Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERZA V MARIBORU
FILOZOFSKA FAKULTETA
Oddelek za anglistiko in amerikanistiko
MAGISTRSKO DELO
TAMARA KOVAČIČ
Maribor, januar 2016
UNIVERSITY OF MARIBOR
FACULTY OF ARTS
Department of English and American Studies
MASTER′′′′S THESIS
LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM IN THE CASE OF LINGUISTIC GENDER AND
NUMBER: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH AND SLOVENE
Tamara Kovačič
Mentor: doc. dr. Katja Plemenitaš
Maribor, januar 2016
Lektorica: Silvija Kuhar, uni. dipl. slov. in ang.
ZAHVALA
Zahvaljujem se mentorici doc. dr. Katji
Plemenitaš za strokovne nasvete, pomoč in
vodenje pri nastajanju magistrske naloge. Prav
tako se zahvaljujem svoji družini za njihovo
podporo in spodbude tekom celotnega študija.
Hvala.
Koroška cesta 160 2000 Maribor, Slovenija
IZJAVA
Podpisana Tamara Kovačič, rojena 10. 11. 1990, študentka Filozofske fakultete Univerze v
Mariboru, študijskega programa 2. stopnje Poučevanje angleščine in Slovenski jezik in
književnost, izjavljam, da je magistrsko delo z naslovom Linguistic Relativism in the Case of
Linguistic Gender and Number: a Comparison Between English and Slovene pri mentorici doc.
dr. Katji Plemenitaš avtorsko delo.
V magistrskem delu so uporabljeni viri in literatura korektno navedeni; teksti niso prepisani
brez navedbe avtorjev.
______________________________
(podpis študentke)
Kraj, Maribor
Datum, 15. 1. 2016
POVZETEK
Magistrska naloga obravnava jezikovni relativizem na primeru slovničnega spola in števila v
angleščini in slovenščini. Najprej je predstavljena t. i. Sapir-Whorf hipoteza, ki je bila ključna
za kasnejše oblikovanje jezikovnega relativizma. Hipoteza je naletela na številne odzive;
nekateri raziskovalci so se z njo strinjali, drugi ne. Namreč jezikovni relativizem izhaja iz
prepričanja, da jezik, ki ga nekdo govori, oblikuje njegovo percepcijo sveta. Poleg tega
magistrska naloga vsebuje tudi temeljne lastnosti slovničnega spola in števila tako v angleščini
kot v slovenščini. V empiričnem delu sledi analiza rezultatov eksperimenta, ki je bil izveden v
dveh skupinah: med naravnimi govorci angleščine in naravnimi govorci slovenščine. Pri
interpretaciji sta bili uporabljeni tako kvalitativna kot kvantitativna metoda. Na podlagi
rezultatov ne moremo podpreti Sapir-Whorf hipoteze: na primeru nalog v povezavi s
slovničnim spolom smo ugotovili, da jezik zgolj vpliva na percepcije, ne pa tudi določa.
Rezultati so pokazali, da je na slovnični spol vplival na odločitve pri določanju in razlikovanju
med moškim in ženskim. V primeru slovničnega števila pa smo ugotovili, da govorci
slovenščine niso bolj dovzetni za dvojino zgolj zaradi slovnične dvojine, ki je v angleščini ni.
Rezultati tako nakazujejo na omejen vpliv strukture jezika na jezikovno procesiranje, zaradi
česar le delno potrjujejo Sapir-Whorf hipotezo.
Ključne besede: Sapir-Whorf hipoteza, jezikovni relativizem, jezik in misel, slovnični spol in
število, eksperiment.
ABSTRACT
The master’s thesis deals with linguistic relativism in the case of grammatical gender and
number of two languages: English and Slovene. Firstly, the thesis presents the origins of Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis, which is of significant importance for the development of linguistic
relativism. The hypothesis met with a wide response amongst researchers: some agreed with
the ideas, whereas others did not. Linguistic relativism suggests that the language one speaks
shapes their perception of the world. In order to prove such statement, several experiments were
conducted. In addition, the thesis outlines the main characteristics of grammatical gender and
number in English and the Slovene language. The empirical part includes the analysis of the
results of the experiment that was conducted amongst native speakers of English and native
speakers of the Slovene language. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used for
the interpretation of the results. The results show limited influence of the structure of language
on the linguistic processing of the speakers, thus only partially supporting Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis. In the case of gender categorization the results showed that the Slovene speakers
were affected by the grammatical gender. In this respect we can say that language can influence
our perception of the world. In the case of grammatical number the Slovene speakers were not
more sensitive to the dual. The results thus show limited influence of the structure of language
on the linguistic processing of the speakers, thus only partially supporting the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis.
Key words: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, linguistic relativism, language and thought, grammatical
gender and number, experiment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
I. THEORETICAL PART ....................................................................................................... 3
1 FROM SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS TOWARDS LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM ........ 3
1.1 THE ORIGINS OF THE SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS ............................................ 4
1.1.1 Edward Sapir .......................................................................................................... 8
1.1.2 Benjamin Lee Whorf .............................................................................................. 9
1.2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS ...................................... 11
1.3 RECEPTION OF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS IN THE 20TH CENTURY ............. 16
1.4 RECEPTION OF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS IN THE 21ST CENTURY ............. 19
1.4 LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM ........................................................................................ 22
2 GENDER AND NUMBER ................................................................................................ 25
2.1 INFLUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE ................... 26
2.1.1 Grammatical gender and number in English language ........................................ 27
2.2 INFLUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SLOVENE LANGUAGE .................. 29
2.2.1 Grammatical number and gender in Slovene language ........................................ 29
3 PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTS............................................................................................ 31
II. EMPIRICAL PART .......................................................................................................... 37
4 EXPERIMENT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS THESIS ..................................... 37
5 THE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT ...................................... 39
5.1 TASK A ........................................................................................................................ 39
5.2 TASK B ........................................................................................................................ 50
5.3 TASK C ........................................................................................................................ 58
5.4 TASK D ....................................................................................................................... 66
6 FINDINGS BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS ....................................... 74
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 77
WORKS CITED ................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................... 81
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The development of linguistic relativism ................................................................... 3
Figure 2: Sasse’s continuum of individuality ........................................................................... 25
Figure 3: Squares ...................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4: Russian blues experiment ......................................................................................... 36
TABLE OF GRAPHS
Graph 1: Gendered voice of objects: chair ............................................................................... 39
Graph 2: Gendered voice of objects: palm tree ........................................................................ 40
Graph 3: Gendered voice of objects: plane .............................................................................. 41
Graph 4: Gendered voice of objects: flag ................................................................................. 42
Graph 5: Gendered voice of objects: lamp ............................................................................... 43
Graph 6: Gendered voice of objects: trafficlights .................................................................... 44
Graph 7: Gendered voice of objects: bottle .............................................................................. 45
Graph 8: Gendered voice of objects: umbrella ......................................................................... 46
Graph 9: Gendered voice of objects: table ............................................................................... 47
Graph 10: Gendered voice of objects: crown ........................................................................... 48
Graph 11: Gendered voice of objects: car ................................................................................ 49
Graph 12: Gendered characterization of nouns: war ................................................................ 50
Graph 13: Gendered characterization of nouns: spring ............................................................ 51
Graph 14: Gendered characterization of nouns: love ............................................................... 52
Graph 15: Gendered characterization of nouns: winter............................................................ 53
Graph 16: Gendered characterization of nouns: sea ................................................................. 54
Graph 17: Gendered characterization of nouns: storm ............................................................. 55
Graph 18: Gendered characterization of nouns: moon ............................................................. 56
Graph 19: Gendered characterization of nouns: music ............................................................ 57
Graph 20: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different colour .................................... 58
Graph 21: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different number .................................. 59
Graph 21: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different type ....................................... 60
Graph 23: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different colour .................................... 61
Graph 24: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different number .................................. 62
Graph 25: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different shape ..................................... 63
Graph 26: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different type ....................................... 64
Graph 27: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different number .................................. 65
Graph 28: The salient number: a picture of parents ................................................................. 66
Graph 29: The salient number: a picture of gloves .................................................................. 67
Graph 30: The salient number: a picture of shoes .................................................................... 68
Graph 31: The salient number: a picture of children................................................................ 69
Graph 32: The salient number: a picture of friends.................................................................. 70
Graph 33: The salient number: a picture of eyes...................................................................... 71
Graph 34: The salient number: a picture of socks .................................................................... 72
Graph 35: The salient number: a picture of boots .................................................................... 73
1
INTRODUCTION
I speak Spanish to God,
Italian to women, French to men,
and German to my horse.
(Charles V.)1
Language plays a significant role in people’s life: we use language to express ideas and to
communicate with others; but each language differs from another one in various ways. For
instance, they differ in writing, intonation, phonology and vocabulary. Furthermore, some
researchers believe that the language a person speaks influences their perception of reality. Does
this mean that people who speak English experience life differently from those who speak
Slovene?
Master’s thesis is separated into two parts: theoretical and empirical. Linguistic relativism
described in the first part of the thesis gives the answer to the question above. It was attributed
by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. The ideas of linguistic relativism are also known
as Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The two were the first who explicitly wrote about connections
between language and thought. Sapir started writing about connections between thought and
language in more direct way. Whorf was the one who developed Sapir’s idea into what is today
known as Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In Whorfian view language determines people’s thoughts.
As can be seen Whorf’s claim was stronger from the one Sapir made. Besides the origins and
the development of the hypothesis, theoretical part includes reception of their ideas both in the
20th and 21st century as their claims received a wide response; some researchers agreed with
them, while others did not. Definitions of linguistic relativism were presented in the thesis.
Next, we outlined the main characteristics of grammatical gender and number of both
languages: English and Slovene. Firstly, we described grammatical gender and number in
general. Then we outlined the most important historical changes that influenced the formation
and development of both grammatical aspects in both languages.
The last chapter in the theoretical part includes descriptions of several experiments that were
made in order to prove claims of linguistic relativism. Throughout these experiments
researchers tried to prove the relevance of the existence of connections between language and
1 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/charles_v.html (20. 12. 2015)
2
thought. Experiment was conducted among various groups of people speaking various
languages. Language affects various aspects of people’s perception: for instance of space, time,
substances and objects (Lera Boroditsky). One language can differ from another on the
description of time, special relations and grammatical distinctions of substances and in naming
of objects and grouping into grammatical categories, like gender (Lera Boroditsky). For this
reason various experiments were conducted and some of them are also described in this thesis.
For the purpose of this thesis, we conducted an experiment among native speakers of English
and native speakers of Slovene. There were forty-six participants whose mother tongue was
Slovene and twelve participant whose mother tongue was English. There is a great difference
in the number of participants of both groups as English speakers were less willing to participate
in the experiment. The English version of the experiment consisted of four tasks; two were
related to perception and gender and other two were related to perception and number. While
Slovene version had only three tasks: two were related to perception and gender and only one
to perception and number. Each separate task is described at the beginning of the empirical part.
Moreover, it includes the statistical presentation of the results that was done in SPSS
programme. Both, qualitative and quantitative methods were used for interpretation of the
results of the experiment.
3
I. THEORETICAL PART
1 FROM SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS TOWARDS LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM
The following scheme presents the development of linguistic relativism. The first germs of the
idea about relation between language and thought can be found in ancient Greece in Plato’s and
Aristotle’s writings; although not explicitly discussed. Notion of linguistic relativism and its
more extreme version – linguistic determinism (also named rationalism) became the main
interest of linguistic studies in the second half of 19th century. The widest response to this notion
happened in the late 1880’s and at the beginning of 20th century with Sapir and Whorf. They
are associated with so called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It is also the foundation for the
development of two linguistic aspects: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism. The
latter will be the main subject of the thesis.
COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS LINGUISTIC DETERMINISM LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM
SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS
SAPIR WHORF
BOAS
BACON LOCKE VICO Müller, Whitney, Clifford
HUMBOLDT ARISTOTLE PLATO
Figure 1: The development of linguistic relativism
CHOMSKY
4
1.1 THE ORIGINS OF THE SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS
First suggestions that language influences thought can be found in Plato’s writings; he was the
first who suggested that language has an impact on thought. Also in Aristotle’s writings a
similar idea about connection between language and thought is described implicitly2 (Klemenc,
2005, 14). The first who proposed the relation between language and culture was philosopher
Francis Bacon. He compared Romans and Greeks. The first ones were more practical-minded;
on the other hand, Greeks were interested in art and science. There were differences in their
languages too. Speakers of ancient Greek compounded words more freely than speakers of
Latin. However, no direct evidence was ever found to point out Bacon’s leaning towards idea
of language impact on thought. (Penn, 1972, 42-43) Vico was the first ‘linguistic historicist’
who contradicted Aristotelian logic and also Descartes (he thought that some abilities are
innate; therefore, not derived from experience); he developed the principle of cultural relativity,
which stands for the idea that our values are relative to the culture we belong to (Klemenc,
2005, 14).
John Locke believed that use can deceive us, which means that the way people name situation
influences their behaviour connected to the situations (Penn, 1972, 43). The last mentioned is
the basic idea of the so-called Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis. That is the reason why Locke is
considered to be a precursor of the Whorf-Korzybski hypothesis (Klemenc, 2005, 13-14).
Leibnitz had an opposite opinion about the relation between language and thought. He argued
that ideas are not acquired through language, but language is a tool for learning about processes
and workings in our mind. Therefore, thought is reflected in language. (Klemenc, 2005, 15)
Locke’s and Leibnitz’s ideas were completely opposite, but they were the first who argued
about ideas and innate ideas in connection to language. Locke admitted ‘intuitive knowledge’,
while Leibnitz noticed that ‘intuitive knowledge’ seems like innate knowledge. (Klemenc,
2005, 15)
2 Julia M. Penn sees Aristotle’s writings close to Whorf’s ideas, but Robert Dixon does not agree. He says that Aristotle started with some facts and later on studied language and logic related to these, while Whorf believed that language is given: non-language patterns are determined by language (Klemenc, 2005, 12).
5
Johan Georg Hamann claimed that reason is language and language is reason. He disagreed
with Locke who believed that language is an aid for knowledge. Hamann believed that language
is unexplainable; however, still very powerful force; it is the source of all our knowledge.
(Klemenc, 2005, 16) For him language is thought; therefore, thought cannot be anterior to
language. He claimed that sources for language are God and the way people think (Klemenc,
2005, 16). He was the first who identified thought and language completely and explicitly
(Klemenc, 2005, 16).
Herder, who is known as Hamann’s successor, put language firmly with the power of shaping
thoughts. He disagreed with Hamann that words and therefore language came from God; they
are simply present. Unlike animals, humans have a distinctive capacity of learning words;
which he named Besonnenheit; it enabled humans to create language. In his opinion, language
and thought are the same, but language was not created by thought. (Klemenc, 2005, 16-17)
Wilhelm von Humboldt is known as the great intellectual mover in the 19th century, particularly
in language studies and linguistic philosophy (Koerner, 2001, 43). He was linguist, philosopher,
diplomat, educational reformer and founder of the University of Berlin. He was a great admirer
of classical culture and classical languages. Until he was thirty-three his only linguist interests
were Latin and Greek. In 1799, when he travelled to Spain, his interests changed. He spent
some time with Basque people and was overtaken by their culture and landscape; moreover,
their language aroused his curiosity. After he returned from his journey he did a lot of reading
about Basques. Later he returned to Pyrenees and did some fieldwork. He soon learned how
different the structure of Basque language is from what was then called natural form of
grammar. This revelation made him realised that not all languages were made in the image of
Latin. (Deutscher, 2010, 133-134)
Later on, Humboldt tried to find more descriptions of even more remote languages. At that
time, almost nothing was published. In 1802 Humboldt travelled to Rome where he studied
manuscripts of South and Central American languages that Jesuit missionaries wrote when
being on their missions. (Deutscher, 2010, 135) After his experience with Basque and after
reading these manuscripts he wrote, “/…/ what violence missionaries exerted both on
themselves and on the languages, in order to force them into the narrow rules of Latin
6
grammar3.” (Deutscher, 2010, 135). Humboldt rewrote many of these grammars in order to
understand how these languages work. His work was based on the second-hand information
about American Indian languages – a century later Sapir developed so called first-hand
knowledge about remote languages. (Deutscher, 2010, 135)
Humboldt argued, “The difference between languages is not only in sounds and signs but in
worldview.” (Deutscher, 2010, 135). He also claimed that grammatical differences reflect pre-
existing differences in thought and are causative for moulding these differences (Deutscher,
2010). He also wrote, “/…/ language is the forming organ of thought /…/ Thinking is dependent
on language in general but to a certain extent on each individual language.” (Deutscher, 2010,
136). Deutscher marked this idea as seductive.
He believed that worldview of some people differ from worldview of other people. He said that
language and thought are identical. This raise the question of how the language was created.
Similarly to Herder, Humboldt believed that language was simply there, it just appeared. For
him the source for language is in seeing language as an organism4. (Klemenc, 2005)
Humboldt never stated that the language we speak – our mother tongue – can totally impose
our thoughts. Deutscher states that the latter was overlooked with Whorf a century later; as any
thought can be expressed in any language. Humboldt argued that the real difference between
languages is in what the language “encourages and stimulates its speakers to do from its own
inner force” and not “what a language is able to express” (Deutscher, 2010, 136). What “inner
force” is and what ideas it “stimulates” was never really identified in Humboldt’s writings.
(Deutscher, 2010, 136)
Humboldt believed that “language is not the only verifiable and a priori framework of
cognition” (Steiner, 1978, 141). Our worldview is defined by this frames; therefore “different
linguistic frames define different world-images” (Steiner, 1978, 141).
3 When missionaries were on their missions in America, they described remote languages. These descriptions consisted of a list of Latin paradigms and allegedly corresponding forms in native languages (Deutscher, 2010, 133). 4 This is similar to Geist, which stands for some sort of spirit, collective thought (Klemenc, 2005, 18). On the one hand, it suggests that thought is not possible without language; on the other hand, it suggests that nation’s collective thought was created by language. This concept also says that Geist is language (Klemenc, 2005, 18). This raise questions of whether thought is not possible without language and based on fact that Geist is language does language creates language? (Klemenc, 2005, 18).
7
Many followed Humboldt’s lead, one of them was also Oxford professor of philology Max
Müller, who in 1873 declared that “the words in which we think are channels of thought which
we have not dug ourselves, but which we found ready made for us.” (Deutscher, 2010, 136).
His nemesis, the American linguist William Whitney, agreed with Müller in that:
/…/ every single language has its own peculiar framework of established distinctions,
its shapes and forms of thought, into which, for the human being who learns that
language as his mother-tongue, is cast the content and product of his mind, his store of
impressions /…/ his experience and knowledge of the world.” (Deutscher, 2010, 137).
Mathematician and philosopher William Kingdon Clifford added that “It is the thought of past
humanity imbedded in our language which makes Nature to be what she is for us.” (Deutscher,
2010, 137). In the 19th century this statements were only rhetorical flourishes, while in the 20th
century they developed into specific claims about influence of language on the mind.
(Deutscher, 2010, 137)
Franz Boas taught in Berlin for a short period of time; in late 1880’s he moved to the United
States. He is known as the founder of large school of linguistic research. He was an
anthropologist; however, he had a great interest in language. He developed a method of
transcribing languages of American Indian tribes of North America. The latter is seen as his
most important contribution to American linguistics. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 3) He
recorded the languages, after that he tried to determine the historical affiliations of various
American Indian language groups (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 3). He suggested that
American Indian languages did not develop “alone”, in isolation. Similarities among these
languages were the result of linguistic contact among people:
While I am not inclined to state categorically that the areas of distribution of phonetic
phenomena, of morphological characteristics, and of groups based on similarities of
vocabularies are absolutely distinct, I believe this question must be answered
empirically before we undertake to solve the general problem of the history of modern
American languages. If it should prove true, as I believe it will, that all these different
areas do not coincide, then the conclusion seems inevitable that the different languages
must have exerted a far-reached influence on one another If this point of view is correct,
then we have to ask ourselves in how far the phenomena of acculturation extend also
8
over the domain of language. (Boas, 1940[1920], 215; cited in Joseph, Love and Taylor,
2001, 4)
Boas was the one who had the greatest influence on Sapir and his ideas about language and
thought. As mentioned before he had a great interest in linguistics; moreover, he developed his
skills as a descriptive linguist by self-teaching. Later he was outshone by his protégé Sapir, who
was also known as the linguist of Boasian anthropology. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 4)
Ernst Frideryk Konrad Koerner believes that Humboldt had a great impact on Boas’ linguistic
ideas, although Humboldt is not mentioned often in Boas’ writings (Klemenc, 2005, 21). Boas
used Humboldt’s concept of inner form for explaining the reasons for diversity of American
Indian languages (Klemenc, 2005, 21).
1.1.1 Edward Sapir
Sapir was born in Germany in 1884. His parents emigrated when he was a young boy.
Moreover, teacher who shaped his approach to language, Franz Boas5, also emigrated from
Germany (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 2). He used to be Sapir′s teacher at Columbia
University. Sapir became known as “the linguist of Boasian anthropology”6 (Joseph, Love and
Taylor, 2001, 4). At the beginning of 20th century, he was one of the most known and eminent
student of American Indian languages (he studied the Wishram language, spoken in
Washington; Takelma, spoken in Oregon; Yana, spoken in California; Paiute, spoken in Utah)7.
Sapir graduated from Columbia University in 1904, when he was twenty years old, in
Germanics, more generally in the ancient Indo-European languages. (Sebeok, 1967, 490) He
began his career in the Canadian National Museum at Ottawa, where he was a chief of the
Division of Anthropology for the period from 1910 to 1925. It is noted that those were sad years
for Sapir; scholarly solitude, hard work and yearning for friendship. For these reasons he often
visited former fellow graduate student Paul Radin and his teacher Franz Boas. During that time
spent in Canada he wrote poetry and did some musical studies (Sebeok, 1967, 490). In 1925
5 For short period of time Boas taught in Berlin; however, in the late 1980s he moved to the United States. He was specialized in the anthropology of North America (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 2). 6 Sapir had a reputation of one of the most brilliant living anthropologist (for his linguistic work and his writings) (Sebeok, 1967, 491). 7 Deutscher named even more native languages that Sapir studied: Chinook, Navajo, Tlingit, Sarcee, Kutchin, Ingalik and Hupa (Deutscher, 2010, 138).
9
Sapir moved to the University of Chicago and six years later in 1931 to Yale (Joseph, Love and
Taylor, 2001, 4).
His most popular book Language was published in 1921, where he wrote about social and
cultural nature of human speech (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 4):
′Speech is a human activity that varies without assignable limit as we pass from social
group to social group, because it is a purely historical heritage of the group, the product
of long-continued social usage. It varies as all creative effort varies – not as consciously,
perhaps, but nonetheless as truly as do the religions, the beliefs, the customs, and the
arts of different people. Walking is an organic, an instinctive, function (not, of course,
itself an instinct); speech is a non-instinctive, acquired, ‘cultural’ function.′ (Sapir, 1921,
2; cited in Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 1)
It is interesting that Sapir wrote cultural in quotation marks, which he did not explain. In Joseph,
Love and Taylor (2001, 5) they explain this as followed: Sapir did not want readers to imply
cultural to national spirit, rather cultural should be understood as intellectual development,
which is linked to the language structure (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 5).
Edward Sapir is mostly associated with so called Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which will be
presented and described in details in chapter 1.2 (The Development of the Idea in Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis). For Sapir it was essential how language shapes societies and culture (Joseph, Love
and Taylor, 2001, 16).
1.1.2 Benjamin Lee Whorf
He was born in Winthrop, Massachusetts, on April 24, 1987. He had two brothers and all of
them were so called children of his father; Benjamin was the intellectual, more bookish and
idea-cantered, his brother John became a well-known artist and his youngest brother Richard
became an actor and director in theatre and movies. Their father was all three: intellectual, artist
and dramatist. Presumably Benjamin chose to study chemical engineering because of his early
experiences with chemicals; he loved to perform experiments with liquids and different colours.
Soon after his graduation he was selected as a trainee in fire prevention engineering. Later he
10
was employed by the same company, where he worked for twenty-two years. The position he
had, enabled him to travel; his business trips were often combined with science. He was not
appreciated only for his work as fire prevention inspector, but also for his accomplishments in
anthropology and linguistics; although, he was neither trained anthropologist nor linguist. Due
to this he was often offered academic or scholarly research positions, which he always refused
and stayed in his business pursuits. Benjamin Lee Whorf married in 1920 with Celia Inez
Peckham, by whom he had three children. (Sebeok, 1967, 563-568)
He was known as an avid reader. It is written that his extensive reading led him to interest in
linguistics. For instance, Whorf′s father did the stage design for a play about a Maya princess.
Benjamin get to know Maya culture, and became interested in Maya hieroglyphs and their
meaning. He was also interested in botany; he learned English and Latin names for over
thousand plants and trees. Moreover, he was also interested in astrology. In 1925 he completed
130,000-word script on the conflict between science and religion. From this is clear that Whorf
was interested in various science topics from different fields. (Stuart Chase, 1955, v, x;
Foreword to Language, Thought and Reality, 1956, 6-7)
Whorf studied on his own about general linguistics and linguistic field methods. However, he
met Edward Sapir during Sapir′s time in Yale. Whorf enrolled Sapir′s course in American
Indian linguistics. He studied for higher degree, although he never obtained it, as he took
courses only for his intellectual interest. During that time he learned about linguistic theories
and techniques. He got in contact with other Sapir′s students and in 1937-38 he became a
lecturer in Anthropology at Yale. (Stuart Chase, 1955, v, x; Foreword to Language, Thought
and Reality, 1956, 15-16)
He is most known for his researches and studies of Maya hieroglyphs and Hopi language – a
distant relative of Aztec (Stuart Chase, 1955, v, x; Foreword to Language, Thought and Reality,
1956, 16-17). He was never a linguist; nevertheless, he is most famous for his theory called
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – how our thinking is determined by language we speak (Joseph, Love
and Taylor, 2001, 44). The latter will be described in the following chapter.
11
1.2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS
In chapter 1.1.1 we enlightened some aspects of Sapir’s life. For his research work on native
languages, acquaintance with Franz Boas was of extreme importance8. Sapir realised that
Germanic philology had not taught his enough, that there is more to learn about languages9
(Deutscher, 2010, 138). Therefore, he studied various native languages, the result of which were
“analysis of unmatched clarity and depth” (Deutscher, 2010, 138). Radical trend in philosophy
of the early 20th century and the excitement of discovering unusual and exotic grammars pushed
Sapir towards formulation of his linguistic relativity principle (Deutscher, 2010, 138).
In Sapir′s most popular book Literature written in 1921 he argued about connections between
language and culture10. He developed a theory about language changes through time. (Joseph,
Love and Taylor, 2001, 5) He did not agree on the fact about the production of speech involving
a number of unconscious functions in human brains and vocal tract. He understood speech as
an “extremely complex and ever-shifting network of adjustments – in the brain, in the nervous
system, and in the articulating and auditory organs – tending towards the desired end of
communication.” (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 5). The desire, he mentioned, is neither
physical nor mechanic, it is the cultural product of a society in which a person lives (Joseph,
Love and Taylor, 2001, 5).
In 1923 Sapir read a book entitled The Meaning of Meaning (1923 by C. K. Ogden and I. A.
Richards); it had a great impact on him, particularly on his thinking about language. The authors
of mentioned book had argued that language influences our thinking and our thoughts, but in
negative way, as it prevents thought from being logical. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 7)
Right after reading Ogden and Richards Sapir realized that thought-grooves might be an
obstacle to logical thought (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 7):
Human beings /…/ are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has
become the medium of expression for their society. /…/ the ‘real’ world is to a large
extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. /…/ We see and hear
and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our
8 Deutscher described their meeting as life-changing meeting (Deutscher, 2010, 138). 9 »/…/ everything to learn about languages /…/« (Deutscher, 2010, 138). 10 Already mentioned in chapter 1.1.1.
12
community predispose certain choices of interpretation. From this standpoint we may
think of language as the symbolic guide to culture. (Sapir, 1949, 162; cited in Joseph,
Love and Taylor, 2001, 7)
In the book Literature Sapir described language as cultural, but he was worried that it could
have been wrongly associated with Romantic meaning of word cultural. Sapir’s researches are
important due to the question whether thinking is possible without language. He argued that
thought requires language while language does not require thought11. Language does not
embody thought, but thought is always an outgrowth – the product – of language. (Joseph, Love
and Taylor, 2001, 8-9)
Philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote about the influence
language had on metaphysics. For instance, in 1924 Russell wrote: “Language misleads us both
by its vocabulary and by its syntax. We must be on our guard in both respects if our logic is not
lead to a false metaphysic.” (Deutscher, 2010, 139). Sapir understood this claim as following:
mother tongue has an influence on everyday thoughts and perception. He even wrote that
language has is like a tyrant that controls our orientation in the world12. (Deutscher, 2010, 139)
A century ago scientists like Humboldt also made similar claims, but none of them actually
supported them with any evidence. In 1931 Sapir gave an example for how a specific linguistic
difference could affect speaker’s thoughts. He gave an example of stone moving through space.
When we see the movement of a stone, we divide this event into two concepts; one is a stone
and the other is an action of falling – the stone falls. He compared our way of describing such
event with the way in Nootka language which is spoken on Vancouver Island. In Nootka
language there is no verb that could correspond to our fall. Instead of that they use a special
verb to stone which refers to a stone in that particular motion. To describe that a stone is falling
they combine the verb with the element down. So in English we say the stone falls in Nootka
this would sound something like [it] stones down. (Deutscher, 2010, 139) Sapir wrote that
examples of “incommensurable analysis of experience in different languages make very real to
us a kind of relativity that is generally hidden from us by our naïve acceptance of fixed habits
11 When someone says: “I had a good breakfast this morning” this is not the result of our ‘working thoughts’ (in the throes of laborious thought), but throughout language one is transmitting a memory (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 8). 12 »/…/ tyrannical hold that linguistic form has upon our orientation in the world /…/« (Deutscher, 2010, 139).
13
of speech /…/ This relativity of concepts or, as it might be called, the relativity of form of
thought.” (Deutscher, 2010, 139).
Sapir was convinced that our thought depends on language; the idea became known as Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis which stands for presumption that our thinking, and therefore our thought,
depend on language one speaks. Grammatical categories such as number, gender, case and tense
are the case of our perception of the world through the language we speak13. Sapir′s student
Benjamin Lee Whorf developed the idea of connections between language and thinking into
systematic doctrine. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 10)
Sapir argued about personality in connection to the understanding of human experience. In one
of his encyclopaedia article, he wrote about the importance of language in society and in
shaping one’s personality. He wrote that “language is a great force of socialization, possibly
the greatest that exists” (Sapir 1933, 15-18; cited in Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 12).
Furthermore, social intercourse is impossible without language. Additionally, language – the
way we speak, the colour of our voice, the vocabulary we use, sentences we construct and our
pronunciation – shapes one’s personality:
The fundamental quality of one’s voice, the phonetic patterns of speech, the speed and
relative smoothness of articulation, the length and build of the sentences, the character
and range of the vocabulary, the scholastic consistency of the words used, the readiness
with which words respond to the requirements of the social environment, in particular
the suitability of one’s language and language habits of the person addressed – all these
are so many complex indicators of the personality. (Sapir, 1933, 15-18; cited in Joseph,
Love and Taylor, 2001, 13)
Sapir did not finish any of his series of books, the one entitled The Psychology of Cultures was
published in 1994. It represents compilation of his lectures on the subject of language, culture-
specific and individualistic psychological points of view (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 13):
- the structures of language are real and they exist in psychology of speakers;
13 “Language … 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 … Such categories as number, gender, case, tense … are not so much discovered in experience as imposed upon it because of the tyrannical hold that linguistic form has upon our orientation in the world.” (Sapir, 1931, 578; from Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 10).
14
- all languages has some common characteristics;
- the structure of language one speaks shapes his/her thoughts; therefore;
- cultures with same language share a way of thinking;
- cultures are established by symbolic values, that is meanings;
- individual variations that appear in language constitute personality.
Whorf is similarly as Sapir known for the view (so called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) that the way
we think is determined by the language we use. He believed that language may be responsible
for categorization of our experience in ways people are not aware of. He named these
categorizations ‘cryptotypes14’. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 44-45)
In comparison to Sapir, Whorf made wilder claims about relation between language and
thought. He believed that our mother tongue influences our thoughts, perception and even the
physics of the cosmos. He wrote that the grammar of each language “is not merely a reproducing
instrumental for voicing ideas, but rather is itself the sharper of ideas, the program and guide
for the individual’s mental activity, for his analysis of impressions /…/ We dissect nature along
lines laid down by our native languages.” (Deutscher, 2010, 140-141)
Whorf studied an American Indian language named Hopi; his view of the relation between
language and thinking was somehow based on comparison between American Indian language
and average European language. Hopi live in northeastern Arizona and they are in particular
known for the so called “snake dance”; the performers dance with live snake between their
teeth. At the end snake is released. In this way Hopi spread to their peers that they live in
harmony with the spiritual and natural world. However, Whorf made them famous for another
reason which is that their language has no concept of time. (Deutscher, 2010, 142)
Whorf never visited Hopi people in Arizona, all his findings are based on conversations he had
with one Hopi informant who lived in New York City. At the beginning of researching, Whorf
claimed that Hopi time has zero dimensions, which means that it cannot be given a number
greater than one. (Deutscher, 2010, 142) Sapir wrote that Hopi do not say “I stayed five days”,
14 “Cryptotypes stand in contrast to overt grammatical categorizations /…/, such as the distinction between present and past tense in English finite verbs” (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 46). Joseph, Love and Taylor (2001, 46) argue that Whorf’s qualification of term cryptotype is incorrect. Whorf argues that the language forces a speaker to make the categorizations; even though, the speaker is not aware of that – it is not something he/she would consciously wish or intend (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 47).
15
instead they say “I left on the fifth day”. Word referring to this kind of time cannot have plural
(in given example this word is day). Based on this findings, Sapir concluded that to speakers of
average European language time is a motion in space, while to the Hopi time is not motion in
the space, rather “a ‘getting later’ of everything that has ever been done” (Deutscher, 2010,
142). In Whorf’s opinion, Hopi would not understand idiom “tomorrow is another day”,
because for them the return of the day means the same as the return of the same person and if
one says another, they would understand this as different person, consequently different day.
(Deutscher, 2010, 142)
Based on his analysis Whorf said that Hopi language has no reference to time, as it does not
contain any grammatical forms, constructions or expressions that refer to time or to past, present
or future; therefore, speakers of Hopi do not have any notion of time “in which everything in
the universe proceeds at an equal rate.” (Deutscher, 2010, 142). These claims made Whorf
famous, while no one else had previously been able to imagine, nor had been so bold to make
such statements. Whorf ideas quickly spread among linguists and beyond them. (Deutscher,
2010, 143)
He compared how the idea of time is interpreted in both, Hopi and average European languages.
His findings are really bold and straightforward:
- Hopi has no general idea of time; time is not understood as a linear dimension and not
as something that can be measured or divided into units.
- This idea is also reflected in the language, as in Hopi they do not have any words,
grammatical structures or expressions that would directly refer to time.
- In average European language we distinguish between two primal concepts: time and
space. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 46-47)
Whorf extended Sapir’s ideas and “applied them in discussion of correlation between language
and non-language patterns” (Dixon, 1965, 99). He was convinced that each speaker possesses
a set of concepts, which depend on language (and its grammatical form) the speaker uses
(Dixon, 1965, 99). Whorf established the relation between language and thinking; furthermore,
how language influences and forms our thoughts (Stuart Chase, 1955, v, x; Foreword to
Language, Thought and Reality, 1956).
16
The hypothesis developed into two directions; one described as the mild hypothesis and the
other as extreme one. The first suggests that language only influences thought, while the
extreme hypothesis maintains that language determines thought. (Penn, 1972, 13)
Joseph, Love and Taylor (2001, 54) named the two variations of the hypothesis a bit differently
from the one described above. They distinguished between a strong linguistic determinism and
a weaker linguistic relativism. Linguistic determinism15 suggests that the language we speak
determines the kinds of knowledge and the modes of understanding we can aspire to (Joseph,
Love and Taylor, 2001, 54). Meanwhile, linguistic relativism defends the position that “the
thought of at least its more unreflective speakers will tend to run in linguistically preordained
channels.” (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 54).
1.3 RECEPTION OF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS IN THE 20TH CENTURY
Amorey Gethin’s response to Sapir’s ideas about connections between language and thought
was critical and disapproving. Sapir’s idea in Gethin’s view appears to be vulnerable, as it can
be understood as followed; when a person speaks, the words they use are determined by
something that is not words:
/…/ when I say something (or think or say words in my head), what is it that decides
what I say? Why do I say “duck” and not “tiger”? What “chooses” that particular word?
It is my thought, in this case the picture in my head of a duck” (Gethin 1990, 195; cited
in Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 9)
Gethin continues, that sometimes a person may confuse the thing which ‘decides what I say’
with a word (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 55). Occasionally, it happens that a person thinks
about something that he/she cannot remember the word for16.
15 Whorf occasionally followed linguistic determinism: “How does … a network of language, culture and behaviour come about historically? Which was first: the language or the cultural norm? In main [sic] they have grown up together, constantly influencing each other. But in this partnership the nature of language is the factor that limits free plasticity and rigidifies channels of development in the more autocratic way. This is so because a language is a system, not just an assemblage of norms. Large systematic outlines can change to something really new only very slowly, while many other cultural innovations are made with comparative quickness.” (Whorf, 1956, 156; from Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 55). 16 “There must be quite a few people, for instance, who have thought about the thing that has the word pelmet associated with it, without knowing that word” (Gethin, 1990, 195; from Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 9).
17
Sapir responded that we must distinguish between thought and imagery. He said that what
Gethin described as thought was actually an image. He admits that images may be pre-
linguistic; however, once mental operation on images begins, words appear by necessity.
Definitions about language are well established, but there is a problem when it comes to the
concept of thought (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001). Gethin added that physicists like Einstein
and Sakharov both said that they did not think in language (Gethin, 1990, 198; cited in Joseph,
Love and Taylor, 2001, 10). This point out another claim, in which thought is independent of
language. They believe in existence of modes of reasoning that are not tied to language. (Joseph,
love and Taylor, 2001, 9-10)
Kroeber’s interpretation of culture and its detachment from the physical reality was
unacceptable for Sapir. In Kroeger’s view cultures are produced by individuals, while society
and culture are two different aspects of the same entity. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 11)
Some studies were made, but are disapproving of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. For instance,
Osgood (1963) believed that people, no matter their culture or language, share “a common
meaning system and organize their experience in along similar symbolic dimensions” (Osgood,
1963, 34; cited in Penn, 1972, 17).
In book, published in 1958 entitled Some Things Worth Knowing: A Generalist’s Guide to
Useful Knowledge was written that English language enables laymen to understand scientific
concept of time as fourth dimension. As in Hopi language they do not have any trouble with
time and fourth dimension as Hopi Indians do not treat time as a flow. (Deutscher, 2010, 143)
Few years later an anthropologist compared Hopi comprehension of time as an aspect of being
– he said that Hopi understand time as the now-moment, which for them is both past and future.
Hopi do not additionally distinguish the present. The latter is lacked in our languages too;
although, we think we have it, as this is the consequence of our linguistic habits17. (Deutscher,
2010, 143)
In 1983 linguist Ekkehart Malotki wrote a book called Hopi Time. He did an extensive work on
Hopi language. On the first page of his book Malotki wrote two sentences, one of them was
Whorf’s quotation on Hopi language and its speakers’ comprehension of time; the other one
17 “/…/ time seems to be that aspect of being which the knife-edge of now as it is in the process of becoming both ‘past’ and ‘future’. Viewed thus, we have no present either, but our linguistic habits make us feel as if we had.” (Deutscher, 2010, 143)
18
was combined with sentence in Hopi language and its translation into English (Deutscher, 2010,
143):
“After long and careful study and analysis, the Hopi language is seen to contain no
words, grammatical forms, constructions, or expressions that refer directly to what we
call ‘time’” (Benjamin Lee Whorf, “An American Indian Model of the Universe,” 1936)
pu’antsa pay qavongvaqw pay su’its talavay kuyvansat, pàasatham pu’ pam piw maana
taatayna
Then indeed, the following day, quite early in the morning at the hour when people pray
to the sun, around that time then, he woke up the girl again (Ekkehart Malotki, Hopi
Field Notes, 1980)
As can be seen, Malotki refuted Whorf’s claim that Hopi do not have general idea of time:
Whorf claimed that in Hopi language there are no references for time, i.e. words, time
expressions etc. On the contrary, Malotki listed numerous expressions for time in Hopi
language; moreover, he also described tense and aspect system on its so called “timeless verbs”
(Deutscher, 2010, 143).
The principle of linguistic relativity or with other words Sapir-Whorf hypothesis sank into
disrepute among some respectable linguists. However, philosophers, theologians and literary
critics continued to develop the idea and praise it as plausible. (Deutscher, 2010, 144) For
instance, the statement “that the tense system of a language determines the speaker’s
understanding of time” proved to be resilient (Deutscher, 2010, 144). In book After Babel
written by George Steiner in 1975, he followed many thinkers and their beliefs that ontological
concepts like time and eternity are related to grammatical possibilities and constrains
(Deutscher, 2010, 144). This means that our comprehension of time, for instance, somehow
depends on the language we use. Steiner claimed that our understanding of time “as a linear
sequence and vectorial motion” derives from the Indo-European verb system (Deutscher, 2010,
144). However, Hebrew never developed such tense distinctions; Biblical Hebrew is known to
have tenseless verbal system. Steiner pointed out questions whether that language aspect had
influenced the evolution of Greek and Hebrew thought or whether it reflected pre-existing
thought patterns. (Deutscher, 2010, 144) He concluded that “the influence must go in both
directions”, which means that verbal system influences thought and thought influences verbal
19
system in various relations (Deutscher, 2010, 144). For Steiner “we can be defined as the
mammal that uses the future of the verb ‘to be’,” which means that the future tense shapes our
concept of time and rationality (Deutscher, 2010, 145). Future tense gives people hopes for the
time to come and without it we are to end as he put it “in Hell, /…/ in a grammar without
futures.” (Deutscher, 2010, 145).
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis developed into two positions: linguistic relativism and linguistic
determinism. The first one is known as a mild version of the hypothesis, whereas the other one
is known as a strong version. Several empirical tests, that were made, showed how significant
it is to distinguish between the two positions of hypothesis (Penn, 1972):
1) Lenneberg and Brown (1954) prepared experiments in which participated English speakers
and monolingual Navaho speakers. The experiments showed how names of colours influence
cognition (Brown and Lenneberg, 1954, 454-462; cited in Penn, 1972, 16)
2) Lenneberg (1957) used colours in his study. The study showed that English speakers were
better in re-recognizing the quality of colours which are easily named in English. The study
supports the idea that language influences cognition. (Lenneberg, 1957, 1-12; cited in Penn,
1972, 16)
3) Carroll and Casagrande made two experiments with Hopi and Navaho speakers. They
believed that results show that language influences behaviour; language make a significant
difference in behaviour. Throughout the experiment they supported the milder version of the
hypothesis. (Carroll and Casagrande, 31; cited in Penn, 1972, 16)
1.4 RECEPTION OF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Joseph, Love and Taylor (2001) pointed out weaknesses of Sapir’s ideas. Sapir believed that
“reality of language structure lies with the speaker” (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 14). They
wondered whether speaker’s intuition is never wrong, especially in cases when speaker may
misunderstand or misanalyse some aspects of their linguistic usage. Further on, they argued
about the term culture that Sapir used in his writings:
20
/…/ if the value of all cultures is purely relative, how do we justify the activities of
anthropology and linguistics, which after all engage in a form of ‘scientific’ analysis
that is historically the product of a particular group of cultures and whose special value
has been established in conjunction with the political hegemony of those cultures?
(Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 14)
They thought that the idea that language shapes our thoughts is too ambitious and cannot be
really proven. They said that such statement would have been more valid, if language had
existed in some uniform state/form, meaning that all words and all grammatical features would
have the same meaning for all the speakers. However, a language like this does not exist and
sometimes people argue about only one word meaning. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 14)
Moreover, Sapir saw language, culture and personality existing at the same time, meaning all
three being co-occurrent and continuous on the universal, social and individual level of
existence. Such general ideology needs scientific analysis which demands for these three levels
to be separated and not understood as one as Sapir did. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 14)
We already described how Sapir developed his idea of relation between language and thought
(page 19). Guy Deutscher believes that Sapir’s theory stands on thin ice, because of “the cozy
vagueness of philosophical slogans and /…/ freezing drafts of specific linguistic examples”
(Deutscher, 2010, 139). Sapir investigated a linguistic problem from philosophical point of
view. Deutscher agreed that there is a difference between the Nootka “it stones down” and
English “the stone falls”; however, he questioned whether this necessarily means difference in
perception of that particular event or just a different way of describing it (Deutscher, 2010,
139). Further on, he also questioned whether this means that the fusion of verb and noun in
Nootka language implies that the speakers of Nootka do not separate images of the action and
the object (Deutscher, 2010, 140). Deutscher additionally explained his doubts on another
example – on English phrase “it rains”. He said that the construction of this phrase is similar as
of the construction in Nootka expression “it stones down”. The reason for similarity is in
combining the action (falling) and the object (water drops) into verbal concept. In Deutscher’s
mother tongue, action and object are kept apart – “rain falls”, the same happens in Slovene
language (“dež pada”). He wondered whether the grammar of the language we speak prevents
us to distinct between watery substance and the action of falling, or perhaps are variations in
describing one event bounded to grammatical organization. (Deutscher, 2010, 140). As we can
21
see Deutscher did not give us a straight answer, at the beginning he only expresses his doubts
towards Sapir’s theory.
Today, those who are interested in study of language and mind or in language corporated in
culture, turn to Sapir’s writings. Constructionists’ ideas result from Sapir’s notion about relation
between language structures and mental structures. The constructionists deal with language
acquisition, which focuses on how language-learning environment affects children’s mental
abilities. From this point of view, constructionists seek for knowledge in cognitive linguistics.
(Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 15)
Whorf believed that the way one speaks may determine how one thinks. This kind of
connections between language and thinking have submerged equivalent; language categorize
experience in way that speaker is not aware of it. He called these categorizations cryptotypes
(Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 45). Whorf gave an example: the contribution of voiced and
voiceless interdental fricatives in English. However, Joseph, Love and Taylor (2001) agree that
this was not good example. Whorf argued that definite article, demonstratives, certain adverbs
and conjunctions, the second person singular pronouns and possessives represent “the
cryptotype of demonstrative particles” (Whorf, 1956, 76; cited in Joseph, Love and Taylor,
2001, 46). Joseph, Love and Taylor (2001) do not see anything cryptic in Whorf’s classification.
Cryptotypes are opposite to grammatical categorizations. For instance ‘past’ is an overt
category as it is morphologically marked. The word form beginning with th is no less overt
while it is phonologically marked. They agree that th independently does not have any meaning;
therefore, speakers usually do not notice it. However, they are not completely sure what Whorf
meant by cryptotype18. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 46)
Some researchers accused Whorf of bolstering his claims about relation between language and
thought, for which he did not use good examples of translations. Whorf gave an example of the
Nootka sentence tlih – is- ma, which he translated into moving pointwise – on the beach – it is
(in sense: the boat is grounded on the beach). Nootka language has no word for boat. From the
translation it seems that Nootka do not think of situation as for instance English speakers; but
18 Whorf gave an example: place-names in English are cryptotype because on the outside they resemble other nouns and they cannot be reduced to pronouns after prepositions in, at, to, from (Whorf, 1956, 92; cited in Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 46). One can say ‘I live in it’ and by it refers back to for instance that house or the basement. But you cannot use it in cases where it refers back to Williamsburg or Westphalia (Whorf, 1956, 70–1; cited in Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 46).
22
of one material object being (the boat) in stationary relation to another material object (the
beach) (Whorf, 1956, 236; cited in Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 53). Based on this Joseph,
Love and Taylor (2001) wonder whether Whorf did not confused thought with its verbal
formulation. (Joseph, Love and Taylor, 2001, 53)
Deutscher (2010) also questioned plausibility of Whorf’s ideas. Whorf like Sapir had studied
American Indian languages. He suggested that languages in which the fusion of noun and verb
is frequent (like Nootka) impose a “monistic view of nature” rather than “bipolar division of
nature” (Deutscher, 2010, 141). Whorf wrote (Deutscher, 2010, 141):
Some languages have means of expression in which the separate terms are not so
separate as in English but flow together into plastic synthetic creations. Hence such
languages, which do not paint the separate-object picture of the universe to the same
degree as English and its sister tongues, point toward possible new types of logic and
possible new cosmical pictures.
Whorf directly suggested that the language we speak determines our perception of the world
(“new types of logic”). Deutscher (2010, 141) warned that one might be misled by Whorf’s
writing (“find yourself swept away by the prose”) and might believe in his ideas. In such case,
one should remember the phrase “it rains” (Deutscher’s response to Sapir’s theory on page 19).
The latter combines the raindrops and the action of falling. He questions whether our so-called
separate-object of the universe is affected in any way. Does this mean that those who use the
phrase “rain falls” think differently from those who use the phrase “it rains”? Does our logic of
how the world functions differ for this reasons? Again, Deutscher does not give any
straightforward answers, but leaves it to a reader to decide how plausible Whorf’s idea is.
1.4 LINGUISTIC RELATIVISM
Linguistic relativism was attributed by Sapir and Whorf, who claimed that language shapes
thought. According to them, different languages enable speakers various linguistic
representations of reality; the result of which is different perception of the world among
speakers of different languages (Pae 2011, 49). Linguistic relativism claims that there is relation
between language and cognition; however, “linguistic relativity does not support
undirectionality or causality from cognition to language.” (Pae 2011, 49). Apart from linguistic
23
relativity linguistic determinism suggests that cognitive processes and thoughts are causally
linked with language structure (Pae 2011, 49). Explained in other words, linguistic determinism
that the structure of a language determines thought and various cognitive processes, such as
memorization, categorization and perception.
Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (2003) emphasized how important language is in
understanding abstract, rational and spatial information (Pae 2011, 50). The gap between
language and thought and the structural language differences result in different interpretations
of the world (Pae 2011, 50). Based on this, three categories of language were proposed:
language as lens, language as tool kit and language as category maker. The first one posits that
language one speaks shapes his perception of the world. The second view (language as tool kit)
concerns whether the language one speaks enables this person to represent and rationalized
symbolic and belief systems. The last one (language as category maker) relates to whether the
language one speaks influences on how one makes category distinctions. (Pae 2011, 50)
According to John A. Lucy (1997, 291), linguistic relativism proposes that the language we
speak influences the way we think about reality. The question is how the language influences
thought. Three types of levels were established in order to classify potential influences of
language on thought. The first level is semiotic. It deals with questions whether “having a code
with a symbolic component transforms thinking” (Lucy 1997, 292). The second one is structural
level and it questions whether different meanings affect thinking about reality. The third one is
functional and it deals with question whether discursive practices affect thinking. (Lucy 1997,
292) Common to all proposals of linguistic relativity are three key elements that are linked in
two relations: “They all claim that certain properties of a given language have consequences
for patterns of thought about reality” (Lucy 1997, 294). These properties are usually
morphosyntactic. Whereas the pattern of thought deals with perception and attention, personal
and social-cultural systems of classification, memory, inference, aesthetic judgement and
creativity. The reality can include everyday experience, either of specialized contexts or of
ideational tradition. (Lucy 1997, 294) As seen above, the three key elements are: properties,
patters and reality. The three can be linked in two relations (Lucy 1997, 294):
1) language substantiates an interpretation of reality;
2) language can influence thought about reality.
24
In providing evidence which would have supported the hypothesis three types of approaches
were formed (Lucy 1997, 291):
1) Structure-centered approaches.
2) Domain-centered approaches.
3) Behaviour-centered approaches.
The first one, structure-centered approach, is based upon an observation of differences between
languages and their structure of meaning (Lucy 1997, 296). Domain-centered approach “begins
with a certain domain of experienced reality and asks how various languages encode or construe
it” (Lucy 1997, 298). Usually, this approach characterizes domain independently of language.
It determines how a particular language organizes domain. This approach was used in
experiments for colour categorizations and spatial orientation. (Lucy 1997, 298) The last
approach is focused on a difference in behaviour. This means that researchers believe that the
particular behaviour roots “in a pattern of thought arising from language practice” (Lucy 1997,
301) Some experiments that have been done so far will be described in the last chapter of
theoretical part of the thesis.
25
2 GENDER AND NUMBER
Charles F. Hockett (1958) defined gender as “/…/ classes of nouns reflected in the behaviour
of associated words.” (Duke, 2009, 7). All scholars did not agree with Hockett’s definition of
gender. For instance, Aikhenvald defined gender as grammatical class for sex-based gender
systems which are typical of Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages (Duke, 2009, 7-8).
Most languages without sex distinctions usually have some distinctions related to animacy or
humanness; therefore, gender systems are described in grammars as those having an animacy
and humanness distinction. (Duke, 2009, 13) Sasse presented so called continuum of
individuality (see figure 2) which also accords with grammatical patterns such as word order,
thus affecting more grammar aspects not only gender (Duke, 2009, 14).
proper names > humans > animals > inanimate tangible objects > abstracts > mass nouns
animates inanimates
proper nouns common nouns
count nouns mass nouns
Figure 2: Sasse’s continuum of individuality (Duke, 2009, 14)
Gender and its use can be described based on functions – primary and secondary. Primary
functions include reference tracking and support for communicative process. Whereas,
secondary functions include the use of gender as differentiation of homonyms, sex
differentiation, literary stylistic device and as a mark of ethnic and linguistic identity. (Duke,
2009, 20-25)
There is an important distinction between natural and grammatical gender which appears as a
distinct characteristic of language systems among different languages. For instance English
differ from some major European languages in having natural gender (Baugh and Cable, 2002,
13). Speakers of other languages must learn the meaning of each noun and its gender. In
26
Romance languages they use only two genders: feminine and masculine. Nouns which would
be neuter in English are either feminine or masculine in Romance languages. The distinction
between two genders can be seen in the endings of nouns. (Baugh and Cable, 2002, 13) In
English language gender is determined by meaning. This means that all nouns that name living
beings are either masculine or feminine according to the sex; whereas, all other nouns are
neuter. (Baugh and Cable, 2002, 14). There is also grammatical gender which does not depend
upon sex. Nouns denoting males are often masculine, while nouns denoting females are often
feminine. However, nouns indicating neuter gender are not always neuter. (Baugh and Cable,
2002, 57-58) For instance, in the Slovene language noun for a girl (dekle), which is expected to
be feminine, is actually neuter.
2.1 INFLUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
In previous chapter we explained the difference between natural and grammatical gender. Old
English had grammatical gender (Hogg and Denison, 2008, 70), which meant that English
language had the same inflectional system that can be found in some standard varieties today
(Duke, 2009, 225). Loss of gender happened Middle English (Hogg and Denison, 2008, 71).
There are no clear reasons why the inflectional system changed (Duke, 2009, 225). Dean and
Wilson (1963) wrote that before the Norman’s conquest there were signs of reduction of
grammatical inflection; however, the coming of Normans seemed to expedite such change
(Dean and Wilson, 1963, 130). The two groups blended and so did the vocabulary and some
aspects of grammar. As the result of named cases, the grammatical gender was replaced by
natural. Consequently, word order became more important and less free. (Dean and Wilson,
1963, 130) Duke (2009) as a reason for the changes also mentioned phonological change. As a
result of gender loss, English has lost all gender inflection on determiners, adjectives and most
inflectional classes. The only remains are in the third person singular on personal, possessive
and reflexive pronouns. (Duke, 2009, 225)
Changes also happened in plural inflections. Most plurals were in -ess (clut-ess ‘clouts’), this
was so called original type. Then there was feminine e-plurals and neuter zero plurals. By the
end of Middle English besides gender loss also zero and umlaut plurals, the declensional variety
and case were gone. (Hogg and Denison, 2008, 71-72)
27
2.1.1 Grammatical gender and number in English language
Most of European languages distinguish between two numbers: singularity, denoting “one” and
plurality, denoting “more than one”. That is also the case in Modern English language.
(Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 42) The inflection that indicates plural form of a word is inflection -s
(sometimes -es) added to the singular base. To the most nouns the shorter -s is added. In English
language dual is expressed by pronouns (e.g. both), numeral (e.g. two) or by naming two
persons or things (e.g. Tom and Kate; door and window). (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 42)
English language consists of nouns that conform standard number pattern (adding -s) and the
kind that do not follow this standard pattern which remained of long unwanted inflectional
paradigms of Old English nouns. The latter means that some of Old English nouns formed their
plurals by mutation and not inflection: they changed the stem vowel. Approximately half of
these nouns are preserved in Modern English19. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 44) Some words
preserved from Old English have plural inflection -en (e.g. ox-oxen; child-children).
Irregularity also appears with nouns ending with voiceless fricative (e.g. calf-calves; knife-
knives; wife-wives; leaf-leaves; life-lives; wolf-wolves; shelf-shelves). Some nouns take the
zero plural inflection which means that they have one form for both singular and plural (e.g. a
sheep/three sheep; a deer/ four deer; a fish/five fish). (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 45-46)
In Modern English we distinguish between countable and uncountable nouns. The first have
two forms; the singular (e.g. chair) and the plural (e.g. chairs). Most nouns are countable, the
rest are uncountable. They have only one form and are divided into two groups: singular non-
countable nouns (they lack plural) and plural non-countable nouns (they lack singular). Singular
non-countable nouns include some nouns denoting material substances (mass nouns)20 and
some names of abstract nouns21 (abstract nouns). They cannot be premodified by the indefinite
article nor by numbers; they can be premodified by definite article and some other determiners
(e.g. this, that, some, much, any, no, little). Uncountable plural nouns only have plural form. In
this group belong: the names of instruments and tools (e.g. scissors, glasses); the names of
19 Some of these nouns: man (men), woman (women), goose (geese), louse (lice), mouse (mice), tooth (teeth), foot (feet) etc. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 45). 20 E.g. iron, butter, rubber, wood, blood, milk, water, wine, air, smoke, oxygen, coal, sugar etc. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 52). 21 E.g. cold, heat, sunshine, weather, luck, peace, happiness, freedom, courage, honesty, beauty etc. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 53).
28
articles of clothing consisting of two identical parts (e.g. pants, tights, pyjamas); the names of
some parts of the body (e.g. bowels, guts); nouns in –s denting places (e.g. tropics, suburbs,
slums); the names of mountain ranges, some islands and countries (e.g. the Netherlands, the
Alps, the Balkans); some miscellaneous nouns denoting indefinite plural (e.g. customs, morals,
looks, goods); substantivized adjectives (e.g. the ancients, the greens, the drinkables); and some
verbal nouns ending -ings denoting a mass of something (e.g. belongings, doings). (Blaganje,
Konte, 2010, 55-57)
In English gender is dependent on the meaning of words. This means that the main distinction
in gender is based on the semantic content of words. (Plemenitaš, 2014, 23) Nouns in Modern
English usually follow the natural sex distinction; masculine gender denotes males (e.g. man,
boy, brother, son, uncle), feminine gender denotes females (e.g. woman, girl, daughter, sister,
aunt), while the neuter gender denotes things (e.g. chair, table, pen, window). English nouns
are not characterized by any special gender forms nor premodifying adjectives or determiners
indicating gender agreement (e.g. her lovely niece/cat/garden). Some nouns have a different
form for male and female: father/mother; boy/girl; king/queen; husband/wife; son/daughter;
monk/nun; man/woman; nephew/niece; brother/sister etc. Some nouns can be used for both,
females and males: dancer, doctor, guest, painter, novelist, parent, teacher, student etc. When
necessary, the distinction with such nouns can be made by adding word that denotes sex: male
student; woman teacher; male nurse etc. Some feminine nouns are marked for gender by the
derivational morpheme -ess: actress, goddess, mistress, princess etc. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010,
66-67)
In some cases gender in nouns in some higher animals the sex is denoted by the noun (e.g. cock-
hen; bull-cow; fox-vixen). When necessary the difference can be indicated by the number or
words denoting sex (e.g. she wolf; nanny goat; billy goat; bull elephant; tom cat). Generally,
animals are considered as neuter (it); however, in spoken language there is a tendency to
distinguish between feminine and masculine gender. Larger and bolder animals like dog, horse,
tiger, elephant and wolf are usually considered as masculine; while smaller and graceful animals
like cats, mice and rabbits are considered feminine gender; lower animals like insects, fish and
reptiles are generally considered as neuter. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 68)
Inanimate nouns are often referred to as it (neuter gender); however, sometimes these nouns
can be personified and referred to as they belong to masculine or feminine gender. The names
29
of countries22 and the names of vessels23 are often referred to as feminine. The nouns earth,
moon and others that can be associated with fertility or tenderness are referred to feminine
gender (e.g. nature, mercy, peace)24. For instance nouns like world, sun and names of rivers.
Nouns denoting stronger phenomena of nature like storm, thunder or nouns associating with
violence, such as war and death are treated as masculine25. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 69)
2.2 INFLUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SLOVENE LANGUAGE
The Slovene language is an Indo-European language and it belongs to the group of Slavic
languages. The Slovene language, like other Slavic languages, developed from Old Church
Slavonic. The oldest known examples of written Slovene language are from the Freising
Manscripts (their date origins between 972 and 1093), but since then Slovene language changed
a lot.
Various cultural and social events influenced the way Slovene language developed. In 16th
century Primož Trubar wrote the first book written in Slovene language. In the time of cultural
movement of Illyrism and Pan-Slavism, new words were brought into standard Slovene. There
were also changes in grammatical aspects. For instance, Slovene used to have seven noun cases,
but now there is no distinc vocative. Several morphological changes happened. Changes of
endings happened both for grammatical gender and number; some forms were lost during
centuries, others were replaced by new ones. (Pogorelec, 2011)
2.2.1 Grammatical number and gender in Slovene language
There is a distinst difference “in the expression of gender between English and Slovene”
(Plemenitaš, 2014, 23). In contrast to English, the Slovene language has grammatical gender;
every noun grammatically expreses one of three possible types og gender (Plemenitaš, 2014,
24). This means that nouns in Slovene are either masculine, feminine or neuter, but this is not
dependent on natural sex. It is determined for each noun. Slovene language distinguishes
22 E.g. China has her representatives in the United Nations. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 69). 23 E.g. I have got Ford; she has never let me down. This is a fine plane. How many passengers does she take abroad? (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 69). 24 E.g. The moon hid her face. The astronauts looked at the earth and it seemed to them as if she grew smaller and smaller. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 69). 25 Death will come when he is least expected. The sun came up in all his glory. (Blaganje, Konte, 2010, 69).
30
between animate and inanimate nouns, but that is relevant only for masculine nouns in the
singular. Animate nouns refer to something that in general has free will. While all other nouns
are inanimate: plants, non-moving life form and animals. Gender is seen as less important
grammatical category in English than in the Slovene language (Plemenitaš, 2014). Gender is a
more visible feature, as grammatical gender is expressed through suffixes that are typical for
each gender category (Plemenitaš, 2014, 24).
Slovene language has three grammatical numbers: singular, dual and plural. Singularity denotes
“one”, duality “two” and plurality “more than two”. Grammatical number in Slovene is
expressed throughout endings of words.
The same as in English also in Slovene we distinguish between countable and uncountable
nouns. (Toporišič, 2000)
31
3 PREVIOUS EXPERIMENTS
Speakers of languages that treat inanimate objects as “he” or “she” use the same grammatical
forms that apply to men and women when they talk about such objects (Deutscher, 2010, 208).
The question is whether we associate inanimate nouns with the ones of the sexes automatically
as a result of grammatical habit or is this the influence of grammatical gender (therefore the
language we speak) on our thinking/our associations.
Over the last century various experiments were performed in order to answer the above
question. The first such experiment was conducted at the Moscow Psychological Institute in
pre-revolutionary Russia. In 1915 fifty people were asked to describe days as persons. The
result showed that all participants marked Monday, Tuesday and Thursday as men, while
Wednesday, Friday and Saturday as women. The participants were also asked to explain their
choices, but their answers were not satisfying. However, the researchers their answers might be
related to the fact that the names for Monday, Tuesday and Thursday have a masculine gender;
whereas the names for Wednesday, Friday and Saturday have a feminine gender. (Deutscher,
2010, 209)
In 1990’s Toshi Konishi conducted another experiment based on gender associations of
speakers of German and Spanish. There are few inanimate nouns whose genders are reversed
in the two languages. For instance, the German air is a she (die Luft), while in Spanish is a he
(el aire), or the word bridge, which takes feminine gender in German and masculine gender in
Spanish. The same thing happens with the following nouns: clocks, apartments, forks,
newspapers, pockets, shoulders, stamps, tickets, violins, the sun, the world and love. Whereas,
noun apple is associated as masculine in German and as feminine in Spanish. The same goes
with nouns like chairs, brooms, butterflies, keys, mountains, stars, tables, wars, rain and
garbage. Konishi asked the participants to decide on the properties of these nouns; for example,
are they weak or strong, little or big etc. Nouns that were masculine in German, but feminine
in Spanish, like chairs and keys, were described as strong nouns by German speakers. On the
other hand, nouns that were masculine in German, but feminine in Spanish were described as
stronger by Spanish speakers. The conclusion of this experiment could be that the noun bridge
does not have more manly connotations for Spanish speakers than the German ones. Gender
connotations could be linked to articles that the speakers of both languages use before noun and
they predetermine the gender of a noun. Another possible explanation for these results proposed
32
by Deutscher is that these associations might be the reaction made in the moment of speech,
meaning that gender association is created in speaker’s mind. (Deutscher, 2010, 209-210)
The psychologists Lera Boroditsky and Lauren Schmidt conducted similar experiment as Toshi
Konishi. They included German and Spanish speakers, but this time they communicated with
them in English and not in speakers’ mother tongue. English treats inanimate nouns as “it”;
however, the participants of the experiment differently described the objects included in the
experiment. For instance, German speakers described bridges as beautiful, elegant, fragile,
peaceful, pretty and slender; whereas Spanish speakers described them as big, dangerous, long,
strong, sturdy and towering. (Deutscher, 2010)
The psychologist Maria Sera and her colleagues conducted an experiment in which they
compared the reactions of French and Spanish speakers. Pictures of objects were used in the
experiment instead of just words. French and Spanish are closely related languages; they belong
to the same language group – in the group of Romanic languages. Therefore, the two languages
mostly agree on gender. Nevertheless, there is a group of nouns that diverge, e.g. fork, cars and
bananas. The noun bed is masculine in French, but feminine in Spanish, also like the nouns
cloud and butterfly. The participants were asked to help in the preparations for a movie. The
objects on pictures that were given to the participants were some everyday objects that come to
life in this movie. For the latter reason, the participants had to choose appropriate voice foe
each object. They had to choose between man’s and woman’s voice. The names of these objects
were never mentioned. It was interesting how most of French participants chose female voice
for a fork. On the other hand, Spanish speakers tended to choose a male voice. Whereas, with
the picture of a bed, the situation was reversed, meaning that French speakers tend to choose a
male voice, while Spanish speakers tend to choose a female voice for a bed. (Deutscher, 2010,
211)
Deutscher (2010) described the above experiments as suggestive. The experiments seem to
show that the grammatical gender affects the properties of inanimate objects. Said in other
words, the experiments demonstrate that grammatical gender affects speakers’ responses when
they actively use their imagination for associating such objects with tape of gender. Deutscher
(2010) pointed out the weakness of all described experiment: participants were forced in using
their imagination. He added that some sceptics might say that the experiments proved that only
33
grammatical gender affects associations when speakers are forced to do that26. In such
circumstances there is no wonder that the gender system will affect speakers’ choice of
properties. (Deutscher, 2010, 211-212)
In 1960’ linguist Susan Ervin conducted another experiment in which she included Italian
speakers. Ervin invented a list of unfamiliar nonsense words that sounded as if they were the
dialectical terms for various objects. Some of these words ended in –o (masculine), the others
ended in –a (feminine). Her aim was to check what associations these words would evoke, but
she did not want the speakers to know that these are nonsense words and that they were
indulging in creative imagination (Deutscher, 2010, 212). The participants of the experiment
were told that they will get a list of words from an Italian dialect that they do not know. Ervin
pretended that the aim of this experiment was to see, whether people can guess properties of
words based on the way they sound. The participants tended to attribute words ending in -o
similar properties than those they contribute to men (e.g. strong, big). While words ending in
-a were attended with properties that were used to describe women (e.g. weak, little, pretty).
This experiment showed that grammatical gender affects associations people create whether
being aware of that or not. (Deutscher, 2010, 212)
The experiment made by Susan Ervin overcome the problem of subjective judgements, but not
entirely. Even if participants were not aware of being forced to produce associations on demand,
in practice this is what they were actually required to do. It is hard to design an experiment that
would bypass the subjective judgements. (Deutscher, 2010, 212)
Lera Boroditsky and Lauren Schmidt found a way how to overcome the problem of subjective
judgements. They asked a group of Spanish speakers and a group of German speakers to
participate in an experiment which was conducted in English. They were said they are
participating in a memory game. The participants were given a list of two dozen inanimate
objects. For each of these objects they had to memorize a person’s name. For instance, “apple”
had the name Patrick and “bridge” had the name Claudia. The participants were given a fixed
period of time to memorize all the names. Then they were tested how well they managed the
26 Deutscher describes how a participant might feel when participating in such experiments: »Here I am being asked all sorts of ridiculous questions. Now they want me to think up properties for a bridge – goodness me, what’s next? Well, I’d better come up with something, otherwise they’ll never let me go home. So I’ll say X.« (Deutscher, 2010, 212).
34
task. The analysis of the results of the experiment showed that they were better at remembering
the names when the gender of the object matched the sex of the person. For instance, Spanish
speakers found it easier to remember the name associated with “apple” (la manzana) if it was
Patricia than if it was Patrick or the name of “bridge” (el puento) if it was a male name (Claudio)
rather than if it was a woman’s name (Claudia). (Deutscher, 2010, 213) Based on the experiment
one can conclude that when inanimate objects have either a masculine or feminine gender the
associations of manhood or womanhood were present in speakers’ mind even the they are not
explicitly asked to express their opinions on whether bridges are strong rather than slander and
even they do not use their mother tongue (English instead of Spanish). (Deutscher, 2010, 213)
The results of the experiment conducted by Lera Boroditsky and Lauren Schmidt showed the
effect of gender in genera: it showed that manly or womanly associations of inanimate objects
are “strong enough in the minds of Spanish and German speakers to affect their ability to
commit information to memory” (Deutscher, 2010, 214).
Besides all described experiments in this chapter, several were made that based on connections
between colour and perception. For instance, in 1984 Paul Kay and Willett Kempton conducted
an experiment to find out whether different languages can affect speaker’s perception of shades
near the green-blue border. In the experiment they used a number of coloured chips in various
shades of green and blue. The participants had to choose which one of the three chips, which
were shown to them, was the most distant in colour form the other two. In the experiment
participated a group of Americans and a group of people speaking an Indian language called
Tarahurama. The first one exaggerated in deciding which chip is the most distant in colour.
Whereas, the second group did not exaggerate the distance between chips. Kay and Kempton
concluded that the experiment shows that language has an influence on speakers’ perception of
colour. (Deutscher, 2010, 220-221) Nevertheless, Deutscher did not entirely agree. He believed
that such experiment depend on subjective judgements. That is why one cannot say with
determination that language influence how we perceive colours. (Deutscher, 2010, 221)
Kay and Kempton repeated the experiment with English speakers and this time they told the
participants not to rely on the names of the colours when deciding how distant in colour two
chips are. Participants were asked to explain their choices: they said that given chips really
looked farther apart. (Deutscher, 2010, 221) Kay and Kempton concluded “that language
interferes in visual processing on a deep unconscious level.” (Deutscher, 2010, 221).
35
In 2006 four researchers from Berkley and Chicago conducted an experiment to test how
language interferes with the processing of visual colour signals. The experiment was conducted
by Aubrey Gilbert, Terry Regier, Paul Kay and Richard Ivry. The experiment included English
speakers only. In the experiment participants were asked to look at computer screen and focus
on little red cross in the middle of a circle. The latter was made out of little squares which were
all of the same colour except one square. The participant had to decide whether the odd square
was on the left or right half of the circle (see figure 3). The participants were given a set of such
tasks, but each time the odd square was in different position. Sometimes the squares were blue
whereas the odd was green and vice versa. The experiment showed how long participants
needed to respond and press the correct button. When the odd square was on the right half of
the screen the reaction time was shorter and the effect of the green-blue border was stronger,
while when the odd square was on the left half of the screen the effect of the green-blue border
was weaker. The experiment included scanning of the brain. The experiment provided evidence
that show the influence of language on visual perception. (Deutscher, 2010, 228)
Figure 3: Squares (Deutscher, 2010, 228)
In 2008 another experiment was conducted by a team from Stanford, MIT, and UCLA (Jonathan
Winawer, Nathan Witthoft, Michael Frank, Lisa Wu, Alex Wade and Lera Boroditsky)
(Deutscher, 2010, 222). The purpose of this experiment was to see whether two shades of blue
– dark blue and light blue – affect perception of blue shades among Russian speakers. For this
experiment they used computers for showing a set of three blue squares at the same time. One
of the bottom squares was always the same colour as upper one, while the third one was of
different colour (see figure 4). The participants had to determine which of the below squares
was the same colour as the above them. For each set the colours were chosen among twenty
shades of blue. If the upper square was a very dark blue and one of the button ones very light
36
blue, the participants very quickly chose the correct square. When the shades of blue were
closer, participants needed more time to decide which button squares is the same as the upper
one. The experiment measured how much time participants needed to choose the correct square
instead of directly measurement of colour perception. (Deutscher, 2010, 222-224)
Figure 4: Russian blues experiment (Deutscher, 2010, 223)
Deutscher (2010) commented the outcomes of all described experiments. He wrote that “the
evidence that has emerged so far leaves little doubt that the idiosyncrasies of a gender system
exert a significant influence on speakers’ thoughts.” (Deutscher, 2010, 214). He adds that when
language treats inanimate objects with the same grammatical forms or with the same pronouns
as it treats women and men, this shows a great influence of linguistic habit over one’s
perception. The difference between languages with gender system and those without it is in
what it habitually forces its speakers to say. (Deutscher, 2010, 214) However, there is no
evidence that would prove that grammatical gender affect one’s ability to reason logically
(Deutscher, 2010, 214). Deutscher believes (Deutscher, 2010, 215) that “gender makes the
world a livelier place” and that “genders are language’s gift to poets”27. Moreover, after
describing all experiments that included colour perception he suggests that language affects the
perception of colour on terms of normalization and compensation, whereas the brain relies on
our memories in order to decide how similar two colours are (Deutscher, 2010, 231).
27 He compares English and his mother tongue in terms of grammatical gender: »/…/ my world has so much to it /…/ because the landscape of my language is so much more fertile than your arid desert of it’s.« (Deutscher, 2010, 215).
37
II. EMPIRICAL PART
4 EXPERIMENT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS THESIS
As mentioned in the chapter Previous Experiments, we described several experiments that have
been done so far in order to get evidence that would support the idea of linguistic relativism.
The experiments were conducted among speakers of American Native languages, speakers of
English, German, Spanish, French, Russian and some other languages. However, no one has
ever made a comparison between English and Slovene. The languages belong to two different
language groups: Germanic and Slavonic; therefore, it is no surprise that there are many
differences between them. We were interested in the use of grammatical gender and number
and whether these grammatical categories determine in any way one’s thought. We conducted
the experiment among English and Slovene native speakers. The number of responses of
English and Slovene participants differ in size. The English experiment includes 12 participants,
while there were forty-six Slovenian participants that agreed to participate in the experiment.
The participants came mainly from social media. The respondents ranged from 15 to over 50
years old, but the majority of them were aged between 20 and 30.
We prepared two versions of the experiment: for English speakers and for Slovene speakers.
English experiment consisted of four tasks. In the first one, there was a table of several pictures
of various objects. The participants were asked to imagine that this objects were used in a
fantasy movie in which this objects came to live. Participants’ task was to determine female or
male voice for each object. This task followed the example of the experiment that was
conducted by the psychologist Maria Sera and her colleagues. Participants were given pictures
of objects for which they had to choose appropriate voice, as these objects would take part in
movie. The same task was used for the Slovene version of the experiment.
In the second task of our experiment, there was a table of nouns. For each noun participants had
to choose one characteristic (female or male) that, in their opinion, best describes the given
noun. The participants were able to choose among given female and male characteristics or they
wrote their own. With the first and the second task, we tried to get information whether
grammatical category of gender influences our perception of the world. The same task was used
for the Slovene version of the experiment.
38
Third task of the experiment was the same in both versions. The participants were given several
tables of three sets of pictures of fruits. For each table they had to select one category among
five that were suggested. These were: colour, number, type of fruit, shape and size. The category
they chose had to be salient to all three pictures in one table. It was important that the
participants chose the category based on salient features that first came to their minds when
they first looked at pictures. For instance, one might choose colour, as fruit in all three pictures
were red. This task was used to figure out which category is dominant and whether Slovene
speakers use a category of number more often than English speakers, due to fact that Slovene
language has duality. In most pictures there were two pieces of fruit. But there were either of
different colour, shape, size or type. In few cases there were more than two pieces of fruit. The
purpose of the latter was to prevent the participants to be confused or to foresee the purpose of
the task.
The English experiment had an additional task. The participants were given a set of sentences.
In each there was one underlined word. Below each sentence there were two pictures that
presented two different interpretations of the sentence and in particular the understanding of the
context in which the word was used. The participants had to choose one picture for each
underlined word that is in their opinion the best example of that word. Based on this task, we
wanted to figure whether grammatical number influence how English speakers interpret
situations which can be seen as happening to two or more involved. We did not use this task
for the Slovene experiment as in the Slovene language the grammatical number is determined
by inflections and the task would have no sense, as one could comprehend the number from the
endings.
The result of both experiments were presented and compared in graphs, made with the SPSS
programme. We used both methods: qualitative and quantitative. Firstly, the results are shown
through graphs. Then we describe each graphs and all declinations of the expected results.
39
5 THE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT
5.1 TASK A
Graph 1: Gendered voice of objects: a chair
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a chair. Female voice was chosen
by 8 (67 %) English speakers and the rest of them, 4 (33 %), chose male voice. However only
1 (2 %) Slovene speaker chose female and the rest – 45 (98 %) chose male voice. Slovene
language has grammatical gender, which means that gender is learned together with noun. Here
it is obvious why those who chose male voice did so; a chair has male gender. It is almost
impossible to make statements why English speakers chose the female voice. Perhaps that is
somehow related to the association they have for chairs. The comparison between Slovene and
English participants showed that in Slovene the male voice (98 %) predominates, while in
English the female voice (67 %) predominates.
40
Graph 2: Gendered voice of objects: a palm tree
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a palm tree. 10 English speakers
chose female voice and 2 speakers chose male voice, while 41 Slovene speakers chose female
and only 2 chose male voice. In Slovene language there are two possible word realizations: one
can say a palm or a tree. The same is possible in English (a palm or a palm tree). A palm in
Slovene is of female gender, while a tree is of neuter gender. We can conclude that Slovene
speakers were affected by grammatical gender in determining the voice. While English speakers
were most likely affected by associations they have about palm trees. The comparison between
Slovene and English respondents showed that in Slovene the female voice predominates (89
%), the same happens in English (83 % of all participants determined the female voice for a
palm tree).
41
Graph 3: Gendered voice of objects: a plane
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a plane. The female voice was
chosen by 1 English speaker, while male voice was chosen by 11 speakers. 3 speaker chose
female voice, while the rest that is 43 chose male voice. The comparison between English and
Slovene showed that in English 92 % of all respondents chose male voice, likewise in Slovene:
93 % of all respondents chose male voice. As we can see from the graph, majority of the
participants of both groups chose male voice. A plane is of neuter gender in Slovene language.
We can assume that this is the reason why Slovene participants chose male voice. If you think
of a plane, you will most probably associate it with power, war, pilots etc. Moreover, planes are
usually flown by men. We can assume that this are the reasons why the participants determine
a male voice for a plane. Among the Slovene respondents grammatical gender most probably
influenced their decision, while English speakers were probably affected by their associations
about the image of a plane.
42
Graph 4: Gendered voice of objects: a flag
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a flag. The male was chosen by
12 English speakers, while 35 Slovene speakers chose female and the rest (11) chose the male
voice. In the past, flags were used as a symbol for identifying a friend or an enemy in ancient
warfare or battlefields. We can assume that English speakers associate flags with wars and
fights; therefore, with violence and are treated as masculine. While in Slovene language, a flag
is of feminine gender. For this reason we can assume that this determined why majority of
Slovene speakers chose a female voice for a flag – they were affected by grammatical gender,
therefore their mother tongue. All English respondents chose the male voice (100 %), whereas
in Slovene, only 24 %. On the contrary to English, 76 % of all Slovene respondents chose the
female voice.
43
Graph 5: Gendered voice of objects: a lamp
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a lamp. The female voice was
chosen by 10 English speakers, but only 2 speakers chose male voice for a lamp, while all
Slovene participants chose female voice. A lamp has a female gender and in this case we can
confirm that grammatical gender influenced on speakers’ decisions. On the other hand, most
English participants chose female voice. We can assume that they associate lamps with light
and brightness. In English, moon and stars, which are linked with light, are associated with
nature; therefore, are treated as feminine. Moreover, light presents something positive; it is the
opposite of violence, which is most commonly associated with masculine gender. The
comparison between English and Slovene showed that the majority of English respondents
chose female voice (83 %), while all Slovene speakers (100 %) chose female voice.
44
Graph 6: Gendered voice of objects: traffic lights
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for traffic lights. Only 1 English
speaker chose female voice, whereas male voice was chosen by 11 speakers. 3 Slovene speakers
chose female and the rest (43) chose male voice. Only one Englishman associates trafficlights
as feminine, while the rest as masculine. Traffic lights in Slovene are singular and of male
gender. Declination shows that not all participants chose the voice based on grammatical
gender, except if they named the object in the picture with another word. The comparison
between English and Slovene showed that the majority of participants from both groups
determine male voice for traffic lights, e.g. 92 % of all English speakers and 93 % of all
surveyed Slovenes.
45
Graph 7: Gendered voice of objects: a bottle
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a bottle. 4 English speakers chose
the female voice and 8 speakers chose the male voice. On the other hand, 35 Slovene speaker
chose female and 11 chose male voice. The comparison between English and Slovene showed
that the majority of English speakers chose male voice (64 %). Unlike English respondents, the
majority of Slovene speakers (76 %) determined the female voice for a bottle. A bottle is
feminine in Slovene based on grammatical gender. We can assume that those Slovenes who
chose female voice did so by the influence of grammatical gender. And there were quite few of
the participants who chose male gender. Perhaps the reason for this is in different naming of
the object; therefore, different grammatical gender. We can assume that English speakers’
decisions are based on their associations about a particular object.
46
Graph 8: Gendered voice of objects: an umbrella
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for an umbrella. The female voice
was chosen by 9 English, but 3 of them chose the male voice. While 16 Slovene speakers chose
female and the rest (30) chose male voice. There are two most common naming of an umbrella
in Slovene language. One is used in written language (dežnik) and the other in spoken language
(marela). The two words differ in grammatical gender. The first one is masculine and the
second one is feminine. For this reason, we can assume that determining the voice was
influenced by grammatical gender among Slovene speakers. On the other hand, English
speakers probably chose the voice based on their associations. The comparison between English
and Slovene showed that 75 % of English speakers and only 35 % of Slovene speakers chose
female voice. On the contrary, more than half of Slovene speakers chose male voice (65 %). In
Slovene the percentages are more equal due to the fact that the colloquial expression for an
umbrella is rather wide-spread among Slovenes; therefore, the words are used in quite often.
47
Graph 9: Gendered voice of objects: a table
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a table. The female voice was
chosen by 5 English participants, whereas 7 of them chose male voice. On the other hand, 40
Slovene speakers chose female and only 6 of them chose male voice for a table. A table has
feminine gender in Slovene. Again, we can confirm that grammatical gender had influence on
choices of the participants. While English speakers were most possible influenced by their
associations about this object. The comparison between English and Slovene showed that in
Slovene predominates female voice (87 %), while in English is more equal (42 % of all English
respondents chose female voice, and the rest, 58 %, chose male voice).
48
Graph 10: Gendered voice of objects: a crown
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a crown. The female voice was
chosen by 7, but the male voice was chosen by 5 speakers, while 42 Slovene speakers chose
female and the rest (4) chose male voice. Crown is a symbol for ruling, for power and for
authority. Therefore, we can assume that Englishmen chose male voice for this object, whereas
power and authority is more often associated as masculine. On the other hand, crown can also
be associated with the queen by the British speakers and so determined as feminine. A crown
is of female gender in Slovene language. We can conclude that majority of Slovenes were
influenced by grammatical gender. The comparison between English and Slovene showed that
in Slovene female voice predominates (91 %), while in English the percentages are more equal
(58 % of all English participants chose female voice and the rest, 42 %, chose male voice).
49
Graph 11: Gendered voice of objects: a car
The graph shows which voice the participants determined for a car. 2 English speakers chose
female voice and the rest, that is 10 speakers, chose male voice. Among surveyed speakers of
Slovene, only 1 chose female and the rest (45) chose male voice. A car is of neuter gender in
Slovene language, but in majority participants treated it as masculine. The majority amongst
English participants also chose male voice. Cars are usually associated with power, speed and
danger. Besides (although there are exceptions) that, men are usually the ones that are interested
in cars. Most of us associate cars with men. However, it is true that some men associate cars
with women. That could be the reason why some participants (which were males) assigned
female voice to a car. The comparison between Slovene and English showed that the majority
of the participants from both groups (83 % of English speakers and 98 % of Slovene speakers)
assigned male voice to a car.
50
5.2 TASK B
Graph 12: Gendered characterization of nouns: a war
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for a war.
The majority of all participants (9 English speakers and 37 Slovene speakers) chose male
characteristic to describe the given noun. The most frequent male characteristic among English
participant was bravery. Slovene speakers most often chose powerfulness and bravery.
Participants from both groups also wrote the following characteristics: hysterical, directness,
dominance, morality, pretentious, competitive, strength, uncaring, temperament, violent.
Moreover, some participants chose characteristics that where neither female nor male, for
instance: tactics, heartache, envy, hatred and chaos. We can conclude that the majority of the
participants described war with male characteristics. We can assume that they were influenced
by associations they have about the particular notion. The comparison showed that the majority
of all participants (75 % of English speakers and 80 % of Slovenes) chose male characteristics.
51
Graph 13: Gendered characterization of nouns: spring
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for spring.
The majority of all participants (9 English speakers and 42 Slovene speakers) chose female
characteristic to describe the given noun. The most frequent female characteristic among
English participant was warmth. Slovene speakers most often chose tenderness (this was not
suggested characteristic, but the participants chose it on their own; therefore, in the graph is
noted under other) and also warmth. Besides these participants from both groups chose:
gracefulness, spontaneous, caring, sensitivity, caring, emotional and liveliness. Additionally,
some participants chose characteristics that where neither female nor male, for instance love,
beginning, renewal, awakened and energy. The comparison showed that the majority of English
respondents (75 %) chose female characteristics, the same happened among Slovene
respondents, as 91 % of them determine female characteristics for spring.
52
Graph 14: Gendered characterization of nouns: love
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for love. The
majority of all participants (11 English speakers and 43 Slovene speakers) chose female
characteristic to describe love, whereas male characteristics were chosen by 2 Slovene
participants (rationality and emotional stability). We can say that the latter shows how this two
participant interpret love or in other words what love means to them. The most frequent female
characteristic among English participant was devotion. Slovene speakers most often chose
adjective emotional. Approximately the same number of Slovene participants chose devotion
(6 participants) and warmth (8 participants). Participants from both groups also wrote: caring,
tenderness and comforting. Some characteristics where neither female nor male, for instance
happiness and closeness. The comparison showed that the majority of participants from both
groups chose female characteristics (92 % of English speakers and 93 % of Slovene speakers).
53
Graph 15: Gendered characterization of nouns: winter
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for winter.
The results are interesting as the most participants from both groups chose characteristics that
were neither female nor male (38 % of all participants – together this is more than one third of
all participants). For instance: harshness, abrasive, cold, punishing and firm. However, the most
frequent male characteristic among Slovene participant was prudence, which was followed by
female characteristic – sensitivity. English speakers most often chose susceptibility, which is
female characteristic. Participants from both groups also chose: resentfulness, devotion,
independent, spontaneous, bravery, comprehensive, emotional and rationality. As can be seen
from the graph, participants chose among suggested characteristics; however, some of them
wrote their own. We can assume that some did not take the instructions into consideration as
they chose words that cannot be defined neither as female nor male characteristics (50 % of
English speakers and 35 % of Slovene speakers).
54
Graph 16: Gendered characterization of nouns: sea
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for a sea.
The majority of all Slovene participants (25 speakers – 54 %) chose male characteristic to
describe given noun. The most frequent male characteristic Slovene participants chose among
suggested characteristic was spontaneous. English speakers chose female characteristic 4 times
(33 % of all English participants) and male characteristic 5 times (42 % of all English
participants), while the rest wrote words that defined neither female nor male characteristic. For
instance: envy, drowning and isolation. Participants from both groups also wrote their own
characteristic: powerfulness, temperament and unpredictability. Among suggested
characteristics the participants most often chose: independence, spontaneous, gracefulness,
warmth, independent, dominance, emotional stability and bravery.
55
Graph 17: Gendered characterization of nouns: a storm
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for a storm.
The majority of Slovene participants chose male characteristic to describe a storm. The most
frequent male characteristic among Slovene participant was hysterical. 16 Slovene speakers
chose female characteristics: hysterical, sensitivity and caring. On the other hand, 5 English
participants chose male characteristics and 3 female, whereas 4 speaker wrote words that could
not be classified as female or male characteristic. Among suggested characteristics English
participants most frequently used hysterical. Besides these, participants from both groups
wrote: emotional, strength, prudence, dominance, caring, directness, organizing, spontaneous,
powerfulness, fearlessness and sensitivity. Moreover, some participants chose characteristics
that where neither female nor male, for instance soaking, wrath, anger and chaos. The
comparison showed that more than a half of Slovene respondents (59 %) chose male
characteristics; on the contrary, fewer than half English speakers (42 %) chose male
characteristics.
56
Graph 18: Gendered characterization of nouns: moon
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for moon.
The majority of all participants (6 English speakers and 28 Slovene speakers) chose female
characteristic to describe storm. The most frequent female characteristic among English
participants was caring, whereas Slovene speakers most often chose sensitivity and
gracefulness. Some participants describe moon as romantic. Most frequently chosen male
characteristics among the suggested ones were rationality, pretentious and spontaneous.
Besides these participants from both groups also wrote powerfulness, morality, ambitiousness,
emotional stability, comprehensive, emotional, caring, devotion, independent, and organizing.
Moreover, some participants chose characteristics that where neither female nor male, for
instance bright, mysterious, mystic and peaceful. The comparison showed that more than half
respondents from both groups (59 %) chose female characteristics. 26 % of all participants
chose male characteristics, while the rest wrote words that could not be defined neither as
female nor male characteristics.
57
Graph 19: Gendered characterization of nouns: music
The graph shows which female or male characteristics the participants determined for music.
The majority of all participants (8 English speakers and 28 Slovene speakers) chose female
characteristic to describe music. The most frequent female characteristic among Slovene
participant was emotional. On the other hand, English participants the most often chose rational
among the suggested characteristics. 16 Slovene speakers (35 %) chose male characteristics for
defining moon: spontaneous, rationality, ambitiousness, temperament, independent and
directness. On the other hand, only 1 English speaker chose male characteristics and 3 speakers
(25 %) chose notions that could not be classified as female or male characteristic. Among
suggested characteristics, English participants most frequently used rationality. Some
participants also used the following words for describing the given noun: liveliness, warmth,
tenderness, devotion, moving, understanding, uplifting, energy, communicative and optionated.
The comparison showed that female characteristics were predominant among English speakers
(67 %), the same happened participants of Slovene experiment (61 %).
58
5.3 TASK C
Graph 20: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different colour
The graph shows which categories were most frequently chosen for a set of pictures with fruits
of different colour. Colour was chosen by 4 English and 5 Slovene speakers; number was
chosen by 5 English and 16 Slovene speakers; type of fruit was chosen by 1 English and 3
Slovenes; shape was chosen by 1 English and 17 Slovenes and finally size was chosen by 1
English and 5 Slovene speakers. In the first picture there were two apples, in the second there
were two oranges and in the third there were two peaches. The common categories chosen in
addition to number were also shape and size. But fruits differ from each other in colour and
type, therefore we can assume that those who chose these categories did not read the instructions
nor understood them. The category of number was often chosen by both groups; it was the
prevailing category. The comparison showed that among speakers of Slovene shape (37 %)
predominates, while in English most frequently chosen categories were colour (33 %) and
number (42 %).
59
Graph 21: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different number
The graph shows which categories were most frequently chosen for a set of pictures with fruits
of different number. Colour was chosen by 10 (83 %) English and 41 (89 %) Slovene speakers;
number was chosen by no one; type of fruit was chosen by 1 English and 1 Slovene; shape was
chosen by 1 English and 4 Slovenes, while size was chosen by no one. There were three cherries
in the first picture; two pomegranates in the second and two tomatoes in the third picture. All
are of round shape and of red colour. For this reason, it is not surprising that the participants
the most often chose colour or shape as he most common characteristic of all three pictures.
The choice of type of fruit is interesting, as the described fruits are not of the same type.
However, the majority of the participants of both groups chose colour as a category that is
common to all pictures. Red colour definitely stands out, as it is a strong and vivid colour.
60
Graph 21: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different type
The graph shows which categories were most frequently chosen for a set of pictures with fruits
of different type. Colour was chosen by 5 Englishmen and 23 Slovene speakers; number was
chosen by 3 English and 16 Slovene speakers; type of fruit was chosen by 3 English and 2
Slovene speakers; shape was chosen by 1 English and 4 Slovenes, while size was chosen by
only 1 Slovene. There were two blueberries in the first picture; two plums in the second and
two figs in the third one. All three pictures had the same number of pieces of fruits and were
the same colour (purple). However, the fruits in the pictures were not of the same type, shape
or size. The most frequently chosen category as salient to all three pictures was colour, which
was followed by the number. Again colour was prevailing category. The comparison showed
that in English predominates colour (42 %). Also in Slovene colour is the most frequently
chosen category (by 50 % of all Slovene participants).
61
Graph 23: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different colour
The graph shows which categories were most frequently chosen for a set of pictures with fruits
of different colour. Colour was chosen by 3 Slovene speakers; number was chosen by 2 English
and 3 Slovene speakers; type of fruit was chosen by 6 English and 26 Slovene speakers; shape
was chosen by 2 English speakers and 10 Slovenes, while size was chosen by 2 English and 4
Slovene speakers. There were two mandarins in the first picture, two limes in the second and
two oranges in the last picture. Mandarins, oranges and limes belong to a group of citruses and
they have similar round shape. The majority of Slovene and English participants chose type of
fruit as a common category. The second most frequently chosen category was shape. It is
interesting that some of the participants also chose categories that were not common to all
pictures, like colour and size. Only few participants chose number. The comparison showed
that the majority of participants from both groups (50 % of English speakers and 57 % of
Slovene speakers) chose type of fruit as the most salient category to all three pictures.
62
Graph 24: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different number
The graph shows which the most frequently chosen categories were for a set of pictures with
fruits of different number. Colour was chosen by 5 English and 17 Slovene speakers; number
was chosen by 2 English speakers, the same among the group of Slovene participants; type of
fruit was chosen by 2 English and 8 Slovene speakers; shape was chosen by 2 Englishmen and
13 Slovenes, while size was chosen by 1 English participant and 6 Slovene speakers. There
were two bunches of grapes in the first picture; two blackberries in the second picture and a
bunch of berries of black currant in the third. The majority of English participant determined
colour as a common category, the same did the Slovenes. Category that was frequently chosen
among the Slovenes was shape. All pictures had in common colour and shape. For this reason
it is interesting that some participants also chose other categories as those that are common to
all three pictures. The comparison showed that colour was most frequently chosen among
English speakers (42 %). Besides colour, shape predominated among Slovene speakers (37 %
for colour and 29 % for shape).
63
Graph 25: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different shape
The graph shows which categories were most frequently chosen for a set of pictures with fruits
of different shape. Colour was chosen by 4 English and 29 Slovene speakers; number was
chosen by 5 English and 6 Slovene speakers; type of fruit was chosen by 2 English and 6
Slovene speakers; shape was chosen by no one; whereas size was chosen by 1 English and 5
Slovene speakers. There were two strawberries in the first picture; two raspberries in the second
picture and two berries of red currant in the last one. Type of fruit, colour and number were
common to all pictures. It is interesting that size was chosen by 6 participants. Again, we can
conclude that red colour is vivid and strong colour that is prevailing in comparison to category
of number. The comparison showed that colour predominated in Slovene as the most salient
category (63 %), while in English, colour and number were almost equally chosen (33% for
colour and 42 % for number).
64
Graph 26: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different type
The graph shows which categories were most frequently chosen for a set of pictures with fruits
of different type. Colour was chosen by 10 English and 43 Slovene speakers; number was
chosen by no one; type of fruit was chosen by 1 English participant; shape was chosen by 1
English speaker and 2 Slovenes, while size was chosen by 1 Slovene speakers. There were two
lemons in the first picture; two bananas in the second and two apples in the third picture. Colour
was the most frequently chosen category. All three pictures presented fruit of yellow colour.
Again, colour is prevailing category in comparison to number. People will notice colour more
quickly than the quantity of something. The comparison showed that in English and Slovene
colour predominated as the most salient category (83 % of English participants and 93 % of
Slovene participants).
65
Graph 27: Common salient feature of fruits: fruits of different number
The graph shows which categories were most frequently chosen for a set of pictures with fruits
of different number. Colour was chosen by 3 Slovene speakers; number was chosen by no one;
type of fruit was chosen by 3 English and 15 Slovene speakers; shape was chosen by 8 English
speakers and 12 Slovenes, while size was chosen by 1 English and 16 Slovene speakers. There
were two berries of red currant in the first picture; five berries of red currant in the second
picture and two berries of black currant in the last picture. What all pictures had in common
was type, size and shape of fruit; whereas they differ in number and colour. For this reason, it
is interesting that few participant chose number as a common category of all three pictures. The
comparison showed that in English predominated shape as the most salient category (67 %),
while in Slovene type of fruit, shape and size were almost equally chosen (33% for type of fruit,
26 % for shape and 35 % for size).
66
5.4 TASK D
Task D was used only in English version of the experiment.
Graph 28: The salient number: a picture of parents
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence: “Their
parents had to go to school to talk to their teacher about what happened yesterday.”
The majority of all participants (83 %) chose a picture with two parents, while only 2 chose a
picture with many people.
67
Graph 29: The salient number: a picture of gloves
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence: “Bring me
my gloves.”
In this case, all participants chose a picture with two objects.
68
Graph 30: The salient number: a picture of shoes
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence: “′Don’t
forget shoes,′ Cora yelled as Deidre disappeared down the hallway.”
The majority of all participants (58 %) chose a picture with two objects.
69
Graph 31: The salient number: a picture of children
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence:
“Neighbour’s children are very good students.”
A picture with two people was chosen by 9 participants (75 %), whereas the rest (3 – 25 %)
chose a picture with three children.
70
Graph 32: The salient number: a picture of friends
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence: “Our
friends had a car accident yesterday.”
6 participants (50 %) chose a picture with two people and the same the same number of
participants chose a picture with three people.
71
Graph 33: The salient number: a picture of eyes
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence: “Close
your eyes.”
A picture with two objects was chosen by the majority of the participants that is by 9 people
(75 %). On the other hand, a picture with more objects was chosen by 3 participants (25 %).
72
Graph 34: The salient number: a picture of socks
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence: “I need
new socks.”
Participants chose a picture with more than three objects in majority. That is 11 participants;
this represents 92 % of all participants. While only 1 participant chose a picture with two
objects.
73
Graph 35: The salient number: a picture of boots
The graph shows which picture participants chose as the best example of a sentence: “Clean
those boots at once.”
A picture with two objects was chosen by the majority, this means by 11 participants (92 %).
On the other hand, a picture with three or more objects was chosen by only 1 participant.
74
6 FINDINGS BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
Task A was included in both, English and Slovene experiments. Both groups were given the
same pictures of objects for which the participants had to determine a female or male voice.
The purpose of this task was to find out whether grammatical category of gender in any way
influences on speakers’ decisions. In the case of choices made by Slovene native speakers, we
can conclude that in determining the female or male voice they were affected by grammatical
gender. On the other hand, English speakers use natural gender instead of grammatical. We can
assume that the choices that English native speakers made were affected by their association
they had about given objects. Moreover, in English, inanimate nouns usually have neuter
gender, which means that they are often referred as it. In the experiment, the participants had
to personify such nouns. It can be seen on the graphs that that various nouns are differently
referred to as masculine or feminine. This means that not all English participants treated chair
as feminine or as masculine. However, we can conclude that some nouns are more frequently
treated as male, for instance war, as they associate war with violence, strength and fights. On
the other hand, nouns like lamp or palm tree were more often treated as feminine. The same
happened with the results of Slovene participants. In addition to the above-mentioned examples
bottle, table, crown and flag were also treated as feminine among the Slovene speakers, while
the rest (car, chair, plane, trafficlights and umbrella) were mostly treated as masculine. Based
on the results, we can conclude that Slovene speakers were affected by grammatical gender in
treating nouns as feminine or masculine, whereas English speakers were probably affected by
other associations they had for each noun.
Task B was used in both versions of the experiment. Both groups were given the same nouns.
For each or them the participants had to determine one female or male characteristic. Some of
them were given and participants were able to choose among the suggested characteristics or
they could add their own. Some characterize nouns with words for which we were not able to
define them as feminine or masculine. This was particularly outstanding for the following
nouns: winter, sea and moon. War was the most often marked with male characteristics, for
instance bravery and powerfulness. Spring was mainly treated with female characteristics, such
as warmth and tenderness. English speakers marked spring as renewal, beginning and
awakening, but none of these was not describing either female or male characteristic. Love was
similarly as spring marked with female characteristics. Among English speakers they most
75
frequently wrote devotion, while Slovenes wrote emotional. Winter was mainly treated as
masculine, meaning with male characteristics in both groups. Some participants connected
winter with cold, abrasiveness and harshness which could not be treated as female or male
characteristics. Storm and sea were mainly marked with male characteristics in both groups.
For instance, the most often used were powerful, independence and spontaneous. While music
and moon were mainly marked with female characteristics, such as emotional for music and
gracefulness and sensitivity for moon. Some connected moon with romanticism, mysterious
and mystic. On the other hand, music was also treated as masculine, for instance as something
that is rational, spontaneous, and emotionally stable. As seen from the results, Slovene speakers
were not affected by grammatical gender. For instance, a noun war has female gender in
Slovene; however, the participants most frequently marked the noun with male characteristics.
We can conclude that the participants of both groups were affected by associations they had for
each noun. With characterizations we could see what a particular noun, which represents a
particular object, natural or other phenomena means to individuals. We can say that some
objects or phenomena are treated in particular way. This can depend on culture or religion. We
claim that the participants were not in any way affected by the language they spoke but by some
cultural patterns and associations they were accustomed to.
The third task was also used in both versions of the experiment. Based on this task we wanted
to see whether there will be any differences in treating duality among Slovene and English
speakers. The Slovene language, in addition to singular and plural uses duality. We wanted to
see whether the fact that Slovenes distinguish duality anyhow influences their perception of the
world. We wondered whether the Slovene speakers were more sensitive to number two. So,
whether they would notice the number of objects (in cases where all three pictures of a set
included two objects) before for instance colour. Based on the results we can conclude that this
was not the case. Slovenes are not more sensitive to duality as English speakers, who do not
use dual forms. In cases where all three pictures were common in number, but also in, for
instance, colour or type of fruit, the participants of both groups more frequently chose colour
or type as common category to all three pictures. In case where number of objects was the same,
but they differ in colour and type, the category of number was often chosen. In cases where all
three pictures included fruit of the same colour, the latter was most frequently chosen category
as the common one to all three pictures. From the graphs we could see that bright and vivid
colours, like red and yellow, stand out the most as category and are usually noticed first, this
76
means before the number, shape, type or size. We can conclude that humans in general are
visual beings and colours had a great impact on our perception of the world.
Task D was the last task of the experiment, but was used only in English version of the
experiment. Slovene language uses duality, which results in the endings of nouns. A task like
this one would not show anything useful, as the Slovenes would choose pictures based on the
endings of words, which would tell whether there are two or more objects or people. The task
included eight sentences. In each one of them there was one word that was underlined. Below
each sentence there were two pictures. There were two objects or people that presented the
underlined word in one and three or more objects or people in the other. We wanted to find out
in which situations English speakers would use a picture with two objects or people and in
which they would choose a picture with three or more. Only in one case all participants chose
a picture with two objects (gloves). The case in which all participants chose a picture with three
or more objects was for the sentence: “I need new socks”. In the case of the sentence “Bring
me my gloves” the conclusion stems from the sentence itself than one can wear only one pair
of gloves at a time. In other cases different interpretations were possible. This task showed that
sometimes we think about things based on patterns that are repeated or are common to some
situations. This shows that language usually has no effect on the perception.
The results of the analysis showed that language can affect one’s perception of the world in a
limited way. However, we could not say that language determines what we think. The first task
is a great example which shows that some grammatical categories, like gender, can influence
our perception. Some might say that Slovene speakers are limited by grammatical gender,
because when they use nouns grammatical gender “is always there”. It can be seen not only in
the endings of nouns, but also in the endings of adjective and verbs. We could say that Slovenes
cannot escape grammatical gender. On the other hand, English speakers are not limited by
gender as English uses natural gender. Another thing that the results show was that Slovenes
are not more sensitive for dual forms just because we use duality. We can conclude that
Slovenes do not perceive the worlds extremely differently from English speakers. We could say
that language limits our perception in certain ways. For instance, if we would ask a Slovene
speaker to do the task in the English experiment, the results for task A would most likely be the
same as the speaker would rely on grammatical gender and use it also when it comes to English.
77
CONCLUSION
Language is a significant part of everyone’s life: it enables us to communicate, to express
opinions, to greet someone, to say goodbye, to express gratitude or anger and even to declare
love or war. Sometimes we take language for granted and are unaware of its power: with words
we can change reality; therefore, does the language we speak also influence what we think?
In this thesis we discussed whether language has any influence on our perception of the world.
In the first chapter we outlined the origins of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and how the idea
developed. The hypothesis received wide response among scholars, as Sapir’s and Whorf’s
ideas were daring. Many scientists tried to prove their statements to be true by conducting
various experiments. Which were also described in chapter Previous experiments. We also
presented the main characteristics of grammatical gender and number in the theoretical part.
We gave more attention to presenting the position of these two categories in English language.
However, we outlined the main events that influenced the development of Slovene language
and the main characteristics of grammatical gender and number in Slovene.
For the empirical part, we conducted an experiment among two groups: native speakers of
English and native Slovene speakers. There was a difference in size of respondents. It was more
difficult to find native speakers of English that were willing to participate in the experiment.
For this reason, we used social network, but the response was smaller than we hoped and
expected.
In this second part of this thesis, we presented the result by using software SPSS for statistical
analysis. We presented the results with quantitative and qualitative methods. At the end, we
concluded that the results show that we cannot completely support Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; we
cannot say that language determines how a person understands reality or perceive the world. In
the case of gender categorizations, we can only assume that Slovene speakers were affected by
grammatical gender. This means that language has some influence on our perception of the
world. We could also say that language can limit one’s abilities to express his thoughts, but it
does not determine them.
In task A it was clearly seen that Slovene participants were influenced by grammatical gender
when determining female or male voice. This was not the case with English participants as they
78
use semantic gender. We assumed that their choice of either female or male voice depended on
their associations about particular objects. In the second task, where the participants had to
determine female or male characteristics, Slovene participants were not influenced by
grammatical gender. For instance, war in Slovene is of male gender; however, the majority of
Slovene participants chose male characteristics for describing the notion (like powerfulness and
bravery, which are commonly associated with men). The same appeared with the following
nouns: sea and storm (the first one is of neuter gender, whereas the second one is of female
gender). The assumption that Slovenes are more sensitive to duality due to the fact that we use
it in addition to singularity and plurality was rejected. The results from task C showed that
Slovenes are not more sensitive to number than English speakers. From the fact that colour was
frequently chosen we can assume that people are visual beings, and respond to colours first.
The last task was given only to English participants, but the results vary from sentence to
sentence. The sample was too small to make any assumptions.
We conducted the experiment with which we wanted to figure whether language determine our
thought and our perception of the world. Based on the results we concluded that such statements
as can be found in particular in Whorf’s writings are too bold. But we are positive that language
has some influence on our perception. This can be supported by the results of the second task,
which showed that Slovene participants were limited by their language. Speaking different
languages may influence slightly our perception of the world, but much less than Sapir and in
particular Whorf assumed.
This thesis can be a starting point for additional researches based on a larger sample of
participants and additional tasks. We compared the results based on the language and
determining similarities and differences. However, research could be based on gender to see
whether men define things differently than women. Moreover, it would be interesting to give a
similar experiment only to Slovene participants, but they would have to fill in the English and
Slovene versions. Such an experiment might provide better examination of connections
between language and cognition.
79
WORKS CITED
Baugh, Albert C., and Cable, Thomas: A History of the English Language. London: Routledge,
2002. Print.
Blaganje, Dana, and Konte, Ivan: Modern English Grammar. Ljubljana: DZS, 2010. Print.
Boroditsky, Lera. “Linguistic Relativity”. N.p. N.d. Web. 20 September 2015.
<http://lera.ucsd.edu/papers/linguistic-relativity.pdf>
Carroll, John B. ed. Language, Thought and Reality. Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Massachusetts: THE M.I.T. PRESS, 1956. Print.
Dean, Leonard F., and Kenneth, G. Wilson. Essays on Language and Usage. 2nd ed. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, 1963. Print.
Deutscher, Guy. Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other
Languages. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company, LLC, 2010. Web. 10 Jan. 2015.
Dixon, Robert. M. W.: What is Language? London: Longman, 1965. Print.
Duke, Janet: The Development of Gender an s Grammatical Category. Heidelberg:
Universitätsverlag Winter, 2009. Print.
Hogg, Richard, and Denison, David ed. A History of the English Language. UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2008. Print.
Joseph E. John, Love Nigel, and Taylor J. Talbot: Landmarks in Linguistic Thought II. Great
Britain: TJ International, Padstow, Cornwall, 2001. Print.
Klemenc, Nataša: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Diplomsko delo. Maribor, 2005.
Koerner, E. F. K.: Toward a History of American Linguistics. London and New York:
Routledge, 2002. Print.
80
Lucy, John A. “Linguistic Relativity”. Annual Review, Vol. 26, 291-312 (1997). Web. 21
September 2015.
<http://cslc.nd.edu/assets/142525/lucy_linguistic_relativity.pdf>
Pae, Hye K. “Linguistic Relativity Revisited: The Interaction between L1 and L2 in Thinking,
Learning and Production”. Psychology, Vol 3, No. 1, 49-56 (2012). Web. 20 September 2015.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.31008>
Penn, Julia M.: Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas – The Origins of the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis in German Thought. The Hague, Paris: Mouton, 1972. Print.
Plemenitaš, Katja. “Gender Ideologies in English and Slovene: A Contrastive View.” ELOPE:
English language overseas perspectives and enquiries. Ed. Tomaž Onič and Simon Zupan.
Ljubljana: Slovene Association for the study of English: Department of English, Faculty of
Arts, 2014. 17-29. Print.
Pogorelec, Breda: Zgodovina slovenskega knjižnega jezika: Jezikoslovni spisi I. Ljubljana:
Založba ZRC: ZRC SAZU: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete, 2011. Print.
Sebeok, Thomas A. ed. Portraits of Linguists a Biographical Source Book for the History of
Western Linguistics, 1746–1963. Vol. 2. United States of America: Indiana University Press,
1967. Print.
Steiner, George: On Difficulty and Other Essays. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Print.
Toporišič, Jože: Slovenska slovnica. Maribor: Obzorja, 2000. Print.
81
APPENDIX
Dear Sir or Madame,
my name is Tamara Kovačič and I am a postgraduate student at the Faculty of Arts in Maribor
where I study English and Slovene. My English thesis treats an interesting topic – linguistic
relativism. Linguistic relativism suggests that language does not only describe reality, but it
also shapes the way one perceives reality. Linguistic relativism deals with researching the links
between language and thoughts.
Throughout the experiment I will try to find out whether there are any differences among people
speaking different mother tongues. The experiment consists of four tasks. The goal of the
experiment is NOT testing your knowledge of grammar, but explore distinctions between
speakers connected to their thinking and perception of the world based on their mother tongue.
There are no right or wrong answers. Please read the instructions before completing the tasks.
Each task has one example for illustration that is colored blue. Please use upper case letters
when writing answers. Please use max. 5 seconds for reflection when writing your answers (the
following is particularly important for tasks C) and D)).
I kindly ask you to follow the above instructions as this will provide relevant results.
Results of this experiment are the key for my thesis. This is why I am really grateful for your
willingness to participate in the experiment. I really appreciate your help – thank you very
much.
Have fun completing the experiment and thank you again.
Tamara Kovačič
Gender: female/male
Age: a) 15–25
b) 26–35
c) 36–45
č) 46–50
d) 50 or more.
82
A) There are pictures of object in the table below. Imagine that these objects will be used in a fantasy film, where they come to live. For each object determine either female or male voice (letter F is for female voice and letter M for male voice).
A PICTURE OF AN OBJECT
FEMALE/MALE VOICE
A PICTURE OF AN OBJECT
FEMALE/MALE VOICE
F
83
B) In the below table there is a list of nouns. For each noun write 1 characteristic in the right square. Be aware that for each noun you have to determine either stereotypical female or male characteristics. There are few examples of characteristics written below, but you can add your own.
MALE CHARACTERISTICS: rationality, bravery, ambitiousness, emotional stability, dominance, prudence, spontaneous, directness, pretentious, independent, competitive.
FEMALE CHARACTERISTICS: emotional, hysterical, caring, devotion, gracefulness, sensitivity, resentfulness, morality, warmth, susceptibility, comprehensive, organizing.
NOUN CHARACTERISTICS Sun
DOMINANCE.
War
Spring
Love
Winter
Sea
Storm
Moon
Music
84
C) There are three pictures of fruits in each table. For each table determine the most salient category that is in your opinion common to all three pictures in a table (in each table you choose one by underlining one category). You can choose amongst the following categories: colour, number, type of fruit (e.g. tropical fruit), shape or size.
1)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
85
2)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
86
3)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
87
4)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
88
5)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
89
6)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
90
7)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
91
8)
COLOUR
NUMBER
TYPE OF FRUIT
SHAPE
SIZE
92
D) Below each sentence is a table with two pictures: a) and b). Your task is to choose one of these pictures, which is in your opinion the best example of underlined word in a sentence above the table. One example is given.
1. He bought her new earrings, because he thought she would forgive him.
2. Their parents had to go to school to talk with their teacher about what happened yesterday.
3. Bring me my gloves.
a) b)
a) b)
a) b)
93
4. "Don't forget shoes," Cora yelled as Deidre disappeared down the hallway.
5. Neighbour’s children are very good students.
a) b)
6. Our friends had a car accident yesterday.
a) b)
a) b)
94
7. Close your eyes.
a) b)
8. I need new socks.
a) b)
9. Clean those boots at once.
a) b)
95
Spoštovani,
Sem Tamara Kovačič, študentka podiplomskega študija na Filozofski fakulteti v Mariboru, smeri Poučevanje angleščine in Slovenski jezik in književnost. V svoji magistrski nalogi za področje angleškega jezika obravnavam jezikovni relativizem. Slednji izhaja iz prepričanja, da jezik ne le opisuje realnosti, temveč jo tudi ustvarja. Jezikovni relativizem raziskuje povezave med jezikom in mislimi.
Ali obstajajo razlike med nami zaradi različni maternih jezikov, bom skušala ugotoviti skozi eksperiment. Slednji je sestavljen iz treh nalog. Z omenjenimi nalogami ne preverjam Vašega znanja jezika (tj. slovnice), temveč me zanima, kako govorci enega in drugega jezika razmišljate in ali je to soodvisno od maternega jezika. Naloge zatorej nimajo pravilnih niti
napačnih odgovorov. Pred vsako nalogo so navodila, ki jih natančno preberite. Prav tako ima vsaka naloga podan en rešen primer, ki je modro obarvan. Uporabljajte velike tiskane črke, kjer je potrebno odgovore zapisati. Pri vseh nalogah upoštevajte, da pri izbiri odgovora ne
razmišljate predolgo, temveč za to porabite največ 5 sekund (slednje še posebej upoštevajte pri nalogi C)).
Prosim Vas, da pri reševanju nalog upoštevate zgornja navodila zaradi večje relevantnosti rezultatov.
S svojim sodelovanjem mi boste izjemno pomagali pri pridobivanju podatkov, ki so ključnega pomena za mojo magistrsko nalogo. Zaradi česar se Vam iskreno zahvaljujem in sem izjemno hvaležna za Vašo pomoč.
Prijetno reševanje nalog in hvala še enkrat.
Tamara Kovačič
Prosim, če pred reševanjem z obkrožanjem izpolnite svoje podatke:
Spol: a) ženski b) moški
Starost: a) 15–25
b) 26–35
c) 36–45
č) 46–50
d) nad 50
96
A) V tabeli so slike različnih predmetov. Predstavljajte si, da jih bodo uporabili v fantazijskem filmu, kjer ti predmeti oživijo. Vaša naloga je, da vsakemu določite glas, tj. ženski ali moški (ženski glas označite s črko Ž, moški glas pa s črko M).
SLIKA PREDMETA ŽENSKI/MOŠKI GLAS
SLIKA PREDMETA ŽENSKI/MOŠKI GLAS
Ž
97
B) V spodnji tabeli so zapisani samostalniki. Pri vsakem v desni okvirček zapišite 1 lastnost, pri čemer upoštevajte, da lahko samostalniku določite zgolj žensko ali zgolj moško lastnosti. V pomoč je nekaj primerov karakteristik zapisanih spodaj, vendar lahko zapišete tudi svoje.
MOŠKE LASTNOSTI: razumnost, pogum, ambicioznost, čustvena stabilnost, oblastnost,
opreznost, spontanost, neposrednost, želja po moči, samosvojost, temperamentnost.
ŽENSKE LASTNOSTI: čustvenost, histeričnost, skrbnost, predanost, nežnost, občutljivost,
zamerljivost, moralnost, toplina, dovzetnost, doumljivost, organiziranost.
SAMOSTALNIK LASTNOSTI Sonce
OBLASTNOST
Vojna
Pomlad
Ljubezen
Zima
Morje
Nevihta
Luna
Glasba
98
C) Vsaka tabela vsebuje tri sličice sadja. Za vsako tabelo posebej določite najbolj vpadljivo kategorijo, ki je po Vašem mnenju skupna vsem trem sličicam v tabeli (v vsaki tabeli podčrtajte samo eno izmed danih že zapisanih kategorij). Izberete lahko med naštetimi kategorijami: barva, število, vrsta sadja, oblika ali velikost.
1)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
99
2)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
100
3)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
101
4)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
102
5)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
103
6)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
104
7)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
105
8)
BARVA
ŠTEVILO
VRSTA SADJA
OBLIKA
VELIKOST
