A Brief Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

A BRIEF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESISSUMMARY October 16, 2010 A rational summary of the Sapir-Whorf guessing in its tractable form is that various cultures attend the same mankind differently and this has an impact on how they both turn over and construct nastying in wrangle in token, voice discourse models or influences fantasy to just rough degree. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis combineslinguistic relativity surmisalandlinguistic determinism. Adherents of the guesswork follow these two principles to varying degrees producing gradient interpretations from weak to strong versions of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.Cognitive linguists argon among the only linguists to take this mentalist position seriously, and most linguists of distributively orientation avert a strong version of the hypothesis. The linguistic determinism portion of the real hypothesis stated that phraseology imaged sight, and this is the rejected strong version. The linguistic relativity portion asserts th at because wrangle determines thought and at that place atomic number 18 different phraseologys thus the commissions that those wordss hypothesize will be different to near degree.Part of the c been surrounding the hypothesis is the lack of empirical data, or at least(prenominal) appropriate empirical data. This has ca apply a number of researchers to begin considering how the images of linguistic determinism whitethorn affect judgment. For instance, in 2008 Daniel Casasanto performed a series of experiments with time, quantity and distance to determine whether or non conver go overrs of classical and speakers of face would possess their judgments affected by the type of metaphors preferred by the language.The language did affect judgment to some degree, and it is non a causal claim about the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis. early(a) empirical research has looked at linguistic relativity as a sortr of thought as opposed to a determiner of thought. This hypothesis is impo rtant to linguistics because it acknowledges the relationship amongst thought and language, which may partly give stability to the cognitive claim that language use reflects conceptualization and that different conceptualizations ar reflected in different linguistic governances.This reminds me of a blot I once participated in where a rhetorical forefront was cosmos translated from one language to a nonher but the source language grammatical construction of the rhetorical question would sport implied the exact opposite meaning in the target language had it been translated literally rather than in a path that acknowledged the target languages normal pattern of organization for rhetorical questions. Although this may be a simplified understanding of the impressiveness of Sapir-Whorf, it at least seems to prolong vital implications in translation theory. The Sapir-Whorf HypothesisDaniel Chandler Greek Translation now available Within linguistic theory, two ingrained positi ons concerning the relationship among language and thought are common landly referred to as mould theories and cloak theories. Mould theories epitomise language as a mould in terms of which thought categories are cast (Bruner et al. 1956, p. 11). Cloak theoriesrepresent the view that language is a cloak conforming to the customary categories of thought of its speakers (ibid. ). The doctrine that language is the dress of thought was primordial in Neo-Classical literary theory (Abrams 1953, p. 90), but was rejected by the Romantics (ibid. Stone 1967, Ch. 5). There is also a related view (held by behaviourists, for instance) that language and thought areidentical. fit to this stance thinking is entirely linguistic in that respect is no non-verbal thought, no translation at all from thought to language. In this sense, thought is seen as totally determined by language. The Sapir-Whorf theory, named after the Ameri passel linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, is amouldtheo ry of language.Writing in 1929, Sapir argued in a classic passage that Human beings do not live in the objective realism alone, nor alone in the arena of social activity as usually understood, but are very much at the mercy of the finicky language which has become the strength of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to cerebrate that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is exactly 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 strengthened upon the language habits of the group.No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels affiliated We see and hear and otherwisewise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 1929, p. 69) This position was wide in the 1930s by his student Whorf, who, in another widely cited passage, declared that We dissect record along lines laid down by our native languages.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 unionized by our minds and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe signifi backces as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is systemise in the patterns of our language.The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one,but its terms are absolutely obligatory we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the org anization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. (Whorf 1940, pp. 213-14 his accent mark) I will not attempt to untangle the details of the soulal standpoints of Sapir and Whorf on the degree of determinism which they mat was expectd, although I think that the above extracts give a fair idea of what these were. I should note that Whorf distanced himself from the behaviourist stance that thinking is entirely linguistic (Whorf 1956, p. 6). In its most extreme version the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can be define as consisting of two associated principles. According to the first,linguistic determinism, our thinking is determined by language. According to the second,linguistic relativity, people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently. On this footing, the Whorfian perspective is that translation betwixt one language and another is at the very least, problematic, and sometimes impossible. roughly commentators also apply this to the translation of unverbalized thought into language.Others suggest that even inwardly a single languageanyreformulation of voice communication has implications for meaning, however subtle. George Steiner (1975) has argued thatanyact of human communication can be seen as involving a kind of translation, so the potential scope of Whorfianism is very broad indeed. Indeed, eyesight reading as a kind of translation is a utile reminder of the reductionism of representing textual reformulation simply as a determinate flip-flop of meaning, since meaning does not resideinthe text, but is generated byinterpretation.According to the Whorfian stance, content is demarcation up with linguistic form, and the use of the medium contributes to shaping the meaning. In common tradition, we often talk of different verbal formulations meaning the same thing. notwithstanding for those of a Whorfian persuasion, such as the literary theorist Stanley Fish, it is impossible to mean the same thi ng in two (or more) different ways (Fish 1980, p. 32). Reformulating something transformsthe ways in which meanings may be made with it, and in this sense, form and content are inseparable. From this stance haggling are not merely the dress of thought.The importance of what is incapacitated in translation varies, of course. The issue is usually considered most important in literary writing. It is illuminating to note how one poet felt about the translation of his poems from the original Spanish into other European languages (Whorf himself did not in fact compute European languages as significantly different from each other). Pablo Neruda noted that the topper translations of his own poems were Italian (because of its similarities to Spanish), but that incline and French do not correspond to Spanish neither in vocalization, or in the placement, or the colour, or the weight of words. He continued It is not a question of interpretative equivalence no, the sense can be right, but t his appropriateness of translation, of meaning, can be the destruction of a poem. In more of the translations into French I dont declare in all of them my poetry escapes, nothing system one cannot protest because it pleads the same thing that one has indite. But it is obvious that if I had been a French poet, I would not have give tongue to what I did in that poem, because the value of the words is so different. I would have pen something else (Plimpton 1981, p. 3). With more pragmatic or less expressive writing, meanings are typically regarded as less dependent on the particular form of words use. In most pragmatic contexts, paraphrases or translations tend to be treated as less fundamentally problematic. However, even in such contexts, particular words or phrases which have an important function in the original language may be acknowledged to present special problems in translation. in time outside the humanities, academic texts concerned with the social sciences are a brass in point.The Whorfian perspective is in strong contrast to the extremeuniversalismof those who bring in thecloaktheory. The Neo-Classical idea of language as simply the dress of thought is based on the assumption that the same thought can be expressed in a variety of ways. Universalists argue that we can dictate whatever we want to say in any language, and that whatever we say in one language can always be translated into another. This is the basis for the most common refutation of Whorfianism. The fact is, insists the philosopher Karl Popper, that even totally different languages are not untranslatable (Popper 1970, p. 56). The evasive use here of not untranslatable is ironic. most(prenominal) universalists do acknowledge that translation may on occasions involve a certain amount of circumlocution. Individuals who regard writing as fundamental to their sense of soulfulnessal and professional identity may experience their written style as inseparable from this identity, and insofar as writers are connect to their words, they may favour a Whorfian perspective.And it would be hardly surprising if individualistic stances towards Whorfianism were not influenced by allegiances to Romanticism or Classicism, or towards either the liberal arts or the sciences. As I have pointed out, in the context of the written word, the untranslatability claim is generally regarded as strongest in the arts and weakest in the gaucherie of formal scientific papers (although rhetorical studies have increasingly blur any clear distinctions).And within the literary domain, untranslatability was favoured by Romantic literary theorists, for whom the connotative, emotional or personal meanings of words were crucial (see Stone 1967, pp. 126-7, 132, 145). Whilst few linguists would accept the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its strong, extreme or deterministic form, many a(prenominal) now accept a weak, more moderate, or limited Whorfianism, namely that the ways in which we see the world may beinfluencedby the kind of language we use.Moderate Whorfianismdiffers from extreme Whorfianism in these ways * the emphasis is on the potential for thinking to be influenced rather than unavoidably determined by language * it is a two-way process, so that the kind of language we use is also influenced by the way we see the world * any influence is ascribed not to Language as such or to one language compared with another, but to the usewithin a languageof one variety rather than another (typically asociolect the language used in the main by members of a particular social group) * emphasis is given to the social context of language use rather than to rigorously linguistic considerations, such as the social pressure in particular contexts to use language in one way rather than another. Of course, some polemicists still avour the notion of language as astrait-jacketorprison, but there is a broad academic consensus favouring moderate Whorfianism. Any linguistic influence is now generally considered to be related not primarily to the formal systemic structures of a language (langueto use de Saussures term) but to cultural conventions and individual styles of use (orparole). Meaning does not resideina text but arises in its interpretation, and interpretation is shaped by sociocultural contexts. Conventions regarding what are considered appropriate uses of language in particular social contexts hold up both in everyday uses of language and in specialist usage. In academia, there are general conventions as well as particular ones in each disciplinary and methodological context.In every subculture, the dominant conventions regarding appropriate usage tend to exert a conservative influence on the figure of phenomena. From the media theory perspective, thesociolectsof sub-cultures and theidiolectsof individuals represent a subtly selective view of the world tending tosupportcertain kinds of observations and interpretations and torestrictothers. And this tr ansformative power goes largely unnoticed, retreating to transparency. &8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212- The Relationship between Language and refinement Jan 4th, 2010 ByEmma CategoryTopic It is generally agree that language and culture are closely related. Language can be viewed as a verbal expression of culture. It is used to maintain and beat culture and cultural ties.Language provides us with many of the categories we use for expression of our thoughts, so it is therefore natural to assume that our thinking is influenced by the language which we use. The value and customs in the country we grow up in shape the way in which we think to a certain extent. tillages hiding in languages, examines the link between Japanese language and culture. An Insight into Korean Culture through the Korean Language discusses how Korean culture influences the language. Languages rungn in Ireland, focuses on the status of the Irish language nowaday s and how it has changed over time. In our big world every minute is a lesson looks at intercultural communication and examines how it can affect interactions between people from countries and backgrounds. &8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212 Language, culture and thoughts do languages shape the way we think? Apr 27th, 2011 ByTeresa CategoryEnglish Members of different cultures speak different languages. Does it mean that people who speak, let us say, English, see things differently than people who speak Chinese or Spanish? In other words, does language lead our way of thinking or is it the other way around? According toBenjamin Lee Whorfand his theory of linguistic relativity, language shapes the way we think, and determines what we think about. He believed that depending on the language we speak we see the world differently.His best example was the comparison between the idea of one C of an English person and an Eskimo person. The Eski mo has many words to nominate atomic number 6, while the English only has one. An Eskimo has a specific word to describe the wet snow, the snow shortly falling and so on. Therefore an Eskimo perceives the snow in a different way than an English person. Another example is theDanipeople, a work group from New Guinea. They only have two words to describe the two basic colors dark and bright. Hence a Dani person cannot differentiate colors as well as an English person is able to. Although Benjamins theory is not yet completely clarified, it is correct to say that a language could facilitate some ways of thinking.True or not, this head is an interesting one to reflect upon. Linguists and people who speak many languages have come up with the same idea. Holy Roman EmperorCharles Vspoke 6 languages fluently and said the following I speak Italian to ambassadors, French to women, German to soldiers, English to my horse and Spanish to God. What is the relationship between language and cult ure? Answer Language is the verbal expression of culture. Culture is the idea,custom and beliefs of a community with a distinct language containing semantics everything a speakers can think about and every way they have of thinking about things as medium of communication.For example, the Latin language has no word for the young-bearing(prenominal) friend of a man (the feminine form ofamicusisamica, which means mistress, not friend) because the Roman culture could not imagine a male and a female being equals, which they considered necessary for friendship. Another example is that Eskimos have many different terms for snow there are nuances that make each one different. Answer Language and culture are NOT fundamentally inseparable. At the most basic level, language is a method of expressing ideas. That is, language is communication while usually verbal, language can also be visual (via signs and symbols), or semiotics (via hand or body gestures). Culture, on the other hand, is a spe cific set of ideas, practices, customs and beliefs which make up a functioning society as distinct.A culture must have at least one language, which it uses as a distinct medium of communication to conveys its define ideas, customs, beliefs, et al. , from one member of the culture to another member. Cultures can develop multiple languages, or borrow languages from other cultures to use not all such languages are co-equal in the culture. One of the major defining characteristics of a culture is which language(s) are the primary means of communication in that culture sociologists and anthropologists draw lines between similar cultures heavily based on the prevalent language usage. Languages, on the other hand, can be developed (or evolve) apart from its originating culture.Certain language have scope for cross-cultural adaptations and communication, and may not actually be part of any culture. Additionally, many languages are used by different cultures (that is, the same language can be used in several cultures). Language is heavily influenced by culture as cultures come up with new ideas, they develop language components to express those ideas. The opponent is also true the limits of a language can define what is expressible in a culture (that is, the limits of a language can keep back certain concepts from being part of a culture). Finally, languages are not whole defined by their developing culture(s) most forward-looking languages are amalgamations of other prior and current languages.That is, most languages borrow words and phrases (loan words) from other existing languages to describe new ideas and concept. In fact, in the modern very-connected world, once one language manufactures a new word to describe something, there is a very strong tendency for other languages to drop off that word at once, rather than manufacture a unique one itself. The English language is a stellar example of a thief language by some accounts, over 60% of the English lan guage is of exotic origin (i. e. those words were originally imported from another language). Conversely, English is currently the worlds largest donor language, with vast quantities of English words being imported directly into virtually all other languages.