difficulties answering [[Counterfactual conditional|counterfactual]] questions posed to them in a questionnaire. He concluded that this was related to the way in which counter-factuality is marked grammatically in Chinese. Other researchers attributed this result to Bloom's flawed translations.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Au|first1=T.|year=1984|title=Counterfactuals: In reply to Alfred Bloom|journal=Cognition|volume=17|issue=3|pages=289–302|doi=10.1016/0010-0277(84)90012-X|s2cid=53204914}}</ref> Strømnes examined why Finnish factories had a greater occurrence of work related accidents than similar Swedish ones. He concluded that cognitive differences between the grammatical usage of Swedish [[prepositions]] and Finnish [[Case (linguistics)|cases]] could have caused Swedish factories to pay more attention to the work process while Finnish factory organizers paid more attention to the individual worker.{{sfn|Lucy|1997|p=304}}

==== Numbers and classifiers ====
[[Daniel Everett|Everett]]'s work on the [[Pirahã language]] of the [[Brazil]]ian [[Amazon Basin|Amazon]]<ref name=":8">{{Citation|last1=Everett|first1=Daniel L.|title=Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã|url=http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/Everett.CA.Piraha.pdf|journal=Current Anthropology|volume=46|issue=4|pages=621–646|year=2005|doi=10.1086/431525|access-date=1 October 2012|hdl=2066/41103|s2cid=2223235|hdl-access=free}}</ref> found several peculiarities that he interpreted as corresponding to linguistically rare features, such as a lack of numbers and color terms in the way those are otherwise defined and the absence of certain types of clauses. Everett's conclusions were met with skepticism from universalists<ref name=":9">{{citation|last1=Frank|first1=Michael C.|title=Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition|url=http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Frank%20et%20al.%20InPress%20Cog.pdf|periodical=Cognition|volume=108|issue=3|pages=819–24|year=2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100215125604/http://tedlab.mit.edu/tedlab_website/researchpapers/Frank%20et%20al.%20InPress%20Cog.pdf|doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.007|pmid=18547557|access-date=14 May 2009|archive-date=15 February 2010|last2=Everett|first2=Daniel L.|last3=Fedorenko|first3=Evelina|last4=Gibson|first4=Edward|s2cid=14863459|url-status=dead}}</ref> who claimed that the linguistic deficit is explained by the lack of need for such concepts.<ref name=":10">{{cite journal|last1=Ira Nevins|first1=Andrew|last2=Pesetsky|first2=David|last3=Rodrigues|first3=Cilene|year=2009|title=Piraha Exceptionality: a Reassessment|url=http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/people/faculty/pesetsky/Nevins_Pesetsky_Rodrigues_Piraha_Exceptionality_a_Reassessment.pdf|journal=Language|volume=85|issue=2|pages=355–404|citeseerx=10.1.1.404.9474|doi=10.1353/lan.0.0107|hdl=1721.1/94631|s2cid=15798043}}</ref>

Recent research with non-linguistic experiments in languages with different grammatical properties (e.g., languages with and without [[chinese classifier|numeral classifiers]] or with different gender grammar systems) showed that language differences in human categorization are due to such differences.<ref name=":11">{{cite journal|last1=Kou|first1=J. Y.|last2=Sera|first2=M. D.|year=2007|title=Classifier effect on human categorization: the role of shape classifiers in Chinese Chinese. In|journal=Journal of East Asian Linguistics|volume=18|pages=1–19|doi=10.1007/s10831-008-9036-6|s2cid=120382476}}</ref> Experimental research suggests that this linguistic influence on thought diminishes over time, as when speakers of one language are exposed to another.<ref name=":12">{{cite journal|last1=Bross|first1=Fabian|last2=Pfaller|first2=Philip|year=2012|title=The decreasing Whorf-effect: a study in the classifier systems of Mandarin and Thai|url=http://junq.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/06/Whorf-effects.pdf|journal=[[Journal of Unsolved Questions]]|volume=2|issue=2|pages=S19–S24}}</ref>

==== Time perception ====
Research on time-space congruency suggests that temporal perception is shaped by spatial metaphors embedded in language. Casasanto & Boroditsky (2008) found that people often use spatial metaphors to conceptualize time, linking longer distances with longer durations.<ref name="CasasantoBoroditsky2008">Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). "Time in the mind: Using space to think about time". Cognition, 106(2), 579–593. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004 doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.03.004]</ref> Research has shown that linguistic differences can influence the perception of time. Swedish, like English, tends to describe time in terms of spatial distance (e.g., "a long meeting"), whereas Spanish often uses quantity-based metaphors (e.g., "a big meeting"). These linguistic patterns correlate with differences in how speakers estimate temporal durations: Swedish speakers are more influenced by spatial length, while Spanish speakers are more sensitive to volume.<ref name="BylundAthanasopoulos2017">Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2017). "The Whorfian Time Warp: Representing Duration Through the Language Hourglass". Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(7), 911–916. [https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000314 doi:10.1037/xge0000314]</ref>

Expanding on this, research on time-space congruency suggests that temporal perception is shaped by spatial metaphors embedded in language. In many languages, time is conceptualized along a horizontal axis (e.g., "looking forward to the future" in English). However, Mandarin speakers also employ vertical metaphors for time, referring to earlier events as "up" and later events as "down".<ref name="BoroditskyFuhrmanMcCormick2011">Boroditsky, L., Fuhrman, O., & McCormick, K. (2011). "Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently?". Cognition, 118(1), 123–129. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010 doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.09.010]</ref> Experiments have shown that Mandarin speakers are quicker to recognize temporal sequences when they are presented vertically, whereas English speakers exhibit no such bias.

==== Pronoun-dropping and intentionality ====
Kashima & Kashima observed a correlation between the perceived [[Collectivism and individualism|individualism or collectivism]] in the social norms of a given country, with the tendency to neglect the use of [[Personal pronoun|pronouns]] in the country's language. They argued that explicit reference to "you" and "I" reinforces a distinction between the [[self]] and the other in the speaker.<ref name=":15">Kashima, E., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 461–486.</ref>

Research also suggests that this structural difference influences how speakers attribute intentionality in events. Fausey & Boroditsky (2010) conducted experiments comparing how English and Spanish speakers describe accidental versus intentional actions. Their results showed that English speakers, who are accustomed to using explicit pronouns, were more likely to specify the agent responsible for an accidental event (e.g., "John broke the vase"). In contrast, Spanish speakers, who frequently omit pronouns, were more likely to use agent-neutral descriptions for accidental events (e.g., "The vase broke").<ref name="FauseyBoroditsky2010">Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). "Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650. [https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644 doi:10.3758/PBR.17.5.644]</ref>

==== Future tense ====
A 2013 study found that those who speak "futureless" languages with no grammatical marking of the future tense save more, retire with more wealth, smoke less, practice safer sex, and are less obese than those who do not.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=M. Keith |title=The Effect of Language on Economic Behavior: Evidence from Savings Rates, Health Behaviors, and Retirement Assets |journal=American Economic Review |date=1 April 2013 |volume=103 |issue=2 |pages=690–731 |doi=10.1257/aer.103.2.690 |pmid=29524925 |url=https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/keith.chen/papers/LanguageWorkingPaper.pdf}}</ref> This effect has come to be termed the linguistic-savings hypothesis and has been replicated in several cross-cultural and cross-country studies. However, a study of Chinese, which can be spoken both with and without the grammatical future marking "will", found that subjects do not behave more impatiently when "will" is used repetitively. This laboratory-based finding of elective variation within a single language does not refute the linguistic savings hypothesis but some have suggested that it shows the effect may be due to culture or other non-linguistic factors.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Josie I. |last2=He |first2=Tai-Sen |last3=Riyanto |first3=Yohanes E. |title=The effect of language on economic behavior: Examining the causal link between future tense and time preference in the lab |journal=European Economic Review |date=November 2019 |volume=120 |pages=103307 |doi=10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.103307|hdl=10356/142990 |s2cid=203248774 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>