Interaction of Language Type and Referent Type in the Development of Nonverbal Classification Preferences

We have argued for the utility of a comparative developmental approach to exploring the relation between language diversity and thought (Lucy and Gaskins 2001). In this chapter, we elaborate the importance of taking a structure-centered approach to such comparative-developmental research (Lucy 1997a). A structure-centered approach begins with an analysis of language structure and then moves to an operational characterization of reality implicit in it, rather than the other way around (Lucy 1992b, 273–275; 1997a). This contrasts with prevailing domain-centered approaches that begin with a characterization of some domain of reality and then consider how language structure responds to it. Ideally, a structure-centered approach entails a comparison of patterns (or configurations) of cognitive response across language-internal structural variations (Lucy 1992a, 86–91). Such a comparison of patterns of language-thought association escapes many of the interpretive difficulties inherent in the comparison of absolute levels of performance across vastly different cultures and assessment conditions. Although our earlier comparative-developmental work did implement a structure-centered approach, it did not fulfill this ideal of providing evidence of cognitive patterning across language-internal structural variation. Here we extend that earlier work so as to compare configurations of linguistic and cognitive behaviors rather than absolute responses. We begin by discussing the general importance and nature of a structure-centered approach. We then present a case study relating specific language-based predictions to parallel cognitive-experimental work with adults and children. We conclude by comparing the results of this approach with some related contemporary work. Contemporary research into the influence of language type on thought takes the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956) as its point of departure— whether or not the actual substance and significance of that work are well understood by those who invoke it. This is not the place to revisit Whorf's arguments in detail (for that see Lucy 1985, 1992b, in press), but one key aspect, namely, his views about the mutual relation of language and reality, deserves mention since it lies at the heart of his comparative approach and motivates the one developed here. Whorf's approach to the relation of language and reality emphasizes the equal value of diverse languages as referential devices. This view, part of the heritage of Boasian anthropology, contrasts with previous hierarchical views wherein some languages were regarded as intrinsically superior at representing reality and hence as vehicles for thought (Lucy, in press). The grounds used to establish the nature of reality under the hierarchical …