El rol del lenguaje natural en la cogniciónun análisis del neowhorfismo

  1. Ortega-Andrés, Marina
Revista:
Contrastes: revista internacional de filosofía

ISSN: 1136-4076,  2659-921X

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 22

Número: 1

Páginas: 173-190

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.24610/CONTRASTESCONTRASTES.V22I1.3422 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Contrastes: revista internacional de filosofía

Resumen

La tesis de que los hablantes de distintas lenguas presentan diferencias cognitivas ha sido defendida por lingüistas, psicólogos y filósofos. Muchos resultados dan a entender que existe una correlación entre lenguaje y pensamiento, pero no hay una explicación teórica precisa sobre cómo influye el lenguaje a la cognición. El objetivo de estas páginas es estudiar qué mecanismos son más explicativos de los resultados empíricos. Para ello, se analizan algunos estudios empíricos y se extraen cinco requisitos que la explicación teórica del fenómeno debe cumplir. Se analizan cinco explicaciones y se argumenta a favor de la tesis de la re-representación.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ACERO, J. J. 2013: «Las variedades de la relatividad lingüística: De Whorf al Neowhorfi smo», en J. F. García Casanova y A. Vallejo, eds. Crítica y meditación. Homenaje al profesor Pedro Cerezo Galán. Granada: EUG.
  • BORODITSKY, L. 2001: «Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English Speakers Conception of time», Cognitive psychology 43:1, 1-22.
  • BORODITSKY, L. y GENTNER, D. 2001: «Individuation, relativity, and early word learning», en Bowerman, M., y Levinson, C. (eds.):. Language cognition and conceptual development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • BORODITSKY, L. y PRINZ, J. 2008: «What thoughts are made of en Semin», en G.R.; Smith, E. R. (eds.): Embodied Grounding: Social, Cognitive, Affective, and Neuroscientifi c Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • BOWERMAN, M. y CHOI, S. 1991: «Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The infl uence of language-specifi c lexicalization patterns», Cognition, 41(1): 83-121.
  • BOWERMAN, M., y CHOI, S. 2003: «Space under construction: Language-specifi c spatial categorization in fi rst language acquisition», en Gentner, D. y Goldin- Meadow, S. (eds.): Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition, Cambridge, M.A: The MIT Press, pp.387-428.
  • BROWN, P. y LEVINSON, S. C. 2000: «Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal», en Nucci, L., Saxe, G. B., y Turiel, E. (eds): Culture, thought, and development, New Yersey London: Psychology Press, pp. 167-197.
  • CAREY, S. 2009: The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • CASASANTO, D. 2005: «Crying ‘Whorf’!», Science 307: 1721-1722.
  • CASASANTO, D. 2008: «Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought», Language learning 58: 1, 63-79.
  • CASASANTO, D. 2014: «Development of metaphorical thinking: the role of language», en M. Borken, M., Hunnell, J. y Dancygier,B. (eds.): Language and creative mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • CASASANTO, D. y BORODITSKY, L. 2007: «Time in the mind: Using space to think about time», Cognition, 106(2): 579-593.
  • CASASANTO, D. y BOTTINI. R 2010: «Can mirror-reading reverse the fl ow of time?», en Hölscher, C., Shipley, T.F., Olivetti Belardinelli, Bateman, J. A., Newcombe, N. S.: Spatial cognition VII, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 335- 45.
  • CASASOLA, M. 2005: «Can language do the driving? The effect of linguistic input on infants’ categorization of support spatial relations», Developmental psychology 41: 183-92.
  • CASASOLA, M. y COHEN, L. B. 2002: «Infant categorization of containment, support and tight-fi t spatial relationships», Developmental science, 5(2): 247- 264.
  • CLARK, A. (1998): «Magic words: How language augments human computation», en Carruthers, P. y Boucher, J. (eds.): Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 162-183.
  • DOLSCHEID, S., HUNNIUS, S., CASASANTO, D., y MAJID, A. 2012: «The sound of thickness: Prelinguistic infants’ associations of space and pitch», en The 34th annual neeting of the cognitive science society. Cognitive Science Society, pp. 306-311.
  • GELMAN, R. y GALLISTEL, C.R, 2004: «Language and the origin of numerical concepts», Science 306: 441-443.
  • GENTNER, D. y NAMY, L. L. 1999: «Comparison in the development of categories» Cognitive development 14(4): 487-513.
  • GORDON, P. 2004: «Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia», Science 306 (5695): 496-499.
  • EVANS, V. 2009: How words mean: lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning construction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • EVERETT, C. 2013: Linguistic relativity. Evidence across languages and cognitive domains, Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  • HESPOS, S. J. & SPELKE, E. S. 2007: «Precursors to spatial language: The case of containment», en: Aurnague, M., Hickmann, M., & Vieu, L. (eds.): The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition (Vol. 20). (pp. 233- 245) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
  • JANUARY, D. y KAKO, E. 2007: «Re-evaluating evidence for linguistic relativity: Reply to Boroditsky 2001». Cognition 104(2): 417-426.
  • KARMILOFF-SMITH, A. 1992: Beyond modularity: a developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • KARMILOFF-SMITH y CLARK, A. 1993: «The cognizer’s innards: A psychological and philosophical perspective of the development thought», Mind and language 8(4): 487-519.
  • LANDAU, B., DESSALEGN, B. y GOLDBERG, A. M. 2010: «Language and space: Momentary interactions», en Chilton, P. y Evans, V. (eds): Language, cognition, and space: The state of the art and new directions, London: Equinox, pp.51-78.
  • LEVINSON, S. C. 2003: Space in language and cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • LI, P. y GLEITMAN, L 1999: Language and spatial reasoning, MS. University of Pennsylvania.
  • LI, P. y GLEITMAN, L 2002: «Turning the tables: Language and spatial reasoning», Cognition 83(3): 265-294.
  • LI, P., DUNHAM, Y. y CAREY, S., 2009: «Of substance: The nature of language effects on entity construal. Cognitive Psychology 58: 487-524.
  • LUCY, J. 1992: Language diversity and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • MAJID, A., BOWERMAN, M., KITA, S., HAUN, D. B., y LEVINSON, S. C. 2004: «Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(3): 108-114.
  • MCDONOUGH, L., CHOI, S. y MANDLER, J. M. 2003. «Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults», Cognitive psychology, 46(3): 229-259.
  • MILLER, K., MAJOR, S. M., SHU, H. y ZHANG, H. 2000: «Ordinal knowledge: Number names and number concepts in Chinese and English», Canadian journal of experimental psychology/revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale 54(2): 129.
  • NÚÑEZ, R. E. y SWEETSER, E. 2006: «With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time», Cognitive science, 30(3), 401-450.
  • PICA, P., LEMER, C., IZARD, V. y DEHAENE, S. 2004: «Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group», Science 306(5695): 499-503.
  • PEDERSON, E. 1995: «Language as context, language as means: Spatial cognition and habitual language use», Cognitive Linguistics 6: 33-62.
  • PINKER, S. 2007: The stuff of thought, New York: VIKING
  • PRINZ, J. y REINES, M. F. 2009: «Reviving Whorf: The return of linguistic relativity», Philosophy Compass 4(6):1022-1032
  • QUINN, P. C., CUMMINS, M., KASE, J., MARTIN, E. y WEISSMAN, S. 1996: «Development of categorical representations for above and below spatial relations in 3-to 7-month-old infants», Developmental Psychology 32(5): 942- 950.
  • QUINN, P. C., ADAMS, A., KENNEDY, E., SHETTLER, L. y WASNIK, A. 2003: «Development of an abstract category representation for the spatial relation between in 6-to 10-month-old infants», Developmental Psychology 39(1): 151- 163.
  • SAPIR, E 1929: «The Status of Linguistics as a Scienceǁ en Language», Linguistic society of America 5:4, 207-214.
  • SPELKE, E. S., y TSIVKIN, S. 2001: «Language and number: A bilingual training study», Cognition 78(1), 45-88.
  • VICENTE, A. y MARTÍNEZ-MANRIQUE, F. 2013: «The infl uence of language in conceptualization: three views», Protosociology 20: 89-106
  • XU, F. 2002: «The role of language in acquiring kind concepts in infancy», Cognition 85: 223-50.
  • WHORF, B. L. 1956/2012: Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. Carroll, J. B., Cambridge, Masachusetts: The MIT Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet