Upload
camille
View
222
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
1/10
Linguistic Society of America
Cognition in EthnolinguisticsAuthor(s): Eric H. LennebergReviewed work(s):Source: Language, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 1953), pp. 463-471Published by: Linguistic Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/409956.
Accessed: 31/12/2012 06:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Linguistic Society of Americais collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLanguage.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/409956?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/409956?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
2/10
COGNITION IN ETHNOLINGUISTICS
ERIC
H.
LENNEBERG
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology
The
republication
of
Benjamin
L.
Whorf's articles
on
what
Trager
calls
metalinguistics
has
aroused
a
new
interest
in
this
country
in the
problem
of
the
relationship
that
a
particular language may
have
to
its
speakers' cognitive proc-
esses.
Does
the
structure
of a
given language
affect the
thoughts (or
thought
potential),
the
memory,
the
perception,
the
learning
ability
of those who
speak
that
language?
These
questions
have often
been asked
and
many
attempts
have
been
made to answer
them.'
The
present
paper
is an
attempt
to
lay
bare
the
logical
structure
of
this
type
of
investigation.
CRITICALRETROSPECT
A
basic
assumption. Underlying
all
of
Whorf's theoretical
work is
the
funda-
mental
assumption
that the
individual's
conception
of the
world
(including per-
ception,
abstraction, rationalization, categorization)
is
intimately
related
to the
nature
of his native
language.2 Throughout
his
work
Whorf
illustrates
this
idea
with
examples
from American Indian
languages,
showing
how
they
differ from
English.
However,
a
demonstration that
certain
languages
differ from
each
other
suggests
but does not
prove
that
the
speakers
of
these
languages
differ
from
each other as a group in their psychological potentialities. To prove this, it would
be
necessary
to
show
first
that certain
aspects
of
language
have
a
direct
influence
on or
connection
with a
given
psychological mechanism,
or
at
least
that
speakers
of
different
languages
differ
along
certain
psychological
parameters.
In
addition
to
comparative
data
Whorf adduces
occasionally
a
different
type
of
evidence.
An
example
is his
analysis
of
many
hundreds
of
reports
of
circumstances sur-
1
Bibliographies
of
the
voluminous
literature
may
be
found
in
the
following
works:
Kurt
Goldstein,
Language
and
language
disturbances
(New
York,
1948);
Friedrich
Kainz,
Psychologie
der
Sprache (Stuttgart, 1941/43); George
A.
Miller,
Language
and
communi-
cation
(New
York, 1952);
Charles
Morris,
Signs,
language
and behavior
(New
York, 1946);
David L.
Olmsted,
Ethnolinguistics
so
far
(SIL,
Occasional
papers,
No.
2;
1950);
N. H.
Pronko,
Language
and
psycholinguistics:
A
review, Psych.
bull.
43.189-239
(1946).
This
paper
was stimulated
by
research
carried
on under
the
auspices
of
the Values
Study
in
the
Laboratory
of
Social
Relation,
Harvard
University,
and
the
Communications
Project
at the
Center
for
International
Studies,
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology.
I
wish
to
express
my
thanks to
both
institutions.
I am
also
greatly
indebted
to
Harry
Hoijer
for
inviting
me
to
participate
in the
Conference
on
Ethnolinguistics,
held in
Chicago
during
March
1953,
where the
discussion
of
some
of
the
problems
raised in
this
paper
helped
to
clarify
my
thoughts.
Finally
I
gratefully
acknowledge
the
many
helpful
suggestions
made to
me
by
Noam
Chomsky,
who
read two
earlier
versions
of
this
article.
2
Whorf
is not alone in
making
this
assumption.
Cf.
Dorothy
D.
Lee,
Linguistic
reflection
of Wintu thought, IJAL 10.181-7(1944);Lucien Levy-Bruhl, Lesfonctionsmentalesdans les
societts
infirieurs,
Ch.
4
(Paris,
1910);
Leo
Weisgerber,
Adjektivistische
und
verbale
Auffassung
der
Gesichtsempfindungen,
Wirter
und
Sachen
12.197-226
(1929).
The last
of
these
is
a
representative
of
what H.
Basilius has
called
Neo-Humboldtian
ethnolinguistics,
Word
8.95-105
(1952);
the
entire
movement
is based on
the
assumption
discussed here.
463
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
3/10
464
LANGUAGE,
VOL.
29,
NO. 4
rounding
the
start
of
fires,
for
instance
the
empty-gas-drum
case.3
An
explosion
had been caused
by
an
individual
who had
carelessly flung
a
burning cigarette
stub into a
gas
drum
which
this
person
in
his insurance
report
called
empty.
Whorf argues that the individual's carelessness was caused by the fact that the
word
empty
has two different
meanings
in
English: (1)
null
and
void,
negative,
inert,
and
(2)
a
space
which
may
contain
nothing
but
a
vapor, liquid vestiges,
or
stray
rubbish.
The
English
language
forced
the individual
to call the
gas
drum
empty,
and
think
of it
in
terms of
that
word.
Since
this word
could mean
null
and
void,
Whorf
argues
that
the
presence
of
explosive vapors
and
inflammable
liquid
vestiges
could be
disregarded
by
the
speaker,
who
then behaved
towards
the drum as
if it were
absolutely empty.
I
cannot
accept
this as evidence for
the
assumption
that behavior
is
influenced
by
language. Clearly, English
is
capable of distinguishing between a drum filled with an explosive vapor, one
that
contains
only air,
and
one which
is
void
of
any
matter.
This
very
sentence
is
my
evidence. The
person
who
caused the
fire could
have
replaced
the word
empty
by filled
with
explosive vapor.
His
failing
to do so
(as
well as
his
careless
behavior)
points
to
a
lack of
experience
with
explosive
vapors, perhaps complete
ignorance
of
their
existence. The
linguistic-or
rather
stylistic-fact
of
the
occurrence of
the
word
empty
in the
individual's insurance
report
would
indeed
be
interesting
if
Whorf could have shown at the same time that this
man
had had
plenty
of contact
with and
knowledge
of the
explosive vapors
which form in
emptied gas
drums. This
Whorf
did
not
try
to
do.
In
short,
the
basic
assump-
tion that language affects non-linguistic behavior derives from an inspection of
linguistic
facts. Therefore
nothing
is added to such
an
hypothesis by referring
back
to
the same or
similar
linguistic
facts.
Translation.
(a)
Translation,
while useful for the
formulation
of
working
hypotheses
of
the most
exploratory
nature,
is
in
itself
an
inadequate way
towards
the
finding
of
objective
facts.
Obvious as this
may
seem,
it
is
necessary
to
spell
out
in
detail the
shortcomings
of
the
translation method
in
ethnolinguistics.
(b)
I
illustrate
my point
with
another
example
taken from Whorf.
After
posing
the
question:
'What do different
languages
do
... with
the
flowing
face
of nature
...?',
Whorf answers: 'Here
we
find differences
in
segmentation
and
selection
of
basic terms.
We
might
isolate
something
in nature
by saying,
"It
is
a
dripping spring."
Apache
erects the
statement
on
a verb
ga:
"be
white
(includ-
ing clear,
uncolored,
and
so
on)."
With the
prefix no-,
the
meaning
of
downward
motion enters:
"whiteness moves
downward." Then
to, meaning
both
"water"
and
"spring"
is
prefixed.
The
result
corresponds
to
our
"dripping
spring,"
but
synthetically
it
is: "as
water,
or
springs,
whiteness
moves
downward."
How
utterly
unlike our
way
of
thinking
[NB
]
The
same
verb,
ga,
with a
prefix
that
means
"a
place
manifests the
condition"
becomes
gohlga:
"the
place
is
white,
clear;
a
clearing,
a
plain."
These
examples
show
that some
languages
have
means
of expression ... in which the separate terms are not as separate as in English
but flow
together
into
plastic synthetic
creations.'
Whorf
analyzes
the
Apachean
3
Whorf,
The relation of
habitual
thought
and behavior to
language, Language, culture,
and
personality
75-93
(Menasha,
Wis.,
1941).
4Whorf,
Languages
and
logic,
The
technology
eview,
Vol. 43
(1941).
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
4/10
COGNITION
N
ETHNOLINGUISTICS
465
statement
by
giving
the
English
equivalent
for the
general
meaning
of
each
Apachean element,
and then
compares
the
resulting
sequence
of
meanings
to
the
phrase,
'it is a
dripping
spring'.
The
sequence
of
meanings
(i.e.
the
glosses)
and the
English
phrase are not, however,
quite
comparable. Whorf does not
give
the
general
meaning
of
the
English
morphemes.
If he
had, something
like
this would have resulted:
it, any
object
or
organism
which
is
not
an adult human
being; is,
particle
which
denotes
that
what
follows
is
a
predicate
of what
precedes;
a, particle
which
denotes
that
what follows
is
to
be understood
generically,
not
specifi-
cally;
drip(p), process
in
which
any
liquid
falls
in small
natural
segments;
-ing,
particle
which
denotes
that the
preceding
process
has
not
come to an
end;
spring,
something
that is
not static
(eruption
of
water,
device to
make
mattresses
elastic,
and so
on).
To abstract
a
general meaning
of a
morpheme
or lexeme
may
occasionally
be
of
some
methodological use;
but we must not confuse such
an abstraction
with
an
isolable
segment
of an
utterance. General
meanings
lack
reality,
so to
speak.
It
makes
no sense to
equate
the
global meaning
of an utterance
with
the
sequence
of
abstracted,
general meanings
of
the
morphemes
that occur
in
that
utterance.
To
translate the
Apachean
statement it is
a
dripping spring
appears
no
less
reasonable than
to
translate
it as
water or
springs,
whiteness moves
downward
at
a
place
(or,
the
place
is
white,
clear;
a
clearing;
a
plain--which,
I
gather
from
Whorf,
is
the
synthesis
of
the
elements);
for
what we translate are
equivalent
ver-
bal responses to particular stimulus situations, and the Apachean responseto the
natural
phenomenon
in
question
corresponds
to our
response
it is
a
dripping
spring.
This
type
of
linguistic evidence,
therefore,
stands
or falls with our
philoso-
phy
of translation. It
might
be
objected
here that Whorf's evidence
is
not the
translation
itself but the fact
that the
Apachean's
verbal
response
to
this
natural
phenomenon
is the same
as his
verbal
response
to
a
different
phenomenon,
namely
one to
which we
respond
the
place
is
white, clear,
etc.
and
that
the
Apachean
therefore
makes
a
single response
to
stimuli
to
which we
make
distinct
responses.
This
objection,
while
touching
upon
an
important
problem,
does
not
justify
the translation
method. For
what we
really
want to know
is
how the
Apachean
structure
of
syntactic categories
differs from the
English
one.
Translation cannot answer
this
problem.
Through
it-and
that is its
value-we
merely
know
that the
problem
is
not
a
spurious
one.
(c)
A
further
objection
to
translation
as a
sufficient
method
in
this
type
of
research
is that
it
actually
vitiates the
attempt
to demonstrate
cognitive
differ-
ence as
evidenced
in
two
or
more
languages. For,
if a
language
were
actually
an
aspect
of a
particular
psychological
make-up
or state of
mind
(or
more
precisely,
an
aspect
of
a
cognitive process,
which is
not
to be confused with the
thought
content),
then,
in
the
process
of
translation,
we
would be
substituting
the
psycho-
logical elements characteristic of one make-up for those of another, so that we
would
finally compare
two sets of
elements
of one and the
same
psychological
structure.
(d)
There is a
metaphorical
element
in
language
per
se.
The
literal
meaning
of
many
metaphors,
especially
the most
frequent ones,
never
penetrates
conscious-
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
5/10
466
LANGUAGE,
VOL.
29,
NO.
4
ness, e.g. everybody,
n
the
face of,
beforehand, breakfast,
inside,
already.
The
translation
method,
however,
distorts the
significance
of such forms
of
speech
and often
induces
investigators
to draw rather
ludicrous
conclusions.
To
illus-
trate the
mentality
of certain African
tribes,
Cassirerwrites:' 'The
languages
of
the
Sudan
usually express
the circumstance
that a
subject
is
in
process
of
action
by
means of
a
locution
which
really
means
[NB ]
that the
subject
is
inside that
action. But
since,
moreover,
this
inside is
usually
expressed
very
concretely,
phrases
result such
as I am on
the inside
of walking,
I am the
belly of
walking,
for
"I
am
in
the
process
of
walking".'
(e)
The
process
of
taking
stock
of
general meanings,
which underlies
transla-
tions,
engenders
the belief
that
languages
can
convey
no more
and
no
less than
the
general
meanings
of
morphemes.
It seems
more
fruitful
to
assume6
that much
more is cognized than is expressed by individual morphemes. Morphemes and
their
meaning
are
regarded
more
appropriately
as
mnemotechnical
pegs
of a
whole
situation which
is
brought
into consciousness
by
the
statement
as
a
whole.
The
general meaning
of
morphemes
is
probably
of lesser
importance
in
cognition
than the
SUM
OF
ASSOCIATIONS
bound
up
with the
complete
utterance,
or even
with
individual
morphemes
or
groups
of
morphemes.
(f)
When the
translation involves
a
juxtaposition
of
totally
different cultures
(say
Chukchee and
English)
we
are not
only
faced
with
a
semantic
problem.
No
matter what
precautions
we
take
in
glossing
a
word,
almost
no
correspondences
can be
established
between
many
denotata.
For
instance,
the cultural
and
physi-
cal contexts of Chukchee utterances are, with a few exceptions, incomparable
with
the contexts
within
which
English
is
spoken.
Chukchee
weapons,
food,
manners,
standards of
any sort,
landscape,
fauna,
and flora
are
mostly
unfamiliar
to
English-speaking
cultures.
Thus,
practically
no common
frame of
reference,
no basis for
a
segmental,
one-by-one comparison
exists between these
two
lan-
guages.
Translation
here
can be
only
a
very rough approximation
of what has
been
said and
intended
originally.
Ad-hoc
theories.
It is a
commonplace
in
scientific
methodology
to avoid
etiological
theories
which
are
incapable
of
satisfying
more
than one
single
and
specific
occurrence of
events; yet by necessity
working
hypotheses
often
have
to
be
of
this
nature.
We see
a
picture
fall
off a
wall
directly
after
hearing
a
dog
bark
in
the
neighborhood.
As
a
working
hypothesis
the
two events
might
be
causally
related.
Upon
verification of
the
hypothesis
we
note,
however,
that
in
general
barking
is not
followed
by things
dropping
to the
ground,
nor
is
the
falling
of
pictures
from
the
wall
usually
preceded
by barking
or similar noises. We
are
unable in
this
instance to
formulate
a
theory
because the
working hypothesis
cannot be
generalized.
Turning
to
ethnolinguistic
literature we find
an
abundance
of
working
hypotheses
where it
is
difficult to
see
how
they might
contribute
to
a
universally
valid and
useful
theory
of
language
(such
that
language
is
related
5
Ernst
Cassirer, Philosophie
der
symbolischen
Formen: Die
Sprache
1.168-9
(Berlin,
1923).
Cassirer's source is D.
Westermann, Sudansprachen.
6
This assertion and the
following
are based on evidence from
experimental psychology.
See
George
Humphrey, Thinking:
An
introduction to
experimental
psychology,
Chs.
4
and
8
(London,
1951);
Miller,
Language
and communication
passim.
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
6/10
COGNITION
N
ETHNOLINGUISTICS
467
to
non-linguistic
behavior),
because the facts
underlying
such
working hypotheses
cannot
be
generalized
so as to fit more than a
single
language.'
I
am not
saying
that
such
hypotheses
are
right
or
wrong; many
have been
proposed
by
experts
on specific cultures, by scientists of undisputed merit. I am merely pointing to
the
difficulty,
if not
impossibility,
of
deducing
from these
hypotheses,
if
they
are
sound,
general
and
verifiable
laws. A
common
means of
validating hypotheses
has been
barred
from the
beginning
in
these
cases, namely
cross-cultural
verifica-
tion.
This,
however,
does not exclude
the
possibility
that
the
investigators
may
have intra-cultural vidence
for each individual
hypothesis proposed.
TOWARDS METHODOLOGY
Codification
nd
cognition.
(a)
A basic
maxim
in
linguistics
s that
anything
can be expressed in any language.8 There may be differences in the ease and
facility
for
the
expression
of
certain
things
among
various
languages
but at
present
we
do
not
know whether this
difference
in
ease is attributable
to the
properties
of a
given language
qua
vehicle
of
communication9
or
to
the
cultural
development
of
the
speakers.
In
fact,
this is
one
of
the
problems
to be solved in
ethnolinguistics.
Now,
if
we
believe,
as
we
do,
that we
CAN
ay anything
we wish
in
any language,
then
it
would seem as
if
the
content
or
subject
matter of
utter-
ances
does
not
characterize
or,
indeed, give
us
any
clear
information on
the
communicative
properties
of a
language.
Thus we
are
led
to
the somewhat
banal
conclusion
that the
only pertinent linguistic
data
in this
type
of research is
the
HOW of
communication nd not
the WHAT.
This
HOW call
the
codification;
he
WHAT
I
call
the
messages.
Codification
can
be
studied in three
phases:
(1)
the
process
of
encoding;
(2)
the
code;
(3)
the
process
of
decoding.10
The
study
of
the
code
results,
for
instance,
in
statements about
the
structure of
phonemes,
mor-
phemes,
and
syntactic
categories;
about
acoustic
characteristics
of
speech
sounds;
about
the
frequency
distributions and
the
transitional
probabilities
of
given
segments;
about
the
efficiency
of
the code
within
stated contexts. In
these
in-
stances
meaning
can be
excluded
entirely
from
our
research,
at
least
theoretically,
and
we have
therefore
an
assurance that
we
are
actually studying aspects
of
codification. Unfortunately, however, it is not always equally easy to decide
whether
a
phenomenon
is
pertinent
to codification
or
not.
Many
assertions
about
language
which
derive from
semantic
observations
or,
at
any
rate,
which
include
elements
of
meaning,
nevertheless seem
to be
relevant to
codification.
Most
7
Most of
Whorf's
and
Dorthy
Lee's
working
hypotheses
are
of this
nature.
Harry
Hoijer's
Cultural
implications
of
some Navaho
linguistic
categories,
Lg.
27.111-20
(1951),
and
the
tentative connections
between
various
linguistic
features
and
nonlinguistic
behavior men-
tioned
by
Claude
L6vy-Strauss,
Language
and
the
analysis
of social
laws,
Amer. anthr.
53.155-63
(1951),
also
fall into this
category
of
working
hypotheses.
8
Cf.
Sapir,
The
grammarian
and his
language,
Selected
writings of
Edward
Sapir
153-4
(Berkeley, 1949).
It
is assumed here that
any vocabulary
can
be
expanded.
9
The
use
of
the term
vehicle
of
communication
does not
mean
that
I
deny (or
even
take a
position
toward)
the
epistemological
contention that
language
and
knowledge
are
in-
distinguishable.
I
am
merely referring
to
the
communicative
capacities
of
language.
10
John B.
Carroll,
Report
and
recommendations
f
the
Inter-disciplinary
Summer
Seminar
in
Psychology
and
Linguistics
8
(Ithaca,
N.
Y.,
1951).
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
7/10
468
LANGUAGE,
VOL.
29,
NO.
4
obvious
in
this
connection
is the fact that
a
language always
selects
for
codifica-
tion
highly
specific aspects
from
the
physical
and
social environment.
This
raises
two
questions:
How can
we
describe
objectively
the
aspects
that
are
being
selected out of a great number of other possible aspects? Why are these aspects
selected
and
not
others? There can be little doubt
that these
considerations,
though clearly
of
a
semantic
character,
have a
bearing
on the
problem
of codifica-
tion.
Hence,
the
distinction between codification and
messages
is not
the same
as between
syntactics
and semantics or between form and
meaning.
All
those
observations
about
meaning
are relevant
to
codification which
refer to
an
aspect
of
speech
behavior which
is forced
upon
the individual
speaker by
the
rules
of
his
language
and
where
infringement
of
the rules would
result
in
defective
com-
munication. For
instance,
an individual
reporting
about
a
given
event
is
forced
to
stipulate very
definite
conditions, aspects,
and
relationships
if
he wants
to be
understood."
However,
he
is free
to
report
on
the event
in
the first
place,
and
also to elaborate on
circumstances of the
event which
are not included
in
the
compulsory
stipulations.
Whatever information is
optional
in
his
communication
is
message.
(b)
Once we have
clearly
isolated data on
codification,
such
data
may
be
related
hypothetically
to
nonlinguistic
behavior.
If the
researcher is
interested
in
cognition,'2
as
I
am,
he
will
investigate
relations
that
obtain between codifica-
tion
and such behavior as
is
indicative
of
memory,
recognition,
learning,
problem
solving,
concept
formation,
and
perception,
hoping
to show that certain
peculiari-
ties in these processes can be explained by--and only by-knowledge of the
speakers'
peculiarities
of
codification.'3
The
intra-cultural
approach. (a) Ethnolinguistic
research
based
on
cross-
cultural
comparison
must
endeavor to isolate
data,
both on
codification
and on
cognition,
that
are
general
enough
to
have
comparable equivalents
in
at least
two
different
languages
and
cultures;
otherwise
comparison
would be
meaning-
less.
It is not
infrequent,
however,
that
a
working
hypothesis
relates
a
certain
cognitive
datum
to some
phenomenon
pertinent
to
codification
which
appears
to
be
unique,
lacking
entirely
a
parallel
in
any
other
language.
There
is
a
simple
way
of
studying
this
situation;
I
call it the
intra-cultural
approach,
because
it
reduces
cross-cultural
comparison
to a desirable but not
indispensable expansion
of in-
vestigations.
This
method is
so
easy
to
manipulate
that
many investigators
may
perhaps
come
to
use
it
even where the
cross-cultural
approach
is
applicable
directly.
(b)
I
begin
with
a
practical
demonstration of the
method. Problem:
Languages
differ
in
their
systems
of
classifying
the ten
million
odd
colors which
every
normal
individual
can
discriminate.'4
Under
laboratory
conditions
the
power
of color
"'
These
conditions,
aspects,
and
relationships
are
primarily
but not
exclusively
ex-
pressed
by grammatical categories.
12
For a modern definition of this term see Robert Leeper, Cognitive processes, Hand-
book
of experimental
psychology
730-57
(ed.
S.
S.
Stevens;
New
York, 1951).
13
What
I
am
proposing
to
do
here is not in
principle
different from what Whorf
(for
instance)
occasionally
suggested.
The
difference
between
Whorf and
me
is rather
in
our
respective attempts
to
substantiate
our
hypotheses.
14
Cf.
Ralph
M.
Evans,
An
introduction to color 230
(New York,
1948).
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
8/10
COGNITION
N
ETHNOLINGUISTICS
469
discrimination is
probably
the same
for
all human
beings,
irrespective
of
their
language
background.
But
we
do not know whether the habitual
grouping
of
colors,
according
to
certain
labels
provided
by
every
language,
might
not
affect
some other
cognitive processes
involving
color stimuli. To be more
specific,
in
English
obviously
not all
colors are named
with
equal
ease
and
unambiguity.
Do
English-speaking
people
therefore
recognize easily-named
(i.e.
highly
code-
able)
colors with
greater
facility
than colors not so
easily
named?'5
The first
step
toward
solution
of
this
problem
is to ascertain
the
linguistic
facts.'6
A
representative
sample
of
English speakers
is
drawn and
a
number
of
colors
are
prepared
that have
comparable perceptual properties.
Then the
notion
'codeable'
is
investigated
and defined
operationally,
so
that
we
can
divide
the
physical
color stimuli
by
means
of one or a
combination
of a few
simple criteria,
into two groups: one consisting of 'highly codeable' and one of 'less codeable'
colors.
I
must omit
here the
details of this
procedure
and
also
the
reasoning
that
underlies the
individual
steps
leading
to
the
development
of
such
a
criterion. Let
me
simply
state that
UNANIMITYN
RESPONSE
proves
to
be a useful
criterion
(among others)
in
this
connection. Some
colors are
consistently
given
the same
name
by
every
speaker;
others are
given
a
variety
of
names,
sometimes as
many
names as
there are
subjects.
Regarding
the
speakers
now as
a
group
giving
a
linguistic
response
to each
color,
we
may
say
that
some
colors
have the
property
of
eliciting
a
homogeneous
response
from
English-speakers,
whereas other
colors
elicit
a
heterogeneous
response.
This is
to
say
that
linguistic
communication
in
English is more efficient when some colors are referred to than when others are.'7
There
are
cogent
reasons
to
assume that the
distinction
made here between
the
colors
is a
purely
linguistic one,
and
that
there are
no
physical
properties
in
the
colors or
physiological
ones
in
the
eye
which
would
elucidate the difference
in
response
made
by
English-speakers
to
these
colors.'8
15
This
is
a
specific
question
within
a
problem
that
has
been
posed by many
other in-
vestigators.
Sapir
said:
'Language
is a ...
self-contained,
creative
symbolic
organization,
which
not
only
refers
to
experience
largely
acquired
without
its
help,
but
actually
defines
experience
for
us
by
reason
of
its formal
completeness
and because of our
unconscious
projection
of
its
implicit expectations
into
the field of
experience.' (Conceptual categories
in
primitive languages,
quoted
by
I.
J.
Lee,
The
language
of
wisdom and
folly
265
[New
York,
1949].)
Sapir
makes the
same
point
in
The
status
of
linguistics
as a
science,
Selected
writings
162.
'1
The
following
is
an
outline of
research in
progress
carried
on
by Roger
Brown
of
Har-
vard
University
and
myself.
The
details of
the
project
will
be
published
as
soon
as
the data
are
fully
assembled.
17
If
there is
no
well
defined
name
for
a
color,
it
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
linguistic
communication about
it is
poor.
18
Again
space
does not
permit
me to
cite
all
the
evidence
in
support
of
this
assertion.
The
interested reader
may
inspect
the
colors
used;
they
are
produced by
the
Munsell
Color
Co.,
a
scientific
research
organization.
Most of
them are
published
in
the two
volumes of
the Munsell bookof colors (Baltimore, 1921 and 1942). Codeable colors have the notation
2.5
PB/7/6,
5
PB/4/10,
10
P/3/10,
5
RP/6/10,
5
YR/3/4,
3
GY/7.5/11.2,
7.5
GY/3/4,
2.5
G/5/8,
5
Y/8/12,
7.5
G/8/4,
2.5
R/7/8.
Non-codeable
colors have the
notation 10
BG/6/6,
8.5
B/3/6.8,
10
PB/5/10,
2.5
R/5/10,
8
RP/3.4/12.1,
7.5
R/8/4,
2.5
Y/7/10,
7.5
Y/6/8,
7.5
YR/5/8,
5
P/8/4,
5
BG/3/6.
Colorimetric
and
psycho-physical
data
on these
colors
are
pub-
lished
in
Journal
of
the
Optical Society of
America
30.573-645.
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
9/10
470
LANGUAGE,
VOL.
29,
NO.
4
The
next
step
is
to
determine
whether
there
is a difference
in ease of
recognition
by
English-speakers
between the colors
constituting
one
group
and those
con-
stituting
the
other.
The
two
groups,
I
repeat,
are
perfectly
balanced in
physical
and
perceptual properties;
the
only
difference is that the colors in one group
have
well
defined
names
in
English,
whereas
the
colors
in
the
other
do
not.1g
If
we
now
use,
in random
order,
colors
belonging
to
either
group,
say
ten
from
each,
in
a
standard
recognition test,20
we
can
easily
discover
whether
English
speakers
do
better when
they
have
to
recognize
colors
which
are
highly
codeable
in
their
language
than when
they recognize
less codeable
colors.
In the
actual
performance
of the
experiment21
this
appears
to be
the case.
Statistically,
code-
able
colors
are
recognized significantly
more
often
than
less codeable
ones,
and
thus
there is
good
evidence that the
particular linguistic
fact, codeability,
affects
the cognitive process, recognition.
(c) Suppose
now
that
this
entire
color
research
were
repeated
in a
different
culture
where a different
language
is
spoken.
If our
predictions
about
recognition,
based
on
previously
determined
facts
of
codification
(which
vary
of
course
from
language
to
language),
should
not be borne out
in this
other
language,
the
argu-
ment
advanced
in
the first
experiment
would
be
seriously
weakened.
Conversely,
if
the
results should
be
confirmed,
this
would
fortify
the
argument.
In either
case,
however,
VALIDATION
f the
basic
hypothesis
is
independent
of cross-cultural
comparison.
The
cross-cultural
comparison
merely
adds
or
subtracts
weight.
It
is
very important
to
realize
that the validation itself
is
the
result of intra-cultural
correlation of two sets of recognition behavior on the one hand (in the described
context
we
may say
'good'
and
'bad'
behavior)
with
two
sets
of
English
speech
behavior on
the
other hand
(efficient
and
not
so
efficient
linguistic
communica-
tion).
It
appears
that
recognition
behavior is
inefficient
where
speech
behavior
is
inefficient.
(d)
Not
only
is the
validity
of
this
experiment
independent
of
cross-cultural
comparison;
but
if
cross-cultural
comparison
is
desired,
the method
dispenses
with the
necessity
for
translation,
or the exact
equation
of
linguistic
data between
one
language
and another.
For what
will be
compared
are
CORRELATIONS
F
SPEECH
BEHAVIOR WITH RECOGNITION
BEHAVIOR,
not
linguistic
forms.
Super-
ficially
it
may
look
as
if
the
translation
method were
implicitly
the
same
as the
intra-cultural
method,
for
both methods
seem
to be concerned
with
the
meaning
of
certain
linguistic
forms which are
being
compared.
However,
the
intra-cultural
method
resembles the translation
method
only
in
its
very elementary
and
primary
step:
both methods
recognize
the
existence of
a
problem
on
the
grounds
of intui-
19
Codeability
of colors
does
not
seem
to
be linked
to
cultural
importance
or
preference
for
these colors.
The
reader
may
convince himself
of
this
by
trying
to name all the colors
in
his environment.
He
will
notice
that colors
for
which he has
a
'good'
name
occur much
less
frequently
than colors
which
are
difficult to label
unambiguously.
20
Such tests
are
described
in K.
Koffka, Principles of
Gestalt
psychology,
Chs.
11-3
(New York,
1935).
21
The
test
colors were
exposed
four at a
time,
for two
seconds.
After
a
waiting
period
of
thirty
seconds,
subjects
had to find
the test
colors
on
a color
chart
of
120
colors. All colors
were
identified
by
numbers.
The
subjects
used
in
this
experiment
were
not
required
to
use
any
color name
whatever.
This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 06:48:54 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp7/25/2019 Lenneberg - Cognition Ethnolinguistics
10/10
COGNITION N ETHNOLINGUISTICS
471
tive
knowledge
of
the
meaning
of forms.
The
translation
method defines
meanings
by trying
to
equate
forms
of
a
language
foreign
to
the
investigator
to
forms of his
native
language
(where
meanings
are said
to
be
known).
The
intra-cultural
method need not
rely
on
this
haphazard procedure;
instead,
it
objectifies
the
intuited
meanings
of forms
by
carefully
relating
them
to
stimuli
of
the
environ-
ment.
Thus
it is
possible
(at
least
in
some
instances)
to
specify
meaning
by
referral to
the
physical
properties
of those
stimuli.
(e)
Stated
in
general terms,
the
intra-cultural
approach
consists
of
the
follow-
ing.
Some
aspect
of
codification is
described
in
order
to correlate it
with non-
linguistic
behavior. A frame of
reference is
established
in
terms of which both
the
speech
behavior and the
non-linguistic
behavior can
be
described
or
specified;
a
particularly
convenient frame of reference is
the
physical
environment within
which both types of behavior take place. In the experiment described, the frame
of reference was
provided
by
the
stimuli sensed
as
colors. The
speech
events
(color
terms)
and the
behavioral events
(recognition)
were
related to
these
stimuli.
The
specifications
of
the
physical
properties
of the
stimuli
served
as a
metalanguage,
so to
speak,
for the
description
of both
types
of
events.
The
fundamental
principle
of the
intra-cultural
method is that the
physical
stimuli,
whatever
they
may be,
can
be
classified on
the
grounds
of
linguistic
criteria so
that
the
constituents of
each class are
all
characterized
by
the
particu-
lar
way
in
which
they
are
codified. It is
necessary
that the
codification
criterion
should
be the
ONLY
riterion
by
which the stimuli
can
be
grouped
in
this
way.
If
now the non-linguistic behavior in response to the stimuli thus classified varies
systematically
in
accordance with the
class
to
which
the
individual
stimulus
has
been
assigned,
we
may
attribute
such
regular
variation
in
non-linguistic
behavior
to
the
regular
variation
in
the
speech
correlates.