Questions: Language and Culture: Linguistic Anthropology

Question 1

Researchers find that speakers of a language with one term covering both blue and green are slower to distinguish those colors than English speakers. This result best supports which claim?

• A. Speakers of that language cannot perceive the difference between blue and green
• B. Language determines what colors the human visual system can detect
• C. Language influences the ease and speed of making certain distinctions, without preventing perception entirely
• D. English has a richer color vocabulary because English speakers have superior color vision

Answer: (C)

This supports the weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: language categories influence habitual attention and the automaticity of certain distinctions. Slower reaction time is not the same as inability to perceive. Option A — 'cannot perceive' — is the strong Whorfian claim, which is rejected. The color is visible; the language just doesn't prime the distinction.

Question 2

A bilingual professional uses formal English in work meetings and switches to Spanish and informal dialect with family and close friends. This behavior is best understood as:

• A. Linguistic confusion resulting from imperfect mastery of any single language
• B. A sign of linguistic degradation as languages mix and influence each other
• C. A sophisticated social skill that indexes identity and navigates different power relationships
• D. Evidence that the speaker lacks a stable cultural identity

Answer: (C)

Code-switching requires MORE linguistic competence, not less — the speaker must master multiple registers and know when each is appropriate. Linguistic anthropologists understand it as performance of different identities and navigation of power structures. Options A and B reflect common folk misconceptions. Option D conflates language use with psychological identity.

Question 3

The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis — that humans can seldom think thoughts they have no words for — is well-supported by evidence from cross-linguistic research.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

The strong version is now rejected. People clearly can think things they struggle to express, and speakers of different languages can understand concepts that their own language doesn't lexicalize. What research does support is the weak version: language shapes habitual attention and makes certain distinctions cognitively easier or more automatic — not impossible to make without the word.

Question 4

Speakers of languages that use absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) rather than relative directions (left, right) tend to have stronger spatial orientation abilities.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

Because navigating social interaction in such a language demands constant tracking of absolute direction, speakers develop significantly superior spatial orientation skills. This is a compelling demonstration of the weak Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: the grammatical requirements of your language shape habitual cognitive practice, with measurable effects on non-linguistic skills.

Question 5

What distinguishes the strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from the weak version, and why has the strong version been rejected?

Model answer: The strong version holds that language determines thought — you cannot think what you cannot say. The weak version holds that language influences habitual attention and categorization, making certain distinctions easier or more automatic. The strong version was rejected because people can think things they can't easily express, and speakers of different languages can grasp concepts that aren't lexicalized in their native tongue.

The distinction matters because the strong version makes an absolute, testable claim that evidence has consistently failed to support. The weak version is more nuanced and better supported: language shapes the default paths of attention, not the hard limits of cognition. Color perception research and spatial reasoning studies support the weak version without requiring the strong.