The Right Words

Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual field but not the left
Aubrey L. Gilbert *, , , Terry Regier , Paul Kay ¶, , ** and Richard B. Ivry *

The question of whether language affects perception has been debated largely on the basis of cross-language data, without considering the functional organization of the brain. The nature of this neural organization predicts that, if language affects perception, it should do so more in the right visual field than in the left visual field, an idea unexamined in the debate. Here, we find support for this proposal in lateralized color discrimination tasks.

Reaction times to targets in the right visual field were faster when the target and distractor colors had different names; in contrast, reaction times to targets in the left visual field were not affected by the names of the target and distractor colors. Moreover, this pattern was disrupted when participants performed a secondary task that engaged verbal working memory but not a task making comparable demands on spatial working memory. …
---
Linguistic Determinism: the language we use determines (rather than describes) how we view and think about the world. Benjamin Lee Whorf popularized that notion. It is clear that our language determines how we name things and thus how we group things for social discourse. A strong interpretation of this view is that language determines how we perceive things. For example, if we have two color patches that we would call “green,” we might find it more difficult to discriminate between them than if we called one “green” and one “aqua.”

This notion is about 75 years old. The researchers here have cleverly updated it by reworking it in terms of modern concepts of the brain. The language system is in the left hemisphere, so it should have quicker connections to the visual processing areas in that hemisphere. The researchers show effects of the verbal system in the right visual field (which is processed by the left hemisphere). They show a lack of effect in the other visual field.

I doubt that this study will resolve the debate, at least as it appears in Intro Psych texts. Our public language system so much prefers either-or propositions that we tend to ignore both-and conclusions. (Is this linguistic determinism, conflict-building or just habitually sloppy thinking? You decide.)

I think the simplest way to interpret these results is to note the well-established principle that language can induce psychological set. And psychological set is well known to influence reaction times. My speculation is that the color patches activate the modules in the verbal system that would provide the name of the color if someone asked for it. If both swatches activate the same naming module but you can see a difference in the color, you will have to resolve the conflict before you can respond to the discrimination task. When the patches are presented to the right (nonverbal) hemisphere, the signal has to go across to the other hemisphere. It probably doesn’t get there in time to produce a conflict.

The effects of verbal processes on set have been widely studied in the Stroop effect. Elsewhere, I discussed an effect of post-hypnotic suggestion in reducing conflict induced by verbal set. In the present case, the experimenters reduced the conflict by using a task that engaged verbal working memory. Note the similarity between this task and chanting, cheering, or repeatedly reciting “Hail Mary”