English in Perspective

Colour Perception; Universal or Language Specific?

Debating Linguistic Relativity

B

enjamin Lee Whorf graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1918 with a degree in Chemical Engineering. He then worked as a fire prevention engineer. While working as an engineer Whorf also did his own independent studies in the field of linguistics, but he never considered the studies of languages as a profession. He later studied with Edward Sapir and this is where the misnomer of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis came to be. Sapir and Whorf never co-authored any studies and never stated the ideas of linguistic relativity in a hypothesis.  Though Sapir was the first to discuss the “hypothesis” in 1929, he was mainly against it whereas Whorf was for it.

Linguistic Relativity

The principle of linguistic relativity suggests that the structure of our home languages affects the ways in which we conceptualize the world and that it also influences our cognitive processes. This means that how we use a particular language in the categories of grammar and word use can actually influence how we see things and how we understand them for example the perception of colour. Because Sapir and Whorf had mainly different ideas about linguistic relativity there can be articulated that there are two different versions of linguistic relativity. This can be seen in the stronger (Whorf) and weaker (Sapir) terms in their writings about the principles of linguistic relativity. The stronger version of linguistic relativity claims that our home language determines our thoughts and that the linguistic categories can limit or determine our cognitive categories. There has been much debate that Whorf’s idea about linguistic relativity is actually linguistic determinism because of its strong belief that language determines our perception and thoughts. The weaker version claims that the use of linguistic categories merely influences thought and certain non-linguistic behaviour.

A Relativist View

In 1953 a psychologist, Eric Lenneberg, started to criticise the ideas of Sapir and Whorf. In contrast to linguistic relativity Lenneberg claimed that the function of language is merely to represent the reality, and even though languages express reality in different ways, the reality which is portrayed stays the same and therefore the thoughts too. Lenneberg criticised Whorf’s work because of the lack of evidence of the relation between a linguistic event and an occurrence of thought or behaviour. Therefore Lenneberg and his colleague, Roger Brown, decided to prove or to disprove the idea of linguistic relativity based on a series of experiments. Lenneberg and Brown formulated a hypothesis on the different opinions in the works of Whorf and Sapir. This is where the two versions of linguistic relativity came from, the strong and the weak version. While the strong version referred to linguistic determinism, Lenneberg and Brown decided to support the weaker version which to them resembles plausible linguistic relativity. Lenneberg and Brown started to test how different languages could express the same message in different ways and what effects this had on a person’s thoughts and behaviour. These tests laid a foundation for the Relativist position of colour perception, even though Lenneberg would later support a Universalist view.

In their first test, they investigated whether English speakers found it easier to remember colour shades they had names for than to remember colours shades that they could not define by language. This gave them the means to analyse the relationship between a linguistic event and a non-linguistic behaviour, which is to recognise and remember colours. Another test was done where English and Zuni speakers had to complete tasks of colour recognition. Lenneberg and Brown wanted to determine if the differing colour categories of the different participants would determine their ability to recognise the differences within colour categories. Lenneberg and Brown found that Zuni speakers who classified green and blue as a single category had difficulties with recognising and remembering differences within the green and blue category. The results actually conclude then that the limits of the language we speak actually have an influence on our perception of reality and our non-linguistic behaviour.

A flaw in Lenneberg and Brown’s test could be one due to the fact that the test relies mainly on the ability to remember. This could have a major impact on the outcome of results. In the end it comes down to the memorising of physical things regardless of the role language plays. Thus not everyone has the same ability to remember, some people can remember better than other and it is in this area where difficulties rose in the methodology.

A Universalist View

Lenneberg was also the one who turned things around to the Universalist theory. It was later formulated by Noam Chomsky who argued that all languages share the same basic structure and when learning languages it does not affect a person’s cognitive processes. For instance Brent Berlin and Paul Kay studied colour terminology formation which produced them with universal trends of colour naming. There are eleven basic colour categories that Berlin and Kay have identified. These colours are red, blue, yellow, green, purple, pink, brown, orange, grey, black and white.  Their founding suggested that even though a language has a different colour naming terminology, it still recognised certain hues as more focal than the others. This suggests that most languages would possess at least three focal colours. Berlin and Kay also found that languages with less than eleven colour terms follow a specific evolutionary pattern.

A later study done by Bornstein, Kessen and Weiskopf supported this Universalist theory. The study consisted of using sixteen four-month-old babies who were presented with lights of different frequencies that corresponds to different colours. The habituation lengths that were measured found that babies who were presented with continues hues surrounding certain focal colours were longer than those who were presented with continues focal colours. Thus Bornstein, Kessen and Weiskopf claimed that even a baby of four month has the ability to perceive the same individual focal colours.

There are two scholars that are prominent figures in linguistics and who are opposing the Universalist theory. These scholars are Barbara Saunders and John Lucy. They both show certain corresponding points of view about the flaws and shortcomings of Universalist research methodologies and assumptions that go along with it. Saunders and Lucy both criticise Berlin and Kay for making ethnocentric and bias based assumptions of Western scientific and philosophical thought.  Therefor having western point of view could greatly influence results and also question the ethics. Both Saunders and Lucy also question the effectiveness of the colour system that was used in the test, the Munsell colour system. Lucy also states that the Universalists choice of research method is specifically chosen to deliver wanted results. “It guarantees both their discovery and their form”.

Conclusion

For the last hundred years there has been much debate over linguistic relativity and then also the Relativist and Universalist debates. The Relativist view states that language plays a part in how we perceive colour, where the Universalist view states that even though languages differ we still see colour the same. I have to admit, thinking about colour as a creation of my mind through the use of my language terminology sounds very weird. When looked at in terms of biology, it’s not that plausible. We have rods and cones in our eyes which allow us to see the colours. When this is taken into perspective, language cannot influence the way we see colour. I then can’t understand why some people disregard the Universalist view of colour perception. A Universalist view is easy to understand and more acceptable. It is also the view which is most adequately supported by multitudes of research. I think that just because you don’t know the word for something in reality it doesn’t mean that you won’t be able to see it. In that sense I have to disagree with the Relativist view, and therefor support the Universalist view. I will say this; the Relativist view is not completely wrong, I’m certain that when you don’t have a word for something in your language your cognitive processes are certainly influenced by it. You will then think about the object in a different way, but the object won’t cease to exist.

Further Reading

Athanasopoulos, P., 2009. Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), pp. 83-95.

Berlin, B. & Kay, P., 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bornstein, M., Kessen, W. & Weiskopf, S., 1976. The categories of hue in infancy. Science, 191(4223), pp. 201-202.

Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S., 2003. Whither Whorf. In: D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow, eds. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 3-14.

Kay, P. & Regier, T., 2006. Language, thought and color: recent developments. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(2), pp. 51-54.

Lucy, J. A., 1997. Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, Volume 26, pp. 219-312.

Regier, T., 2007. Color naming and the effect of language on perception. Chicago, s.n.

Saunders, B., 1995. Disinterring Basic Color Terms: a study in the mystique of cognitivism. History of the Human Sciences, 8(7), pp. 19-38.

Works Cited

Athanasopoulos, P., 2009. Cognitive representation of colour in bilinguals: The case of greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), pp. 83-95.

Berlin, B. & Kay, P., 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bornstein, M., Kessen, W. & Weiskopf, S., 1976. The categories of hue in infancy. Science, 191(4223), pp. 201-202.

Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S., 2003. Whither Whorf. In: D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow, eds. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 3-14.

Kay, P. & Regier, T., 2006. Language, thought and color: recent developments. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(2), pp. 51-54.

Lucy, J. A., 1997. Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, Volume 26, pp. 219-312.

Regier, T., 2007. Color naming and the effect of language on perception. Chicago, s.n.

Saunders, B., 1995. Disinterring Basic Color Terms: a study in the mystique of cognitivism. History of the Human Sciences, 8(7), pp. 19-38.