Language and Thought. Bounds of the Linguistic Relativity | Linguistics | Semantics

Boroday S.Y.

Language and thought: bounds of the linguistic relativity
(course program)
Course covers an introduction to the problematic of the linguistic relativity. Emphasis was made on the experimental investigations from the end of XXth to the begininng of XXIst centuries. But also there is careful consideration of the linguistic relativity refolmulation according to modern definitions of «language» and «thought». One can find here the history of the problem. Course program includes the most important researches of the linguistic relativity and also a lot of particular researches. Course consists of 6 parts. The first part deals with the history of the problem and reformulation of the main thesis. In the next five parts there is consideration of particular domains of thinking and perception influenced by language: space, time, motion, color, gender, number etc. In the final part there is discussion about research perspectives, connected with nontrivial grammatical categories and the specificity of the Indoeuropean worldview. Every part has a list of references. It seems that course is urgent because of lack the detailed reflection on modern western investigations in Russian studies. [I suppose that course will be given in the one of the Moscow universities… Course is originally in Russian]

Part 1. The history of the problem and the problem of definition. Tentative definition: weak and strong version of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity (D.Hymes). The problem of definition of «language» and «thought» in major theoretical approaches (generative linguistics, functional linguistics, structural linguistics, cognitive linguistics etc.). Wilhlem von Humboldt. Intellectual atmosphere in Germany in XVIII-XIX centuries. Humboldt’s views on language and evolution: the spirit of nation, phased development, language typology, language as an organism. Language relativity as consequence of historicism and cultural conceptions. The notion of Weltanschaung, «world-view» in Germanic romanticism and its Early Modern European philosophical premises. Humboldt’s understanding of the term «worldview». Diversity of worldviews and phenomenal unity of language. An evolution of Humboldt’s ideas: H.Steinthal, W.Wundt, F.Mautner. Humboldtian conception and the problem of the inner form of the word (F. Max Muller, A.Potebnja). Ernst Cassirer. Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in the context of Neo-kantian evolution. Symbolic form as the way to express spiritual in physical, as self-revealing, self-comprehending of consciousness, as shaping of reality (Gestaltung zur Welt). Symbolic form: intelligible content in perceptional sign. Types of symbolic forms: language, myth, art. Peculiarity of language as the symbolic form. Language as sense-giving (Sinngebung). Language opens horizons of objectness: reality perceived by consciousness depends on creative manifestations of consciousness. Dependence of theoretical and scientific cognition on linguistic premises. The problem of relativity and the notion of «inner form of language». Language as something between myth and logos. Possibility and necessity of overcoming bonds of language and myth in the path to the scientific understanding of the world. Neo-humboldtian approaches. Principal propositions of Leo Weisgerber’s conception. Language as worldview (Weltbild) of society, as expression of culture and the spirit of the nation. Dynamical and energical understanding of language. Potential infinity of language experience. National language and the process of idioethnical reconstruction of the world, Worten der Welt. Four loci (Schauplätze) of the world reconstitution through word: the development of reality, the development of subjective aspects of reality, the development of the man’s inner world, the development of language form in clear condition. Weisgerber’s Followers: H.Gipper, O.Buchmann, P.Schmitter and others.
1

Franz Boas. Principal propositions of American descriptivism. Preconditions for linguistic relativity in problems of ethnolinguistics: influence of specificity of Amerindian languages on the basic research metodology: orientation to the synchronic and auto-referential descriptions, necessity of the renovation of grammatical tools, divergence of semantic fields of Amerindian and European lexemes, and so on. Language as «systematist of experience» (F.Boas). Unconscious character of linguistic phenomena and theirs potential endless quantity. Differences among languages and different systems of experience: holophrasis, examples with words for snow and seal in Eskimo, association of some verbs with diverse semantics in Dacota, etc. Elements of universalism and relativism: linguistic catefories as expression of thinking and culture, but fundamental psychological unity of mankind. Edward Sapir. Complex approach: close connection between linguistics and anthropology, culturology, psychology and so on. The unity of thinking processes and their expression in concrete linguistic forms. Language not only marks reality, but also constitutes it. Depending of social norms, perception and thought on language. Influence of language on culture. Symbolic function of language. Numerous examples in favor of linguistic relativity from Amerindian languages (Nootka, Hopi, Kwakiutl, Chippewa, and so forth). The most interesting and detailed examples: «the farmer kills the duckling» and «the stone falls», abnormal types of speech in Nootka. Structural incommensurability of senses. Benjamin Whorf. Premises of convertion to the problematic of mentality: problem of the relevance of science and Christianity, influence of E.Sapir and different philosophical doctrines. Examples of linguistic influence on thinking from Whorf’s professional practice: «empty gasoline drums», «limestone», «pool of water», etc. Comparison between Hopi and «standard average European» (SAE). The problem of SAE definition. Lack of the «imaginary plurality» in Hopi. Prephilosophical linguistic dualism substance/form in SAE and its absence in Hopi. Time objectivism in SAE and its absence in Hopi. Tense grammatical system in SAE and Hopi. Lack of tense category in Hopi (Whorf’s hesitation about this question in different periods of scientific work). The main characteristic of SAE: tendency to understand qualities and potencies as something spatial, tendency to form an «abstract space». The main characteristic of Hopi: being as appearing, it includes in appearing all the modi of its own earlier and later existence; world as something in the process of preparation. Lack of the strong correlation between language and culture type, but obvious influence of language on culture and people behaviour. Linguistic influence on Hopi culture: attaching importance to the preparation, figure of Main Herald, magical function of thought, and so on. Language influence on SAE culture: intuitive clarity of Newtonian space, time, materia, philosophical concepts (cf. Aristotelian form/materia dualism), metaphorical interpretation of non-spatial terms as spatial, etc. Foundation of science and logic in the specificity of SAE languages. Other examples of the linguistic relativity: holophrasis, the problem of the distinction noun/verb in Nootka, connection between «falling» and «whiteness» in Apache, substative time in Nootka, and so forth. Lack of the clear definition of the linguistic relativity thesis in works by Whorf and different interpretations of Whorf’s views by modern authors (J.Lucy, G.Lakoff, S.Pinker). Was Whorf a relativism supporter? (G.Lakoff). Researches of anthropological linguists in 50-60th of XX century. Publications by D.Lee about Wintu language. Grammar as the direct reflection of culture. The main characteristic of Wintu worldview: reality exists irrelatively to the man. The man opens reality in perception, but reality itself exists as unbound, indifferent, and timeless. Grammatical feature of Wintu language: categories of definitenes, possession, evidentiality. Cultural analysis: concept of «self», kinship terms, mythology. Works by M.Mathiot about Papago language. Problem of count and uncount nouns. Emphasis on the semantic analysis. Publications by H.Hoijer about Navajo language. Morphosyntactic analysis of Navajo verb morphology. Grammatical emphasis on motion, its direction and condition. Cultural explications of Navajo grammar: nomadic way of live, dynamism in myths (motif of motion by cultural heroes, universe as a stream, and so on). Tendencies to the linguistic universalism in 60-70th of XX century. Typological studies. Works by J.Greenberg and his colleagues. Color researches by E.Lenneberg, B.Berlin and
2

Reformulation of the main thesis. comprehension. frame representation. George Lakoff. Research of Yucatec Maya by John Lucy. Investigations of color (P. and others). translatable). From abstract speculations on theme «language and thought» to the empirical check of grammar and lexical systems influence on conceptualization.Gumperz: contextual hints and local discursive practices. M. Basic propositions of the generative linguistics.Nunez.Gentner.Nunez. W. reference to the external reality as standard. Empirical verification of these propositions. J. Ch. etc.Gumperz. numerals. The relevance of grammaticalization/non-grammaticalization and other types of status.Haviland. From abstract term «language» to the autonomous semantic systems inside a language. The development of the generative linguistics and the problem of innate language competence (S. The problem of commensurability: translation.Gipper on Hopi time. Cognitive characteristic of metaphor.Brown. numeral classifiers (J. The crisis of the descriptivism and appearance of works by S. Investigations of time conceptualization (G. Age of 7-8 as a period of crucial cognitive transformations. Investigations of space conceptualization (S. A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis.Bennardo. D. Investigations of gender.Backer). S. Complex approach.Levinson. Problem of definition of «language» and «thought» as the problem of belonging to the discourse of particular psychological or linguistic school. Brief survey of works. New perspectives in the determination of the linguistic relativity limits.Bennardo. R. S. W. J. and others).Levinson. E. and others).Keller: necessity of the main thesis reformulation in terms of the «modular» theory of mind. Language acquisition and the problem of linguistic relativity.).Frank. and others). than to its form.Haviland: grammar as the crystallisation of cultural content and speech pragmatic (an example of deixis and other categories). Universal metaphors. D.Harris and N. P. P.Lucy: linguistic relativity in the context of different language functions (referential.Pinker. identity of organization. Numeral classifiers in Yucatec.Kay: from the question of language diversity to the question of differences beetwen conceptual models inside the language. Empirical analysis of the Whorf’s conception: E.Levinson and others. Lack of the «strong version» definition by founders and impossibility of the «strong version» sensible definition at all. Types of commensurability/incommensurability of conceptual systems: Lakoff’s model. You can translate.Clark: necessity of revision of the traditional theory of «meaning» in the context of referential practice.Boroditsky. but it doesn’t necessary mean that you able to think. A. D. expressive.Hanks and J. G.Malotki and H. J. Critical analysis of previous investigations.Lucy. Discourse autonomy and the unity of code 3 .Kempton. D. Moderate version of the linguistic relativism: obvious differencies in the organization of conceptual systems. Distinction beetween thinking in language and translation into language (intelligible vs. Research by J.Boroditsky. The organization of conceptual system as part that defines such system. use.Sweetser. Metaphorical differencies in languages ~ differencies in conceptualization.Kay.P. «Natural semantic metalanguage» by A. examination of linguistic hypothesis in non-linguistic tasks. Four conditions for correctly executable research: comparative character.Keller.Chomsky. The problem of linguistic relativity in the context of cognitivism. Degree of metaphor penetration into the mental domain. Marking of plural noun in English and Yucatec. The conception of metaphor. L. G.Wierzbicka.Hanks. L.Wilkins. W. Experimental researches of the end of XXth – beginning of XXIst centuries.Jakobsen on nouns and verbs in Nootka. J.Slobin: from the problem «language and thinking» to the problem «thinking for speaking». nouns refer to formless substance. behaviour and culture. i.Gumperz.Everett.Kay.Wierzbicka. M. W. L. J. Sociolinguistic situation. and so forth. metalinguistic.e. Greater attention of Yucatec Maya to the object stuff. work with referential categories. R. John Lucy. The lack of an absolute answer to the question of the commensurability of systems (there exists only relative answer). New view on the linguistic relativity.Boroditsky. The main thesis: all nouns in Yucatec are initially semantic neutral regarding the calculation.

B. navigation.Brown with Tzeltal people. egocentric vs. Various spatial derivates from these names. speaker-centric vs. motion. Deixis.Whorf’s notion on the universality of spatial experience. Main notions: referent-figure.(«north»).Levinson. Intrinsic frame of reference. An example: «John is to the left of the house». Basic model: fixed system with axes similar to the sides of the horizon. Variety among languages in the description of object characteristics. Universality and cognitive priority of the intrinsic frame of reference. absolute. intrinsic. Experiments by S. Unity of coordinat system origin and viewpoint. Types of referential frames: relative. «uphill»). Orientation of the universalism supporters to the specificity of Indo-European languages. direction. and others. Sociolinguistic situation. alan («downhill»). Definition of «frame of reference» as one of the forms of «coordinate system»: possibility of the synchronous use of several frames of reference with different centres. Two fundamental types of system: associated with abstract directions and associated with concrete landscape («to the north» vs. origin. Memory specificity: memorizing of axes of referential frame in addition to the content of event and ability to reproduce this information. intrinsic. Deep association between gesture and linguistic conceptualization of space. Part 2. Space in Tzeltal language. Other experiments that prove the absolute conceptualization of space by Guugu Yimithirr people. Inadequacy of the strict universalism approach. Absolute and intrinsic frame of reference. coordinate system or frame of reference. Space. Space in Guugu Yimithirr language.Zlatev. Tendency to the projection of body parts on the relatum. path. region. An example: «John is in front of the house». Fundamental unity of relatum and system origin. Restricted using of topological markers. Sociolinguistic situation. viewpoint. Perspective system by W. object-centric.Jackendoff. Geometrical variations and short systems. Typology by L. Names for the axes of absolute frame of reference: ajk’ol («uphill»). Absolute frame of reference and names of four directions/domains: gungga. jiba. An example: John is to the north of the house. psychological.Talmy. Experiments by S.Levinson and P. Typological variations. Lack of the relative frame and the absence of terms for «left» and «right». Object with immanent and invariable spatial qualities as centre of the system. relatum. Topology. Conception of R. absolute. relatum. jejch («across»).Bennardo. Lack of the relative frame of reference and only incomplete use of the intrinsic system. deictic vs. Model by G. but with another origin and direction. Model by J. Brane areas that are connected (on the hypothetical level) with particular frames of reference.Haviland with Guugu Yimithirr people. Spatial model by S. social. and so others. sign language. Problem of location of your own position relative to the fixed points for using of such system. Other aspects of spatial conceptualization. Possibility of the secondary coordinate system derived from the initial. naga(«east»). Typology of spatial models.Levinson and J.(«south»). Parts of referential frame: figure. Developed system of cases for marking the spatial relationships.(linguistic. Other types of system. Examples of «innate navigation»: an ability to recognize instantly the position of objects with various distances. Experimental standard: orientation on the cognitive domain and non-linguistic behaviour. Conceptual and prototypical priority of deictic use of such system. Frequent using of topological signs. Relative frame of reference. allocentric.(«west»). Types of reference frames in literature: relative vs. and so on). Detailed system of motion verbs. cultural. Derivation of many relative systems from initially intrinsic system. Various non-verbal tasks that prove the existence of the tendency to the «absolute» spatial 4 .Levelt. Specificity of «absolute» conceptualization of space: memory. History of researches: from anglo-centric generalizations to the lack of universally recognized typology in the context of various and numerous facts of Non-IndoEuropean languages. Absolute frame of reference. Motion. guwa.

Brief survey of particular monographies. Linguistic coding of space.e. Research by Giovanni Bennardo on Tonga people. Geography of Tonga Islands and Tonga people. W. Sociolinguistic situation in Marquesas Islands.Allen: connection between architectural names and social expressions in Samoan. Tolo.Herdrich: conceptualization of space in Samoa and other Oceanic languages as something «unbounded». Author’s methodology: orientation on the detailed description of language code outside the context of linguistic relativity problematic.Toren: influence of spatial concepts on the forming of relationships in social hierarchy (in Fiji and Pohnpei). fono. Lack of the lexical differentiation between noun and verb. large space domains). Lexical and grammatical character of referential frame. Radiality in possession: vectoral structure of possession. Works earlier 1990 year. Radiality as a cultural model. Tense-aspect-mood-particles (TAM-particles). absence of axiological contrast between «left» (~ «bad») and «right» (~ «good»). Expression of radiality in rites and ceremonies (kava. E. Non-universality of semantic parameters. Grammatical peculiarities of Marquesan language. Fundametal researches and collected articles by the researching group of Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Kokota. Radiality in navigation: using of «phantom» island. Research by Gabriele Cablitz on Marquesan. Body-part terms. Semantic coding of space.Bennardo and others). b ~ d) as a consequence of absence of the relative referential frame. M. as source/goal of a number of relationships with other points in the same field. Grammatical distinction between «what».Kelly: spatial grammatical categories in Alune in the context of speech pragmatic. Radiality in kinship terms: tokoua («same sex sibling») as centre of kinship system. Inclusive and exclusive first personal pronoun. Part 3. Complex noun construction and its elements. Lack of copulative verbs. Radiality in the spatial conceptualization: domination of the absolute frame of reference. Translational subtype of the relative frame of reference. ritual domain. Possible foundation of radiality in linguistic spatial conceptualization. Domination 5 . F. Kwayo. Problem of the acquisition of referential frames in context of the problem of language acquisition. Dependence of noun construction structure on semantics of locative name. Works associated with descriptive analysis. Radiality in the understanding of time: projection of translational subtype of the relative frame of reference on the temporality. Diversity of constructions and influence of spatial scale (small vs. Place names. including ego. Manam and others). Neo-relativistic understanding of the spatial conceptualization. The question of origins of «radial mind». Space in Oceanic languages (G.Keating.Sperlich: spatial nouns and directionals in Tonga and Niue. Radiality in social relationship: an ideal model of social connections. Three steps of information coding: experiencing for speaking => thinking for speaking => secondary influence of formulated thought/sign/statement. Locative names.Hyslop: absolute and intrinsic frame of reference in Ambae. Review of studies.Palmer: typological description of absolute referential frame in Oceanic languages (Longu. Cultural consequences of the «left» and «right» direction mixing: structure of dwelling. Experiments that prove the thesis of «radial» conceptualization of space. VSO word-order. Radial subtype of the absolute frame of reference. A. interior. Coding of the specifical spatial features indicates with necessity memorizing of these features. Thesis of the derivation of different culture domains from basic spatial notions. misinale and others). art. Spatial conceptualization in particular languages. other-than-ego. C. The theory of «radial mind»: the point in the field of ego. Absence of the noun morphology and the verb morphology (using the syntactic criteria). i. Problems with distinguishing of mirror objects («object» ~ «mirror image of object». Tolai. weaving. Works associated with problematic of linguistic relativism. Specificity of spatial adverbs.conceptualization by Tzeltal people.Florey and B. Lack of adjectives. Radiality in religion: conception of mana/tapu. B. Sociolinguistic situation. Ch. Alienable and non-alienable possession. rethinking of the Christian ideas.and «where»-category).Lehman and D.

Yucatec. behind. Classical study by B. Researches by Lera Boroditsky and its colleagues. Problem of time conceptualization in literature. From metalinguistic definition of reference to the reference as form of concrete practice. Collected articles in edition of S. qhypa «back.Malotki about time in Hopi: detailed description of the linguistic situation and critics of Whorf’s views. Structuring of experience: from concrete domain to the abstract domain. adverbs and clitics. Contextual dependence of deixis from referential pragmatic and its (deixis) fundamental «embodiment» in practice. Two kinds of absolute system: for the valley and navigational. M. and also the past and the anteriority. Effectiveness.Wilkins. Dependence of absolute conceptualization of time on absolute system of spatial reference. Experiments that prove objective character of these models. Detailed descriptions of spatial conceptualization in particular languages: Arrernte. Part 4. Tiriyo. Alternative interpretations (e.g.Comrie. Temporal distance.Whorf about time in Hopi. past» vs. To the question of the semantic typology of spatial thinking: diversity of tools and absence of the universal meta-discourse. Evidences from the sign language to the idea of future-behind and past-front. Pluralization and quantification of temporal expressions. The model of moving-time and the model moving-ego.Haspelmath: from space to time.Gipper: critics of Whorf’s views about time in Hopi. relativism in the problem of conceptualization. months. Linguistic forms of the body concept. Partial dependence of understanding of time on understanding of space. Yele Dnye. Conceptualization of time in Mandarin Chinese: ability to think about future in vertical terms (up vs. frame of reference. Elements of relative and intrinsic referential frame. Experimental proof of the priority of spatial information. Spatial frames of deictic reference. Verb morphology: forms of assertion. Tamil. Grammatical tools for the time marking in world languages. Experiments that prove «vertical» understanding of time by Chinese. Dutch. Nouns with the spatial semantics. Sociolinguistic situation in Aymara. Lack of the system corresponding to the ternary system of SAE. Universalism vs. Basic information about conceptualization of time. down). Time. The past is in front of ego and the future is behind ego: nayra «eye. The main consequence: absence of the «objectivization» of the subjective sense of extent in time («getting later») and also lack of quantification of temporal expressions. Contamination with cultural representations. future». Future and past as deictic semantic categories. Reference in the communication and perception. Tzeltal. Types of rites and spatial structure. Using of absolute frame by children. seasons. Reference in cosmology. collection of illustrations «Frog tale». H. Names for day. Absolute conceptualization of time and absolute spatial frame of reference in other Australian languages. Discussion on degree of dependence of temporal ideas on spatial ideas. Warrwa.Nunez and E. Lack of abstract term for the «time». Evidences to the areal character of such metaphor. Dependence of ability to think about time vertically by bilinguals on age.Sweetser about Aymara language. Absolute time. Spatial and temporal postpositions. night. Time in Hopi language. Relative time (taxis). Social foundations of reference.of absolute frame of reference. Other linguistic tools of conceptualization of time: particular adverbial forms («temporals») as temporal terms. Tense and mood. Ewe. Sign language in Aymara. Experimental tools.Levinson and D. Monography by William Hanks on Yucatec Maya. Three main tools: collection of illustrations for the revelation of spatial relationship. Japanese. 6 . Conceptualization of time in Kuuk Thaayorre: time goes from east to west. mood forms and aspectual forms. Sociolinguistic situation. front. Tense and aspect. Jamijun. Interpretations of the inverse understanding: the past as known and future as unknown. Conceptualization of time and the problem of fictive motion. Investigation by R. Necessity to distinguish between the future and the posteriority. Kilivila. Propositions by B. in which they began study English. year. spatial game «Man and tree». Motion verbs. motion. projection of the system with orientation on region). Monography by E. Locative suffixes. Determination of the spatial domain: topology.

Predecessors of B. nouns. yellow/brown => and so on. red. and also 80 additional languages.Brown. Part 5. free particles. Field-based system. Narrow means for the expression of posteriority. Lab color system. Researching by G. Aymara and Japanese. Investigation by K. adjectives. Work by P. A. adjunctives. warm. Posibillity of the existence of various temporal models inside a culture. Material: 20 languages from different language families. verbal classifiers. Theory of the basic color terms. Testing on the base of western color system as an apriority of insufficiency of natural linguistic conceptualization (it means that western model is assumed as direct reflection of «reality»). Color composits: ligh-warm. Deixis. Sign language. Analog of the relative frame of reference: deictic time.Saunders. Resutls of the experimental verification of this methaphor: motion of time «uphill» is not dominated metaphor. R.Evans.Kay: E. it is not include in range of another category. Diverse tools for the time marking. Fundamental researh by B. Diverse tools for the expression of deictic time. Works by O. Existing models of temporal conceptualization. Problem of the psychological and neural reality of these systems. consequent and external. The main discussion between relativists and universalists in the definition of the object for study. Temporal frames of reference. Elements of the «vertical» understanding of time. lack of connection with the particular class of objects.Berlin and P. Analog of the intrinsic frame of reference: events with immanent temporal orientation. True problem of color in language: problem of referention and grammatical distribution. black. Experimental data that prove the relevance of such metaphor. General results: all languages have basic color terms for the color conceptualization. Analog of the absolute frame of reference: time arrow.Investigations of Mayan languages. Munsell color system and its use. red. English and Tongan.Roberts. Transience as the main characteristic of temporal systems. black.Bennardo and his colleagues. Verb morphology. Research by P. Quality of the basic color category: monomorphemic. Time as unorganized consequence of complete events. green. Color. Ego-perspective system. objectivity of the fundamental neuronic categories. B. Problem with the semantic universality of the «color» concept.Berlin and P.Lucy. Sign language: now vs. Model by T.Moore. More general cultural model: time as cycle. 7 . Lack of any temporal metaphor. Conception of the fundamental neuronic categories: white.Bohnemeyer on time in Yucatec Maya. black and red => white. Experiments with native speakers of Deutsch.Kay. Field works of the 80th XX – beginning of XXIst century that are contradict the theory of basic color terms. Modification of the basic color term reference: from the domain with clear-cut bounds to the domain with vague bounds / to the cross of domains with vague bounds. Independence of time understanding from absolute frame of reference. derivative adjectives.Tenbrink: 19 types of spatial system and 8 types of temporal system. monolexemic. blue. Qualitative distinction of temporal frames of reference from spatial frames of reference. Lack of opposition between the past and the future. Research by P.McDaniel. S. their psychological verification and predictability. Steps of evolution of color names for languages with basic color terms less than 11: white and black => white.Wierzbicka. Partial use of the absolute referential frame for the conzeptualization of time.Dixon): verbs.Brown on space and time in Tzeltal. not now. 11 phases of color naming evolution. yellow. Experiments with native speakers of Wolof. Criticism of the theory by supporters of the different forms of relativism (J.Lenneberg. Le Guen and J. Understanding of time by means of metaphor of circle. Grammatical tools for the color naming in Australian languages (R. Using of Munsell color system: 330 different hues. Research by V.Kay and Ch. J. evidence for the language speakers.Levinson and others). Prevalence of the absolute frame of reference: uphill/downhill and across. dark-cold and grue.Kay and his colleagues on World Color Survey. Three kinds of temporal systems (in English language): deictic. Fundamental modification of evolutional phases of color naming.

Jarawara. Experiment with native speakers of English and native speakers of Tarahumara. Deutsch and English. Article by A. Fundamental difference of semantic data from neurophysiological data. Modern state of affairs. Universality of similarity principle in reference (gold => golden). General information about Yeli Dnye grammar. Influence of gender on conceptualization of experience: experiments with native speakers of Spanish. Sociolinguistic situation. Arabela. Color as notion that doesn’t belong to the system of natural semantic universals.Evertt on Piraha language. microsyntax. Problem of numerals in particular languages. Different research paradigms. «universals of visual perception». lack of difference between singular and plural (even in pronouns!). Disappearance of Whorifan effect. Prototypical use of dark and light regarding to the environment. lack of «color» idea. Similar conclusions from the research by J. Criticism of Berlin-Kay’s approach. Emphasis of particular aspects and functions of object depending on gender. Status of color naming in Yeli Dnye. Culina. Language with poor numeral system: Nadeb. Prototypical association between blue and sky/sea. Universality of the «dark» and «light». Parintintin. Absence of numerals (even for 1!). simple phonological system.Boroditsky and her colleagues on gender. Functional limits on use of color. contextual and referential analysis. Psycholinguistic model with emphasis on physiology of perception and secondary using of linguistic data. Parts of speech: coding of color naming by means of reduplicated nouns and descriptive expressions with different syntactic distribution. Possibility of mixing the elements of universalism and relativism in the problem of color naming. Crenak. One word for the blue and the green: siyóname «grue». Problem of definition of gender. «Semantic universals» vs. it depends on object classes. Relative (semiotic) model with orientation to the problem of meaning and reference within the limits of concrete language. Metaphorical structure of noun classification. number.Schweder. Task 1: influence of color naming on non-linguistic behaviour.Lucy and R.Levinson on Yeli Dnye language. Objective intralingual analysis should include: analysis of syntax. Using of «designation strategy» by English speakers.Wierzbicka. Fuyge and others. Problem of the definition of color names. Independence of paradigms. but also absence of incompatibility between consequences of different theories. only 2 words for the color («light» and «dark»). The main conclusion: presence or absence of color naming influence on non-linguistic behaviour. Prototypical connection between green and vegetation.Lakoff and R.Kempton. Low emphasis on color in art and in culture entirely. Part 6.Research by P. Sociolinguistic situation. Gender. Lack of such strategy in Tarahumara. Problem of correlation between differences in nonlinguistic behaviour and differences in language structure. Review of particular works that belong to the different paradigms. Numerals. Memory and gender. The significance of gender in poetry texts and children representations. Model of Berlin and Kay. color space is not independent semantic domain. restricted using or lack of recursion. Researches by D. Language without numerals: Piraha. Features of Piraha language: simple kinship terminology. Lack of composit categories. Prototypcal association between yellow and the sun. Piraha hói and 8 . Possible expansion of semantics and inclusion of additional referents (and exclusion of the initial). color foci. morphology and sctructural semantics. Semantic basics: all signs refer to the concrete object. Noun classes. Searching for «color semantics» as imposing of western concepts on exotic cultures. Color naming in Tarahumara. Gender as subtype of noun classes. Wrong way: reduction of semantics to the neurophysiology.Dixon on noun classification in Dyirbal language. Reduplicated nouns and descriptive expressions. Investigation by L. Research by S.Kay and W. Prototypical association between brown and ground. Principle of «experience domain» and categorization in Dyirbal. The main conclusion: initial description of colors in terms of referents. Researches by G. Prototypical connection between red and blood/fire. Meanings vs. perception and research perspectives. clear designation of relevant linguistic domain. Task 2: non-using of color naming.

Sociolinguistic situation.Majid on smell in Jahai: detailed lexical system and fundamental role of smell in religious concepts.Gentner and L.Haspelmath). to grasp => to understand. Necessity to know all facts connected with deictic oppositions in the process of reference to object => influence of grammar on spatial 9 .Wilkins. Jarawara. M. E. Uncount nouns. Optional marking of little quantity of objects in Yucatec. Experiment with illustrations. Cultural premises and explications of this phenomenon. not by shape. Problems with interpretation of experimental data (D. Experiment with objects. Lack of word for «year».Sinha and others on Amondawa language. De Souza on Canton dialect of Chinese: evolution of linguistic expression of perception under the influence of dominated in western culture senses. Numeral system in Amondawa. It is necessary to pay attention to the next problems (for the experimental verification): Detailed marking of evidentiality: Western Apache. D. Dependence of penetration to the abstract intellectual domain on informative degree of perceptual mechanism. Influence of modernization on language.Everett.Levinson. cultural and linguistic relativity. absence of calendar. The same experiments by D. How deep do lexical and grammatical peculiarities of the perception conceptualization penetrate to the culture and thought? Research perspectives. Cf. one long thin wax).Vanhove. Preference to the similarity by shape in Yucatec and English children. sensoric quality of information (have seen. and so forth.Viberg on sensorial modalities. Comparison with the results of English native speakers.Vanhove: 25 languages from 8 language families. Perception. Attempts to universalize the facts of Indo-European languages in early publications.Lucy on Yucatec Maya language. Typological analysis by M. More attention of native speakers of Yucatec to the stuff of object. its spread in World languages (M. Preference to the objects similar by stuff. Physiology vs. S. Hypothetical influence of quantification and pluralization on thought (Whorf on example of Hopi). Rare grammatical categories.Boroditsky on Japanese native speakers. L. Small frequency of the metaphor to see => to know. but object is shapeless itslef.Piaget.Burenhult and A. Works by N.Evans. Experiments that prove the lack of idea of numeral in Piraha. Lack of metaphor to see => to know in Australian languages (except two examples). Noun classifier gives a form to the object.Gordon. High frequency of the metaphor to see => to know in Tibeto-Burman languages.e.Vygotsky). to hear => to undersand. Age 7-8 years as a period of crucial cognitive transformations (J. than to its form. Wintu and others.Matisoff and others. have heard. Universality of the metaphor to hear => to understand. Numeral classifiers. Detailed deictic models: Eskimo languages. M. The main statement: all nouns in Yucatec are initially neutral regarding to calculation. More detailed investigation of Non-Indo-European families and overcoming of «universalist» view.hoí as «less» and «more». Research by C. Universal metaphors: to see => to know. Work on senses under edition by S. to listen => to obey. Dependence of semantic derivation on socio-cultural conditions. Typological study by A. Clear tendency to mark out the stuff starting from 7-8 years old by Yucatec children.Lakoff. P. Marking of plural nouns in English and Yucatec. Work by J. Testified tendency to the association between hearing and cognitive domain in Australian languages. Works by E.Senft on the similar modifications in Kilivila. Specific understanding of temporality.Tufvesson on ideophones in Semai: their role in communication and in forming of cultural code. also specific structure of narrative and other cultural and pragmatic consequences (see especially Apache).Traugott.Sweetser. G. Necessity to remember the source of information and the degree of its reliability. J. Numeral classifiers in Yucatec. Empirical verification of these theses. G. Numeral classifiers as grammar category. Obligatory marking of large quantity of objects in English.Frank).Enfield on taste in Lao and Kri. Unity of the system of numeral marking. concept of age. Pomo. count. H. detailed systems of grammatical categories: their probable influence on thought. N. N. they refer to shapeless substance (one long thin candle vs. i. Inability of Piraha to count and the problem of count learning. have touched and so on) => influence of grammar on the structure and intensity of memory.

myths. Marquesan. perfect *woida from the verb *weid-). Influence of Proto-Indo-European language on the Indo-European worldview: conception of being (<= specifical function and semantics of *h1es-). Specificity of the Indo-European family and the Indo-European worldview in the context of specificity of other language families. conceptualization of time. Hoijer’s hypothesis on Navaho language and culture). above research by L. gender. Weak grammaticalized distinction between noun and verb: Nootka. It is possible that substantive time indicates potential understanding of every noun as unity of its temporal phases (for instance. dynamic and static. or semantic neutrality of every noun regarding tense. culture. statement by Kurylowicz that Indo-European way of life did’t require the idea of time) and so on. Ewe. Kwakiutl. Consequences for the culture and philosophy.. genesis and being. Detailed systems of noun classifications: Bantu languages. metaphor and so forth. Australian languages. Wide use of ideophones: Jahai. Specificity of incorporative languages and «verbal» quality of narrative: pre-Andine languages. Mundang. Tongan. Presence of substantive time: Tupi-Guarani language family. etc. probable lack of tense category in verb morphology (cf. to understand.as participle of *h1es-). sprout ~ tree ~ stump). directiveness / non-directiveness or inside / outside the closed space. 10 . wide using of metaphor of «light» in religious and linguistic discource (from idioms like «come into the light => born» to the regular semantic extension like to see => to know. system of color naming. etc. poetry. Greater emphasis on dynamism in culture.Boroditsky). using of intrinsic and relative frame of reference.conceptualization and influence of degree of attentiveness to details (for instance. etc. Wide domain to problematize: color. Lack (or inessentiality) of difference between process and state. The same experimental methods as in case of gender (cf. conception of truth (<= *h1sont-/h1snt. etc. social relationships.). cf. (cf. Emphasis on expression and motivation in using of different phonetic forms for the showing of impression. etc.

fire and dangerous things. BENNARDO G. 1978. 1940. MANNHEIM B. Women. HILL J. ET AL. H.). Cultural implications of some Navaho linguistic categories. LAKOFF G. 1953-1957. HYMES D. JR. GREENBERG J. Мoskva.. HOIJER H. 2002. 1969. Universals of Human Language. 2003. and Mack M. Gibt es ein sprachliche relativitätsprinzip? Untersuchungen zur Sapir-Whorf Hypothese. // American Anthropologist 42. LEE D. and Culture: From Linguistic Relativity to Representational Modularity. Mind. Race. The place of kinship terms in Wintu’ speech. 1940. Noun categories in Wintu. Frankfurt am Main. 1987. (ed. GIPPER H. University of Chicago Press.T.). Basic Books. Aspects of the theory of syntax. GOLDIN-MEADOW S. LAKOFF G. Language. Language in Mind..I. Language. Brain and Language: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. JAKOBSEN W. New York. Victoria. 1979. // Annual Review of Anthropology 21. 2002. Metaphors we live by. London. University of California Press. 1969. LEE D. Walter de Gruyter. BERLIN B. 1961. // Banich M. Language and World View. CASSIRER E. 1966. (eds. PART 1. 1991. BOAS F. A. Two types of linguistic relativity. 1971. МIT Press. KAY P. Vol. CHOMSKY N. GENTNER D. JOHNSON М. // Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. 2005.. The M..REFERENCES. 1966. // Language 27. Band 67. Introduction to the Handbook of American Indian languages. 1951. Мoscow. Stanford University Press.Weisgerber [In Russian] // Voprosy teorii jazyka v sovremennoy zarubejnoy lingvistike. Linguistic theory of L. 2003. Noun and verb in Nootkan // The Victoria conference on Northwestern languages Ed. KRONHAUZ M. Nebraska Press. (eds. М. Semantic [In Russian]. S. by Efrat B.. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. The atoms of language. CHOMSKY N.). 2003. BOAS F. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. GUHMAN М. I-IV. Press. and Culture. THE HISTORY OF PROBLEM AND THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION BAKER M. 1992. Syntactic structures.). New York. (eds. Mind. 11 . Philosophy of Symbolic forms.

NADEL L. Language acquisition and conceptual development. Freedom and Culture. Muttersprache und Geistesbildung. 1992. 2009. The M. Neo-humboldtian linguistic and philosophical conception [In Russian]. Worldview and Language. Language as creating of the world. RADCHENKO O. culture and personality. 2009. 1977. 1996. Space and Social Relationships.. 2004. 1955. (eds. (eds. 1994. (ed. Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Relativity. Oxford University Press. // Geeraerts D. PETERSON M. 1996.. The Hague: Mouton.. 1962. Cambridge University Press. Press. WIERZBICKA A. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Grammatical Categories and Cognition.. Cambridge University Press. BENNARDO G. // Perceptual and Motor Skills 12. Edinburgh University Press.). Frankfurt. color discrimination: a reappraisal. Noun classes and folk taxonomy in Papago. (eds. Thought and Reality. LUCY J. PINKER S.). SAPIR E. Universalism versus Relativism in Language and Thought: Proceedings of a Colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. LENNEBERG E. and Levinson S. 1983.) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. GASKINS S. and Cuyckens H. and Bittle W. WHORF B. Мoscow.). NJ. 1992. UNDERHILL J. Hopi time. SPACE.). Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: a comparative approach. MATHIOT M. Language. 1972. 1949. 2006. Language and Space..). WEISGERBER L.LEE D. Walter de Gruyter. Humboldt. Cambridge. 1961. // Hymes D. A. PINXTEN R. // American Anthropologist 64. GARRET M. The cognitive significance of the category of nominal number in Papago. color recognition. GUMPERZ J. MATHIOT M. 12 . Selected writings in language. 2007.H. Language. The language instinct. // Bowerman M. A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. PART 2. (eds. 1959. Cambridge University Press. PEDERSEN E. (eds.I. MALOTKI E. Language Diversity and Thought. LUCY J. LUCY J. 1967. Cambridge University Press.T. Color naming. A Foundation Cultural Model in Polynesia. Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics. (ed. 1941.). Semantic Primitives. The Hague: Mouton. Cambridge University Press. Berkeley. BLOOM P. LEVINSON S.

(eds. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3 (I). Vision.). Stockholm. Part. // Bloom P. BROWN P. Walter de Gruyter. Language and Space. 1996. Universals and typology of space. 1993. (eds. 1993. A. Anchoring.). 1994. MELCHUK I. // Ethos 22. Tracking down abstract linguistic meaning: Neural correlates of spatial frame of reference ambiguities in language // PLoS One 7 (2). Cambridge University Press. Language and Space. Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. 2001. 2012. // Ethos 26 (I). BROWN P. General morphology. 1998. MÜHLHÄUSLER P. 1997. ZLATEV J. (eds. Guugu Yimithirr cardinal directions. PLUNGYAN V. JACKENDOFF R. Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial description. Part 2 [In Russian]. BRUGMAN C. HAVILAND J. 1996. LEVINSON S. 1998. Cambridge University Press. Researches on the theory of grammar. LEVELT W. HAVILAND J.). // Herbert L.. 1983. Spatial orientation. // Bloom P. Learning to talk about motion UP and DOWN in Tzeltal: Is there a languagespecific bias for verb learning. and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. // Bowerman M.) Language Typology and Language Universals. // Ethos 26 (I). 1993. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3 (I). 2004. and Acredolo L. A.). et al. Мoscow. JANZEN G. TALMY L. // Haspelmath M. Cambridge. Language acquisition and conceptual development. (eds.. 1998. Space in Language and Cognition. 2001. Cambridge. Immanuel Kant among the Tenejapans: Anthropology as Empirical Philosophy. How language structures space. et al.. 2: Grammaticalization of the spatial semantics in World languages [In Russian].). and Levinson S. Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. HAUN D. The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. 2002. LEVINSON S. Studying Spatial Conceptualization across Cultures: Anthropology and Cognitive Science. LEVINSON S. // Linguistics 32. Cambridge. LEVINSON S. 1996. (ed.BROWN P. LEVINSON S. shape. Мoscow. LEVINSON S. // Survey of California and other Indian Languages 4. (eds. (eds. 1983. LEVINSON S. et al. 13 . et al.) Language and Space. // Bloom P. iconicity and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. ‘Uphill’ and ‘downhill’ in Tzeltal.. New York: Plenum Press.

). // Anthropological Linguistics 42 (IV).). Grammars of space. BENNARDO G.. (eds. 2000. (ed. // Bennardo G. 2009. JOHNSON М. // Survey of California and other Indian Languages 4. HERDRICH D. Hiding behind trees on Ambae: Spatial reference in an Oceanic language.). Space and Social Relationships. Representing Space in Oceania. 2002. // Bennardo G. PART 3. WILKINS D. London.ZLATEV J. Space and its role in social stratification in Pohnpei.). 2002. Marquesan. 2002. // Geeraerts D. HANKS W. 14 . space and language in Samoan culture. 1990. LAKOFF G. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. BENNARDO G. (ed.). 2002. Spatial reference in Alune. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. A Grammar of Space. Language. The acquisition of an Absolute System: Learning to talk about Space in Marquesan (Oceanic.. (ed. 2002. KEATING E. // Bennardo G. Language and Space in Tonga: 'The Front of the House is Where the Chief Sits!'. Representing Space in Oceania. Representing Space in Oceania. HYSLOP C. Referential practice: Language and lived space in a Maya community. 2003. (ed. 2006. 2002. 2007. Spatial Semantics. // Levinson S. // Proceedings of the 31th Stanford Child Language Research Forum. CABLITZ G. and Wilkins D... 2002. 2006.). FLOREY M. 2002. KELLY B. Oxford University Press. and Cuyckens H. Representing Space in Oceania. The Background to the study of the language of space. French Polynesia). (ed. Metaphors we live by. (ed. BENNARDO G. Cambridge University Press. BRUGMAN C. // Bennardo G. CABLITZ G. BENNARDO G. 2006. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.) Grammars of space. WILKINS D.. ALLEN A. LEHMAN F. (eds. Berlin – New York. (eds. 1983. Representing Space in Oceania: Culture in Language and Mind. LEVINSON S. Micronesia. Representing Space in Oceania. (ed. Explorations in cognitive diversity.).). // Bennardo G. Representing Space in Oceania. SPATIAL CONCEPTUALIZATION IN PARTICULAR LANGUAGES. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. On the relevance of point-field for spatiality in Oceania. LEVINSON S. Mental Images of the Familiar: Cultural Strategies of Spatial Representations in Tonga. // Bennardo G. The house as a social metaphor: architecture.). A Foundation Cultural Model in Polynesia.

PART 4. CASASANTO D. Temporal frames of reference: conceptual analysis and empirical evidence from German. Temporal anaphora in a tenseless language. TOREN CH. // Cognition 75. SENFT G. BORODITSKY L. (eds. BORODITSKY L.LEVINSON S. Referring to space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. 1998. et al.).). (ed. BELLER S. 2001. The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. (eds. Inside and outside Niuean space. Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. BORODITSKY L. 2001. Deixis and demonstratives in Oceanic Languages.) Language Typology and Language Universals.). // Bennardo G. Мoscow. PALMER B. GABY A.. // Levinson S.). WILKINS D. FOTAKOPOULOU O. BORODITSKY L. 2000. 1997. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time... 15 . MELCHUK I. TIME. and Wilkins D. English. (ed. CASASANTO D. 2002. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. and Li P. // Bennardo G. (ed..). (ed.. Mandarin Chinese and Tongan. // Journal of Cognition and Culture 10. (ed.). 2006. Representing Space in Oceania. BINNICK R. Representing Space in Oceania. // Cognition 106. // Psychological Science 2010. A. Oxford. BOHNEMEYER J. FUHRMAN O. // Cognitive Science 34. 2002. Representing Space in Oceania. // Cognitive Psychology 43. Walter de Gruyter. Patterns in the data: towards a semantic typology of spatial description. 2004. Space and time in the child’s mind: Evidence for a cross-dimensional asymmetry. 2002. SPERLICH W. Munich. SENFT G.. 2002. The Expression of time. 2009. Remembrances of times east: Absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian Aboirignal Community. // Bennardo G. BOHNEMEYER J.. BORODITSKY L. 2010. Grammars of space. (eds. Absolute spatial reference and grammaticalisation of perceptually salient phenomena. BENNARDO G. // Haspelmath M. General morphology.. Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors.). Temporality and aspectuality. // Cognitive Science 34. BORODITSKY L. Space-time coordinates of subjectivity in Fiji. 2010. BENDER A. Part 2 [In Russian]. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. // Klein W. 2008. 2010.

. 2007. 2011. // PNAS... E. 2006. COLOR. // Language Cognition 3. Berlin – New York.. NUNEZ R. POOL BALAM L. Temporal frames of reference. No metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec Mayas. 1983. MOORE K. General morphology. Hopi time. 19. LI P. BERLIN B. LENNEBERG E. COMRIE B. KLEIN W. 2005. 1985. (eds. From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the World’s Languages. 1954. BROWN R. How time is encoded. RAMSCAR M. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Ayamara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. ET AL.. Tense. // Journal of Pragmatics 43.net/TFoRs. KAY P. Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. KLEIN W. 2009. Gibt es ein sprachliche relativitätsprinzip? Untersuchungen zur Sapir-Whorf Hypothese. // Cognitive Science 29. 1997. 2011. A. A study in language and cognition. Part 2 [In Russian]. 1969. TENBRINK T. Frankfurt am Main. Walter de Gruyter. (eds. Wolof. BORODITSKY L. HASPELMATH M. Time and space in Tzeltal: is the future uphill? // Frontiers in Psychology 3. SAMPAIO W.. // http://www. Cambridge University Press. ZINKEN J..). München – Newcastle.). MALOTKI E. University of California Press. Cambridge University Press. SWEETSER E. 104. Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: temporal meanings of FRONT in Japanese. SINHA C. 2011. DA SILVA SINHA V. and Aymara.pdf GIPPER H. On the experiental link between spatial and temporal language. // Journal of Pragmatics 43. and Li P. // Frontiers in Psychology 3.vyvevans. The Expression of time. Мoscow. Reference frames of space and time in language. // Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49. EVANS V. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. COMRIE B. 16 ..BORODITSKY L.. 1971. PART 5. LE GUEN O. 2012. 1976. When time is not space: the social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. // Cognitive Science 30. 1998. The Expression of time. BROWN P. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. MELCHUK I. 2012. MATLOCK T.. 2009. // Klein W.

// Perceptual and Motor Skills 12. Whorf and his critics.. 1997. Yéli Dnye and the theory of basic color terms. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1 (1). Мoscow. 1991.. MERRIFIELD W. 1972. (eds. (eds. Cambridge University Press. KAY P.. LUCY J. Color categories in thought and language. PARAMEI G. MACLAURY R. and Maffi L. Color categories in thought and language.). (eds. 1997. Biocultural implications of systems of color naming. 1984. MACLAURY R. color recognition. 1992. MACLAURY R. and Maffi L. FRUMKINA R. Color categories in thought and language. MAFFI L.. DEDRICK D. (eds. 1982.). KEMPTON W.DIXON R.. // Cognitive Psychology 3. 1973. 1997. 1961. 17 . The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. 2007. W. From brightness to hue: An explanatory model of color-category evolution.. Color naming across languages. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10 (1). // International Journal of American Linguistics 22.. KAY P. MERRIFIELD W. // Hardin C. ROBERT E. BERLIN B. LEVINSON S. 1990. HEIDER E. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. OLIVIER D.. ROSCH E. 2001. // Hardin C. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? // American Anthropologist 86. Anthropology of color. Color and cognition in Mesoamerica. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Somali color term evolution: Grammatical and semantic evidence. color discrimination: a reappraisal. ROBERTS J. // Anthropological Linguistics 32 (3-4). MAFFI L. 1987. 2001. MACLAURY R. // American Anthropologist 89 (1). // Current Anthropology 33 (2). SHWEDER R. HEIDER E. Color naming.. LENNEBERG E. // American Anthropologist 81. The sctructure of the color space in naming and memory in two languages. // Journal of Experimental Psychology 93. University of Texas Press.. Natural categories. LUCY J. The language of experience: a study in methodology. The linguistics of “color”. M. Universals in color naming and memory. BERLIN B. KAY P... // Cognitive Psychology 4. Color-category evolution and Shurwap yellow-with-green. KAY P.). MCDANIEL CH. M.. 1997. Psycholinguistics. MAFFI L. HARDIN C. // Language 54 (3). ROBERT E.). LENNEBERG E. 1978. 1979. 1972. 1956.

ENFIELD N. 2005.). DIXON R. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Studies in evidentiality. (eds. GENDER. et al.. (eds. // Anthropological Linguistics 47(2). AIKHENVALD A. 2006. (eds. PHILLIPS W. John Benjamins Publishing Company. // Current Anthropology 46. Cambridge University Press. WILKINS D. BORODITSKY L... Individuation. GENTNER D. Levinson S.. 2011.T. relativity. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. PART 6. Sex.I. GIBSON E. SCHMIDT L. Evidentiality. // Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 22.). 18 .. World atlas of language structures. New York.. There are no 'color universals'. Levinson S. Sex. (eds. 2000. 2003. // Language 76. Number as cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. and semantics. The invention of basic color terms. Utrecht. syntax. there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. EVERETT D. DIXON R.. 1992. 1993. BORODITSKY L. Taste in two tongues: A southeast Asian study of semantic convergence... // British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44.). and Goldin-Meadow S. The M. 2000. EVERETT D.. (eds. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. PERCEPTION AND RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES. // Majid A.. Numeral classifiers. and early word learning. Oxford University Press. 2003. but there are universals of visual semantics. W. // Bowerman M. Don’t sleep. M. WIERZBICKA A. AIKHENVALD A. // Haspelmath M. and Levinson S. syntax. MAJID A.. 2011.SAUNDERS B. SCHMIDT L. BURENHULT N. 2004. NUMERAL. GIL D. 2009. The plasticity of categories: The case of colour. VAN BRACKEL J.). The senses in language and culture. Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. The senses in language and culture. (eds. FEDORENKO E. Language acquisition and conceptual development. 2005. and semantics. Oxford University Press. Press. EVANS N. // Gentner D. 1982.).). // Majid A. 2008. EVERETT D. FRANK M. BORODITSKY L. // Cognition 108.

2006. SOUSA DE H. General morphology. MEISSNER A. MATISOFF J. Frankfury am Main. ZINKEN J. 6(1). The senses in language and culture. The senses in language and culture. From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations.GORDON P. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. MAJID A. // Majid A. (eds. Grammatical Categories and Cognition. 2011. 2008. The verbs of perception: A typological study.. 1987. 1984. Oxford.. SAMPAIO W. SWEETSER E. Analogy-making in the Semai sensory world. // Science 306. From polysemy to semantic change. Berlin: Moutun. University of Chicago Press.). Scales between nouniness and verbiness. SINHA C. 2011. Changes in the language of perception in Cantonese. // Haspelmath M. (eds. Мoscow.. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman. 2011.).) Language Typology and Language Universals.) Nominal classification in Africal languages. // Voprosy Jazykoznania.). VIBERG A. // Majid A. Levinson S. et al. // Language Cognition 3. (ed. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1988. ADAMS D. Explanations for language universals. (ed. Part 2 [In Russian]. (eds. LUCY J. DA SILVA SINHA V. Philadelphia. 1998. 2006. Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. fire and dangerous things.). VS. (eds. VANHOVE M. Levinson S. Moskow. When time is not space: the social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture.. SASSE H. Modern problems of typology (To the new researches on Amerindian languages of Amazonia) [In Russian]. Cambridge University Press. 2000. VANHOVE M. MALLORY J.-J. (eds. A. // Bowerman M. 1990.. Walter de Gruyter. Women. et al. LUCY J. 2008. and Levinson S.. Cambridge University Press. 19 . (eds.. GASKINS S. MELCHUK I. // Vanhove M. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: a comparative approach. [Special Issue] // The Senses & Society. 1978. 1992. Language acquisition and conceptual development.. LEVINSON S. STORCH A. (ed. IVANOV VYACH.). 2001. // Comrie B. prehension and mental perceptions. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the ProtoIndo-European World. Cambridge University Press.).). The senses in language and culture. 2004. 2011. Koln. LAKOFF G. TUFVESSON S. Semantic associations between sensory modalities..

WISE M. // Handbook of Amazonian languages. Ideophones. 2001. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1986.Amsterdam . KILIAN-HATZ CH. Grammatical characteristics of pre-Andine Arawakan languages in Peru. (eds. Berlin ..). R. 20 .VOELTZ E.New York.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful