10

Let's start at the end. It is impossible to talk about original theories in this context. There was actually no cohesive formulation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. That is a label assigned later to a set of assumptions about language relativity formulated by Whorf who was inspired by his teacher Sapir. Neither can you talk about Chomsky's original theory ...


6

This list includes both common recommendations and stuff I've actually read: Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. Macmillan. Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity: Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language. Cambridge: CUP. Lakoff, G. (...


3

There is a linguist in Michigan named Susan Goldin-Meadow who wrote a fascinating article contained in this book: Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (MIT Press) https://www.amazon.com.mx/Language-Mind-Advances-Thought-English-ebook/dp/B00LG92I2W She makes a case against the Whorf hypothesis using modern laser technology to ...


3

I think you've got it the other way round. "Chomskyan" theory of UG is much more of a claim about "the brain", which (in humans) has specific machinery for language. The idea is that the language is probably not underpinned by the general cognitive mechanisms. Whorfian stuff, by contrast, is psychological. He does not claim that brains of people speaking ...


2

Everett, C. 2013a. Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. De Gruyter Mouton. vii +298 pp.


1

There's no reason this couldn't work. Chomskyans tend to be sceptical of the work of neo-Whorfians and vice versa, but that is a sociological/philosophical divide more than anything else, and there is no logical incompatibility. For instance, the difference between verb-framed and satellite-framed languages has been claimed to have its origins in a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible