Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T11:22:50.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic Relativity in Fiji: A Preliminary Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Robin Taylor
Robin Taylor*
Affiliation:
Education and Psychology Department, University of the South Pacific, Suva, FIJI Sera Yavalanavanua, Queen Victoria School, Tailevu, FIJI
*
Corresponding author
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a lack of experimental support for Linguistic Relativity Theory (LRT), which has not been tested in a South Pacific context. Fifty-two bilingual male (n = 26) and female Fijians read, and answered survey questions on the family dilemma, “An Unwanted Child?” - one group functioning in English and the other in Fijian. The group reading and answering in Fijian tended to place more emphasis on the rights of the extended family, whereas the group reading and responding in English placed more emphasis on the rights of the individual. These preliminary findings are consistent with LRT theory, and form the basis for more extended study, including perhaps a wider range of dilemmas and linguistic abilities (e.g., Fijians living in Australia).

Type
Short papers
Information
South Pacific Journal of Psychology , Volume 9 , 1997 , pp. 69 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © University of Papua New Guinea & the University of Newcastle, Australia 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Au, T. K. (1983). Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited. Cognition, 15, 155–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic colour terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., & Segall, M. H. (1992). Cross-cultural psychology: research and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. H. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought: A study in the impact of language on thinking in China and the West. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Lenneberg, E. (1954). A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 454–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J. B., & Casagrande, J. B. (1958). The function of language classifications in behaviour. In Maccoby, E., Newcomb, T., & Hartley, E. L. (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd Edition., pp. 18–31). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Dinges, N. G., & Hull, P. (1992). Personality, culture, and international studies. In Lieberman, D. (Ed.), Revealing the world: An interdisciplinary reader for international studies. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Inc.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1960). A systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioural Science. Behavioural Science, 5, 323–339.Google Scholar
Geraghty, P. (1983). The history of the Fijian languages. Honolulu, HA: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Heider, E. R., & Oliver, D. (1972). The structure of the color space in naming and memory for two languages. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. H. (1988). Language, culture, and world view. In Newmeyer, F. I. (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey; IV Language: The socio-cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hull, P. V. (1987). Bilingualism: Two languages, two personalities. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Kempten, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86, 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krewer, B., & Jahoda, G. (1993). Psychologie et culture: Vers une solution due “Babel”? International Journal of Psychology, 28, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P. (1996). The Whorf Theory Complex. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, L. G. (1985). Reasoning counterfactually in Chinese: Are there any obstacles? Cognition, 21, 239–270.Google ScholarPubMed
Matsumoto, D. (1994). People: Psychology from a Cross-cultural perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, D., & Assar, M. (1992). The effects of language on judgements of universal facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. L. (1968). The Linguistic Relativity Principle and Humboltian Ethnolinguistics. The Hague, NL: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niyekawa-Howard, A. M. (1968). A study of second language learning: The influence of first language on perception, cognition, and second language learning: A test of the Whorfian hypothesis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual categories. In Moore, T. E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111–144). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, A. J. (1972). The languages of Fiji. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Rubini, M. (1990). Unfolding the concept of person by verbal abuse. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. Cambridge, UK: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self concept: A social cognitive theory of social behaviour. In Lawler, E. J. (Ed.), Advances in group processes Vol 2. (pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CONN: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar