£. F.

Konrad Koerner
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:

A Preliminary History and a
Bibliographical Essay

This article presents a historical overview of linguistic ideas in relation to the

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. The source of the hypothesis is found in the writ-
ings of Wilhelm von Humboldt, and further development is found in the
writings of Heymann Steinthal, Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, Benjamin Lee
Whorf, Carl Voegelin, and Dell Hymes, among others. Humboldtian ideas
have had a long-standing impact on American ethnolinguistics.

I f publications during the 1980s are any guide (e.g., Chatterjee 1985;
Heynick 1983; Hill 1988; Hossian 1986; Kay and Kempton 1984; Lucy
1985; Martin 1988)—and not only in North America (cf. Bytniewski
1989; Dimitrova 1989; Kiyomi 1989, to cite recent studies only)—the de-
bate over what is usually referred to as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in
the literature has not lost its interest among scholars in ethnolinguistics
and the social sciences. To be sure, it has never attracted the interest of
the vast majority of "mainstream" linguists, many of whom are con-
cerned with the investigation of abstract parameters and principles sup-
posedly underlying the linguistic structure of all languages. Indeed,
those interested in this hypothesis believe, instead, that there is a great
variety of grammatical organization in the world's languages and they
remain curious about the relationship that may exist between languages'

Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2(2):173-198. Copyright © 1992, American Anthropological

Association.

173
174 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

structural and semantic differences and the differences in speakers' per-

ceptions and the cultural, intellectual, and socio-psychological environ-
ment that these languages seem to convey.
This article is not intended to assay all the various interpretations that
have been made of the so-called Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (henceforth
SWH) over the past 50 and more years (cf. Fishman 1960; Trager 1959 for
early attempts at a systematization), a variety that caused Max Black to
throw up his arms in despair, suggesting that "an enterprising Ph.D.
candidate would have no trouble in producing at least 108 versions of
Whorfianism" (1969:30). Instead, I would like to offer a tentative histor-
ical overview of the subject to address what seems to be a lack of a his-
torical perspective on linguistic ideas (e.g., Sampson 1980). The original
source of SWH is usually seen in remarks made by Wilhelm von Hum-
boldt (1767-1835), the great intellectual mover in 19th-century language
studies, linguistic philosophy, and education in general, on various oc-
casions and in various places. As Christmann (1967) has shown, essential
ingredients of the idea can be found in the writings of a number of 17th-
and 18th-century thinkers, among them Vico and Herder, with the result
that Justice (1987:56) spoke of a "Vico-Herder-Humboldt-Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis," referring in a note to a "full pedigree" (1987:93), which has
been further elaborated on by Adair-Toteff (1985). Others (e.g., Heintz
1973) refer to Leibniz as a forerunner of the point de vue idea, and Hafiler
(1976), for instance, suggests 18th-century French philosophers as pos-
sible sources for the linguistic relativity principle, as SWH has frequently
been referred to since Whorf's (1940b) paper.
Since Sampson (1980:81), for example, can trace some general obser-
vations contained in SWH back only as far as Franz Boas (1858-1942),
Sapir's teacher at Columbia—although without offering any specific evi-
dence for the connection—it seems important that we be reminded of the
fact that Humboldt had been in contact with North American scholars
interested in American Indian languages during the 1820s and 1830s (cf.
Miiller-Vollmer 1976), and that it did not require Boas's arrival in North
America to transmit Humboldtian ideas of language and mind. In fact, in
1885, one year before Boas's departure from Germany, the Philadelphia
anthropologist Daniel Garrison Brinton (1837-1899) published an En-
glish translation of a manuscript (since lost) by Humboldt on the verb in
Amerindian languages (Brinton 1885). Ten years earlier, in 1875, the
most influential American linguist of the second half of the 19th century,
William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), had written the following in his
book The Life and Growth of Language (1875), which we could easily trace
to observations made by Humboldt—clearly mediated through the writ-
ings of Heymann Steinthal (1823-1899), whom he mentioned as one of
his major sources of inspiration in 1867:'

Every single language has . . . its own peculiar framework of established dis-
tinctions, its shapes and forms of thought, into which, for the human being
who learns that language as his "mother-tongue," is cast the content and prod-
uct of the mind, his storehouse of impressions, however acquired, his experi-
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 175

ence and knowledge of the world. This is what is sometimes called the "inner
form" of language, the shape and cast of thought, as fitted to a certain body of
expression. [Whitney 1875:21-22]
It remains true, however, that the training of students in anthropological
linguistics by Boas, given his background and interests, reinforced North
American scholarship in the field, as we shall see in what follows.
Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics in North America
and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The success story of Boasian ethnolinguistics was largely the result of
Boas's institutionalization of the subject at Columbia University during
the late 1890s and the training of students in anthropological-linguistic
fieldwork. Alfred Louis Kroeber (1876-1960) was the first to complete his
doctorate there in 1901.2 Within linguistics proper, it was undoubtedly
Edward Sapir (1884-1939) who turned out to be Boas's most gifted stu-
dent (Ph.D., 1909). It is through Sapir and the various anthropologists
and linguists trained by him that we can trace the continuing line of
Humboldtian ideas in 20th-century American linguistics. To choose just
one such line, we may refer to Charles Frederick Voegelin (1906-1986),
trained first by Kroeber in anthropological research and subsequently by
Sapir, during his Yale years, in linguistic fieldwork; Voegelin was Dell H.
Hymes's (1927- ) teacher at Indiana University, and Regna D. Darnell
(1943- ) did her Ph.D. under Hymes's direction at the University of
Pennsylvania in 1969. Thus, since Sapir (if not Boas) the lines of influence
have been multilinear, and we may draw the following filiation to illus-
trate the point: Humboldt -» Steinthal -• Boas -• Sapir -» Voegelin3 -»
Hymes -• Darnell. Other lines of Humboldtian influence could be drawn
up, too, for instance, in the work of Harry Hoijer (1904-1976), Kroeber's
student and Sapir's successor at the University of Chicago in 1931 (e.g.,
Hoijer 1951,1953,1954), whose role in the organized debate of SWH dur-
ing the 1950s cannot be underestimated (Hoijer 1954). As well, the work
of other Sapir students, such as Stanley S. Newman (1905-84), Morris
Swadesh (1909-67), and Mary R. Haas (1910- ), and in turn their various
students, should not be ignored.
In the present context, however, particular mention should be made
of the writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941), who attended Sapir's
lectures at Yale during the mid-1930s (and to some of whose writings I
shall turn later in this article). George L. Trager (1909-92), too, who
taught briefly at Yale and identified with Sapir's influence and who col-
laborated with Whorf on (remote) linguistic relationships among Amer-
ican Indian languages (cf. Whorf and Trager 1937), should be mentioned
here. After all, it was Trager who first collected and published Whorf's
"metalinguistic" papers in 1950, stirring the interest in the Whorf Hy-
pothesis.
Boas and the "Inner Form" of Language
Before proceeding any further, it should be firmly established that
Boas was indeed much imbued with Humboldtian linguistic ideas, es-
176 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

pecially since George Stocking, who has published widely on Boas, tends
to downplay Boas's debt to this tradition (cf. Stocking 1968 and else-
where); however, he concedes on another occasion: "This argument is
not intended to minimize the relation of Boas to the German tradition of
Humboldt and Steinthal" (Stocking 1974:478; cf. also Boas 1974:159).
Given the established fact that Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) was
one of Humboldt's sources of inspiration, it is interesting to note that
Boas, while a student at the University of Bonn in the summer of 1877
(when he was just 19 years old), bought a 40-volume set of Herder's
works (Kluckhohn and Prufer 1959:8). Many years later, in his paper
"The History of Anthropology^' (intended for the 1904 St. Louis World
Exhibition but also published in a professional journal the same year),
Boas refers to Herder's Ideen zur Geschichte der Menschheit (1784-91), in
which he found "perhaps for the first time the fundamental thought of
the culture of mankind as a whole . . . clearly expressed" (1904:514). This
reference to Herder is also of interest because, as has been recently
proved beyond doubt by Stephen Murray (1985), it must have been
around that time that Edward Sapir, then pursuing graduate studies in
German and anthropology at Columbia University, met Boas. As a mat-
ter of fact, Sapir enrolled in Boas's Anthropology 5 course, "American
Languages," in the fall of 1903 (cf. Murray and Dynes 1986:125). It would
therefore not be surprising if Boas had had something to do with the
choice of the subject of Sapir's M. A. thesis, completed in 1905, "Herder's
Ursprung der Sprache," and published in 1907.
It is true that Humboldt is rarely mentioned in Boas's writings; as
Regna Darnell has recently noted, "Boas was notoriously poor at citing
his intellectual predecessors" (1987:31). However, Boas does refer to the
work of a number of 19th-century Humboldtians, such as the anthropol-
ogist Adolf Bastian (1826-1905), for whom he served as an assistant at
the Royal Ethnographic Museum in Berlin from 1885 to 1886; the Leipzig
psychologist Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920); and, especially, the linguist
Heymann Steinthal (1823-99).4 In his 1904 paper mentioned earlier, for
instance, Boas makes the following revealing statement:

It is necessary to speak here of one line of anthropological research that we

have hitherto disregarded. I mean the linguistic method. The origin of lan-
guage was one of the much-discussed problems of the nineteenth century,
and, owing to its relation to the development of culture, it has a direct anthro-
pological bearing. The intimate ties between language and ethnic psychology
were expressed by no one more clearly than by Steinthal, who perceived that
the form of thought is molded by the whole social environment of which lan-
guage is part. Owing to the rapid change of language, the historical treatment
of the linguistic problem had developed long before the historic aspect of the
natural sciences was understood. The genetic relationship of language was
clearly recognized when the genetic relationship of species was hardly thought
of. With the increasing knowledge of languages, they were grouped according
to common descent, and, when no further relationship could be proved, a clas-
sification according to morphology was attempted. To the linguist [such as
Steinthal and other 19th-century Humboldtians], whose whole attention is di-
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis I77

rected to the study of the expression of thought by language, language is the

individuality of a people, and therefore a classification of languages must pres-
ent itself to him as a classification of peoples. No other manifestation of the
mental life of man can be classified so minutely and definitely as language. In
none are the genetic relations more clearly established. It is only when no fur-
ther genetic and morphological relationship can be found, that the linguist is
compelled to coordinate languages and can give no further clue regarding their
relationship and origin. No wonder, then, that this method was used to classify
mankind, although in reality the linguist classified only languages. The result
of the classification seems eminently satisfactory on account of its definiteness
as compared with the result of biological and cultural classifications. [Boas
1974(1904):2&-29J

This lengthy quotation is interesting for a variety of reasons, and not

only because of Boas's explicit reference to Steinthal, professor of general
linguistics at the University of Berlin since 1862. It may also help explain
Boas's life-long interest in linguistic classification (e.g., Boas 1894,1920b,
1929), one of Steinthal's preoccupations too (e.g., Steinthal 1850, 1860),
albeit on genetic rather than typological grounds, and his motives for en-
gaging in this kind of work. Boas, however, would not have endorsed
Sapir/s well-known sixth chapter in Language, "Types of Linguistic Struc-
ture" (Sapir 1921:127-156); he was too much aware of the limitations of
such undertakings. Although Boas was not a student at the University of
Berlin where Steinthal taught, the two had met during the period when
Boas was Bastian's assistant; the American Philosophical Society in Phil-
adelphia has a letter from Steinthal to Boas dated 15 September 1888 in
its archives (Stocking 1974:455). According to Jakobson (1944:188), Boas
later "regretted never having attended" Steinthal's lectures (see also Har-
rington 1945:98), and Lowie (1943:184) reports that Boas once told him
that his aim was to realize Steinthal's goals. That Boas used Humboldf s
concept of "inner form" in his characterization of the diversity of Amer-
indian languages and tended to see languages as conditioning the world-
views of those speaking them has been pointed out by Hymes (1961; cf.
Stocking 1968:159). However, Boas remained highly critical of the re-
spects in which the Herder-Humboldt tradition carried the germ of later
stereotyping and misconception about the languages and cultures of peo-
ples such as the American Indians. As Lucy has noted, "Late in his life
Boas (1942:181-183) gave a very cautious endorsement of ideas similar to
those adopted by Whorf" (1985:81).
In the following sections, I shall deal only with the so-called Humbold-
tian worldview idea, although the linguistic tradition associated with the
name of Wilhelm von Humboldt is, of course, much richer and more var-
ied than that. It can be characterized grosso modo as the line of research
that was preoccupied with subjects that were neglected or ignored by
19th-century "mainstream" linguistics, namely, the study of non-Indo-
European, especially "exotic," languages, and the investigation of gram-
matical categories in many languages throughout the world—a subject
that Boas (e.g., 1911:67), Sapir (1921:86-126 passim, 1931), Whorf (in Car-
roll 1956:67-111 passim), and their successors took a strong interest in.
178 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

To this Humboldtian tradition should be added work in typological (in

contrast to genetic) classification of diverse languages, on semantics and
the psychology of language, and the relationship between language
structure and social and cultural organization. All of these tie in, in one
way or another, with the Weltanschauungshypothese, although Whorf, for
his part, referred to Boas and Sapir as his only intellectual sources on this
subject. An adequate treatment of the Humboldtian research program,
however, would go beyond the scope of a single paper. It is hoped, how-
ever, that by tracing the transmission of mainly one facet of the Hum-
boldtian linguistic tradition, the field will be opened for further—and
deeper—scholarly research.
Humboldt, Sapir, and the So-Called Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The Herder-Humboldt line of linguistic thinking was clearly drawn by
one of Boas's most distinguished students, Edward Sapir (1884-1939), in
his M.A. thesis, mentioned earlier, where he compares Herder's views
with Humboldt's and discusses Herder's influence on Humboldt (Sapir
1907:385-388). In these pages Sapir also refers to a work by Steinthal
(1858), in which Steinthal contests the correctness of this filiation, which
had previously been put forward by Haym (1856). The Humboldt-Sapir
connection was explored in 1967 by Mattoso Camara (1970) and more re-
cently—and more fully—by Drechsel (1988), especially with regard to
the "inner form" concept (cf. Sapir 1921:115) and the so-called Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis. Indeed, it is this Weltanschauungstheorie that occupied
anthropological linguists especially during the 1950s and 1960s (cf.
Brown 1967; Miller 1968; Perm 1972; for historical treatments), and that
would therefore best serve to illustrate the continuing presence of Hum-
boldtian ideas in North American linguistics.5
In a letter to Friedrich Schiller, written several years before he had first
made contact with a non-Indo-European language (such as Basque in
1801 and American Indian languages seven years later during his sojourn
in Rome, where he got access to the materials amassed by Lorenzo Her-
vas y Panduro in the Vatican Library), Wilhelm von Humboldt adum-
brated his Weltansicht hypothesis in the following manner:
Die Sprache stellt offenbar unsre ganze geistige Tatigkeit subjektiv (nach der
Art unsres Verfahrens) dar, aber sie erzeugt auch zugleich die Gegenstande,
insofern sie Objekte unseres Denkens sind. . . . Die Sprache ist daher, wenn
nicht iiberhaupt, doch wenigstens sinnlich das Mittel, durch welches der
Mensch zugleich sich selbst und die Welt bildet oder vielmehr seiner dadurch
bewusst wird, dass er eine Welt von sich abscheidet.
Language appears to present to us subjectively our entire mental activity (in a
manner of our procedure), but it generates at the same time the objects in as
much as they are objects in our thinking. . . . Language is, therefore, if not
altogether, at least in terms of perception, the means by which [each] human
being constructs at the same time himself and the world or, by which he,
rather, becomes conscious of himself by discriminating between himself and
the world. [Cited after Heeschen 1977:133-134, translation mine]
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 179

More than ten years later, in his 1812 Essai sur les langues du Nouveau
Continent, originally drafted for a project by his brother Alexander, but
never published during the author's lifetime, Wilhelm von Humboldt
noted that "le monde dans lequel nous vivons est. . . exactement celui
dans lequel nous transplante I'idiome que nous parlons [the world in
which we l i v e . . . is exactly that into which the language we speak trans-
plants us]" (1904[1812]:332, translation mine). Many years later, in 1827,
after his retirement from public office and following several years of ex-
changes between him and John Pickering (1777-1846) as well as Peter
Stephen DuPonceau (1760-1844), Humboldt presented a paper to the
Prussian Academy entitled "Uber den Dualis," in which he put forward
his idea of language as the mirror of the mind and as determining the
worldview of the speaker in the following terms:
Die Sprache ist durchaus kein blosses Verstandigungsmittel, sondem der Ab-
druck des Geistes und der Weltansicht des Redenden [Language is by no
means a mere means of communication, but the mirror of the mind and of the
world view of the speaker].
[1827:23, translation mine]
Similar observations can be found in many other places in Humboldt's
writings (see Penn [1972:19-22] for further references). Yet these few ci-
tations may suffice to characterize what has been called Humboldt's Welt-
anschauungstheorie, his theory of the interrelationship between language
and mind, and, more specifically, between linguistic structure and the
particular manner in which a speaker of a given language conceptualizes
his universe.
Boas, in his famous Introduction to Volume I of the Handbook of Amer-
ican Indian Languages, written in 1908 and published three years later,
stated the following, which echoes Humboldt:
Inferences based on peculiar forms of classification of ideas, and due to the fact
that a whole group of distinct ideas are expressed by a single term, occur com-
monly in the terms of relationship of various languages; as, for instance, in our
term uncle, which means two distinct classes of father's brother and mother's
brother. Here also, it is commonly assumed that the linguistic expression is a
secondary reflex of the customs of the people; but the question is quite open in
how far the one phenomenon is the primary one and the other the secondary
one, and whether the customs of the people have not rather developed from
the unconsciously developed terminology. . . . Finally, a few examples may be
given of cases in which the use of descriptive terms of certain concepts, or the
metaphorical use of these terms, has led to peculiar views or customs. . . . The
peculiar characteristics of language are clearly reflected in the views and cus-
toms of the peoples of the world. [Boas 1911:72-73]

Whereas Humboldt appears to have affirmed that the language we are

speaking determines our way of looking at things, Boas was hedging,
allowing for a possibly reciprocal influence between language and
thought (which was not actually excluded by Humboldt). Sapir, who had
completed his doctorate with Boas in 1909, made a much more forceful
180 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

statement 20 years later, after having worked with American Indian lan-
guages for many years, regarding the interrelationship between lan-
guage and worldview. Speaking at a joint meeting of the Linguistic So-
ciety of America and various other American learned societies held in
New York City in December 1928, Sapir stated:
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world
of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of
the particular language which has become the medium of expression of their
society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially
without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means
of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the
matter is that the "real world" is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the
language habits of the group. . . . We see and hear and otherwise experience
very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predis-
pose certain choices of interpretation. [Sapir 1929:209-210]
In view of the opinion expressed by A. L. Kroeber 30 years after Sapir's
statement, namely, that the so-called Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis ought
properly be called Whorf's Hypothesis alone (see Kroeber 1984J1959]:
135-136), a position reiterated by others (e.g., Alford 1978), it seems im-
portant not to overlook Sapir's argument expressed publicly before a
large audience. 6 As Dell Hymes has observed on various occasions
(1983), the above quotation from Sapir is not an isolated observation con-
cerning the "relativity principle." Interestingly enough, given the recent
suggestions that Whorf took this term from Einstein (Alford 1981; Heyn-
ick 1983), Sapir, in his paper "The Gramarian and His Language" pub-
lished in a popular magazine in 1924, spoke of "relativity" in the follow-
ing terms (which has an unmistakable Humboldtian ring to it):
The upshoot of it all [i.e., the analysis of experience in different languages]
would be to make very real to us a kind of relativity that is generally hidden
from us by our naive acceptance of fixed habits of speech as guides to an ob-
jective understanding of the nature of experience. This is the relativity of con-
cepts or, as it might be called, the relativity of the form of thought. [Sapir
1949(1924):159; also quoted in Hymes 1983:153-154]
As Sapir's influence on Whorf is undeniable (cf. Darnell [1990:375-382]
for an account of their relationship), we might see in passages like these
the source of Whorf's inspiration. Indeed, we should at least cite an-
other—much more forceful—statement of Sapir's, published in Science,
another public forum, to dispel the idea that Whorf developed his ideas
on the subject independently of Sapir (cf. also note 7):
Language . . . not only refers to experience largely acquired without its help
but actually defines experience for us by reason of its formal completeness and
because of our unconscious projection of its implicit expectations into the field
of experience. . . . Such categories as number, gender, case tense, . . . are not
so much discovered by experience as imposed upon it because of the tyrannical
hold that linguistic form has upon our orientation in the world. [Sapir 1931:578]
The Sajrir-Whorf Hypothesis 181

It is true, however, that Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1942)—a profes-

sional chemical engineer and fire-insurance investigator and linguist by
avocation, who had undertaken extensive research into the language of
the Hopi Indians of Arizona (though mainly through an informant resid-
ing in New York City) from 1932 to 1935—went beyond what his prede-
cessors had suggested concerning the relationship between cognition
and grammatical categories.7 Indeed, it has been suggested by Regna
Darnell (1990:380-382) that Whorf quite consciously went beyond what
he had found in Sapir in an attempt to attract (largely nonlinguistics) stu-
dents to the course in American Indian linguistics that he was teaching
at Yale during 1937-38, substituting for Sapir who had taken sabbatical
leave for the year. Thus, in his paper "Science and Linguistics," pub-
lished in a nonlinguistic journal in 1940 (and frequently reprinted in var-
ious places thereafter), Whorf was addressing notably scientists when he
argued that
the background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each lan-
guage is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is
itself a shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual's mental ac-
tivity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in
trade. [Whorf 1940a:212]

In the same paper, he noted further:

The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do
not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary,
the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be
organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems of
our minds. [1940a:213]

As a result, Whorf held that we are thus

introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers are
not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, un-
less their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.
[1940a:214]

These are not the only places in which Whorf discussed his "relativity
principle" (cf. Whorf 1950, in Carroll 1956:240, 252)—Sapir, as we have
seen, had earlier spoken of the "relativity of the form of thought"
(1924:158), but this 1940 paper has become the locus classicus of what has
ever since been called the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Carroll 1956:27).8
No doubt, the above statements are the most forceful ones for a rela-
tivity principle. Early on in these discussions, Eric H. Lenneberg (1924-
75), a psychologist, in a 1953 article sharply attacked Whorf's method-
ology (see also Brown and Lenneberg 1954), and in the same year, Lewis
Feuer, a social philosopher, tried to refute Whorf's hypothesis on logical
grounds, arguing that the perception of time, space, causation, and other
fundamental constituents of the physical world must be basically the
182 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

same everywhere because their correct perception is necessary for sur-

vival (Feuer 1953). However, little empirical evidence against the hypoth-
esis was advanced at the time, and the "relativity principle" enjoyed a
considerable debate during the 1950s and 1960s (e.g., Hoijer 1954; see
Miller [1968:12, n. 6] for locations), and not just among etholinguists of
the Boas-Sapir tradition. For instance, Basilius (1952) noted a connection
between this tradition and the work of the Neo-Humboldtians in Ger-
many (e.g., Trier 1931; Weisgerber 1958). Trutenau (1967) chided them
and others for their interest in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (cf. Gastil
1959; Koschmieder 1964), as he thought this affinity to be merely a su-
perficial one, not realizing, it would seem, that the Americans drew from
very similar historical sources.
It is interesting to note that as recent as 1985 John A. Lucy charged that,
"despite this interest, few undertook the empirical and theoretical tasks
necessary to seriously investigate and develop his [i.e., Whorf's] ideas"
(1985:89). Typically, Lucy focuses on Whorf's conceptual distinction be-
tween "overt" and "covert" categories in language (1985:76-80), taking
Whorf s work on Hopi at face value (1985:81-89; see also B. Lee 1985:114
ff). Helmut Gipper's monograph-length research report of 1972, dis-
proving many of Whorf's claims concerning this American Indian lan-
guage, has been ignored by North American researchers. Similarly, the
research findings of Gipper's student, Ekkehart (Malotki 1979, 1983),
which refute Whorf's proposals on empirical grounds, have only recently
been taken note of, though by rather few (cf. Shaul's 1985 review of Mal-
otki's books).
Although the interest in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has fluctuated in
recent decades—in the early 1950s, within a span of three years, four
meetings were held in the United States on the subject (cf. Hymes
[1983:174-176] for details), whereas only two were held during the 1970s
(see McCormack and Wurm 1977; Pinxten 1976)—the issue has not been
abandoned in spite of the difficulty, if not sheer impossibility, of verify-
ing its basic correctness. Paul Kay, for instance, who in 1969 together
with a colleague published the result of experiments dealing with color
perception and naming that supposedly refuted SWH, reports on new
research 15 years later, concluding that "a more cautious Whorfianism
seems to be supported by the results reported here" (Kay and Kempton
1984:77).

Concluding Remarks
In 1983 Hymes spoke of "the gradual remission of amnesia as to the
past anthropological history of the problems dramatized by Whorf," and
referred to the fact that Whorf himself never regarded his ideas as revo-
lutionary, but "saw his work as deriving from Sapir and Boas," adding
that the "record of continuity is in fact much longer, going back, of
course, to Wilhelm von Humboldt" (Hymes 1983.16). In this short article,
1 have sketched only the transmission of the so-called Weltanschauung-
stheorie from Humboldt to 20th-century American ethnolinguistics. Al-
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 183

though the history is far from being complete,9 a systematic classification

of the accumulated discussion over the past 50 years, since Whorf s sem-
inal paper of 1940, appears desirable. The list of references provided be-
low may serve as spadework to a courageous scholar willing to take on
this demanding task.
As noted at the outset of this article, interest in the Sapir-Whorf Hy-
pothesis and, especially, in Whorf's formulations of it is unabating (see
Dillon 1982; Hsieh 1988; Hotowska 1986; Lucy and Wertsch 1987; Ple-
ciunski 1986; Seppanen 1987; Vorster 1986; to cite only recent publica-
tions not already mentioned at the outset of this article), although few of
the authors are linguists. Indeed, there appears to be an ongoing popular
demand for John B. Carroll's 1956 edition of Whorf s collected papers, if
the publication of its 18th printing in paperback in 1988 is any indication
(see Kaye 1991).
If one were to venture a prediction, it may well be that the 1990s wit-
ness a revival of interest in SWH, now more frequently associated with
Whorf's writings, probably because his formulations have been particu-
larly provocative and challenging to anthropologists, sociologists, phi-
losophers, and psychologists. Several recent publications and related ac-
tivities seem to suggest such an increased attention; I am referring to the
various contributions to the festschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman,
The Influence of Language on Culture and Thought (Cooper and Spolsky
1991), and the convening of a symposium, "Rethinking Linguistic Rela-
tivity," in Ohio Rios, Jamaica, on 3-11 May 1991, co-chaired by John J.
Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson (see their joint report of 1991). As
well, Cambridge University Press is announcing the publication of two
monographs by John A. Lucy (going back to his 1987 Ph.D. dissertation),
one entitled Language Diversity and Thought, with the subtitle "A refor-
mulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis," the other, Grammatical
Categories and Cognition (Lucy 1992a, 1992b).

Summary
This article suggests that Humboldt's ideas have had a long-standing
influence on American linguistics. Although Wilhelm von Humboldt's
(1767-1835) first contacts with North American scholars go back to the
beginning of the 19th century, the present article is confined to the post-
humous phase of his influence, which begins with the work of Heymann
Steinthal (1823-99) from about 1850 onwards. This was also a time when
many young Americans went to Germany to complete their education;
for instance, William Dwight Whitney (1827-94), whose writings on gen-
eral linguistics show traces of Humboldtian ideas, spent several years at
the universities of Tubingen and Berlin (1850-53). In 1885 Daniel Garri-
son Brinton (1837-99) published an English translation of a manuscript
by Humboldt on the structure of the verb in Amerindian languages. A
year later Franz Boas (1858-1942) arrived from Berlin, soon to establish
himself as the foremost anthropologist with a strong interest in native
language and culture. From then on we encounter Humboldtian ideas in
184 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

the work of a number of North American anthropological linguists, most

notably in the work of Edward Sapir (1884-1939), but also among many
of his students. This is not only true with regard to matters of language
classification and typology, but also with regard to the philosophy of lan-
guage, specifically, the relationship between language structure and
thought. Humboldtian ideas of "linguistic relativity," enunciated in the
writings of Whitney, Brinton, Boas, and others, were subsequently de-
veloped further by Sapir's student, Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941).
The transmission of the so-called Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis—which still
today is attracting considerable interest among cultural anthropologists
and social psychologists, not just in North America—is the focus of the
present article. A general Humboldtian approach to language and cul-
ture, it is argued, is still present in the work of Dell Hymes and several
of his students.

Notes

Acknowledgments. This article is but a small portion of a much larger, ongoing

study devoted to the history of the Humboldtian tradition in North American
linguistics, a subject that, curiously enough, still awaits monograph treatment
(cf. Koerner 1977 for an early, and rather modest, attempt, but see also Koerner
1990). It is by no means the last word on the subject of the sources of the Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis and its subsequent evolution, but, I hope, at least something
like a progress report that may be of interest to readers of this journal. I would
like to thank Dell Hymes (Charlottesville, Va.) and Stephen O. Murray (San Fran-
cisco) for useful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Regular disclaimers
apply.
1. Since Whitney is known for his attacks on Steinthal and August Schleicher
(1821-68) in the 1870s, it is important to remember that both are singled out as
the two scholars "whose works (he) had constantly upon (his) table" in the pre-
face to his Language and the Study of Language (1867:vi-vii).
2. Several years prior to his arrival at Columbia, Boas held a position at Clark
University, Worcester, Massachusetts, where he produced, in 1892, his first doc-
toral student in anthropology—actually the first Ph.D. in this field in North
America—the British-born Canadian Alexander Francis Chamberlain (1865-
1914). However, Chamberlain himself does not seem to have made any notice-
able impact on ethnolinguistic scholarship. Boas, for his part, later, excluded him
from collaboration on his Handbook of American Indian Languages (1911), arguing
that Chamberlain tended to get lost in detail to the extent that "the essential
points are liable to be obscured" (Boas in 1905, quoted in Stocking 1974:460).
3. At least with regard to the active interest in the SWH, Hymes feels that Hoi-
jer was a more important influence on him than Voegelin, and that "after Sapir,
the arrow should go to more than one person" (letter to the editor, 2 March 1991).
4. In Boas's 647-page collection of papers published toward the end of his life,
there are frequently references to Bastian (e.g., 1940:13, 270-273 passim, 306,435,
444) and to Wundt (e.g., 1940:319, 456, 458, 476, 485), but I have not found a
reference to Steinthal (the volume has no index). However, few of the papers
included there deal with general linguistics or address questions of the relation-
ship between language and mind, that is, the central areas of Steinthal's interests.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 185

5. The Humboldtian interest in language typology could serve as another such

line of tradition from the work of Steinthal, August Friedrich Pott (1802-87), and
others to Boas, Sapir, and his students to the work of Joseph H. Greenberg
(1915- ) and his associates from the later 1950s onwards.
6. Interestingly enough, Paul Friedrich, both in the title of his essay and in the
text itself (see Friedrich 1979:455), speaks of "the Sapir hypothesis," although he
considers Whorf's work as well (e.g., 1979:444-445).
7. It has been suggested (e. g., by Rollins 1980:47-52) that Whorf was led to such
claims by religious ideas, notably those derived from the French theosophist An-
toine Fabre d'Olivet (1768-1825), and by the writings on language and religion of
the Oxford philologist Friedrich Max Muller (1823-1900). However, as Rollins
himself suggests (1980:52 ff.), Whorf was attracted to Boas's work on American
Indian languages and culture even before he enrolled in Sapir's courses at Yale
from 1931 onwards (1980:56 ff.). It appears to me that the impact of Boas and Sapir
on Whorf s linguistic theories was much more profound than that of Fabre
d' Olivet. Where Max Muller, for example, in his Introduction to the Science of Re-
ligion (1882), is concerned, it could be shown that he, too, like the great majority
of 19th-century linguistic thinkers, had absorbed much of the Humboldtian tra-
dition of language and mind.
8. Berthoff (1988) is wrong—and not only on this point, one may add—when
she accuses John B. Carroll (1916- ), the editor of Whorf s papers, of having mis-
represented the facts of this hypothesis (see also Carroll 1980).
9. Among other things, I am not at all sure at this point in time about the role
that the papers of Dorothy D. Lee (1905-75), a social anthropologist at Vassar
College, played in this. As Hymes (1983:172-173) reports, her 1938 and 1940 pa-
pers were quoted with approval by Clyde Kluckhohn (1905-60) in "a prominent
postwar anthropological collection," whereas Whorf s papers were not men-
tioned. Lee's first paper, published two years before Whorf s better-known arti-
cle of 1940 (Whorf 1940a), contained such statements as "Grammar contains in
crystallized form the accumulated and accumulating experience, the Weltan-
schauung, of a people" (1938:89). A second paper of her analysis of Wintu lin-
guistic thought appeared in IJAL in 1944 (though probably written several years
earlier). So far I have been unable to elucidate Lee's background. Born in Con-
stantinople (since World War I, Istanbul) of Greek parents, she does not appear
to have been a student of either Boas or Sapir; from 1933 to 1934, Lee studied in
Germany at the universities of Kiel and Freiburg im Breisgau for three semesters.
Whether she took courses with Johannes Lohmann (1895-1983), a Neo-Hum-
boldtian professor of both Indo-European and general linguistics at Freiburg im
Breisgau during 1933-39 (and again after 1943 until his retirement in 1963), must
remain speculation for the time being. However, from information supplied to
me by Stephen O. Murray (letter to the author, 1 March 1991), it appears that Lee
was a student of Kroeber. She had done fieldwork on Wintu, submitting a 53-
page dissertation at the University of California, Berkeley, The Loon Woman Myth:
A Study in Synthesis, in 1931, which quotes the myth as related in Wintu tradition.
So when Lohmann published a 22-page article on the categories of gender in
Wintu ten years after Lee's sojourn at Freiburg (Lohmann 1943), there must have
been at least some contact between the two.

References Cited
Note from the author: This fairly comprehensive bibliographical list—which by
itself could serve as a working bibliography for a major study on the origins, his-
186 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

tory, and evolution of the so-called Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis—contains

many more entries than referred to in the body of the article. It illustrates quite
vividly, I think, the diversity of the debate concerning the Sapir-Whorf Hypoth-
esis, coming, as it does especially during the 1980s, from philosophy, sociology,
and psychology much more than from linguistics.

Adair-Toteff, Stephanie
1985 Historical Perspectives on the Theory of Linguistic Relativity. Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Virginia.
Albrecht, Erhard
1972 Bestimmt die Sprache unser Weltbild? Zur Kritik der gegenwartigen
burgerlichen Sprachphilosophie. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Alexander, Hubert Griggs
1936 Linguistic Morphology in Relation to Thinking. Journal of Philosophy
33(2):261-269.
Alford, Danny K. H.
1978 The Demise of the Whorf Hypothesis: A Major Revision in the History
of Linguistics. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4:485-499.
1981 Is Whorf's Relativity Einstein's Relativity? Proceedings of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society 7:13-26.
Asai, Erin
1957 Life and Works of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Japanese Journal of Ethnology

Au, Terry Kit-Fong

1983 Chinese and English Counterfactuals: The Sapir-Hypothesis revisited.
Cognition 15(2):155-187.
1984 Counterfactuals: In reply to Alfred Bloom. Cognition 17(3):289-302.
Basilius, Harold A.
1952 Neo-Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics. Word 8(l):95-105.
Bedau, Hugo Adam
1957 Review of Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf. John B. Carroll, ed. Philosophy of Science 24(4):289-293.
Berlin, Brent, and Paul Kay
1969 Basic Color Terms: Their University and Evolution. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von
1955 An Essay on the Relativity of Categories. Philosophy of Science
22(2):243-263.
Berthoff, Ann E.
1988 Sapir and the Two Tasks of Language. Semiotica 71(l/2):l-47.
Black, Max
1959 Linguistic Relativity: The Views of Benjamin Lee Whorf. The Philosoph-
ical Review 68(2) -.228-238.
1969 Some Thoughts with Whorfianism. In Language and Philosophy: A
Symposium. Sidney Hook, ed. Pp. 30-35. New York: New York University
Press.
Bloom, Alfred
1981 The Linguistic Shaping of Thought: A Study on the Impact of Language
on Thinking in China and in the West. Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Earlbaum.
1984 Caution—The Words You Use May Affect What You Say: A Response
to Au. Cognition 17(2):257-287.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 187

Boas, Franz
1894 Classification of the Langauges of the North Pacific Coast. In Memoirs
of the International Congress of Anthropology. Pp. 339-346. Chicago, 111.:
Schulte.
1904 The History of Anthropology. Science 20(4):513-524.
1911 Introduction. In Handbook of American Indian Languages, Part I. Pp.
1-83. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
1920a The Methods of Ethnology. American Anthropologist 22(3):311-321.
1920b The Classification of American Languages. American Anthropologist
22(l):367-376.
1929 Classification of American Indian Languages. Language 5(l):l-7.
1940 Race, Language, and Culture. New York: Macmillan.
1942 Language and Culture. In Studies in the History of Culture: The Disci-
pline of the Humanities. American Council of Learned Societies, ed. Pp. 178-
184. Menasha, Wis.: George Banta.
1974 A Franz Boas Reader: The Shaping of American Anthropology, 1883-
1911. George W. Stocking, Jr., ed. New York: Basic Books.
Bright, Jane O., and William Bright
1965 Semantic Structures in North-Western California and the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis. In Formal Semantic Analysis. E. A. Hammel, ed. Special issue
of American Anthropologist 64(5):249-258.
Brinton, Daniel Garrison
1885 The Philosophic Grammar of American Languages, as Set Forth by Wil-
helm von Humboldt. Philadelphia, Perm.: McCalla & Stavely.
Brown, Roger Langham
1967 Wilhelm von Humboldf s Conception of Linguistic Relativity. The Ha-
gue: Mouton.
Brown, Roger W.
1956 Language and Categories. In A Study of Thinking. Jerome S. Bruner,
Jacqueline J. Goodnow, and George A. Austin, eds. Pp. 247-312. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
1957 Linguistic Determinism and the Parts of Speech. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology 55(l):l-5.
1958 Words and Things. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press.
1976 Reference: In Memorial Tribute to Eric Lenneberg. Cognition 5(1):185-
187.
1986 Linguistic Relativity. In One Hundred Years of Psychological Research
in America: G. Stanley Hall and the Johns Hopkins Tradition. Stewart H.
Hulse and Bert F. Green, eds. Pp. 241-276. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Brown, Roger W., and Eric H. Lenneberg
1954 A Study in Language and Cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology 49(4):454-462.
1958 Studies in Linguistic Relativity. In Readings in Social Psychology, 3d ed.
Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, eds.
Pp. 8-18. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brutyan, G. A.
1962 A Marxist Evaluation of the Whorf Hypothesis. A Review of General Se-
mantics 19(2): 199-220.
Burling, Robbins
1964 Cognition and Componential Analysis: God's Truth or Hocus Pocus?
American Anthropologist 66(l):20-28.
188 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Bytniewski, Pawel
1989 Jezyk i kultura w koncepcji E. Sapira i B. L. Whorfa [Language and cul-
ture in the conception of E. Sapir and B. L. Whorf]. In Jezyk i Kultura, vol.
II. Janusz Anusiewicz and Jerzy Bartmiuski, eds. Pp.7-27. Wroclaw: Wyd.
Centralnego Programu Badau Postawowych.
Camara, J. Mattoso, Jr.
1970 Wilhelm von Humboldt et Edward Sapir. In Actes du Xe Congres Inter-
national des Linguistes, Bucarest, 28 aout-2 septembre 1967, vol. II. Alex-
andru Graur et al., eds. Pp. 327-332. Bucharest: Editions de l'Acad. de la
Rep. Socialiste de Roumanie.
Cames, Ralph Lee
1965 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: An Analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Emory
University.
Carroll, John B.
1952 Foreword. A Review of General Semantics 9(2): 167-168.
1956 Introduction. In Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of
Benjamin Lee Whorf. John B. Carroll, ed. Pp. 1-34. Cambridge, Mass.: MTT
Press.
1963 Linguistic Relativity, Contrastive Linguistics, and Language Learning.
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching l(l):l-20.
1980 The Tale of a Linguistic Psychologist. In First Person Singular [I]: Papers
from the Conference on an Oral Archive for the History of American Lin-
guistics. Boyd H. Davis and Raymond K. O'Cain, eds. Pp. 31-54. Amster-
dam: John Benjamins.
Carroll, John B., ed.
1956 Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf. Cambridge, Mass.: MTT Press.
Carroll, John B., and Joseph B. Casagrande
1958 The Function of Language Classification in Behavior. In Readings in So-
cial Psychology, 3rd ed. Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb, and
Eugene L. Hartley, eds. Pp. 19-31. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chatterjee, Ranjit
1985 Reading Whorf Through Wittgenstein: A Solution to the Linguistic Rel-
ativity Problem. Lingua 67(l):37-63.
Christmann, Hans Helmut
1967 Beitrage zur Geschichte der These vom Weltbild der Sprache. Wiesba-
den: Franz Steiner.
Collier, George A.
1973 Review of Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Language
49(l):245-248.
Cooper, Robert L., and Bernard Spolsky, eds.
1991 The Influence of Language on Culture and Thought: Essays in Honor of
Joshua A. Fishman's Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Berlin: Mouton.
Darnell, Regna
1974 Rationalist Aspects of the Whorf Hypothesis. Papers in Linguistics
26(4):719-721.
1987 Daniel Garrison Brinton: The "Fearless Critic" of Philadelphia. Phila-
delphia: Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.
1990 Edward Sapir: Linguist, Anthropologist, Humanist. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Davis, Jack L.
1976 The Whorf Hypothesis and Native American Literature. South Dakota
Review 14(2):59-72.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 189

Dillon, George L.
1982 Whorfian Stylistics. Journal of Stylistic Semantics ll(2):73-77.
Dimitrova, Stefana
1970 Za ponjatieto "ezikova struktura" (spored terijata na Benczamen Li
Uorf) (On the conception of "linguistic structure" (according to B. L.
Whorf)]. Balgarski Ezik 20(2):310-318.
1989 Lingvisticna otnositelnost [Linguistic principles]. Sofia: Izd. Nauka i Is-
kustvo.
Drechsel, EmanuelJ.
1988 Wilhelm von Humboldt and Edward Sapir: Analogies. William F. Ship-
ley, ed. Pp. 225-264. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Durbeck, Helmut
1975 Neuere Untersuchungen zur Sapir-Whorf Hypothese. Linguistics
145:5-45.
Fearing, Franklin
1954 An Examination of the Conception of Benjamin Whorf in the Light of
Theories of Perception and Cognition. In Language in Culture: Proceedings
of a Conference on the Interrelations of Language and Other Aspects of Cul-
ture. Harry Hoijer, ed. Pp. 47-81, 175-198. Menasha, Wis., and Chicago:
American Anthropological Association and University of Chicago Press.
Feuer, Lewis S.
1953 Sociological Aspects of the Relation between Language and Philosophy.
Philosophy of Science 20(l):85-100.
Fishman, Joshua A.
1960 A Systematization of the Whorfian Hypothesis. Behavioral Science
5(2):323-339.
1980 The Whorfian Hypothesis: Varieties of Valuation, Confirmation and
Disconfirmation, I. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
26(l):25-40.
1982 Whorfianism of the Third Kind: Ethnolinguistic Diversity as a World-
wide Societal Asset (The Whorfian Hypothesis: Varieties of Valuation, Con-
firmation and Disconfirmation II). Language in Society 11(1):1-14.
1985 The Whorfian Hypothesis: Varieties of Valuation, Confirmation, and
Disconfirmation. In The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival: Perspectives on
Language and Ethnicity. J. A. Fishman, ed. Pp. 457-471. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Flavell, J. H.
1958 A Test of the Whorfian Theory. Psychological Reports 4(3):455-462.
Friedrich, Paul
1979 Poetic Language and the Imagination: A Reformulation of the Sapir Hy-
pothesis. In Language, Context, and the Imagination. P. Friedrich and An-
war S. Dil, eds. Pp. 441-512. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
1986 The Language Parallax: Linguistic Relativism and Poetic Indeterminacy.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Gastil, Raymond D.
1959 Relative Linguistic Determinism. Anthropological Linguistics 9(1):24-
38.
Gipper, Helmut
1972 Gibt es ein sprachwissenschaftliches Relativitatsprinzip? Untersuchun-
gen zur Sapir-Whorf Hypothese. Frankfurt/Munich: Suhrkamp.
1976a Is there a Relativity Principle? Pinxten 1976:217-228.
190 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

1976b Die Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese: Verbalismus oder Sprachwissenschaft?

Eine Entgegnung auf die Kritik Helmut Diirbecks. Linguistics 178:25-46.
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1954 Concerning Inferences from Linguistic to Non-Linguistic Data. In Lan-
guage in Culture: Proceedings of a Conference on the Interrelations of Lan-
guage and Other Aspects of Culture. Harry Hoijer, ed. Pp. 3-19, 127-147.
Menasha, Wis., and Chicago: American Anthropological Association and
University of Chicago Press.
Gumperz, John J., and Stephen C. Levinson
1991 Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Current Anthropology 32(5):613-623.
Harrington, John P.
1945 Boas on the Science of Language. International Journal of American Lin-
guistics ll(l):97-99.
Hafiler, Gerda
1976 Ansatze zur Diskussion um ein sprachliches Relativitatsprinzip in der
Auseinandersetzung Turgots mit Maupertuis. Zeitschrift fur Phonetik,
Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 29(5):491-494.
Haugen, Einar
1977 Linguistic Relativity: Myths and Methods. In Language and Thought:
Anthropological Issues. William C. McCormack and Stephen A. Wurm, eds.
Pp. 11-28. The Hague: Mouton.
Haym, Rudolf
1856 Wilhelm von Humboldt: Lebensbild und Charakteristik. Berlin: R.
Gaertner.
Heeschen, Volker
1977 Weltansicht—Reflexionen iiber einen Begriff Wilhelm von Humboldts.
Historiographia Linguistica 4(l):159-190.
Heintz, Giinter
1973 "Point de vue": Leibniz und die These vom Weltbild der Sprache. Zeit-
schrift fur philosophische Forschung 27(l):86-107.
Hennigfeld, Jochem
1976 Sprache als Weltansicht: Humboldt-Nietzsche-Whorf. Zeitschrift fur
philosophische Forschung 30(3):435-451.
Herder, Johann Gottfried
1772 Abhandlung uber den Ursprung der Sprache, welche den von der Kon-
igl. Academie der Wissenschaften auf das Jahr 1770 gesetzten Preis erhalten
hat. Berlin: Friedrich Voss.
1784-91 Ideen zur Philosophic der Geschichte der Menschheit. 4 vols. Riga:
Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
Heynick, Frank
1983 From Einstein to Whorf: Space, Time, Matter and Reference Frames in
Physical and Linguistic Relativity. Semiotica 45(l/2):35-64.
HiU, Jane H.
1988 Language, Culture, and World View. In Linguistics: The Cambridge
Survey, vol. IV: Language: The Socio-Cultural Context. Frederick J. New-
meyer, ed. Pp. 14-36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hockett, Charles F.
1954 Chinese vs. English: An Exploration of the Whorfian Thesis. In Lan-
guage in Culture: Proceedings of a Conference on the Interrelations of Lan-
guage and Other Aspects of Culture. Harry Hoijer, ed. Pp. 106-123. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 191

Hoijer, Harry
1951 Cultural Implications of Some Navaho Linguistic Categories. Language

1953 The Relation of Language to Culture. In Anthropology Today: An En-

cyclopedic Inventory. Prepared under the chairmanship of A. L. Kroeber.
Pp. 554-584. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1954 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. In Language in Culture: Proceedings of a
Conference on the Interrelations of Language and Other Aspects of Culture.
Harry Hoijer, ed. Pp. 92-105. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hoijer, Harry, ed.
1954 Language in Culture: Proceedings of a Conference on the Interrelations
of Language and Other Aspects of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hcrfowska, Teresa
1986 Philosophical Affinities of B. L. Whorf. Semiotica 61(l/2):61-68.
Home, Kibbey M.
1966 Language Typology: 19th and 20th Century Views. Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Hossian, Rumjahn
1986 Language, Orthography and Cognitive Processes: Chinese Perspectives
for the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral Devel-
opment 9(4):507-525.
Hsieh, Hsin-I
1988 A Mathematical Interpretation of the Whorfian Hypothesis. In East
Meets West: Homage to Edgar C. Knowlton. Roger L. Hadlich and James
Dennis Ellsworth, eds. Pp. 117-134. Honolulu: Dept. of European Lan-
guages and Literatures, University of Hawaii.
Humboldt, Wilhelm von
1827 Ueber den Dualis. Berlin: Konigl. Akad. der Wissenschaften.
1903-1936 Gesammelte Schriften. Herausgegeben von der Koniglichen Preu-
3ischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 17 vols. Berlin: B. Behr.
1904[1812] Essai sur les langues du Nouveau Continent. Gesammelte Schrif-
ten 111:300-341.
Hymes, Dell H.
1961 On Typology of Cognitive Styles in Language (with examples from Chi-
nookan). Anthropological Linguistics 3(l):22-54.
1963 Notes Towards a History of Linguistic Anthropology. Anthropological
Linguistics 5(1):50-103.
1964 Directions in (Ethno)linguistic Theory. American Anthropology 66(3):6-

1966 Two Types of Linguistic Relativity (with examples from Amerindian

ethnography). In Sociolinguistics. William A. Bright, ed. Pp. 114-165. The
Hague: Mouton.
1983 Essays in the History of Linguistic Anthropology. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Hymes, Dell H., ed.
1964 Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthro-
pology. New York: Harper & Row.
Hymes, Dell H., and John Fought
1981[1975] American Structuralism. The Hague: Mouton.
Jakobson, Roman
1944 Franz Boas' Approach to Language. International Journal of American
Linguistics 10(2): 188-195.
192 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

John-Steiner, Vera
1991 Cognitive Pluralism: A Whorfian Analysis. In The Influence of Lan-
guage on Culture and Thought: Essays in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman's
Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Robert L. Cooper and Bernard Spolsky, eds. Pp. 61-74.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Justice, David
1987 The Semantics of Form in Arabic in the Mirror of European Languages.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kay, Paul, and Willett Kempton
1984 What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? American Anthropologist
86(l):65-79.
Kaye, Alan S.
1991 On Linguistic Relativity. English Today 25(1)53-56.
Kess, Joseph F.
1992 Psycholinguistics: Psychology, Linguistics, and the Study of Natural
Language. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 86. Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
Kiyomi, Setsuko
1989 A Re-Examination of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. In Ronshu: Tsuda-
juku Daigaku Sibun Gakkai. Pp. 100-116. Tokyo: The English Literature So-
ciety of Tsuda College.
Kluckhohn, Clyde
1953 Universal Categories of Culture. In Anthropology Today: An Ency-
clopedic Inventory. A. L. Kroeber, ed. Pp. 507-523. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
1959 Common Humanity and Diverse Cultures. In The Human Meaning of
the Social Sciences. Daniel Lemer, ed. Pp. 245-284. New York: Meridian
Books.
Kluckhohn, Clyde, and Olaf Prufer
1959 Influences during the Formative Years. In The Anthropology of Franz
Boas: Essays on the Centenary of His Birth. Walter Goldschmidt, ed. Pp. 4-
28. San Francisco, Calif.: Howard Chandler.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad
1977 The Humboldtian Trend in Linguistics. In Descriptive and Historical
Linguistics: Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann. PaulJ. Hopper, ed. Pp. 144-
158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1990 Wilhelm von Humboldt and North American Ethnolinguistics: Boas
(1894) to Hymes (1961). In North American Contributions to the History of
Linguistics. Francis P. Dinneen, Societas Jesu, and E. F. K. Koerner, eds. Pp.
111-128. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Koerner, E. F. Konrad, ed.
1984 Edward Sapir: Appraisals of his Life and Work. Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
Koschmieder, Erwin
1964 Sprache und Weltbild. Beitrage zur Sprachkunde und lnformationsver-
arbeitung 3(1):8-18.
Kroeber, A. L.
1953 Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
1984[1959] Reflections on Edward Sapir, Scholar and Man. In Edward Sapir.
Appraisals of his Life and Work. E. F. Konrad Koerner, ed. Pp. 131-139. Am-
sterdam: John Benjamins.
The Sapir-WhorfHypothesis 193

Krupa, Viktor
1976 Jazyk, myslenie a skutocnost: Z kritiky te6rie jazykovej relativity [Lan-
guage, thinking and relativeness: Towards a criticism of the theory of lin-
guistic relativity]. Jazykovedney Casopis 27(2)-.157-170.
Landesman, Charles
1961 Does Language Embody a Philosophical Point of View? Review of Me-
taphysics 14(4):617-636.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1976 Semantic Representations and the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.
Foundations of Language 14(2):307-357.
Lantz, Dorothy Lee, and Volney Stefflre
1964 Language and Cognition Revisited. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology 69(3):472-481.
Lee, Benjamin
1985 Peirce, Frege, Saussure, and Whorf: The Semiotic Mediation of Ontol-
ogy. In Semiotic Mediation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives.
Elizabeth Mertz and Richard J. Parmentier, eds. Pp. 100-128. Orlando, Fla.:
Academic Press.
Lee, Dorothy D.
1938 Conceptual Implications of an Indian Language. Philosophy of Science
5(l):89-102.
1940 A Primitive System of Values. Philosophy of Science 7(3):355-378.
1944[1939] Linguistic Reflections of Wintu Thought. International Journal of
American Linguistics 10(2): 181-187.
1944 Categories of the Generic and the Particular in Wintu. American An-
thropologist 46(4):362-369.
1950 Lineal and Nonlineal Codifications of Reality. Psychosomatic Medicine
12(2):89-97.
1952 Review of Sapir (1949). A Review of General Semantics 9(2):227-230.
1959 Freedom and Culture: Essays. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Lenneberg, Eric H.
1953 Cognition in Ethnolinguistics. Language 29(2):463-^171.
1954/55 A Note on Cassirer's Philosophy of Language. Philosophy and Phe-
nomenological Research 15(4)512-522.
Levi-Strauss, Claude, Roman Jakobson, C. F. Voegelin, and Thomas A. Sebeok
1953 Results of the Conference of Anthropologists and Linguists. Indiana
University Publications in Anthropology and Linguistics, Memoir 8 of IJAL.
Baltimore, Md.: Waverly Press.
Liu, Lisa Garbern
1985 Reasoning Counterfactually in Chinese: Are There Any Obstacles? Cog-
nition 21(3):239-270.
Lloyd, Peter D.
1976 Einige Bemerkungen zur Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese. In Soziolinguistik.
Adam Schaff, ed. Pp. 145-170. Wien: Europaverlag.
Lohmann, Johannes
1944 Einige Bemerkungen zu den Genus-Kategorien des Wintu. Zeitschrift
fur vergleichende Sprachforschung 68(2):99-121.
Longacre, Robert E.
1956 Review of Urban (1939) and of Whorf (1950). Language 32(2):298-308.
Lowie, Robert H.
1943 The Progress of Science: Franz Boas, Anthropologist. Scientific Monthly
56(February): 183-184.
194 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Lucy, John A.
1985 Whorf's View of the Linguistic Mediation of Thought. In Semiotic Me-
diation: Sociocultural and Psychological Perspectives. Elizabeth Mertz and
Richard J. Parmentier, eds. Pp. 74-97. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.
1992a Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic
Relativity Hypothesis. Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Lan-
guage, 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1992b Grammatical Categories and Cognition. Studies in the Social and Cul-
tural Foundations of Language, 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lucy, John A., and R. A. Shweder
1979 Whorf and His Critics: Linguistic and Non-Linguistic Influences on
Color Memory. American Anthropologist 81(3):581-615.
Lucy, John A., and James V. Wertsch
1987 Vygotsky and Whorf: A Compartive Analysis. In Social and Functional
Approaches to Language and Thought. Maya E. Hickmann, ed. Pp. 67-86.
Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.
Maclay, Howard S.
1958 An Experimental Study of Language and Non-Linguistic Behavior.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 14(2):220-229.
Macnamara, John
1991 Linguistic Relativity Revisited. In The Influence of Language on Culture
and Thought: Essays in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman's Sixty-fifth Birthday.
Robert L. Cooper and Bernard Spolsky, eds. Pp. 45-60. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Malkiel, Yakov
1974-75 A Herder-Humboldt-Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis? Editorial Comment.
Romance Philology 28(1):199.
Malotki, Ekkehart
1979 Hopi-Raum: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Analyse der Raum-Vorstel-
lungen in der Hopi-Sprache. Tubingen: Gunter Narr.
1983 Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts of the Hopi
Language. Berlin: Mouton.
Mandelbaum, David G., ed.
1949 Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Person-
ality. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Martin, James R.
1988 Grammatical Conspiracies in Tagalog: Family, Face and Fate—With Re-
gard to Benjamin Lee Whorf. In Linguistics in a Systemic Perspective. James
D. Benson, Michael J. Cummings, and William S. Greaves, eds. Pp. 243-300.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mathiot, Madeleine, ed.
1979 Ethnolinguistics: Boas, Sapir and Whorf Revisited. Contributions to the
Sociology of Language, 27. The Hague: Mouton.
McCormack, William C , and Stephen A. Wurm, eds.
1977 Language and Thought: Anthropological Issues. The Hague: Mouton.
Miller, Robert L.
1968 The Linguistic Relativity Principle and Humboldtian Ethnolinguistics: A
History and Appraisal. The Hague: Mouton.
Mounin, Georges
1961 A propos de Language, Thought and Reality de Benjamin Lee Whorf.
Bulletin de la Societe de Linguistique de Paris 56(1):122-138.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 195

Muller-Vollmer, Kurt
1976 Wilhelm von Humboldt und der Anfang der amerikanischen Sprach-
wissenschaft: Die Briefe an John Pickering. In Universalismus und Wissen-
schaft im Werk und Wirken der Briider Humboldt. Klaus Hammacher, ed.
Pp. 259-334. Frankfurt/Main: V. Klostermann.
Murray, Stephen O.
1983 Group Formation in Social Science. Current Inquiry into Language, Lin-
guistics, and Human Communication, 44. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Re-
search.
1985 A Pre-Boasian Sapir? Historiographia Linguistica 12(l/2):267-269.
Murray, Stephen O., and Wayne Dynes
1986 Edward Sapir's Coursework in Linguistics and Anthropology. Historio-
graphia Linguistica 13(1): 125-129.
Neubert, Albrecht
1963 Kulturanthropologische Metalinguistik und semantischer Positivismus:
Eine kritische Darstellung der Hypothese Benjamin Lee Whorfs. Zeitschrift
fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung
15(3):301-328.
Newman, Stanley S.
1967 Relativism in Language and Culture. New York Quarterly 37(2):197-
210.
Ogle, Richard A.
1973 Aspects of a Rationalist Critique of the Whorf Hypothesis. Papers in Lin-
guistics 6(3-4):317-350.
Perm, Julia M.
1972 Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas: The Origins of the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis in German Thought. The Hague: Mouton.
Percival, W. Keith
1966 A Reconstruction of Whorf's Hypothesis. Anthropological Linguistics
8(8)1-22.
Pinxton, Rik, ed.
1976 Universalism versus Relativism in Language and Thought: Proceedings
of a Colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf Hypotheses. Contributions to the Soci-
ology of Language, 11. The Hague: Mouton.
Pledunski, Jacek
1986 Witold Doroszewski en face de l'hypothese Whorf-Sapir. Biuletyn pol-
skiego towarzystwa jezykoznawczego 40(l):105-113.
Radnitsky, Gerard A.
1961 Some Remarks on the Whorfian Hypothesis. Behavioral Science
6(2):153-157.
Ranken, Harry B.
1963 Language and Thinking: Positive and Negative Effects of Naming. Sci-
ence 141(3575):48-50.
Rollins, Peter C.
1980 Benjamin Lee Whorf: Lost Generation Theories of Mind, Language, and
Religion. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms.
Romney, A. Kimball, and Roy G. D'Andrade, eds.
1964 Transcultural Studies in Cognition. American Anthropologist 66:3, Part
2.
Rosch, Eleanor
1974 Linguistic Relativity. In Human Communication: Theoretical Explora-
tions. Albert Silverstein, ed. Pp. 501-519. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
196 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio
1973 Ideologies of Linguistic Relativity. The Hague: Mouton.
Rueger, Russ A.
1975 Toward a Unified Theory of Language: Transformational Grammar, the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Ethnomethodology. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of California, Irvine.
Sampson, Geoffrey
1980 Schools of Linguistics: Competition and Evolution. London: Hutchin-
son.
Sapir, Edward
1907[1905] Herder's "Ursprung der Sprache". Modern Philology 5(l):109-
142.
1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Har-
court, Brace & Co.
1924 The Grammarian and His Language. American Mercury 1(2)-.149-155.
1927 The Unconscious Patterning of Behavior in Society. In The Unconscious:
A Symposium. E. S. Dummer, ed. Pp. 114-142. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
1929 The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Language 5(2):207-214.
1931 Conceptual Categories in Primitive Languages. Science 74(1927):578.
Scedorovickij, G. P., and V. M. Rozin
1967 Koncepcija lingvisticceskoj otnositel' noj B. L. Uorfa i problemy issle-
dovanija "jazykovogy myc,slenjia." In Semiotika i vostoc,cnye jazyki [Se-
miotics and Eastern Languages]. Jurij V. Rozdestvenskij, ed. Pp. 93-106.
Moscow: Izd. "Nauka."
Schaff, Adam
1969 L'ethnolinguistique: L'hypothese de Sapir-Whorf. In Langage et con-
naissance. By A. Schaff. Translation from the Polish by Claire Brendel. Pp.
59-97. Paris: Editions Anthropos.
Schlesinger, I. M.
1991 The Wax and Wane of Whorfian Views. In The Influence of Language
on Culture and Thought: Essays in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman's Sixty-Fifth
Birthday. Robert L. Cooper and Bernard Spolsky, eds. Pp.7-44. Berlin: Mou-
ton de Gruyter.
Schultz, Emily
1990 Dialogue in the Margins: Whorf, Bakhtine and Linguistic Relativity.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Seppanen, Lauri
1987 Sprachliche und andere Relati vita ten: Humboldt, Whorf und die Mog-
lichkeit des Ubersetzens. In Neophilologica Fennica: Societe Neophilolo-
gique 100 ans / Neuphilologischer Verein 100 Jahre / Modern Language So-
ciety 100 Years. Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, ed. Pp. 489-495. Helsinki: Societe
Neophilologique de Helsinki.
Shaul, David Leedom
1985 Review of Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts of the
Hopi Language. Language 61(2):481-484.
Sommerfelt, Alf
1938 Les formes de la pensee et revolution des categories de la grammaire.
Journal de Pychologie normale et pathologique 35:170-184.
Spence, N. C. W.
1961 Linguistic Fields, Conceptual Systems and the Weltbild. Transactions of
the Philological Society 1961:87-106.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis 197

Stahlschmidt, Andrea
1984 Das Verbalsystem des Hopi: Eine semantische Strukturanalyse der
Hopi-Grammatik unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung von B. L. Whorfs
Thesen zur Zeitauffassung der Hopi-Indianer. SAIS Arbeitsberichte, Heft 7,
Oktober 1984. Kiel: Seminar fur Allgemeine und Indogermanische Sprach-
wissenschaft.
Steiner, George
1972-73 Whorf, Chomsky and the Student of Literature. New Literary His-
tory 4(1): 15-34.
Steinthal, Heymann
1850 Die Classification der Sprachen, dargestellt als die Entwickelung der
Sprachidee. Berlin: Ferdinand Dummler.
1858 Der Ursprung der Sprache im Zusammenhang mit den letzten Fragen
alles Wissens: Eine Darstellung der Ansicht Wilhelm v. Humboldts, ver-
glichen mit denen Herders und Hamanns. Berlin: Ferdinand Dummler.
1860 Charakteristik der hauptsachlichen Typen des Sprachbaues. Berlin: Fer-
dinand Dummler.
Stocking, George W., Jr.
1968 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of Anthropology.
New York: The Free Press.
1974 The Boas Plan for the Study of American Indian Languages. In Studies
in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and Paradigms. Dell Hymes, ed. Pp.
454-484. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Tax, Sol, Loren C. Eiseley, Irving B. Rouse, and Carl F. Voegelin, eds.
1953 An Appraisal of Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Trager, George L.
1942 Obituary Notice on B. L. Whorf. Language 18(2):305.
1959 The Systematization of the Whorf Hypothesis. Anthropological Lin-
guistics l(l):l-35.
1968 Whorf, Benjamin L. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
vol. XVI. David L. Sills, ed. Pp. 536-538. New York: Macmillan.
Trier, Jost
1931 Der deutsche Wortschatz im Sinnbezirk des Verstandes: Die Geschichte
eines sprachlichen Feldes. [Part] I: Von den Anfangen bis zum Beginn des
13. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
Trutenau, H. M. J.
1967 Fragezeichen zum Whorf-Bild deutscher Sprachwissenschaftler. Lin-
guistics 36:78-83.
Tsuchiya, Norio
1978 Linguistic Relativity and Universality in Wilhelm von Humboldt. Sophia
Linguistica 4(1): 13-34.
Urban, Willard M.
1939 Language and Reality: The Philosophy of Language and the Principles
of Symbolism. London and New York: Allen & Unwin and Macmillan.
Vorster, Jan
1986 "Whorf, Whorf, hoe lat is dit?" Resente ontwikkelinge in die debat oor
die verhouding tussen taal en denken ['Whorf, Whorf, what time is it?' Re-
cent developments in the debate concerning the relationship between lan-
guage and thought]. South African Journal of Linguistics 4(3):100-116.
Wallace, Anthony F. C.
1962 Culture and Cognition. Science 135(3501):351-357.
198 Journal of Linguistic Anthropology

Waterman, John T.
1957 Benjamin Lee Whorf and Linguistic Field-Theory. Southwestern Journal
of Anthropology 13(2):201-211.
Wattenwyl, Andre von, and Heinrich Zollinger
1978 The Color Lexica of Two American Indian Languages, Quechi and Mis-
quito: A Critical Contribution to the Whorf Thesis of Color Naming. Inter-
national Journal of American Linguistics 44(l):56-68.
Weimann, Karl-Heinz
1965 Vorstufen der Sprachphilosophie Humboldts bei Bacon und Locke.
Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie 84(4) .498-508.
Weinke, Kurt
1982 Zum Problem der Universialgrammatik bei Noam Chomsky und Ben-
jamin Lee Whorf. In Sprache, Logik und Philosophic: Akten des 4. Wittgen-
stein-Symposiums. Rudolf Haller and Wolfgang Grassl, eds. Pp. 572-574.
Wien: Holder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Weisgerber, Leo
1958 Verschiebungen in der sprachlichen Einschatzung von Menschen und
Sachen. Koln: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Whitney, William Dwight
1875 The Life and Growth of Language. New York and London: D. Appleton
& Co. and H. S. King.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee
1938 Some Verbal Categories of Hopi. Language 14(2):275-286.
1940a Science and Linguistics. Technology Review 42(2):229-231, 247-248.
1940b Linguistics as an Exact Science. Technology Review 43(l):61-63,80-83.
1941 The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language. In Lan-
guage, Culture, and Personality: Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir. Leslie
Spier, A. Irving Hallowell, and Stanley S. Newman, eds. Pp. 75-93. Men-
asha, Wis.: George Banta for Sapir Memorial Publication Fund.
1945[1937] Grammatical Categories. Language 21(1):1-11.
1950a[c. 1936] An American Indian Model of the Universe. International
Journal of American Linguistics 16(l):67-72.
1950b Four Articles on Metalinguistics. George L. Trager, ed. Washington,
D.C.: Foreign Service Institute, Department of State.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee, and George L. Trager
1937 The Relationship of Uto-Aztecan and Tanoan. American Anthropologist
39(4):609-624.
Williams, Gerlad E.
1966 Linguistic Reflections of Cultural Systems. Anthropological Linguistics
8(8):13-21.
Yang, Edith
1984 Sapir-Whorf Revisited: The Relationship Between Japanese Onomato-
poetic Words (giseigo and gitaigo) and the Japanese Culture. Unpub. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of San Francisco.
Zvegincev, Vladimir Andreevic
1960 Teoretiko-lingvisticeskie predbosylki gipotezy Cepira-Uorfa [Theoreti-
cal linguistic premises of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis]. In Novoe v lingvis-
tike, vol. I. V. A. Zvegincev, ed. Pp. 111-134. Moscow: Izd. innostr. litera-
tury.