Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, Culture, Language and Cognition, Language and Spatial Cognition


Languages vary in their semantic partitioning of the world. This has led to speculation that language might shape basic cognitive processes. Spatial cognition has been an area of research in which linguistic relativity – the effect of language on thought – has both been proposed and rejected. Prior studies have been inconclusive, lacking experimental rigor or appropriate research design. Lacking detailed ethnographic knowledge as well as failing to pay attention to intralanguage variations, these studies often fall short of defining an appropriate concept of language, culture, and cognition. Our study constitutes the first research exploring (1) individuals speaking different languages yet living (for generations) in the same immediate environment and (2) systematic intralanguage variation. Results show that language does not shape spatial cognition and plays at best the secondary role of foregrounding alternative possibilities for encoding spatial arrangements.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.


Blaser, M. (2010). Storytelling Globalization from the Chaco and Beyond. Duke University Press, Durham.

Bohnemeyer, J. & Stolz, C. (2006). Spatial reference in Yukatec Maya: A survey. In: Levinson, S. & Wilkins, D. (eds.), The grammar of space, 273-310. Cambridge.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1992). “Left” and “Right” in Tenejapa: investigating a linguistic conceptual gap. Zeitschrift fuer Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft and Kommunikationsforschung, 45(6):590-611.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1993). Linguistic and non-lingustic coding of spatial arrays: exploration in Mayan cognition (Working paper No. 24). Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholingistics.

De Leon, L. (1994). Exploration in the acquisition of location and trajectory in Tzotzil. Haviland, J.B. & Levinson, S. (eds.), Space in Mayan Languages, Special Issue of Linguistics, 32(4/5):857-884

Gumperz, J.J. & Levinson, S.C. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity: Studies in the Social and Cultural Fundations of Language (No.17), Cambridge University Press.

Hanks, W. (1990). Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press

Henrich, J.; Heine, S. & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3):61-83.

Hunt, E. & Agnoli, F. (1991). The Whorfian Hypothesis: A Cognitive Psychology Perspective. Psychological Review, 98: 377-389.

Kant, E. (1768). Von dem ersten Grunde des Unterschiedes der Gegenden im Raume. (On the first ground of the distinction of regions in space.” In: The philosophy of right and left: incongruent counterparts and the nature of space. Dodrecht. Kluwer: 27-34

Kay, P. & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86: 65-78.

Laughlin, R. (1975). The great Tzotzil Dictionary of San Lorenzo Zinacantan. Washington, D.C.

Le Guen, O. (2009). Geocentric gestural deixis amon Yucatecan mayas (Quintana Roo, Mexico). In: Mylonas, K. (ed.), 18th IACCP book of selected congress papers, pp. 123-136, Athens.

Le Guen, O. (2011). Speech and Gesture in Spatial Language and Cognition among the Yukatec Mayas. Cognitive Science, 35(5):905-938.

Levinson, S. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge

Levinson, S; Kota, S; Haun, B.M. & Rasch, B. (2002). Returning the tables: language affects spatial reasoning. Cognition, 84: 155-188

Li, P. & Gleitman, L. (2002). Turning the tables: language and spatial reasoning. Cognition, 83: 265-294.

Li, P.; Abarbanell, L.; Gleitman, L. & Papafragou, A. (2011). Spatial reasoning in Tenejapan Mayans. Cognition, 120(1):33-53.

Lucy, J. (1997). Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26:291-312.

Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D., and Levisnon, S. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3):108-114.

Martin, L. (1986). “Eskimo words for snow”: A case study in the genesis and decay of an Anthropological Example. American Anthropologist, 88:418-423.

Medin, D.; Ross, N.; Atran, S.; Burnett, R. & Blok, S. (2002). Categorization and reasoning in relation to culture and expertise. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41:1-41

Medin, D., Ross, N., Cox, D. (2006). Culture and Resource Conflict: Whymishr meanings matter. Russel Sage Foundation, New York.

Mishra, R., Dasen, P., Niraula, S. (2003). Ecology, language, and performance on spatial cognitive tasks. International Journal of Psychology, 38(6):366-383.

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. New York.

Polian, G. & Bohnemeyer, J. (2011). "Uniformity and Variation in Tseltal reference Frame Use." Language Sciences 33(6):868-891.

Ross, N. (1997). Nutz’ Lok’el li Kaxlane – Die Vertreibung der Ladinos aus San Andrés Larraínzar, Chiapas, Mexico. Lit Verlag

Ross, N. (2004). Culture and Cognition: Implications for Theory and Methods. Thousand Oaks.

Ross, N.; Medin, D. & Cox, D. (2007). Epistemological models and culture conflict: Menominee and Euro-American hunters in Wisconsin. Ethos, 35(4):478-515.

Ross, N. & Medin, D. (2011). Culture and Cognition: the Role of Cognitive Anthropology in Anthropology and the Cognitive Sciecnes. In: Kronenfeld et al. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Anthropology

Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York.

Shenton, J.; Ross, N.; Kohut, M. & Waxman, S. (2011). Folk Botany and

Knowledge Devolution: Modernization and intra-community variability in the acquisition of folkbiological knowledge. In: Ethos, 39(3):349-367.

Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. New York.

Weissenborn, J. & Stralka, R. (1984). Das verstehen von Missverstaendnissen: Eine ontogenetische Studie. In: Zeitschrift fuer Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 14(55):113-134


14.05.2016 An earlier file version of this article was attributed to Volume 9 of the Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication. This error has now been corrected and the file reflects the correct publication date, December 2015, Volume 10. The contents of the article remain unchanged.