Culture & Psych

Unit 4 General Psychological Issues in Cultural Perspective Subunit 2 Language, Communication and Culture

Article 2

3-1-2011

Language and Culture Chi-yue Chiu Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, [email protected]

This Online Readings in Psychology and Culture Article is brought to you for free and open access (provided uses are educational in nature)by IACCP and ScholarWorks@GVSU. Copyright © 2011 International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-9845627-0-1

Recommended Citation Chiu, C. (2011). Language and Culture. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1098

Language and Culture

AbstractAbstract Language pervades social life. It is a primary means by which we gain access to the contents of others' minds and establish shared understanding of the reality. Meanwhile, there is an enormous amount of linguistic diversity among human populations. Depending on what counts as a language, there are 3,000 to 10,000 living languages in the world, although a quarter of the world’s languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers and half have fewer than 10,000 (Crystal, 1997). Not surprisingly, a key question in culture and psychology research concerns the role of language in cultural processes. The present chapter focuses on two issues that have received by far the greatest amount of research attention from cultural researchers. First, how does language and human cultures co-evolve? Second, what are the non- linguistic cognitive effects of using a certain language? Does speaking different languages orient individuals to see and experience the external reality differently? The scope of the present chapter does not permit a comprehensive review of all pertinent research; only a selected sample of studies will be used to illustrate the main ideas in the present chapter.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

This article is available in Online Readings in Psychology and Culture: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.

Sigmund Freud (1900, p. 165)

Language pervades social life. It is a primary means by which we gain access to the

contents of others' minds and establish shared understanding of the reality. Meanwhile,

there is an enormous amount of linguistic diversity among human populations. Depending

on what counts as a language, there are 3,000 to 10,000 living languages in the world,

although a quarter of the world’s languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers and half have

fewer than 10,000 (Crystal, 1997). Not surprisingly, a key question in culture and

psychology research concerns the role of language in cultural processes. The present

chapter focuses on two issues that have received by far the greatest amount of research

attention from cultural researchers. First, how does language and human cultures co-

evolve? Second, what are the non-linguistic cognitive effects of using a certain language?

Does speaking different languages orient individuals to see and experience the external

reality differently? The scope of the present chapter does not permit a comprehensive

review of all pertinent research; only a selected sample of studies will be used to illustrate

the main ideas in the present chapter.

Co-Evolution of Language and Culture?

Throughout the history of hominid evolution, the brain, language, and culture have

coevolved in close interaction with each other. Figure 1 illustrates the co-evolution of the

brain, language, and culture. Spoken languages emerged about 350,000 years ago,

preceded by several remarkable anatomical changes, including a large expansion of the

size of the hominid brain, descent of the larynx, redesign of the supralaryngeal vocal tract,

and evolution of specialized auditory and memory capabilities for processing speech

(Levelt, 1989). Some recent findings also show that the evolution of human language is

built on a biological foundation. The Broca’s area in the brain controls speech in humans,

and a recent study (Petrides, Cadoret, & Mackey, 2005) discovered a distinct brain region

in macaque monkeys that controls jaw movements. This region is located in the same

region and has the same anatomical characteristics as Broca’s area and is connected with

the brain area that is involved in the retrieval of information from memory. When this area

in the monkey was electrically stimulated, the subject displayed jaw movement sequences.

Before the emergence of spoken languages, hominids had relied primarily on hand

gestures and vocal signals to communicate their thoughts to others. Spoken languages

have several advantages over hand gestures. A spoken language works at a distance and

in the dark, and does not interfere with other motor activities (e.g., hunting). In addition,

because humans can produce an infinite number of sound patterns, relative to hand

gestures and primitive vocal signals, a vocal language can support a larger number of

different words. As such, speech is much more efficient in conveying meanings than are

hand gestures and vocal signals (Krauss & Chiu, 1998).

3

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Figure 1. Co-evolution of biology, language and culture

The development of human language is also an adaptive response to the need to

represent non-immediate events symbolically. The use of language as a means to

represent non-immediate events is a unique human accomplishment (Hockett &

1968). Based on their pragmatic functions, speech acts can be classified into five major

types: directives (e.g., orders, demands, requests), expressives (e.g.,

representatives (use of linguistic symbols to represent an immediate, non

displaced event), commissives (commitments, promises), and declaratives (e.g.,

fired; Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975). Other mammals use directives and expressives

extensively, but the use of representatives, commissives, and declaratives is

predominantly human (D’Andrade, 2002). Additionally, while other mammals typically use

representatives to refer to immediate events only, humans often use representatives to

refer to something that is not immediately present (e.g.,

that lives exist in other planets.

in complexity, to coordinate social activities and facilitate division of work, people needed

to be able to represent non-immediate events mentally. This in turn increas

for the development of grammar and true symbols (a sign that may refer to different

referents) as opposed to indexical signs with rigid one

its referent.

evolution of biology, language and culture

The development of human language is also an adaptive response to the need to

immediate events symbolically. The use of language as a means to

immediate events is a unique human accomplishment (Hockett &

their pragmatic functions, speech acts can be classified into five major

types: directives (e.g., orders, demands, requests), expressives (e.g., Ouch or

representatives (use of linguistic symbols to represent an immediate, non-

displaced event), commissives (commitments, promises), and declaratives (e.g.,

; Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975). Other mammals use directives and expressives

extensively, but the use of representatives, commissives, and declaratives is

ly human (D’Andrade, 2002). Additionally, while other mammals typically use

representatives to refer to immediate events only, humans often use representatives to

refer to something that is not immediately present (e.g., Some scientists are convinced

lives exist in other planets.). D’Andrade (2002) believes that as human societies grew

in complexity, to coordinate social activities and facilitate division of work, people needed

immediate events mentally. This in turn increases the demand

for the development of grammar and true symbols (a sign that may refer to different

referents) as opposed to indexical signs with rigid one-to-one mapping between a sign and

The development of human language is also an adaptive response to the need to

immediate events symbolically. The use of language as a means to

immediate events is a unique human accomplishment (Hockett & Altmann,

their pragmatic functions, speech acts can be classified into five major

or I love you.),

-immediate, or

displaced event), commissives (commitments, promises), and declaratives (e.g., You’re

; Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975). Other mammals use directives and expressives

extensively, but the use of representatives, commissives, and declaratives is

ly human (D’Andrade, 2002). Additionally, while other mammals typically use

representatives to refer to immediate events only, humans often use representatives to

Some scientists are convinced

). D’Andrade (2002) believes that as human societies grew

in complexity, to coordinate social activities and facilitate division of work, people needed

es the demand

for the development of grammar and true symbols (a sign that may refer to different

one mapping between a sign and

4

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 2, Chapter 2

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

The importance of spoken languages in the evolution of culture cannot be

overstated. As Bruner (1990) said, “Our culturally adapted way of life depends upon

shared meanings and shared concepts and depends as well upon shared modes of

discourse for negotiating differences in meaning and interpretation” (pp. 12–13). An

important design feature of human languages is their arbitrariness: the same expression

can mean different things, and the same object can be referred to differently. Furthermore,

because there are indefinite ways sounds can be mapped onto meanings in a spoken

language, people can describe the same event in different terms, and therefore assign

different meanings to it. Individuals in a collective may share many experiences, but

different individuals may describe these experiences differently. As these individuals

interact, they will collaborate to find a mutually acceptable expression to describe their

experiences. Shared meanings arise and are encoded in the resulting shared expressions

(Lau, Chiu, & Lee, 2001). Through this meaning negotiation process, a culture or shared

reality emerges. Because different human groups may agree upon different ways of

referring to their group experiences, different variants of symbolic cultures gradually evolve

in different populations.

Linguistic Influences on Non-Linguistic Thoughts

There are several ways language use can affect non-linguistic thought processes.

Processing the language’s characteristic form

Using a language requires repeated engagements of the perceptual and cognitive

operations involved in processing the language’s characteristic form. For example, written

languages differ in writing directions. English is written from left-to-right and English

speakers are accustomed to scanning reading materials from left-to-right. In contrast,

Hebrew is written from right-to-left. Israelis, who are used to read from right-to-left, have

developed the habit to scan reading materials from right-to-left. When asked to perform the

visual test illustrated in Figure 2, speakers of English tend to perform better on trial 1 than

on trial 2, and Hebrew speakers tend to perform better on trial 2 than on trial 1 (Braine,

1968).

Chinese characters are written from left to right, but are sometimes read from top-to-

bottom as well. Not surprisingly, Chinese speakers can perform vertical scanning just as

efficiently as they do horizontal scanning (Freeman, 1980). Americans are not used to

read from top-to-bottom, because English texts are seldom written in that direction. Thus,

Americans often find it harder to perform vertical scanning than horizontal scanning. More

important, Chinese American children who do not have any experience with written

Chinese perform more poorly in vertical scanning than in horizontal scanning, just as the

American adults do (Hoosain, 1986), suggesting that experiences with reading Chinese

texts is responsible for the cultural differences in the preferred direction of visual scanning.

5

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Figure 2. A visual scanning task

Shared experiences

People use language to encode experiences. As a result, some aspects of the shared

experiences in the culture are associated with the language itself. Thus, using a certain

language will automatically call out its associated shared experiences. Several studies

have illustrated how language calls out its associated cultural knowledge and influence

behaviors (Earle, 1969; Ross, Xun, & Wilson, 2002; Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982;

Trafimow, Silverman, Fan, & Law, 1997). In one study (Earle, 1969), Chinese–English

bilinguals in Hong Kong responded to a measure of dogmatism either in its original English

version or in a Chinese translation of it. Previous research has reported higher levels of

dogmatism among Asian students than British and American students (Meade &

Whittaker, 1967). Earle found that her bilingual participants scored higher on dogmatism

when they answered the Chinese questionnaire than when they completed the English

one. To explain these results, Earle (1969) proposed that the English language culture is

relatively less authoritarian than the Chinese language culture. English-Chinese bilinguals,

who have learned their two languages in distinct settings and live in a bicultural

environment, can maintain two somewhat different belief systems. Moreover, these

bilingual individuals may activate one or the other belief system depending on the

language being used in the current situation.

Subsequent studies have provided further evidence for the idea that language can

temporarily push bilinguals’ responses in one or the other direction. For example,

Trafimow et al. (1997) found that Chinese–English bilinguals in Hong Kong used more

demographic and social categories to characterize themselves when they described

themselves in Chinese and more references to personal beliefs, attitudes, and qualities

when they described themselves in English. In another study (Ross et al., 2002), China-

born students studying in Canada responded to a set of questionnaires written in either

Chinese or English. An English-speaking Canadian group was included as a control group.

Compared to the bilingual Chinese group, who responded to the English version of the

questionnaires and the Canadians, the Chinese bilingual participants who responded to

the Chinese version of the questionnaires reported more collectivist qualities of the self,

lower self-esteem, a more balanced (vs. predominately positive) mood, a more balanced

(vs. predominately favorable) view of the self, and higher endorsement of Chinese values.

Language priming also affects nonverbal behaviors. Compared to North Americans,

Venezuelans interact at closer distance than do the Japanese (Engebretson & Fullmer,

1970; Watson, 1970). In one study (Sussman & Rosenfeld, 1982), Venezuelans and

Japanese had conversations with another member of their culture on their most favorite

6

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 2, Chapter 2

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

sports and hobbies. Some were induced to hold the conversation in their native language,

and some in English. When the conservation was conducted in their respective native

language, Japanese sat farther away from their interaction partner than did Venezuelans.

However, when the conversation was conducted in English, Japanese shortened their

conversation distance (relative to their peers conversing in the Japanese language), and

Venezuelans increased the distance (relative to their peers conversing in the Venezuelan

language).

Because of the learned associations between language and culture, individuals who

are motivated to assert or defend their cultural identity often intentionally or inadvertently

exaggerate the speech characteristics (e.g., accent) of the dominant language used in

their cultural group (e.g., Tong, Hong, Lee, & Chiu, 1999). A recent set of studies

(Ogunnaike, Dunham, & Banaji, 2010) measured individuals’ implicit attitudes toward their

ethnic culture when they were tested in the language of their ethnic culture, and found that

individuals automatically associate positive attitudes with their ethnic culture when they

were tested in the language of their ethnic culture. For example, French-Arabic bilinguals

in Morocco showed more favorable implicit attitudes toward Morocco when they were

tested in Arabic as compared with French. Likewise, Hispanic Americans showed more

implicit pro-Spanish attitudes when tested in Spanish compared with English.

Social relationships

The grammar of a language may draw its users’ attention to certain aspects of social

relationships and hence reinforce a certain conception of interpersonal relations that is

shared in the culture. A series of studies carried out by Emi Kashima (Kashima &

Kashima, 1998; Kashima & Kashima, 2003) provide a good illustration of this point. In

these studies, Kashima and her colleagues examined how the linguistic system of pronoun

may encode conceptions of the social self in the culture. The use of pronouns sustains

attention on the referent of the pronoun, bringing the person out from the conversational

background. For example, the use of first-person pronoun (I in English) draws attention to

the speaker, and maximally distinguishes the speaker’s self from the conversational

context. Likewise, the use of second-person pronoun (you in English) maximally

distinguishes the addressee(s) from the conversational context. In some languages (e.g.,

English), the use of both first- and second-person pronouns is grammatically obligatory. In

other languages (e.g., Spanish), the subject pronoun can be dropped because the referent

can be recovered from the verb inflections. There are some languages (e.g., Chinese) in

which the subject pronoun can be dropped even though there is neither verb inflection nor

the subject–verb agreement rule. The obligatory use of subject pronoun is suggestive of

whether the self and the addressee must be made salient in the conversational context,

and the omission of either one or both first- and second-person pronouns deemphasizes

the salience of their corresponding referent(s).

Not surprisingly, a cultural-linguistic group’s emphasis on individualism is correlated

with the grammatical intolerance for pronoun drop in the group’s dominant language. In a

country that privileges individualism, its dominant language has higher intolerance for

7

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

pronoun drop. In an individualist country, its dominant language tends not to allow

dropping the first- and second-person pronouns that sustain attention on the individual

actors.

Facilitation of shared thought processes

The availability of grammatical markers for a certain thought process in a language can

facilitate the same thought process among speakers of the language. For example, Puerto

Rican (PR) Spanish and Turkish have specific verb forms for marking false-belief states

explicitly. PR Spanish uses creer to denote that the speaker is neutral on whether the

grammatical subject in the sentence holds a true belief or not, and adds a reflexive clitic to

the verb phrase (creer-se) to denote that the speaker is sure that the grammatical subject

holds a false belief. English and Brazilian (BR) Portuguese have no such specific forms. In

one study, Shatz, Diesendruck, Martinez-Beck, and Akar (2003) compared the

performance on a false-belief understanding task of PR Spanish- and Turkish-speaking

preschoolers with their English- and BR Portuguese-speaking counterparts. In this study,

one experimenter showed the preschooler a crayon box and a blue box in the presence of

a second experimenter. Then, the second experimenter left the room to get some paper.

After the second experimenter had left, the first experimenter opened both boxes,

remarked that the crayon box was empty and the blue box contained crayons, and asked

the preschooler, “Where does [Experimenter 2] think the crayons are?” Note that in the

question, the verb think provides an explicit marker of the false belief in the two languages

with formal markers for false beliefs. If having explicit grammatical markers for false beliefs

in one’s own language improves understanding of false-belief states, PR Spanish

speakers and Turkish speakers should do better than BR Portuguese and English

speakers on the comprehension task. As expected, the Turkish- and PR Spanish-speaking

children outperformed the two other groups in the comprehension test, indicating that

having explicit markers of false beliefs in a language can promote comprehension of false-

belief states.

Relatedly, the availability of economical referring expressions in a language can

affect memories of social experiences. Each language has its distinct vocabulary that

would allow a certain type of experiences to be expressed easily, rapidly, briefly and

uniformly. In this study, Hoffman, Lau, and Johnson (1986) show that the use of such

economical expression to encode a state of affairs may influence the way the language

user processes information pertinent to that state of affairs. These investigators identified

English- and Chinese-language personality adjectives that have no economical equivalent

in the other language. For example, there is no single English term equivalent in meaning

to the Chinese personality adjective shì gu, which depicts a person who, among other

things, is worldly, experienced, socially skillful, and somewhat reserved. Likewise, there is

no single Chinese adjective for someone who has artistic skills and interests, an “artistic”

cognitive style and temperament, and leads a “bohemian” lifestyle. The appropriate

English term is artistic (or, better, the artistic type).

8

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 2, Chapter 2

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

The study involved three groups of participants: a group of English monolinguals, a

group of Chinese-English bilinguals who processed the information in English, and a group

of Chinese-English bilinguals who processed the information in Chinese. Participants read

a set of concrete behavioral descriptions of four fictitious characters, either in English or in

Chinese. Two of the characters exemplified personality schemas with economical labels in

Chinese but not in English (the Chinese-specific adjectives) and the other two characters

exemplified personality schemas with economical labels in English but not in Chinese (the

English-specific adjectives).

When the behavioral descriptions of the two characters exemplifying the personality

types with English-specific labels were processed in English, participants’ subsequent

memory of the original description was biased in the direction of the labels: They tended to

infer label-congruent attributes not found in the original descriptions. Similar memory bias

was also observed when the behavioral descriptions of the two characters exemplifying

the personality types with Chinese-specific labels were processed in Chinese.

Experiencing the world

Finally, languages may also affect how individuals experience the world. According to the

linguistic relativity hypothesis (Whorf, 1956), which is illustrated in Figure 3, individuals in

an ethnolinguistic group are led by their shared language experiences to acquire shared,

habitual ways of thinking, which influence cognition in a general way. This hypothesis is

premised on the following assumptions about perceptual experiences, language, and

culture. First, some perceptual experiences (e.g., experiences of time and colors) are

presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions. These experiences need to be organized

by the human minds. Second, the formal structure of each language embodies a

distinctive internal logic. Third, the distinctive internal logic of a language constrains its

speakers’ thought processes, creating marked differences in cognitions between speakers

of different languages (Whorf, 1956). If the ways in which a language is organized stand in

isomorphic relation to how its associated culture is organized, culture, like language, would

also possess an internal logic, and be highly patterned, systematic, and distinctive. If so, a

language a person speaks would determine how the person encodes his or her

experiences.

The possibility that language can influence encoding or categorization of

experiences has received a lot of empirical attention. Many studies that tested the

linguistic relativity hypothesis have focused on the effect of language on color perceptions

and memory, because although people in different cultures have more or less equivalent

experiences with colors, variations in color vocabulary can be readily found in natural

languages. For example, American English has 11 basic color terms, and Dugum Dani (a

stone age tribe from Irian Jaya) has only two achromatic terms for color. It should be

emphasized that in color perception, the perceptual order imposed by properties of the

visual system limits the range of language’s effects on color categorization. For example,

no language has color categories that include two color spaces (e.g., yellow and blue) and

9

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Figure 3. The linguistic relativity hypothesis

exclude the connecting color space (e.g., green, Davidoff, 2001). Nonetheless, within the

constraints imposed by the visual system and the structure of the color space, languages

partition the color space differently (Roberson, Davies, & Davidoff, 2000). If it can be

shown that the different ways different languages partition the color space can affect th

users’ perceptions and memory of color experiences, this finding will provide strong

support for the linguistic relativity hypothesis.

Evidence from the early studies was not in favor of the linguistic relativity hypothesis.

For example, an early study showed that although colors are represented very differently

in English and Dugum Dani, speakers of the two languages organize their memor

representations of the colors in similar ways (Heider & Olivier, 1972).

However, recent studies (Kay & Kempton, 1984; Roberson, Davis, & Davidoff, 2000)

show that when the speaker of a language

describe colors, the speaker’s subsequent memory of the colors may be influenced by the

color terms used in the description. In a cross

Figure 3. The linguistic relativity hypothesis

exclude the connecting color space (e.g., green, Davidoff, 2001). Nonetheless, within the

imposed by the visual system and the structure of the color space, languages

partition the color space differently (Roberson, Davies, & Davidoff, 2000). If it can be

shown that the different ways different languages partition the color space can affect th

users’ perceptions and memory of color experiences, this finding will provide strong

support for the linguistic relativity hypothesis.

Evidence from the early studies was not in favor of the linguistic relativity hypothesis.

For example, an early study showed that although colors are represented very differently

in English and Dugum Dani, speakers of the two languages organize their memor

representations of the colors in similar ways (Heider & Olivier, 1972).

However, recent studies (Kay & Kempton, 1984; Roberson, Davis, & Davidoff, 2000)

show that when the speaker of a language uses the color terms in the language to

e speaker’s subsequent memory of the colors may be influenced by the

color terms used in the description. In a cross-language study, Kay and Kempton (1984,

exclude the connecting color space (e.g., green, Davidoff, 2001). Nonetheless, within the

imposed by the visual system and the structure of the color space, languages

partition the color space differently (Roberson, Davies, & Davidoff, 2000). If it can be

shown that the different ways different languages partition the color space can affect their

users’ perceptions and memory of color experiences, this finding will provide strong

Evidence from the early studies was not in favor of the linguistic relativity hypothesis.

For example, an early study showed that although colors are represented very differently

in English and Dugum Dani, speakers of the two languages organize their memory

However, recent studies (Kay & Kempton, 1984; Roberson, Davis, & Davidoff, 2000)

the color terms in the language to

e speaker’s subsequent memory of the colors may be influenced by the

language study, Kay and Kempton (1984,

10

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 2, Chapter 2

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

Study 1) presented three color chips at a time to native speakers of English and speakers

of Tarahumara (a Uto-Aztecan language of northern Mexico), and had them judge the

perceptual distance among the stimuli. Unlike English, Tarahumara lacks the lexical

distinction between the color categories of “green” and “blue.” When the participants’

judgments were compared to the physical distance of the stimuli, the English-speaking

participants, but not Tarahumara-speaking ones, systematically overestimated the

distance between two colors when the green–blue color boundary passed between them.

This finding suggests that the basic color terms in a language can influence color

perception.

Kay and Kempton (1984) believe that the English-speaking participants might have

used a naming strategy when they were performing the judgment task. For instance, when

presented with two colors that fell in the green category and one color that fell in the blue

category, they might have labeled the two greener colors “green” and the bluer color

“blue.” This strategy could have led the participants to overestimate the perceptual

distance between the two “green” colors and the “blue” color. However, the Tarahumara-

speaking participants could not use this naming strategy because their language lacks the

lexical distinction between the color categories of “green” and “blue.” Thus, they did not

overestimate the dissimilarity between the bluer color and the two greener colors.

To test this idea, in a second study, Kay and Kempton (1984, Study 2) made

English-speaking participants use both verbal labels (“blue” and “green”) to encode the

same color. First, the participants were shown the target color with a greener color. Under

this circumstance, they named the target color as the “bluer” color. Next, they saw the

target color with a bluer color. Now, they encoded the target color as the “greener” color.

Following this, the participants evaluated the perceptual distances between the three

colors. The effects of linguistic encoding cancelled out each other, because the same color

had been encoded both as the greener and the bluer color. As a result, English-speaking

participants no longer displayed the perceptual distortion observed previously. Instead,

their judgments corresponded closely to the stimuli’s physical distances and agreed with

the Tarahumara speakers’ judgments.

Roberson et al. (2000) reported similar findings in a conceptual replication of the Kay

and Kempton (1984) experiments. The participants in the Roberson et al.’s experiments

were English and Berinmo speakers. Like Tarahumara, Berinmo makes no lexical

distinction between “blue” and “green” colors. However, English lacks linguistic labels that

refer to “nol” and “wor” colors in Berinmo. When asked to judge the perceptual similarity

between pairs of colors, English speakers judged two colors across the green–blue

boundary as more dissimilar to the two colors within the green or blue category. However,

they did not show such categorical perception for colors across the nol–wor boundary. The

reverse was true for Berinmo speakers. Similar results were obtained among both English

speakers and Berinmo speakers in color category learning and color memory.

Furthermore, as mentioned people generally perform less well when the task

requires discrimination of a target color from a distractor color within the same color

category than when the task requires discrimination of the target color and a distractor

color from a different color category. Nonetheless, within-category discrimination improves

11

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

when the target color is a good exemplar of the color category and the distractor a poor

exemplar, compared to the situation in which the target color is a poor exemplar of the

category and the distractor a better exemplar (Hanley & Roberson, 2011). This evidence

provides further support for the effect language categorization on color perception,

suggesting that discriminating colors from different color categories is like discriminating a

good exemplar of a category from a distractor color that is at boundary of the color

category.

More important, in a subsequent study, when a verbal interference

introduced to prevent subvocal encoding of the stimuli, the effect of categorical perception

of colors on color memory disappeared (Roberson & Davidoff, 2000). These findings

indicate that a lexical term must be used to encode an event for i

language user’s memory representation of the event.

Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience have shed new light on how language

might affect color perception. According to dual system model of language and culture

(Regier, Kay, & Khetarpal, 2007; Roberson, in press), the left hemisphere of the brain has

Figure 4. A dual system model of language and cognition

when the target color is a good exemplar of the color category and the distractor a poor

plar, compared to the situation in which the target color is a poor exemplar of the

category and the distractor a better exemplar (Hanley & Roberson, 2011). This evidence

provides further support for the effect language categorization on color perception,

suggesting that discriminating colors from different color categories is like discriminating a

good exemplar of a category from a distractor color that is at boundary of the color

More important, in a subsequent study, when a verbal interference procedure was

introduced to prevent subvocal encoding of the stimuli, the effect of categorical perception

of colors on color memory disappeared (Roberson & Davidoff, 2000). These findings

indicate that a lexical term must be used to encode an event for it to influence the

language user’s memory representation of the event.

Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience have shed new light on how language

might affect color perception. According to dual system model of language and culture

rpal, 2007; Roberson, in press), the left hemisphere of the brain has

Figure 4. A dual system model of language and cognition

when the target color is a good exemplar of the color category and the distractor a poor

plar, compared to the situation in which the target color is a poor exemplar of the

category and the distractor a better exemplar (Hanley & Roberson, 2011). This evidence

provides further support for the effect language categorization on color perception,

suggesting that discriminating colors from different color categories is like discriminating a

good exemplar of a category from a distractor color that is at boundary of the color

procedure was

introduced to prevent subvocal encoding of the stimuli, the effect of categorical perception

of colors on color memory disappeared (Roberson & Davidoff, 2000). These findings

t to influence the

Recent advances in cognitive neuroscience have shed new light on how language

might affect color perception. According to dual system model of language and culture

rpal, 2007; Roberson, in press), the left hemisphere of the brain has

12

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 2, Chapter 2

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

areas that specialize in language processing, allowing the perceiver to see the world

through the distorted lens of language, whereas the right hemisphere is associated with

non-linguistic tasks and affords a language-free perception of the world. Moreover, the

perceiver can switch between the two systems effortlessly. According to this model, the

language encoding effect would occur only when the stimuli are presented in the right

visual field of the perceiver, which will be processed by the left brain (see Figure 4).

Gilbert and colleagues (Gilbert, Regier, Kay, & Ivry, 2006) tested this hypothesis in the

visual search task. On each trial of the task, participants were asked to fixate their eyes on

a cross in the center of the computer screen. Then a colored oddball would appear among

an identically colored array of distractors either in the right or left visual field. The

participants were required to detect the presence of the oddball as quickly as possible.

Linguistic encoding effect was measured by manipulating the target and background of

colors, holding constant the amount of physical separation between the two colors. In

some trials, both the target and background colors came from the same color category

(e.g., blue). In other trials, they came from different color categories (e.g., the target color

was blue and the background color was green).

Linguistic encoding effect occurred if participants performed better when the target

and background colors came from different color categories than if they came from the

same category. Significant linguistic encoding effect was found only when the target

oddball was presented in the right visual field. Parallel evidence was reported in a

subsequent cross-language study that examined linguistic encoding effects in English and

the Korean language (Roberson. Pak, & Hanley, 2008).

Conclusions

Language, cognition, and culture evolved together in close interactions. Figure 5

summarizes the intricate relationships between culture, language and the mind. Evolution

of the brain supports the development of language, which as a communication tool

facilitates the creation, perpetuation, and renegotiation of shared meanings and cultural

consensus. Language is a multi-faceted concept; it is an integrated system of sounds,

symbols, and meanings. It consists of various features, including writing conventions,

grammar, vocabulary, and metaphors.

Language and cultural processes are intimately connected, as illustrated in the

research examples described above. For example, language provides a shared tool for

encoding and sharing collective experiences, contains linguistic features that draw its

speakers’ attention to culturally valued aspects of the physical and social ecology, and has

grammatical markers that facilitate thought processes and economical and rich

expressions to categorize and make sense of our sensory experiences. There is also

emerging evidence that some areas of the left hemisphere of the human brain specialize in

language-mediated processing of human experiences, although the same neuroscience

findings also suggest that not all human experiences are filtered through the tainted lenses

of languages as some radical versions of the linguistic relativity hypothesis has assumed.

13

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Figure 5. Language effects on culturally shared cognitions

The close connections between language and culturally shared cognitions allow

language to call out its learned associations automatically and to serve as a marker of

one’s cultural identity. Thus, to fully understand culture as a biologically enabled and

collectively constructed process, psychologists need to understand the intricate

interactions between the brain, culture, language and the mind.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words.

Press.

Braine, L. G. (1968). Asymmetries of pattern perception observed in Israelis.

Neuropsychologia, 6, 73

Bruner, J. (1990). Act of meaning

Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language

Cambridge University Press.

D’Andrade, R. (2002). Cultural Darwinism and language.

223–232.

Figure 5. Language effects on culturally shared cognitions

The close connections between language and culturally shared cognitions allow

rned associations automatically and to serve as a marker of

one’s cultural identity. Thus, to fully understand culture as a biologically enabled and

collectively constructed process, psychologists need to understand the intricate

rain, culture, language and the mind.

References

How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Braine, L. G. (1968). Asymmetries of pattern perception observed in Israelis.

, 73–88.

Act of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2 nd

ed.). Cambridge: HK:

Cambridge University Press.

D’Andrade, R. (2002). Cultural Darwinism and language. American Anthropologist

The close connections between language and culturally shared cognitions allow

rned associations automatically and to serve as a marker of

one’s cultural identity. Thus, to fully understand culture as a biologically enabled and

collectively constructed process, psychologists need to understand the intricate

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Braine, L. G. (1968). Asymmetries of pattern perception observed in Israelis.

. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

ed.). Cambridge: HK:

thropologist, 104,

14

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 2, Chapter 2

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

Davidoff, J. (2001). Language and perceptual categorization. Trends in Cognitive

Sciences, 5, 382–387.

Earle, M. (1969). A cross-cultural and cross-language comparison of dogmatism scores.

Journal of Social Psychology, 79, 19-24.

Engebretson, D., & Fullmer, D. (1970). Cross-cultural differences in territoriality: Interaction

distances of native Japanese, Hawaii Japanese, and American Caucasians. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 261–269.

Freeman, R. D. (1980). Visual acuity is better for letters in rows than in columns. Nature,

286, 62–64.

Freud, S. (1900/1913). The interpretation of dreams (A. A. Brill trans). New York:

Macmillan.

Gilbert, A. L., Regier, T., Kay, P., & Ivry, R. B. (2006). Whorf hypothesis is supported in the

right visual field but not the left. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the USA, 103, 489-238.

Hanley, J. R., & Roberson, D. (2011). Categorical perception effects reflect differences in

typicality on within-category trials. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 355-363.

Heider, E. R., & Olivier, D. C. (1972). The structure of the color space in naming and

memory for two languages. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 337–354.

Hockett, C. F., & Altmann, S. (1968). A note on design features. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.),

Animal communication; techniques of study and results of research (pp. 61–72).

Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Hoffman, C., Lau, I., & Johnson, D. R. (1986). The linguistic relativity of person cognition:

An English-Chinese comparison. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,

1097–1105.

Hoosain, R. (1986). Language, orthograghy and cognitive processes: Chinese

perspectives for the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral

Development, 9, 507–525.

Kashima, E. S., & Kashima, Y. (1998). Culture and language: The case of cultural

dimensions and personal pronoun use. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29,

461–486.

Kashima, Y., & Kashima, E. S. (2003). Individualism, GNP, climate, and pronoun drop: Is

individualism determined by affluence and climate, or does language use play a role.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 125–134.

Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American

Anthropologist, 86, 65–79.

Krauss, R. M., & Chiu, C-y. (1998). Language and social behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.

Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp.

41-88). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lau, I. Y.-M., Chiu, C.-y., & Lee, S.-l. (2001). Communication and shared reality:

Implications for the psychological foundations of culture. Social Cognition, 19, 350–

371.

Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

15

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011

Meade, R. D., & Whittaker, J. O. (1967). A cross-cultural study of authoritarianism. Journal

of Social Psychology, 72, 2–7.

Ogunnaike, O., Dunham, Y., & Banaji, M. R. (2010). The language of implicit preferences.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 999-1003.

Petrides, M., Cadoret, G., & Mackey, S. (2005). Orofacial somatomotor responses in the

macaque monkey homologue of Broca’s area. Nature, 435, 1235–1238.

Regier, T., Kay, P., & Khetarpal, N. (2007). Color naming reflects optimal partitions of color

space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 1436-

1441.

Roberson, D. (in press). Culture, categories and color – Do we see the world through

t(a)inted lenses? In Gelfand, M., Chiu, C-y., & Hong, Y-y. (Eds.), Advances in culture

and psychology (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press.

Roberson, D., & Davidoff, J. (2000). The categorical perception of colors and facial

expressions: The effect of verbal interference. Memory & Cognition, 28, 977-986.

Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal:

Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 129, 369–398.

Roberson, D., Pak, H. S. & Hanley, J. R. (2008). Categorical perception of colour in the left

and right hemisphere is verbally mediated: Evidence from Korean. Cognition, 107,

752-762.

Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1040-1050.

Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language,

mind, and knowledge (pp. 125–139). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota

Press.

Shatz, M., Diesendruck, G., Martinez-Beck, I., & Akar, D. (2003). The influence of

language and socioeconomic status on children’s understanding of false belief.

Developmental Psychology, 39, 717-729.

Sussman, N. N., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1982). Influence of culture, language, and sex on

conversational distance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 66–74.

Tong, Y., Hong, Y.-y., Lee, S., & Chiu, C.-y. (1999). Language as a carrier of social

identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 281–296.

Trafimow, D., Silverman, E. S., Fan, R. M.-t., & Law, J. S. F. (1997). The effects of

language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the

collective self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 107-123.

Watson, O. M. (1970). Proxemic behavior: A cross-cultural study. The Hague, The

Netherlands: Mouton.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee

Whorf. New York: Wiley.

16

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 4, Subunit 2, Chapter 2

https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol4/iss2/2

Video Resources

Lera Boroditsky: How Language Shapes Thought. L o n g N o w F o u n d a t i o n L e c t u r e .

h t t p : / / f o r a . t v / 2 0 1 0 / 1 0 / 2 6 / L e r a _ B o r o d i t s k y _ H o w _ L a n g u a g e _ S h a p e s _ T h o u

g h t

About the author

Chi-Yue Chiu

Culture Science Institute @ Nanyang Business School

Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

http://www.nanyangbusinessschool.ntu.edu.sg/sprsv20/inter/MyProfileDetails.asp

Email: [email protected]

17

Chiu: Language and Culture

Produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2011