LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY AND ITS ROLE IN TIME PERCEPTION
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This subchapter explores the role of linguistic relativity in shaping time perception, with particular focus on how grammatical structures, lexical choices, and cultural metaphors influence temporal cognition. Drawing on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and Slobin’s “thinking for speaking” framework, it examines variations in temporal reference systems, tense marking, and aspect across languages, and how these differences affect memory, planning, and event sequencing. Empirical evidence from cross‐linguistic studies, bilingualism research, psycholinguistic experiments, and neuroimaging reveals that language can modulate the perception and organization of time, though the extent of this influence remains contested. The discussion addresses both strong and weak interpretations of linguistic relativity, considering universal cognitive mechanisms alongside culturally mediated differences. Practical implications for cross‐cultural communication and clinical contexts are highlighted, as well as future research directions involving interdisciplinary methodologies and the influence of digital communication on temporal cognition.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
How to Cite
References
1.Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. Metropolitan Books.
2.Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press.
3.Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050
4.Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge University Press.
5.Lucy, J. A. (1992). Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge University Press.
6.Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003
7.Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt, Brace and Company.
8.Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.
9.Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.