While the experimental findings used to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, such as the foreign language effect or behavioral differences in bilinguals based on the language used tempt us to infer that thought might employ natural language, they only account for the influence language has on concept acquisition. In order to perform reasoning, the brain takes a body-centric approach: define and determine the desirability of an idea as a sum of elementary sensorial input from the body or the environment, such as vision, hearing, taste, equilibrium, hunger, anger, fear or warmth. Even though this approach seems unlikely for certain abstract concepts, they can be understood as conceptual metaphors, in terms of more clearly defined notions, as
…show more content…
Out of these, kinetic ones are especially strong, causing interference with actual movement, as shown by Glenberg & Kaschak – judging the meaning of a statement that has an implied outward direction relative to the body, such as pushing a cart causes a slower reaction time of pressing a button positioned closer to the body (relative to the resting position of the dominant hand) as opposed to pressing a button positioned farther away from the body.3 To further make this point, they note that the reaction time difference becomes insignificant when employing the non-dominant hand, suggesting that indeed, the delay was caused by interference with recalling the motion implied by the statement. Another experiment ran by Teenie Matlock showed that the implied motion speed actually influence how fast we process them.4 Therefore, we can safely conclude that notions describing or implying physical motion are rooted in the bodily perception of the motion, as opposed to the word describing the motion, rendering thought that employs those notions unlikely to use them in the shape of
Out of these, kinetic ones are especially strong, causing interference with actual movement, as shown by Glenberg & Kaschak – judging the meaning of a statement that has an implied outward direction relative to the body, such as pushing a cart causes a slower reaction time of pressing a button positioned closer to the body (relative to the resting position of the dominant hand) as opposed to pressing a button positioned farther away from the body.3 To further make this point, they note that the reaction time difference becomes insignificant when employing the non-dominant hand, suggesting that indeed, the delay was caused by interference with recalling the motion implied by the statement. Another experiment ran by Teenie Matlock showed that the implied motion speed actually influence how fast we process them.4 Therefore, we can safely conclude that notions describing or implying physical motion are rooted in the bodily perception of the motion, as opposed to the word describing the motion, rendering thought that employs those notions unlikely to use them in the shape of