Boroday S.Y.

Language and thought: bounds of the linguistic relativity

(course program)
Course covers an introduction to the problematic of the linguistic relativity. Emphasis was made on the experimental investigations from the end of XXth to the begininng of XXIst centuries. But also there is careful consideration of the linguistic relativity refolmulation according to modern definitions of language and thought. One can find here the history of the problem. Course program includes the most important researches of the linguistic relativity and also a lot of particular researches. Course consists of 6 parts. The first part deals with the history of the problem and reformulation of the main thesis. In the next five parts there is consideration of particular domains of thinking and perception influenced by language: space, time, motion, color, gender, number etc. In the final part there is discussion about research perspectives, connected with nontrivial grammatical categories and the specificity of the Indoeuropean worldview. Every part has a list of references. It seems that course is urgent because of lack the detailed reflection on modern western investigations in Russian studies. [I suppose that course will be given in the one of the Moscow universities Course is originally in Russian]

Part 1. The history of the problem and the problem of definition. Tentative definition: weak and strong version of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity (D.Hymes). The problem of definition of language and thought in major theoretical approaches (generative linguistics, functional linguistics, structural linguistics, cognitive linguistics etc.). Wilhlem von Humboldt. Intellectual atmosphere in Germany in XVIII-XIX centuries. Humboldts views on language and evolution: the spirit of nation, phased development, language typology, language as an organism. Language relativity as consequence of historicism and cultural conceptions. The notion of Weltanschaung, world-view in Germanic romanticism and its Early Modern European philosophical premises. Humboldts understanding of the term worldview. Diversity of worldviews and phenomenal unity of language. An evolution of Humboldts ideas: H.Steinthal, W.Wundt, F.Mautner. Humboldtian conception and the problem of the inner form of the word (F. Max Muller, A.Potebnja). Ernst Cassirer. Philosophy of Symbolic Forms in the context of Neo-kantian evolution. Symbolic form as the way to express spiritual in physical, as self-revealing, self-comprehending of consciousness, as shaping of reality (Gestaltung zur Welt). Symbolic form: intelligible content in perceptional sign. Types of symbolic forms: language, myth, art. Peculiarity of language as the symbolic form. Language as sense-giving (Sinngebung). Language opens horizons of objectness: reality perceived by consciousness depends on creative manifestations of consciousness. Dependence of theoretical and scientific cognition on linguistic premises. The problem of relativity and the notion of inner form of language. Language as something between myth and logos. Possibility and necessity of overcoming bonds of language and myth in the path to the scientific understanding of the world. Neo-humboldtian approaches. Principal propositions of Leo Weisgerbers conception. Language as worldview (Weltbild) of society, as expression of culture and the spirit of the nation. Dynamical and energical understanding of language. Potential infinity of language experience. National language and the process of idioethnical reconstruction of the world, Worten der Welt. Four loci (Schaupltze) of the world reconstitution through word: the development of reality, the development of subjective aspects of reality, the development of the mans inner world, the development of language form in clear condition. Weisgerbers Followers: H.Gipper, O.Buchmann, P.Schmitter and others.
1

Franz Boas. Principal propositions of American descriptivism. Preconditions for linguistic relativity in problems of ethnolinguistics: influence of specificity of Amerindian languages on the basic research metodology: orientation to the synchronic and auto-referential descriptions, necessity of the renovation of grammatical tools, divergence of semantic fields of Amerindian and European lexemes, and so on. Language as systematist of experience (F.Boas). Unconscious character of linguistic phenomena and theirs potential endless quantity. Differences among languages and different systems of experience: holophrasis, examples with words for snow and seal in Eskimo, association of some verbs with diverse semantics in Dacota, etc. Elements of universalism and relativism: linguistic catefories as expression of thinking and culture, but fundamental psychological unity of mankind. Edward Sapir. Complex approach: close connection between linguistics and anthropology, culturology, psychology and so on. The unity of thinking processes and their expression in concrete linguistic forms. Language not only marks reality, but also constitutes it. Depending of social norms, perception and thought on language. Influence of language on culture. Symbolic function of language. Numerous examples in favor of linguistic relativity from Amerindian languages (Nootka, Hopi, Kwakiutl, Chippewa, and so forth). The most interesting and detailed examples: the farmer kills the duckling and the stone falls, abnormal types of speech in Nootka. Structural incommensurability of senses. Benjamin Whorf. Premises of convertion to the problematic of mentality: problem of the relevance of science and Christianity, influence of E.Sapir and different philosophical doctrines. Examples of linguistic influence on thinking from Whorfs professional practice: empty gasoline drums, limestone, pool of water, etc. Comparison between Hopi and standard average European (SAE). The problem of SAE definition. Lack of the imaginary plurality in Hopi. Prephilosophical linguistic dualism substance/form in SAE and its absence in Hopi. Time objectivism in SAE and its absence in Hopi. Tense grammatical system in SAE and Hopi. Lack of tense category in Hopi (Whorfs hesitation about this question in different periods of scientific work). The main characteristic of SAE: tendency to understand qualities and potencies as something spatial, tendency to form an abstract space. The main characteristic of Hopi: being as appearing, it includes in appearing all the modi of its own earlier and later existence; world as something in the process of preparation. Lack of the strong correlation between language and culture type, but obvious influence of language on culture and people behaviour. Linguistic influence on Hopi culture: attaching importance to the preparation, figure of Main Herald, magical function of thought, and so on. Language influence on SAE culture: intuitive clarity of Newtonian space, time, materia, philosophical concepts (cf. Aristotelian form/materia dualism), metaphorical interpretation of non-spatial terms as spatial, etc. Foundation of science and logic in the specificity of SAE languages. Other examples of the linguistic relativity: holophrasis, the problem of the distinction noun/verb in Nootka, connection between falling and whiteness in Apache, substative time in Nootka, and so forth. Lack of the clear definition of the linguistic relativity thesis in works by Whorf and different interpretations of Whorfs views by modern authors (J.Lucy, G.Lakoff, S.Pinker). Was Whorf a relativism supporter? (G.Lakoff). Researches of anthropological linguists in 50-60th of XX century. Publications by D.Lee about Wintu language. Grammar as the direct reflection of culture. The main characteristic of Wintu worldview: reality exists irrelatively to the man. The man opens reality in perception, but reality itself exists as unbound, indifferent, and timeless. Grammatical feature of Wintu language: categories of definitenes, possession, evidentiality. Cultural analysis: concept of self, kinship terms, mythology. Works by M.Mathiot about Papago language. Problem of count and uncount nouns. Emphasis on the semantic analysis. Publications by H.Hoijer about Navajo language. Morphosyntactic analysis of Navajo verb morphology. Grammatical emphasis on motion, its direction and condition. Cultural explications of Navajo grammar: nomadic way of live, dynamism in myths (motif of motion by cultural heroes, universe as a stream, and so on). Tendencies to the linguistic universalism in 60-70th of XX century. Typological studies. Works by J.Greenberg and his colleagues. Color researches by E.Lenneberg, B.Berlin and
2

P.Kay. Natural semantic metalanguage by A.Wierzbicka. The crisis of the descriptivism and appearance of works by S.Harris and N.Chomsky. Basic propositions of the generative linguistics. The development of the generative linguistics and the problem of innate language competence (S.Pinker, M.Backer). Empirical analysis of the Whorfs conception: E.Malotki and H.Gipper on Hopi time, W.Jakobsen on nouns and verbs in Nootka, and so forth. George Lakoff. The conception of metaphor. Cognitive characteristic of metaphor. Degree of metaphor penetration into the mental domain. Metaphorical differencies in languages ~ differencies in conceptualization. Universal metaphors. The problem of linguistic relativity in the context of cognitivism. Distinction beetween thinking in language and translation into language (intelligible vs. translatable). You can translate, but it doesnt necessary mean that you able to think. The relevance of grammaticalization/non-grammaticalization and other types of status. The problem of commensurability: translation, comprehension, use, frame representation, identity of organization. The lack of an absolute answer to the question of the commensurability of systems (there exists only relative answer). Moderate version of the linguistic relativism: obvious differencies in the organization of conceptual systems. The organization of conceptual system as part that defines such system. John Lucy. Critical analysis of previous investigations. Four conditions for correctly executable research: comparative character, reference to the external reality as standard, work with referential categories, examination of linguistic hypothesis in non-linguistic tasks. Research of Yucatec Maya by John Lucy. Sociolinguistic situation. Marking of plural noun in English and Yucatec. Numeral classifiers in Yucatec. The main thesis: all nouns in Yucatec are initially semantic neutral regarding the calculation, i.e. nouns refer to formless substance. Greater attention of Yucatec Maya to the object stuff, than to its form. Empirical verification of these propositions. Language acquisition and the problem of linguistic relativity. Age of 7-8 as a period of crucial cognitive transformations. A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Research by J.Gumperz, S.Levinson and others. D.Slobin: from the problem language and thinking to the problem thinking for speaking. J.Lucy: linguistic relativity in the context of different language functions (referential, expressive, metalinguistic, etc.). P.Kay: from the question of language diversity to the question of differences beetwen conceptual models inside the language. Ch.Keller, J.Keller: necessity of the main thesis reformulation in terms of the modular theory of mind. W.Hanks and J.Haviland: grammar as the crystallisation of cultural content and speech pragmatic (an example of deixis and other categories). G.Clark: necessity of revision of the traditional theory of meaning in the context of referential practice. J.Gumperz: contextual hints and local discursive practices. New perspectives in the determination of the linguistic relativity limits. Experimental researches of the end of XXth beginning of XXIst centuries. Brief survey of works. Investigations of space conceptualization (S.Levinson, G.Bennardo, J.Haviland, J.Gumperz, D.Wilkins, W.Hanks, and others). Investigations of time conceptualization (G.Bennardo, L.Boroditsky, E.Sweetser, R.Nunez, P.Brown, and others). Investigations of gender, numerals, numeral classifiers (J.Lucy, L.Boroditsky, D.Gentner, D.Everett, M.Frank, R.Nunez, and others). Investigations of color (P.Kay, W.Kempton, A.Wierzbicka, S.Levinson, L.Boroditsky, and others). New view on the linguistic relativity. Complex approach. Reformulation of the main thesis. Problem of definition of language and thought as the problem of belonging to the discourse of particular psychological or linguistic school. Lack of the strong version definition by founders and impossibility of the strong version sensible definition at all. Types of commensurability/incommensurability of conceptual systems: Lakoffs model. From abstract speculations on theme language and thought to the empirical check of grammar and lexical systems influence on conceptualization, behaviour and culture. From abstract term language to the autonomous semantic systems inside a language. Discourse autonomy and the unity of code
3

(linguistic, psychological, social, cultural, and so on). Experimental standard: orientation on the cognitive domain and non-linguistic behaviour. Part 2. Space. B.Whorfs notion on the universality of spatial experience. Orientation of the universalism supporters to the specificity of Indo-European languages. Inadequacy of the strict universalism approach. History of researches: from anglo-centric generalizations to the lack of universally recognized typology in the context of various and numerous facts of Non-IndoEuropean languages. Typology of spatial models. Main notions: referent-figure, relatum, coordinate system or frame of reference, region, path, direction, motion. Perspective system by W.Levelt. Model by J.Zlatev. Conception of R.Jackendoff. Typology by L.Talmy. Model by G.Bennardo. Types of reference frames in literature: relative vs. absolute, egocentric vs. allocentric, speaker-centric vs. object-centric, deictic vs. intrinsic, and others. Spatial model by S.Levinson. Definition of frame of reference as one of the forms of coordinate system: possibility of the synchronous use of several frames of reference with different centres. Types of referential frames: relative, intrinsic, absolute. Parts of referential frame: figure, relatum, origin, viewpoint, and so others. Brane areas that are connected (on the hypothetical level) with particular frames of reference. Other aspects of spatial conceptualization. Motion. Topology. Deixis. Intrinsic frame of reference. Fundamental unity of relatum and system origin. Object with immanent and invariable spatial qualities as centre of the system. Variety among languages in the description of object characteristics. Tendency to the projection of body parts on the relatum. Universality and cognitive priority of the intrinsic frame of reference. An example: John is in front of the house. Relative frame of reference. Unity of coordinat system origin and viewpoint. Conceptual and prototypical priority of deictic use of such system. Possibility of the secondary coordinate system derived from the initial, but with another origin and direction. Derivation of many relative systems from initially intrinsic system. Typological variations. An example: John is to the left of the house. Absolute frame of reference. Basic model: fixed system with axes similar to the sides of the horizon. Problem of location of your own position relative to the fixed points for using of such system. Two fundamental types of system: associated with abstract directions and associated with concrete landscape (to the north vs. uphill). Other types of system. Geometrical variations and short systems. An example: John is to the north of the house. Space in Guugu Yimithirr language. Sociolinguistic situation. Absolute frame of reference and names of four directions/domains: gungga- (north), jiba- (south), naga(east), guwa- (west). Various spatial derivates from these names. Lack of the relative frame of reference and only incomplete use of the intrinsic system. Restricted using of topological markers. Developed system of cases for marking the spatial relationships. Detailed system of motion verbs. Deep association between gesture and linguistic conceptualization of space. Experiments by S.Levinson and J.Haviland with Guugu Yimithirr people. Examples of innate navigation: an ability to recognize instantly the position of objects with various distances. Memory specificity: memorizing of axes of referential frame in addition to the content of event and ability to reproduce this information. Other experiments that prove the absolute conceptualization of space by Guugu Yimithirr people. Space in Tzeltal language. Sociolinguistic situation. Absolute and intrinsic frame of reference. Lack of the relative frame and the absence of terms for left and right. Frequent using of topological signs. Names for the axes of absolute frame of reference: ajkol (uphill), alan (downhill), jejch (across). Experiments by S.Levinson and P.Brown with Tzeltal people. Specificity of absolute conceptualization of space: memory, navigation, sign language. Various non-verbal tasks that prove the existence of the tendency to the absolute spatial
4

conceptualization by Tzeltal people. Problems with distinguishing of mirror objects (object ~ mirror image of object; b ~ d) as a consequence of absence of the relative referential frame. Cultural consequences of the left and right direction mixing: structure of dwelling, interior, art, weaving, ritual domain, absence of axiological contrast between left (~ bad) and right (~ good). Neo-relativistic understanding of the spatial conceptualization. Coding of the specifical spatial features indicates with necessity memorizing of these features. Lexical and grammatical character of referential frame. Non-universality of semantic parameters. Three steps of information coding: experiencing for speaking => thinking for speaking => secondary influence of formulated thought/sign/statement. Problem of the acquisition of referential frames in context of the problem of language acquisition. Part 3. Spatial conceptualization in particular languages. Review of studies. Works earlier 1990 year. Fundametal researches and collected articles by the researching group of Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Works associated with descriptive analysis. Works associated with problematic of linguistic relativism. Brief survey of particular monographies. Research by Giovanni Bennardo on Tonga people. Geography of Tonga Islands and Tonga people. Sociolinguistic situation. The theory of radial mind: the point in the field of ego, i.e. other-than-ego, as source/goal of a number of relationships with other points in the same field, including ego. Radiality as a cultural model. Radiality in the spatial conceptualization: domination of the absolute frame of reference. Radial subtype of the absolute frame of reference. Specificity of spatial adverbs. Translational subtype of the relative frame of reference. Experiments that prove the thesis of radial conceptualization of space. Radiality in the understanding of time: projection of translational subtype of the relative frame of reference on the temporality. Radiality in navigation: using of phantom island. Expression of radiality in rites and ceremonies (kava, fono, misinale and others). Radiality in religion: conception of mana/tapu, rethinking of the Christian ideas. Radiality in possession: vectoral structure of possession. Radiality in kinship terms: tokoua (same sex sibling) as centre of kinship system. Radiality in social relationship: an ideal model of social connections. The question of origins of radial mind. Possible foundation of radiality in linguistic spatial conceptualization. Thesis of the derivation of different culture domains from basic spatial notions. Space in Oceanic languages (G.Bennardo and others). M.Florey and B.Kelly: spatial grammatical categories in Alune in the context of speech pragmatic. C.Hyslop: absolute and intrinsic frame of reference in Ambae. W.Sperlich: spatial nouns and directionals in Tonga and Niue. B.Palmer: typological description of absolute referential frame in Oceanic languages (Longu, Kwayo, Tolo, Tolai, Kokota, Manam and others). F.Lehman and D.Herdrich: conceptualization of space in Samoa and other Oceanic languages as something unbounded. E.Keating, Ch.Toren: influence of spatial concepts on the forming of relationships in social hierarchy (in Fiji and Pohnpei). A.Allen: connection between architectural names and social expressions in Samoan. Research by Gabriele Cablitz on Marquesan. Sociolinguistic situation in Marquesas Islands. Authors methodology: orientation on the detailed description of language code outside the context of linguistic relativity problematic. Grammatical peculiarities of Marquesan language. Alienable and non-alienable possession. Inclusive and exclusive first personal pronoun. Lack of the lexical differentiation between noun and verb. Absence of the noun morphology and the verb morphology (using the syntactic criteria). Lack of adjectives. Lack of copulative verbs. Tense-aspect-mood-particles (TAM-particles). Grammatical distinction between what- and where-category). VSO word-order. Linguistic coding of space. Complex noun construction and its elements. Locative names. Body-part terms. Place names. Dependence of noun construction structure on semantics of locative name. Diversity of constructions and influence of spatial scale (small vs. large space domains). Semantic coding of space. Domination
5

of absolute frame of reference. Elements of relative and intrinsic referential frame. Using of absolute frame by children. Two kinds of absolute system: for the valley and navigational. Collected articles in edition of S.Levinson and D.Wilkins. Determination of the spatial domain: topology, frame of reference, motion. Experimental tools. Three main tools: collection of illustrations for the revelation of spatial relationship, spatial game Man and tree, collection of illustrations Frog tale. Detailed descriptions of spatial conceptualization in particular languages: Arrernte, Jamijun, Warrwa, Yele Dnye, Kilivila, Tzeltal, Ewe, Tiriyo, Tamil, Japanese, Yucatec, Dutch. To the question of the semantic typology of spatial thinking: diversity of tools and absence of the universal meta-discourse. Monography by William Hanks on Yucatec Maya. Sociolinguistic situation. From metalinguistic definition of reference to the reference as form of concrete practice. Social foundations of reference. Linguistic forms of the body concept. Reference in the communication and perception. Types of rites and spatial structure. Reference in cosmology. Spatial frames of deictic reference. Contextual dependence of deixis from referential pragmatic and its (deixis) fundamental embodiment in practice. Part 4. Time. Basic information about conceptualization of time. Absolute time. Relative time (taxis). Temporal distance. Effectiveness. Classical study by B.Comrie. Grammatical tools for the time marking in world languages. Tense and aspect. Tense and mood. Problem of time conceptualization in literature. Discussion on degree of dependence of temporal ideas on spatial ideas. M.Haspelmath: from space to time. Universalism vs. relativism in the problem of conceptualization. Contamination with cultural representations. Time in Hopi language. Propositions by B.Whorf about time in Hopi. Verb morphology: forms of assertion, mood forms and aspectual forms. Lack of the system corresponding to the ternary system of SAE. Other linguistic tools of conceptualization of time: particular adverbial forms (temporals) as temporal terms. Lack of abstract term for the time. The main consequence: absence of the objectivization of the subjective sense of extent in time (getting later) and also lack of quantification of temporal expressions. Monography by E.Malotki about time in Hopi: detailed description of the linguistic situation and critics of Whorfs views. Spatial and temporal postpositions, adverbs and clitics. Locative suffixes. Nouns with the spatial semantics. Motion verbs. Names for day, night, months, year, seasons. Pluralization and quantification of temporal expressions. H.Gipper: critics of Whorfs views about time in Hopi. Researches by Lera Boroditsky and its colleagues. Structuring of experience: from concrete domain to the abstract domain. Partial dependence of understanding of time on understanding of space. Experimental proof of the priority of spatial information. Conceptualization of time and the problem of fictive motion. Conceptualization of time in Mandarin Chinese: ability to think about future in vertical terms (up vs. down). Experiments that prove vertical understanding of time by Chinese. Dependence of ability to think about time vertically by bilinguals on age, in which they began study English. Conceptualization of time in Kuuk Thaayorre: time goes from east to west. Dependence of absolute conceptualization of time on absolute system of spatial reference. Absolute conceptualization of time and absolute spatial frame of reference in other Australian languages. Investigation by R.Nunez and E.Sweetser about Aymara language. Necessity to distinguish between the future and the posteriority, and also the past and the anteriority. Future and past as deictic semantic categories. The model of moving-time and the model moving-ego. Experiments that prove objective character of these models. Sociolinguistic situation in Aymara. The past is in front of ego and the future is behind ego: nayra eye, front, past vs. qhypa back, behind, future. Sign language in Aymara. Evidences from the sign language to the idea of future-behind and past-front. Evidences to the areal character of such metaphor. Interpretations of the inverse understanding: the past as known and future as unknown. Alternative interpretations (e.g. projection of the system with orientation on region).
6

Investigations of Mayan languages. Research by P.Brown on space and time in Tzeltal. Prevalence of the absolute frame of reference: uphill/downhill and across. Diverse tools for the time marking. Verb morphology. Deixis. Partial use of the absolute referential frame for the conzeptualization of time. Elements of the vertical understanding of time. Understanding of time by means of metaphor of circle. Sign language. Resutls of the experimental verification of this methaphor: motion of time uphill is not dominated metaphor. Posibillity of the existence of various temporal models inside a culture. Works by O. Le Guen and J.Bohnemeyer on time in Yucatec Maya. Diverse tools for the expression of deictic time. Narrow means for the expression of posteriority. Sign language: now vs. not now. Lack of opposition between the past and the future. Lack of any temporal metaphor. Time as unorganized consequence of complete events. Independence of time understanding from absolute frame of reference. More general cultural model: time as cycle. Experimental data that prove the relevance of such metaphor. Temporal frames of reference. Existing models of temporal conceptualization. Researching by G.Bennardo and his colleagues. Analog of the absolute frame of reference: time arrow. Analog of the intrinsic frame of reference: events with immanent temporal orientation. Analog of the relative frame of reference: deictic time. Experiments with native speakers of Deutsch, English and Tongan. Investigation by K.Moore. Ego-perspective system. Field-based system. Experiments with native speakers of Wolof, Aymara and Japanese. Model by T.Tenbrink: 19 types of spatial system and 8 types of temporal system. Research by V.Evans. Qualitative distinction of temporal frames of reference from spatial frames of reference. Transience as the main characteristic of temporal systems. Three kinds of temporal systems (in English language): deictic, consequent and external. Problem of the psychological and neural reality of these systems. Part 5. Color. The main discussion between relativists and universalists in the definition of the object for study. Problem with the semantic universality of the color concept. Munsell color system and its use. Lab color system. Testing on the base of western color system as an apriority of insufficiency of natural linguistic conceptualization (it means that western model is assumed as direct reflection of reality). True problem of color in language: problem of referention and grammatical distribution. Grammatical tools for the color naming in Australian languages (R.Dixon): verbs, verbal classifiers, nouns, adjectives, derivative adjectives, adjunctives, free particles. Theory of the basic color terms. Predecessors of B.Berlin and P.Kay: E.Lenneberg, R.Brown, J.Roberts. Fundamental researh by B.Berlin and P.Kay. Material: 20 languages from different language families, and also 80 additional languages. Using of Munsell color system: 330 different hues. Quality of the basic color category: monomorphemic, monolexemic, it is not include in range of another category, lack of connection with the particular class of objects, evidence for the language speakers. Steps of evolution of color names for languages with basic color terms less than 11: white and black => white, black and red => white, black, red, yellow/brown => and so on. Research by P.Kay and Ch.McDaniel. Modification of the basic color term reference: from the domain with clear-cut bounds to the domain with vague bounds / to the cross of domains with vague bounds. Color composits: ligh-warm, warm, dark-cold and grue. Conception of the fundamental neuronic categories: white, black, red, green, blue, yellow. Fundamental modification of evolutional phases of color naming. Work by P.Kay and his colleagues on World Color Survey. General results: all languages have basic color terms for the color conceptualization, 11 phases of color naming evolution, objectivity of the fundamental neuronic categories, their psychological verification and predictability. Field works of the 80th XX beginning of XXIst century that are contradict the theory of basic color terms. Criticism of the theory by supporters of the different forms of relativism (J.Lucy, A.Wierzbicka, B.Saunders, S.Levinson and others).
7

Research by P.Kay and W.Kempton. Problem of correlation between differences in nonlinguistic behaviour and differences in language structure. Experiment with native speakers of English and native speakers of Tarahumara. Color naming in Tarahumara. One word for the blue and the green: siyname grue. Task 1: influence of color naming on non-linguistic behaviour. Using of designation strategy by English speakers. Lack of such strategy in Tarahumara. Task 2: non-using of color naming. Disappearance of Whorifan effect. The main conclusion: presence or absence of color naming influence on non-linguistic behaviour. Similar conclusions from the research by J.Lucy and R.Schweder. Article by A.Wierzbicka. Color as notion that doesnt belong to the system of natural semantic universals. Searching for color semantics as imposing of western concepts on exotic cultures. Semantic universals vs. universals of visual perception. Universality of similarity principle in reference (gold => golden). Fundamental difference of semantic data from neurophysiological data. Wrong way: reduction of semantics to the neurophysiology. Meanings vs. color foci. Problem of the definition of color names. Universality of the dark and light. Prototypical use of dark and light regarding to the environment. Prototypical connection between green and vegetation. Prototypical association between blue and sky/sea. Prototypical connection between red and blood/fire. Prototypcal association between yellow and the sun. Prototypical association between brown and ground. The main conclusion: initial description of colors in terms of referents. Possible expansion of semantics and inclusion of additional referents (and exclusion of the initial). Research by S.Levinson on Yeli Dnye language. Criticism of Berlin-Kays approach. Objective intralingual analysis should include: analysis of syntax, microsyntax, morphology and sctructural semantics, contextual and referential analysis, clear designation of relevant linguistic domain. Sociolinguistic situation. General information about Yeli Dnye grammar. Reduplicated nouns and descriptive expressions. Status of color naming in Yeli Dnye. Parts of speech: coding of color naming by means of reduplicated nouns and descriptive expressions with different syntactic distribution. Semantic basics: all signs refer to the concrete object, lack of color idea, color space is not independent semantic domain, it depends on object classes. Lack of composit categories. Functional limits on use of color. Low emphasis on color in art and in culture entirely. Modern state of affairs. Different research paradigms. Model of Berlin and Kay. Psycholinguistic model with emphasis on physiology of perception and secondary using of linguistic data. Relative (semiotic) model with orientation to the problem of meaning and reference within the limits of concrete language. Independence of paradigms, but also absence of incompatibility between consequences of different theories. Possibility of mixing the elements of universalism and relativism in the problem of color naming. Review of particular works that belong to the different paradigms. Part 6. Gender, number, perception and research perspectives. Noun classes. Investigation by L.Boroditsky and her colleagues on gender. Problem of definition of gender. Gender as subtype of noun classes. The significance of gender in poetry texts and children representations. Influence of gender on conceptualization of experience: experiments with native speakers of Spanish, Deutsch and English. Memory and gender. Emphasis of particular aspects and functions of object depending on gender. Researches by G.Lakoff and R.Dixon on noun classification in Dyirbal language. Metaphorical structure of noun classification. Principle of experience domain and categorization in Dyirbal. Numerals. Problem of numerals in particular languages. Language with poor numeral system: Nadeb, Jarawara, Crenak, Parintintin, Culina, Arabela, Fuyge and others. Language without numerals: Piraha. Researches by D.Evertt on Piraha language. Sociolinguistic situation. Features of Piraha language: simple kinship terminology, lack of difference between singular and plural (even in pronouns!), only 2 words for the color (light and dark), restricted using or lack of recursion, simple phonological system. Absence of numerals (even for 1!). Piraha hi and
8

ho as less and more. Experiments that prove the lack of idea of numeral in Piraha. Inability of Piraha to count and the problem of count learning. Problems with interpretation of experimental data (D.Everett, P.Gordon, M.Frank). Research by C.Sinha and others on Amondawa language. Numeral system in Amondawa. Lack of word for year, absence of calendar, concept of age, count. Specific understanding of temporality. Numeral classifiers. Numeral classifiers as grammar category, its spread in World languages (M.Haspelmath). Work by J.Lucy on Yucatec Maya language. Sociolinguistic situation. Influence of modernization on language. Marking of plural nouns in English and Yucatec. Hypothetical influence of quantification and pluralization on thought (Whorf on example of Hopi). Obligatory marking of large quantity of objects in English. Optional marking of little quantity of objects in Yucatec. Numeral classifiers in Yucatec. Unity of the system of numeral marking. The main statement: all nouns in Yucatec are initially neutral regarding to calculation, i.e. they refer to shapeless substance (one long thin candle vs. one long thin wax). Uncount nouns. Noun classifier gives a form to the object, but object is shapeless itslef. More attention of native speakers of Yucatec to the stuff of object, than to its form. Empirical verification of these theses. Experiment with illustrations. Experiment with objects. Preference to the objects similar by stuff, not by shape. Comparison with the results of English native speakers. The same experiments by D.Gentner and L.Boroditsky on Japanese native speakers. Preference to the similarity by shape in Yucatec and English children. Clear tendency to mark out the stuff starting from 7-8 years old by Yucatec children. Age 7-8 years as a period of crucial cognitive transformations (J.Piaget, L.Vygotsky). Perception. Physiology vs. cultural and linguistic relativity. Attempts to universalize the facts of Indo-European languages in early publications. Works by E.Sweetser, E.Traugott, G.Lakoff. Universal metaphors: to see => to know, to listen => to obey, to hear => to undersand, to grasp => to understand, and so forth. Dependence of penetration to the abstract intellectual domain on informative degree of perceptual mechanism. Typological study by A.Viberg on sensorial modalities. More detailed investigation of Non-Indo-European families and overcoming of universalist view. Works by N.Evans, D.Wilkins, M.Vanhove, J.Matisoff and others. Testified tendency to the association between hearing and cognitive domain in Australian languages. Lack of metaphor to see => to know in Australian languages (except two examples). Cultural premises and explications of this phenomenon. Dependence of semantic derivation on socio-cultural conditions. High frequency of the metaphor to see => to know in Tibeto-Burman languages. Typological analysis by M.Vanhove: 25 languages from 8 language families. Small frequency of the metaphor to see => to know. Universality of the metaphor to hear => to understand. Work on senses under edition by S.Levinson. N.Burenhult and A.Majid on smell in Jahai: detailed lexical system and fundamental role of smell in religious concepts. N.Enfield on taste in Lao and Kri. H. De Souza on Canton dialect of Chinese: evolution of linguistic expression of perception under the influence of dominated in western culture senses. G.Senft on the similar modifications in Kilivila. S.Tufvesson on ideophones in Semai: their role in communication and in forming of cultural code. How deep do lexical and grammatical peculiarities of the perception conceptualization penetrate to the culture and thought? Research perspectives. Rare grammatical categories, detailed systems of grammatical categories: their probable influence on thought. It is necessary to pay attention to the next problems (for the experimental verification): Detailed marking of evidentiality: Western Apache, Pomo, Jarawara, Wintu and others. Necessity to remember the source of information and the degree of its reliability; sensoric quality of information (have seen, have heard, have touched and so on) => influence of grammar on the structure and intensity of memory. Cf. also specific structure of narrative and other cultural and pragmatic consequences (see especially Apache). Detailed deictic models: Eskimo languages. Necessity to know all facts connected with deictic oppositions in the process of reference to object => influence of grammar on spatial
9

conceptualization and influence of degree of attentiveness to details (for instance, directiveness / non-directiveness or inside / outside the closed space, etc.). Detailed systems of noun classifications: Bantu languages, Australian languages. The same experimental methods as in case of gender (cf. above research by L.Boroditsky). Wide use of ideophones: Jahai, Ewe, Mundang, etc. Emphasis on expression and motivation in using of different phonetic forms for the showing of impression. Wide domain to problematize: color, social relationships, culture, poetry, metaphor and so forth. Presence of substantive time: Tupi-Guarani language family. It is possible that substantive time indicates potential understanding of every noun as unity of its temporal phases (for instance, sprout ~ tree ~ stump), or semantic neutrality of every noun regarding tense. Weak grammaticalized distinction between noun and verb: Nootka, Kwakiutl, Marquesan, Tongan, etc. Lack (or inessentiality) of difference between process and state, dynamic and static, genesis and being, etc. Consequences for the culture and philosophy. Specificity of incorporative languages and verbal quality of narrative: pre-Andine languages. Greater emphasis on dynamism in culture, myths, etc. (cf. Hoijers hypothesis on Navaho language and culture). Specificity of the Indo-European family and the Indo-European worldview in the context of specificity of other language families. Influence of Proto-Indo-European language on the Indo-European worldview: conception of being (<= specifical function and semantics of *h1es-), conception of truth (<= *h1sont-/h1snt- as participle of *h1es-), wide using of metaphor of light in religious and linguistic discource (from idioms like come into the light => born to the regular semantic extension like to see => to know, to understand, cf.. perfect *woida from the verb *weid-), using of intrinsic and relative frame of reference, system of color naming, gender, conceptualization of time, probable lack of tense category in verb morphology (cf. statement by Kurylowicz that Indo-European way of life didt require the idea of time) and so on.

10

REFERENCES.
PART 1. THE HISTORY OF PROBLEM AND THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION BAKER M. The atoms of language. Basic Books, 2002. BERLIN B., KAY P. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. University of California Press. 1969. BENNARDO G. Language, Mind, and Culture: From Linguistic Relativity to Representational Modularity. // Banich M. and Mack M. (eds.). Mind, Brain and Language: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New York, 2003. BOAS F. (ed.). Race, Language, and Culture. New York, 1966. BOAS F. Introduction to the Handbook of American Indian languages. Nebraska Press, 1991. CASSIRER E. Philosophy of Symbolic forms, 1953-1957. CHOMSKY N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. IT Press, 1969. CHOMSKY N. Syntactic structures. Walter de Gruyter, 2002. GENTNER D., GOLDIN-MEADOW S. (eds.). Language in Mind. Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. The M.I.T. Press, 2003. GIPPER H. Gibt es ein sprachliche relativittsprinzip? Untersuchungen zur Sapir-Whorf Hypothese. Frankfurt am Main, 1971. GREENBERG J. ET AL. (eds.). Universals of Human Language. Stanford University Press, 1978. Vol. I-IV. GUHMAN . . Linguistic theory of L.Weisgerber [In Russian] // Voprosy teorii jazyka v sovremennoy zarubejnoy lingvistike. oskva, 1961. HILL J., MANNHEIM B. Language and World View. // Annual Review of Anthropology 21. 1992. HOIJER H. Cultural implications of some Navaho linguistic categories. // Language 27. 1951. HYMES D. Two types of linguistic relativity, 1966. JAKOBSEN W. H., JR. Noun and verb in Nootkan // The Victoria conference on Northwestern languages Ed. by Efrat B. S. Victoria, 1979. KRONHAUZ M. A. Semantic [In Russian]. oscow, 2005. LAKOFF G., JOHNSON . Metaphors we live by. London, 2003. LAKOFF G. Women, fire and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, 1987. LEE D. Noun categories in Wintu. // Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung. Band 67. 1940. LEE D. The place of kinship terms in Wintu speech. // American Anthropologist 42. 1940.
11

LEE D. (ed.). Freedom and Culture. NJ, 1959. LENNEBERG E. Color naming, color recognition, color discrimination: a reappraisal. // Perceptual and Motor Skills 12. 1961. LEVINSON S., GUMPERZ J. (eds.) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press, 1996. LUCY J. Grammatical Categories and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 1992. LUCY J. Language Diversity and Thought. A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge University Press, 1992. LUCY J., GASKINS S. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: a comparative approach. // Bowerman M. and Levinson S. (eds.). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, 2006. MALOTKI E. Hopi time. Walter de Gruyter. 1983. MATHIOT M. Noun classes and folk taxonomy in Papago. // American Anthropologist 64. 1962. MATHIOT M. The cognitive significance of the category of nominal number in Papago. // Hymes D.H. and Bittle W. (eds.). Studies in southwestern ethnolinguistics. The Hague: Mouton, 1967. PEDERSEN E. Cognitive Linguistics and Linguistic Relativity. // Geeraerts D. and Cuyckens H. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press. 2007. PINKER S. The language instinct, 1994. PINXTEN R. (ed.). Universalism versus Relativism in Language and Thought: Proceedings of a Colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. The Hague: Mouton, 1977. RADCHENKO O. A. Language as creating of the world. Neo-humboldtian linguistic and philosophical conception [In Russian]. oscow, 2004. SAPIR E. Selected writings in language, culture and personality. Berkeley, 1949. UNDERHILL J. Humboldt, Worldview and Language. Edinburgh University Press. 2009. WEISGERBER L. Muttersprache und Geistesbildung, 1941. WHORF B. Language, Thought and Reality. The M.I.T. Press, 1955. WIERZBICKA A. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt, 1972.

PART 2. SPACE. BENNARDO G. Language, Space and Social Relationships. A Foundation Cultural Model in Polynesia. Cambridge University Press, 2009. BLOOM P., PETERSON M., NADEL L., GARRET M. (eds.). Language and Space. Cambridge, 1996.
12

BROWN P. Learning to talk about motion UP and DOWN in Tzeltal: Is there a languagespecific bias for verb learning. // Bowerman M. and Levinson S. (eds.). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, 2001. BROWN P., LEVINSON S. Immanuel Kant among the Tenejapans: Anthropology as Empirical Philosophy. // Ethos 22. 1993. BROWN P., LEVINSON S. Uphill and downhill in Tzeltal. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3 (I). 1993. BRUGMAN C. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. // Survey of California and other Indian Languages 4. 1983. HAVILAND J. Anchoring, iconicity and orientation in Guugu Yimithirr pointing gestures. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3 (I). 1993. HAVILAND J. Guugu Yimithirr cardinal directions. // Ethos 26 (I). 1998. JACKENDOFF R. The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. // Bloom P. et al. (eds.). Language and Space. Cambridge, 1996. JANZEN G., HAUN D., LEVINSON S. Tracking down abstract linguistic meaning: Neural correlates of spatial frame of reference ambiguities in language // PLoS One 7 (2). 2012. LEVELT W. Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial description. // Bloom P. et al. (eds.). Language and Space. Cambridge, 1996. LEVINSON S. Frames of reference and Molyneuxs question: Crosslinguistic evidence. // Bloom P. et al. (eds.) Language and Space. Cambridge, 1996. LEVINSON S. Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 2004. LEVINSON S. Studying Spatial Conceptualization across Cultures: Anthropology and Cognitive Science. // Ethos 26 (I). 1998. LEVINSON S. Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. // Linguistics 32. 1994. MELCHUK I. A. General morphology. Part 2 [In Russian]. oscow, 1998. MHLHUSLER P. Universals and typology of space. // Haspelmath M. et al. (eds.) Language Typology and Language Universals. Walter de Gruyter, 2001. PLUNGYAN V. A. (ed.). Researches on the theory of grammar. Part. 2: Grammaticalization of the spatial semantics in World languages [In Russian]. oscow, 2002. TALMY L. How language structures space. // Herbert L. and Acredolo L. (eds.). Spatial orientation. New York: Plenum Press, 1983. ZLATEV J. Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Stockholm, 1997.
13

ZLATEV J. Spatial Semantics. // Geeraerts D. and Cuyckens H. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press. 2007.

PART 3. SPATIAL CONCEPTUALIZATION IN PARTICULAR LANGUAGES. ALLEN A. The house as a social metaphor: architecture, space and language in Samoan culture. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. BENNARDO G. Language, Space and Social Relationships. A Foundation Cultural Model in Polynesia. Cambridge University Press, 2009. BENNARDO G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania: Culture in Language and Mind. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 2002. BENNARDO G. Language and Space in Tonga: 'The Front of the House is Where the Chief Sits!'. // Anthropological Linguistics 42 (IV). 2000. BENNARDO G. Mental Images of the Familiar: Cultural Strategies of Spatial Representations in Tonga. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. BRUGMAN C. The use of body-part terms as locatives in Chalcatongo Mixtec. // Survey of California and other Indian Languages 4. 1983. CABLITZ G. Marquesan. A Grammar of Space. Berlin New York, 2006. CABLITZ G. The acquisition of an Absolute System: Learning to talk about Space in Marquesan (Oceanic, French Polynesia). // Proceedings of the 31th Stanford Child Language Research Forum, 2002. FLOREY M., KELLY B. Spatial reference in Alune. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. HANKS W. Referential practice: Language and lived space in a Maya community. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1990. HYSLOP C. Hiding behind trees on Ambae: Spatial reference in an Oceanic language. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. KEATING E. Space and its role in social stratification in Pohnpei, Micronesia. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. LAKOFF G., JOHNSON . Metaphors we live by. London, 2003. LEHMAN F., HERDRICH D. On the relevance of point-field for spatiality in Oceania. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. LEVINSON S., WILKINS D. (eds.) Grammars of space. Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press, 2006. LEVINSON S., WILKINS D. The Background to the study of the language of space. // Levinson S. and Wilkins D. (eds.). Grammars of space, 2006.
14

LEVINSON S., WILKINS D. Patterns in the data: towards a semantic typology of spatial description. // Levinson S. and Wilkins D. (eds.). Grammars of space, 2006. MELCHUK I. A. General morphology. Part 2 [In Russian]. oscow, 1998. PALMER B. Absolute spatial reference and grammaticalisation of perceptually salient phenomena. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. SENFT G. (ed.). Referring to space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages. Oxford, 1997. SENFT G. (ed.). Deixis and demonstratives in Oceanic Languages. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, 2004. SPERLICH W. Inside and outside Niuean space. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002. TOREN CH. Space-time coordinates of subjectivity in Fiji. // Bennardo G. (ed.). Representing Space in Oceania, 2002.

PART 4. TIME. BENNARDO G., BENDER A., BELLER S. Temporal frames of reference: conceptual analysis and empirical evidence from German, English, Mandarin Chinese and Tongan. // Journal of Cognition and Culture 10. 2010. BINNICK R. Temporality and aspectuality. // Haspelmath M. et al. (eds.) Language Typology and Language Universals. Walter de Gruyter, 2001. BOHNEMEYER J. Temporal anaphora in a tenseless language. // Klein W. and Li P. (eds.). The Expression of time, 2009. BOHNEMEYER J. The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. Munich, 2002. BORODITSKY L. Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. // Cognition 75. 2000. BORODITSKY L. Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers conceptions of time. // Cognitive Psychology 43. 2001. BORODITSKY L., CASASANTO D. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. // Cognition 106. 2008. BORODITSKY L., CASASANTO D., FOTAKOPOULOU O. Space and time in the childs mind: Evidence for a cross-dimensional asymmetry. // Cognitive Science 34. 2010. BORODITSKY L., FUHRMAN O. Cross-cultural differences in mental representations of time: Evidence from an implicit nonlinguistic task. // Cognitive Science 34. 2010. BORODITSKY L., GABY A. Remembrances of times east: Absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian Aboirignal Community. // Psychological Science 2010.
15

BORODITSKY L., MATLOCK T., RAMSCAR M. On the experiental link between spatial and temporal language. // Cognitive Science 29. 2005. BROWN P. Time and space in Tzeltal: is the future uphill? // Frontiers in Psychology 3. 2012. COMRIE B. Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge University Press, 1976. COMRIE B. Tense. Cambridge University Press, 1985. EVANS V. Temporal frames of reference. // http://www.vyvevans.net/TFoRs.pdf GIPPER H. Gibt es ein sprachliche relativittsprinzip? Untersuchungen zur Sapir-Whorf Hypothese. Frankfurt am Main, 1971. HASPELMATH M. From space to time: Temporal adverbials in the Worlds Languages. Mnchen Newcastle, 1997. KLEIN W., LI P. (eds.). The Expression of time. Berlin New York, 2009. KLEIN W. How time is encoded. // Klein W. and Li P. (eds.). The Expression of time, 2009. LE GUEN O., POOL BALAM L. No metaphorical timeline in gesture and cognition among Yucatec Mayas. // Frontiers in Psychology 3. 2012. MALOTKI E. Hopi time. Walter de Gruyter. 1983. MELCHUK I. A. General morphology. Part 2 [In Russian]. oscow, 1998. MOORE K. E. Ego-perspective and field-based frames of reference: temporal meanings of FRONT in Japanese, Wolof, and Aymara. // Journal of Pragmatics 43. 2011. SINHA C., DA SILVA SINHA V., ZINKEN J., SAMPAIO W. When time is not space: the social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. // Language Cognition 3. 2011. SWEETSER E., NUNEZ R. With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Ayamara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. // Cognitive Science 30. 2006. TENBRINK T. Reference frames of space and time in language. // Journal of Pragmatics 43. 2011.

PART 5. COLOR. BERLIN B., KAY P. Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. University of California Press. 1969. BORODITSKY L. ET AL. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. // PNAS. 104. 19. 2007. BROWN R., LENNEBERG E. A study in language and cognition. // Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49. 1954.
16

DIXON R. M. W. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1982. FRUMKINA R. M. Psycholinguistics. oscow, 2001. HARDIN C., MAFFI L. (eds.). Color categories in thought and language. Cambridge University Press, 1997. HEIDER E. Universals in color naming and memory. // Journal of Experimental Psychology 93. 1972. HEIDER E. OLIVIER D. The sctructure of the color space in naming and memory in two languages. // Cognitive Psychology 3. 1972. KAY P., KEMPTON W. What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? // American Anthropologist 86. 1984. KAY P., MCDANIEL CH. The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. // Language 54 (3). 1978. KAY P., BERLIN B., MAFFI L., MERRIFIELD W. Color naming across languages. // Hardin C. and Maffi L. (eds.). Color categories in thought and language, 1997. KAY P., BERLIN B., MERRIFIELD W. Biocultural implications of systems of color naming. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 1 (1). 1991. LENNEBERG E. Color naming, color recognition, color discrimination: a reappraisal. // Perceptual and Motor Skills 12. 1961. LENNEBERG E., ROBERTS J. The language of experience: a study in methodology. // International Journal of American Linguistics 22. 1956. LEVINSON S. Yli Dnye and the theory of basic color terms. // Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10 (1). 2001. LUCY J. The linguistics of color. // Hardin C. and Maffi L. (eds.). Color categories in thought and language, 1997. LUCY J. SHWEDER R. Whorf and his critics. // American Anthropologist 81. 1979. MACLAURY R. Color and cognition in Mesoamerica. University of Texas Press, 1997. MACLAURY R., PARAMEI G., DEDRICK D. (eds.). Anthropology of color. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007. MACLAURY R., ROBERT E. Color-category evolution and Shurwap yellow-with-green. // American Anthropologist 89 (1). 1987. MACLAURY R., ROBERT E. From brightness to hue: An explanatory model of color-category evolution. // Current Anthropology 33 (2). 1992. MAFFI L. Somali color term evolution: Grammatical and semantic evidence. // Anthropological Linguistics 32 (3-4). 1990. ROSCH E. Natural categories. // Cognitive Psychology 4. 1973.
17

SAUNDERS B. The invention of basic color terms. Utrecht, 1992. VAN BRACKEL J. The plasticity of categories: The case of colour. // British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44. 1993. WIERZBICKA A. There are no 'color universals', but there are universals of visual semantics. // Anthropological Linguistics 47(2).

PART 6. GENDER, NUMERAL, PERCEPTION AND RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES. AIKHENVALD A. Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, 2004. AIKHENVALD A., DIXON R. (eds.). Studies in evidentiality. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003. BORODITSKY L., SCHMIDT L. Sex, syntax, and semantics. // Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 22. 2000. BORODITSKY L., SCHMIDT L., PHILLIPS W. Sex, syntax, and semantics. // Gentner D. and Goldin-Meadow S. (eds.). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. The M.I.T. Press, 2003. BURENHULT N., MAJID A. Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. // Majid A., Levinson S. (eds.). The senses in language and culture, 2011. DIXON R. M. W. Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 1982. ENFIELD N. Taste in two tongues: A southeast Asian study of semantic convergence. // Majid A., Levinson S. (eds.). The senses in language and culture, 2011. EVANS N., WILKINS D. In the minds ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. // Language 76. 2000. EVERETT D. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirah: Another look at the design features of human language. // Current Anthropology 46. 2005. EVERETT D. Dont sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. New York, 2009. FRANK M., EVERETT D., FEDORENKO E., GIBSON E. Number as cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirah language and cognition. // Cognition 108. 2008. GENTNER D., BORODITSKY L. Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. // Bowerman M. and Levinson S. (eds.). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, 2006. GIL D. Numeral classifiers. // Haspelmath M. et al. (eds.). World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, 2005.
18

GORDON P. Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. // Science 306. 2004. IVANOV VYACH. VS. Modern problems of typology (To the new researches on Amerindian languages of Amazonia) [In Russian]. // Voprosy Jazykoznania. Moskow, 1988. LAKOFF G. Women, fire and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, 1987. LUCY J. Grammatical Categories and Cognition. Cambridge University Press, 1992. LUCY J., GASKINS S. Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: a comparative approach. // Bowerman M. and Levinson S. (eds.). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge University Press, 2006. MAJID A., LEVINSON S. (eds.). The senses in language and culture. [Special Issue] // The Senses & Society, 6(1). 2011. MALLORY J., ADAMS D. The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the ProtoIndo-European World. Oxford, 2006. MATISOFF J. Variational semantics in Tibeto-Burman. Philadelphia, 1978. MEISSNER A., STORCH A. (ed.) Nominal classification in Africal languages. Frankfury am Main. Koln, 2000. MELCHUK I. A. General morphology. Part 2 [In Russian]. oscow, 1998. SASSE H.-J. Scales between nouniness and verbiness. // Haspelmath M. et al. (eds.) Language Typology and Language Universals. Walter de Gruyter, 2001. SINHA C., DA SILVA SINHA V., ZINKEN J., SAMPAIO W. When time is not space: the social and linguistic construction of time intervals and temporal event relations in an Amazonian culture. // Language Cognition 3. 2011. SOUSA DE H. Changes in the language of perception in Cantonese. // Majid A., Levinson S. (eds.). The senses in language and culture, 2011. SWEETSER E. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge University Press, 1990. TUFVESSON S. Analogy-making in the Semai sensory world. // Majid A., Levinson S. (eds.). The senses in language and culture, 2011. VANHOVE M. (ed.). From polysemy to semantic change: Towards a typology of lexical semantic associations. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008. VANHOVE M. Semantic associations between sensory modalities, prehension and mental perceptions. // Vanhove M. (ed.). From polysemy to semantic change, 2008. VIBERG A. The verbs of perception: A typological study. // Comrie B. et al. (eds.). Explanations for language universals. Berlin: Moutun, 1984.

19

VOELTZ E., KILIAN-HATZ CH. (eds.). Ideophones. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2001. WISE M. R. Grammatical characteristics of pre-Andine Arawakan languages in Peru. // Handbook of Amazonian languages. Berlin - Amsterdam - New York, 1986.

20