LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT ONLINE: COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY

By D. Slobin. 2003

480 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fee5b8904b1a9f2dbad3a364e9256ded1fcb9c5c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events (2004, background): “However, similar patterns are found in nonnarrative discourse, suggesting general language-specific patterns of rhetorical style across genres ( Slobin, 1997, 2000, 2002 ).”
Do bilinguals have different concepts? The case of shape and material in Japanese L2 users of English (2006, background): “The use of concepts once acquired has been clarified by the useful distinction made by Slobin (1987; 2003) between thinking and thinking for speaking.”
Metaphors and the market: Consequences and preconditions of agent and object metaphors in stock market commentary (2007, background): “Psycholinguistics research finds that a writer’s metaphorical descriptions can prime his or her reader to engage in metaphorical encoding (Galinsky & Glucksberg, 2000; Gibbs, Bogdanovich, Sykes, & Barr, 1997; Slobin, 2003).”
What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition (2006, unknown): “A number of such assessments are provided in Slobin (2003) and I will only refer to them briefly here as " bullet points.”
The typology of motion expressions revisited1 (2009, unknown): “’ (O. Kemal, Turkish – Özçalışkan & Slobin 2003; 264, ex.”
New Perspectives on Language and Thought (2012, background): “5 The similarity test may not be decisive for this case, as Malt, Sloman & Gennari (2003) as well as Smith et al. (2001), among others, have pointed out.”
Typological variation in encoding the manner, path, and ground components of a metaphorical motion event (2004, background): “Verb -framed languages include Turkic, Semitic, and Romance languages, along with Japanese, Korean, Basque, and American and Netherlands signed languages (Slobin 1997, 2003).”
Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms (2010, background): “, language-specific contrasts relevant for encoding events) and not the contrasts less commonly encoded (Slobin, 2003).”
Ways of Crossing a Spatial Boundary in Typologically Distinct Languages (2015, background): “…on motion events in general (e.g., Allen et al., 2007; Hickman, 2007; Ibarretxe-Antuñano, 2004; Oh, 2003; Özçalıskan, 2005, 2009; Özçalıskan & Slobin, 1999, 2003; Papafragou, Massey, & Gleitman, 2002; Slobin, 2004) and boundary-crossing events in particular (e.g., Naigles et al.,…”
With the Future Behind Them: Convergent Evidence From Aymara Language and Gesture in the Crosslinguistic Comparison of Spatial Construals of Time (2006, background): “Bowerman & Choi, 2001, 2003; Slobin, 1996, 2000, 2003 ) that language-specific patterns of usage prompt corresponding patterns of categorization and conceptualization that shape the habitual cognitive patterns of speakers in the relevant communities; Slobin has called this thinking for speaking.”
Transfer of conceptualization patterns in bilinguals: The construal of motion events in Turkish and German* (2010, methodology): “Since Path is expressed outside the verb in S-languages “the verb is free to add nuances of MANNER without further elaboration” (Slobin, 2005, p. 312; capital letters in the original).”