1

Laguage ,culture and thoughtPresented byEman Alfandi

2

we will discuss the follwing topics:

1-discursive relativity, or How Speakers of Different discourses (across languages or in the same language)Have Different Cultural Worldviews.

2-Language relativity in applied linguistic research

3-Language relativity in educational practice

4-The danger of stereotyping and prejudiceInstead of language thought –and-culture:

Speaker writers. Thinkers and members of discourse communitives

5-conclusion:the “incorrigible diversity” of applied linguistics

3

-The idea of verbal discursive practices affect some aspect of thinking influencing by :

These idea underlies recent research in :1-Linguistic anthropology2-Language socialization studies3-Cultur psychology

- These kind of research draws on theories that account for interaction of mind ,language and social /cultural action in communicative practices in every day life.

interpretation of the interactional context

Modulating structure

4

: Contextualizationto think about or provide information about the situation in which something happens

John Gumperz has shown the importance of contextualization cues to make sense of what is going on in conversation

[“discourse ] . is the nexus the actual and social - - expression of the language culture sociaty

relationship.

*It creates and recreates ,modify and fine tunes both culture and language and their intersection

(schezer 1987,p296 ]

5

Contextualization cues:

Are those features of speech that relate what is said at any time and in any one place to knowledge acquired through past experience to presupposition [participant]must rely on to maintain conversational involvement and assess what is intended

6

example of cues:

Phonological cues Paralinguisticcues

Linguistics cues

•Choice of intonation •Stress

•pitch

•Gesture

•Facial expressions

Choice of code Choice of lexical forms or formulation of expressions

7

-Those cues link what said to what is thought and how the world perceived by the participant.

-Gumperz gives an example of miscommunication between a graduate student and his informant in an ethnographic survey, due to the inability of the student to pick up the relevant contextualization cues:

-Contextualization cues in the classroom : Discourse regulation and social control functions

8

The graduate student has been sent to interview a black housewife in a low income, inner city neighborhood. The contact has been made over the phone by someone in the office .

The student arrives, rings the bell, and is met by thehusband, who opens the door, smiles and steps towards him:

Husband : So yore going to check out ma ol lady, hah?

Interviewer : Ah no. I only came to get some information. They called from the office.

(Husband, dropping his smile, disappears without a word and calls his wife). The student reports that the interview that

. followed was stiff and quite unsatisfactory Being black, “ ” himself he knew that he had blown it by failing to recognize

’ the significance of the husband s speech style in this particular case.

(Gumperz, 1982a, p. 133)

9

-Contextualization cues are part of a larger class of :discourse elements called

“ : indexical” or “index”,It's the personal, social, cultural, and ideological subject position of the speaker and require interpretation on the part of the participants

(Gumperz, 1996.)

-Indexicality is a powerful way of researching the intersection of patterns of language use and concomitant patterns of thought and culture.

Generally ,language as communicative practice is tied to a person’s position in time, space, social and historical

relations, and his/her social and emotional Identity.

10

-How do children learn language as communicative practice?

-In a programmatic article titled “Linguistic resources for socializing humanity”

-Elinor Ochs examines what it takes to become “a speaker of culture” Drawing on her fieldwork on child language socialization in a Samoan village and her extensive research in developmental pragmatics,she :Found that

through language and other symbolic tools, children and adults construct the culture they live in by :publicly signaling

11

the actions they are performing, the stances they are displaying, their evaluation of their own and others’ feelings and

beliefs, the social identities they put forward the sequence of actions, or activities, in which they are engaged.

12

Language acquisition

“in a process of socialization, “a process of assigning situational, i.e., indexical, meaning to particular forms (e.g., interrogative forms, diminutive affixes, raised

pitch and the like)”

13

how language is as a,

symbolic system

communicative practice ,

is intimately linked to

spatial and temporal orientation ,

the speakers’ subject positioning vis-à-vis

these events, and

the actions taken

Ochs’ work brings together insights from Deacon, Lakoff, Johnson, and Slobin

14

By focusing on activity, rather than on speaker utterance, as the unit of analysis, Ochs is able to closely connect the linguistic, the cognitive, and the social in children’s development.

15

Language Relativity in Applied Linguistic Research

Research on all forms of language relativity has been carried out independently of research on second language acquisition (SLA), which forms a

large area of the field “applied linguistics”.

16

*The brief survey that follows recapitulates the history of SLA research from the perspective Of language

relativity .

-Prior to the emergence of applied linguistics in the late fifties/early sixties, the combination of structural

linguistics and behavioral psychology led to:

-contrastive analysis approaches in language acquisition study .

-behavioristic methods of language teaching (repetition, habit formation, translation).

17

-The first cognitive revolution in educational psychology brought about by Jerome Bruner and his colleagues in the fifties reinstated the autonomy of the thinking subject (Bruner, Good now, & Austin,)

-the linguistic revolution brought about by Noam Chomsky (1957) reinstated the autonomy of the speaking.

-thus liberating the learner from behavioral conditioning and political manipulation.

18

-Both western psychology and linguistics have implicitly adopted the rationalist, Cartesian view that :

Language reflects thought and thought is expressed through language, but also that psychological processes exist independently of language and of the social activities in which language is used.

19

Through the eighties ,

-SLA research was not interested in linguistic relativity..

- Researchers within the formal linguistic tradition sought to discover :

1 .universal aspects of second language (L2) acquisition based on the principles of Universal Grammar.

2 .its language-specific parameters,

Or universal psycholinguistic processes of L2 development.

20

-Researchers within the functionalist tradition of SLA

sought to discover the L2-specific rules of communicative competence including:

1.the deployment of communicative strategies

2.the management of conversations in social contexts .

-Researchers within the pragmatics strand of SLA explored the realization of speech acts across .languages

21

*SLA research was concerned with

1 .the social context of language learning. 2 .it viewed the social as a stable, pre-existing fixture,

existing outside the individual, not constructed by an individual’s psychological and Linguistic processes.

*By relying on the standard (national) native speaker as a benchmark for language acquisition, it seemed

to equate, like Herder and von Humboldt ,

one language with one national community and one national culture.

22

”For researchers in this area of applied linguistics ,a speaker of Japanese or Hebrew is seen as a representative of “the” Japanese or Israeli national culture.

“-Culture” is most of the time essentialized into monolithic national cultures on the model of monolithic standard national languages.

23

*Last ten years: The social and cultural turn in SLA within the last ten :years

It has made the language relativity principle more relevant in AL implicit in :

-The language socialization research, -The sociolinguistic strands of AL

- The recent environmental or ecological theories of SLA -The return of a phenomenological tradition of inquiry

-The neo-Whorfian perspectives on bi- and multilingualism

24

-There are initial efforts now to deal with individual, social, and cultural variation within SLA research.

-Efforts are found1-to avoided rigid dichotomies like

(input vs. output( ) . acquisition vs learning),

2-to replace them by more holistic concepts like affordances, collaborative dialogue, or mediated activity leave open the possibility of placing language relativity at the core of language acquisition and use (Lantolf, 2000).

25

:So does the recent emphasis on -on creativity And play in language development

(Cook, 2000 ,) -ritual and symbolic interaction (Rampton, 2002)

-on the conceptual and subjective make up of multilingual speakers and learners

(Pavlenko, 1999; Kramsch, forthcoming.)

-0n linguistic anthropology to verbal art, poetic patterning, and the "poetic imagination”.

26

All these recent developments focus on the way individual and collective thoughts and sensibilities are co-constructed, shaped, and subverted through language as communicative and representational practice.

27

From a methodological perspective, -the principle of language relativity

suggests adopting an ecological/ Phenomenological approach to research in applied linguistics .

Kramsch, 2002 .

-However, the research reviewed above shows that it is possible to relate language to thought and culture in ways that adhere to the criteria of sound and rigorous research in the social sciences, especially in cognitive linguistics and linguistic anthropology.

28

:-language relativity will require 1.taking into account phenomena that have remained too

long under the radar of applied linguistic research ,i.e., cultural knowledge and its reproduction, and

“the more chaotic and inchoate sides of language and social life”(Hill & Mannheim, 1992, p. 398).

2.long-term longitudinal studies.3.ethnographic methods of data collection ,

4.cross-linguistic discourse analyses ,5.a drawing on social and cultural theories

to illuminate the relationship between macro and micro -a research level phenomena.

29

Language Relativity in Educational Practice

The critical test of applied linguistics as a research field is, of course, education, in the broadest sense of the bringing about of social and cultural change.

30

Henry Widdowson pointed to this problem when he wrote :

“It is the responsibility of applied linguists to consider the criteria for an educationally relevant approach to language” (1980, p. 86) .

But what is “educationally relevant?”

31

Jerome Bruner answers:

[“Education ]is not simply a technical business of well-managed information processing, nor even simply a matter of applying “learning theories” to the classroom or using the results of subject-centered “achievement testing.” It is a complex pursuit of fitting a culture to the needs of its members and their ways of knowing to the needs of the culture. “(Bruner, 1996, p. 43)

32

The needs of the culture, as perceived and formulated by teachers, school administrators, and textbook writers and publishers may not be the same asthose formulated by researchers, nor is the discourse of all practitioners or Of all researchers homogeneous.

33

-Culture, in an individual, as in society at large, is plural, changing, and often conflictual. The problem here is the conflict between the desire of the practitioner and the constraints of the institution,

e.g., -conflict between the culture of teaching and the culture of testing ,

- conflict between the culture of the students and the culture of native

speakers .

34

The conflict is expressed in three questions that can be raised by the principle of languagerelativity in educational linguistics:

First ,isn’t applied linguistic theory itself subjected to the principle of language relativity?

-Yet such a view is only partially true, for applied linguistic theory is multiple, even though not all theories are equal before the laws of demand and supply on the economic textbook market.

-Moreover if applied linguistic theory is both universally valid and contingent upon the cultural conditions of its enunciation, so is educational theory

35

Second ,isn’t educational culture inherently inhospitable to the principle of language relativity, since its ultimate goal is to discriminate between educated and non-educated segments of the population through the imposition of the same formal norms to

everyone?

The reason why (non-relativistic) grammar is taught as a formal system, apart from the fact that it is more easily “testable,” is precisely because of a positivistic information processing educational culture that imposes its own rationalistic frames on what is acceptable teaching at What level for what age group, and what is not.

36

-It is this educational culture that has trained the teachers and the teacher-trainers .

-Its rationale is to be found in the historical, cultural, political traditions of the institution.

-It is often associated with noble goals of educational equity, objectivity, fairness, etc. in a mass education system, but this only exacerbates the dilemma.

37

Third:can language relativity be taught directly or can it only

be modeled?-:Suggestions have been made

-To make teachers and students aware of the relevance of the linguistic relativity principle in its Vygotskyan,

diachronic form, both with regard to their L1and the L2: -Teachers can show their students, for example, how the

English grammar encourages its speakers to attend to reality in a certain way when they speak.

-They can explain the multiple ways in which “culture” is constructed through language

38

-They can make their syllabus, teaching methods, and teaching goals more transparent by:

1 )telling students what “culture” they have learned

2 )Learning them to talk and write in a foreign language.

-They can take every opportunity to link language use to a speaker’s or writer’s thought.

i.e. stance and point of view, and to link that point of view of speakers and writers of the same national, social, or cultural discourse community.

39

The Danger of Stereotyping and Prejudice

In an influential essay on cross-cultural rhetoric,Robert Kaplan, 30 years ago, advanced the theory that speakers of different Language write according to

different rhetorical logics .

40

Kaplan’s views echo those of Sapir and Whorf:

“It is apparent but not obvious that, at least“

to a very large extent, the organization of a paragraph, written in any language by any individual who is not a native speaker of that language, will carry the dominant imprint of that individual’sculturally-coded orientation to the phenomenological world in which he lives and which he is bound to interpret largely through the avenues available to him in his native language.” (Kaplan, 1972, p. 1)

41

-In diagrams (“doodles”) that have since become famous, Kaplan suggested that:

“each language and each culture has a[n expository] paragraph order unique to itself, and that part of the learning of a particular language is the mastering of its logical system,” or of the “logos immanent in the language” (1972, p. 63).

42

_Thus, the English paragraph is represented by a straight downward arrow ,

the Oriental (here Chinese and Korean, but not Japanese) paragraph by a spiral circling toward the center.

_the Romance paragraph by a downward crooked arrow broken up by several horizontal “digressional” plateaux.

The Semitic is represented by digressional down arrowThe russian paragraph is represented by a downward intermittent

arow

43

-It is the educational institution,not the language itself, that decides what counts as an effective “expository paragraph” and that imposes its definition of the genres of power on those it is charged with schooling.

44

-If texts have different organizations, it is because they have different purposes, and their

readerships have different expectations .

-Language relativity, confronts applied linguistics with its intrinsic boundary nature between language theory and educational practice.

45

Instead of Language-Thought-and-Culture:Speakers/Writers, Thinkers, and Members

of Discourse Communities

-The principle of language relativity shifts the focus away from static concepts like language, thought, and culture toward more dynamicnotions of speakers/writers, thinkers, and members of discourse communities.

-Language is only one of many semiotic systems with which learners make sense of the world expressed in a different language .

-The acquisition of another language is not an act of disembodied cognition, but is the situated, spatially and temporally anchored, co-construction of meaning between teachers and learners who each carry with them their own history of experience with language and communication.

-Culture is not one worldview, shared by all the members of a national speech community; it is multifarious, changing, and, more often than not, conflictual.

46

Language relativity suggests 1.reorienting the focus of language teachers from what

they do to who they are. Whether the language they teach is the language they grew up with, or a foreign

language ,2.they themselves have had to grapple with language

relativity 3.It has, no doubt, put into question their own

worldview, it has made them conscious of what got speaker and a non-native speaker.

.

47

5.They have to resonate to the foreign words with the sensibility of both a native lost in translation

6.They have to make the difference between language relativity and moral relativism.

*The principle of language relativity enables us to understand to a certain degree how speakers of

other languages think and what they value .•(Geertz, 1983, p. 16.)

48

Conclusion :The “Incorrigible Diversity” of

Applied Linguistics-This essay has drawn on several disciplines besides linguistics,

such aspsychology, sociology, and anthropology and new cross-disciplinary fields like cognitive linguistics, cultural psychology, linguistic anthropology to illuminate the relationship of

language, thought, and culture in applied linguistics .

-The question arises as to whether the field is done a service or a-disservice by becoming “hybridized” to such an extent. Not every applied linguist agrees that it is a good thing for applied linguistics to draw oso many feeder disciplines without the possibility of developing

aunified applied linguistic theory..

49

Yet, it seems that research on language as cognitive, social, and cultural practice cannot but draw on a multiplicity of disciplines, even though it does not make the methodology of applied linguistics research any easier

*Constructing a useful applied linguistics means making the most of its incorrigible diversity. It is about cross-pollinating different construals of linguistic, mental and cultural reality in light of the problems of the practice. In so doing, it just might change these construals.

50

an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (eds.) (1992)Discursive psychology. London: Sage.

Ellis, R. (1986) Understanding secondlanguage acquisition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Ellis, R. (ed.) (1987) Second languageacquisition in context. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Fairclough, N. (ed.) (1992) Criticallanguage awareness. London: Longman.Fauconnier, G. (1985) Mental spaces:

aspects of meaning construction in naturallanguage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Friedrich, P. (1986) The languageparallalax: linguistic relativism and poeticindeterminacy. Austin, TX: Universityof Texas Press.

Geertz, C. (1983) Local knowledge. NewYork: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (2000) Available light:anthropological reflections on philosophicaltopics. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.Gumperz, J. J. (1982a) Discourse strategies.

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Gumperz, J. J. (ed.) (1982b) Language andsocial identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1992) Contextualizationand understanding. In A. Duranti &

C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context:language as an interactive phenomenon

(pp. 229–52 .)Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1996) The linguistic andcultural relativity of inference. InJ. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson

(eds ,).Rethinking linguistic relativity(pp. 374– 406 .)Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (1996)Rethinking linguistic relativity.

51

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978) Language associal semiotic. London: EdwardArnold.

Hanks, W. (1996) Language andcommunicative practices. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Herder, J. G. von ( [1772] 1960)Sprachphilosophische Schriften.Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

Hill, J. & Mannheim, B. (1992) Languageand worldview. Annual Review ofAnthropology, 21, 381–406.

Holquist, M. (1990) Dialogism: Bakhtinand his world. London: Routledge.Hymes, Dell (1996) Ethnography,

linguistics, narrative inequality: towardan understanding of voice. London:Taylor & Francis.Jacoby, S. & Ochs, E. (1995) Coconstruction:

an introduction. Researchin Language and Social Interaction, 28(3),

171–84.Jaworski, A. & Coupland, N. (eds.)

(1999 )The discourse reader. London:Routledge.

Johnson, M. (1987) The body in the mind:the bodily basis of meaning, imagination,

and reason. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Kaplan, R. B. (1972) The anatomy ofrhetoric: prolegomena to a functionaltheory of rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA:Center for Curriculum Development.

Kaplan, R. B. (1987) Cultural thoughtpatterns revisited. In U. Connor &

R. Kaplan (eds.), Writing acrosslanguages: analysis of L2 text (pp. 9–22).Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Kasper, G. & Rose, K. (2001) Researchmethods in interlanguage pragmatics.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and culture inlanguage teaching. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Kramsch, C. (1998) The privilege of theintercultural speaker. In M. Byram.

&M. Fleming (eds.), Foreign languagelearning in intercultural perspective

(pp. 16–31 .)Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

52

Kramsch, C. (2001) Language, culture,and voice in the teaching of Englishas a foreign language. NovELTy. Ajournal of English language teachingand cultural studies in Hungary, 8(1),

4–21( .http://www.novelty.hu)Kramsch, C. (2002a) Introduction: How

can we tell the dancer from the dance?In C. Kramsch (ed.), Languageacquisition and language socialization:ecological perspectives (pp. 1–30).London: Continuum.

Kramsch, C. (ed.) (2002b) Languageacquisition and language socialization:ecological perspectives. London:Continuum.

Kramsch, C. (forthcoming) Themultilingual subject. In I. deFlorio-Hansen & A. Hu (eds.),

Mehrsprachigkeit und multikulturelleIdentitaet [Multilingualism andmulticultural identity]. Tuebingen:Stauffenburg Verlag.

Labov, W. (1972) Language in the innercity. Philadelphia: University ofPhiladelphia Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, fire, anddangerous things: what categories revealabout the mind. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1992) Metaphor and war:The metaphor system used to justifywar in the Gulf. In H. Kreisler (ed.),

Confrontation in the Gulf: University ofCalifornia professors talk about the war

(pp. 1–19 .)Berkeley, CA: Institute ofInternational Studies.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980)Metaphors we live by. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, R. T. (1990) Talking power: thepolitics of language. New York: BasicBooks.Lakoff, R. T. (2000) The language war.

Berkeley: University of California

53

Lantolf, J. (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural theoryand second language learning. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002) Languageacquisition and language use froma chaos-complexity perspective. InC. Kramsch (ed.), Language acquisitionand language socialization: ecologicalperspectives (pp. 33–46). London:Continuum.Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M.

(1991 )Introduction to second languageacquisition research. London: Longman.

Lemke, J. (2002) Language developmentand identity: Multiple timescalesin the social ecology of learning. InC. Kramsch (ed.), Language acquisitionand language socialization: ecologicalperspectives (pp. 68–87). London:Continuum.

Levinson, S. (1997) From outer to innerspace: linguistic categories andnon-linguistic thinking. In J. Nuyts

&E. Pederson (eds.), Language andconceptualization (pp. 13–45).

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1993)How languages are learned. Oxford:Oxford University Press.Lucy, J. (2000) Introductory comments.In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.),

Evidence for linguistic relativity(pp. ix–xxi .)Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.Lucy, J. & Wertsch, J. (1987) Vygotskyand Whorf: A comparative analysis.

In M. Hickmann (ed.), Social andfunctional approaches to language andthought (pp. 67–86). New York:Academic Press.

Malinowski, B. (1923) The problem ofmeaning in primitive languages.

Supplement 1 in C. K. Ogden &I. A. Richards, The Meaning ofmeaning: a study of the influence oflanguage upon thought and of the scienceof symbolism (pp. 451–510). London:

54

Malinowski, B. (1935) Coral gardens andtheir magic, vol. 2. London: Allen &

Unwin.McNeill, R. (ed.) (1992) Hand and mind:what gestures reveal about thought.

Chicago: University of ChicagoPressMcNeill, R. & Duncan, S. D. (2000)Growth points in thinking-forspeaking.In R. McNeill, (ed.),Language and gesture (pp. 141–61).

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Moerman, M. (1988) Talking culture:ethnography and conversation analysis.

Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press.

Morson, G. & Emerson, C. (1990) MikhailBakhtin: creation of a prosaics. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Ochs, E. (1996) Linguistic resources forsocializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz

&S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinkinglinguistic relativity (pp. 407–37).

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Ochs, E. (2002) Becoming a speaker ofculture. In C. Kramsch (ed.), Languageacquisition and language socialization:ecological perspectives (pp. 99–120).London: Continuum.

Ochs, E. & Schieffelin, B. (1984)Language acquisition andsocialization: three developmentalstories. In R. A. Shweder & R. A.

LeVine (eds.), Culture Theory: essays onmind, self, and emotion (pp. 276–320).

Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Pavlenko, A. (1999) New approachesto concepts in bilingual memory.

55

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition,2(3 ,)209–30.

Pavlenko, A. (in press) Bilingualism andthought. In A. de Groot & J. Kroll

(eds ,). Handbook of bilingualism:psycholinguistic approaches. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1994) The cultural politicsof English as an international language.London: Longman.

Pennycook, A. (1998) English and thediscourses of colonialism. London:Routledge.

Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical appliedlinguistics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Pinker, S. (1994) The language instinct:

how the mind creates language. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Rampton, B. (ed.) (1997) Retuningapplied linguistics. Special issue ofthe International Journal of AppliedLinguistics, 7(1).

Rampton, B. (2002) Ritual and foreignlanguage practices at school. Languagein Society, 31(4), 491–525.

Romaine, S. (1995) Bilingualism(2nd edn .).: Oxford Blackwell.

Sapir, E. (1962) Culture, language andpersonality: selected essays. Ed. DavidMandelbaum. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Scherzer, J. (1987) A discourse-orientedapproach to language and culture.

American Anthropologist, 89(2), 295–309.

Schieffelin, B. & Ochs, E. (1986) Languagesocialization across cultures. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Schultz, E. A. (1990) Dialogue at themargins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and linguisticrelativity. Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin Press.

Shore, B. (1996) Culture in mind: cognition,culture and the problem of meaning.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silverstein, M. (1976) Shifters, linguisticcategories, & cultural description. InK. Basso & H. Selby (eds.), Meaning inanthropology (pp. 11–55). Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press

56

Slobin, D. I. (1996) From “thought andlanguage” to “thinking for speaking”.

In J. J. Gumperz & S. Levinson(eds ,).Rethinking linguistic relativity

(pp. 70–96 .)Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Slobin, D. I. (2000) Verbalized events.

A dynamic approach to linguisticrelativity and determinism. InS. Niemeier & R. Dirven (eds.),

Evidence for linguistic relativity(pp. 108–38 .)Amsterdam: John

Benjamins.Spolsky, B. (1989) Conditions for secondlanguage learning. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A ,.&Herdt, G. (eds.) (1990) Culturalpsychology: essays on comparative humandevelopment. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Tannen, D. (1998) The argument culture.New York: Random House.

Turner, M. (1996) The literary mind: theorigins of thought and language.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Van Lier, L. (2000) From input toaffordance: Social-interactive learningfrom an ecological perspective.

In J. Lantolf (ed.), Socioculturaltheory and second language learning

(pp. 245–60 .)Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.

(1991 )The embodied mind: cognitivescience and human experience.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Von Humboldt, W. ( [1836] 1988) Onlanguage: the diversity of human languagestructure and its influence on the mentaldevelopment of mankind (trans.

P. Heath). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Vygotsky, L. ( [1934] 1962) Thought andlanguage. Ed. and trans. E. Hanfmann

&G. Vakar. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind and society:

the development of higher psychological

57

processes (ed. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner,S. Scribner, & E. Souberman.)

Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Vygotsky, L. (1981) The genesis of highermental functions. In J. V. Wertsch

(ed ,).The concept of activity in Sovietpsychology (pp. 144 – 88). Armonk, NY:Sharpe.Wertsch, J. V. (ed.) (1985) Culture,communication and cognition:

Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Whorf, B. L. ( [1940] 1956) Language,

thought, and reality: selected writings ofBenjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. J. B. Carroll.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Widdowson, H. (1980) Appliedlinguistics: the pursuit of relevance.

In Robert B. Kaplan (ed.), On the scopeof applied linguistics (pp. 74–87).Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992) Semantics, culture,

and cognition: universal human conceptsin culture-specific configurations. Oxford:Oxford University Press.