A Brief Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

A BRIEF SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESISSUMMARY October 16, 2010 A reasonable summary of the Sapir-Whorf guess in its tractable form is that polar finiss interpret the equal military soulnel differently and this has an impact on how they both c every(prenominal) back and construct content in actors line in fact, diction shapes or influences supposition to few degree. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis combines lingual relativityandlinguistic determinism. Adherents of the possibleness follow these devil principles to varying degrees producing gradient interpretations from weak to hard versions of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.Cognitive linguists ar among the only linguists to light upon this mentalist position seriously, and well-nigh linguists of any orientation reject a strong version of the surmise. The linguistic determinism portion of the original hypothesis stated that addressdeterminedthought, and this is the jilted strong version. The linguistic relativity portion asserts tha t beca wasting disease terminology determines thought and there ar different rows then the counsellings that those wordings return will be different to about degree.Part of the controversy surrounding the hypothesis is the lack of confirmable data, or at to the lowest degree sequester empirical data. This has caused a number of get wordkers to begin considering how the bases of linguistic determinism may come across judgment. For instance, in 2008 Daniel Casasanto performed a series of experiments with time, quantity and distance to determine whether or non come up toers of Greek and speakers of English would substantiate their judgments affected by the type of metaphors like by the lyric.The lecture did affect judgment to some degree, merely it is non a causal claim closely the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis. Other empirical research has looked at linguistic relativity as a shaper of thought as opposed to a determiner of thought. This hypothesis is important to lin guistics because it ack at presentledges the relationship betwixt thought and linguistic communication, which may partially give constancy to the cognitive claim that quarrel use reflects c erst tranceptualization and that different conceptualizations are reflected in different linguistic organizations.This reminds me of a situation I once participated in where a rhetorical head was organism translated from nonpareil wrangle to an some other but the source speech structure of the rhetorical question would have implied the exact opposite reckoning in the charge dustup had it been translated literally or else than in a manner that point outd the target languages normal pattern of organization for rhetorical questions. Although this may be a simplified understanding of the importance of Sapir-Whorf, it at least seems to have vital implications in translation possibleness. The Sapir-Whorf HypothesisDaniel Chandler Greek Translation at present available Within linguistic supposition, ii extreme positions concerning the relationship betwixt language and thought are jointly referred to as mould theories and sham theories. Mould theories hold still for language as a mould in impairment of which thought categories are cast (Bruner et al. 1956, p. 11). Cloak theoriesrepresent the intellection 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 fundamental in Neo-Classical literary theory (Abrams 1953, p. 90), but was rejected by the Romantics (ibid. St unrivalled 1967, Ch. 5). There is also a related view (held by behaviourists, for instance) that language and thought areidentical. jibe to this stance thought is entirely linguistic there is no non-verbal thought, no translation at all from thought to language. In this sense, thought is seen as completely determined by language. The Sapir-Whorf theory, named after the American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, is amouldtheory of language.Writing in 1929, Sapir argued in a classic passage that Human beingnesss do not live in the objective ground al whiz, nor al angiotensin converting enzyme in the cosmea of affable activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has last the average of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that superstar adjusts to humansity essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental pith of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the original world is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group.No dickens 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 attached We see and ac quire and otherwise experience very for the close part as we do because the language habits of our familiarity predispose trustworthy choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 1929, p. 69) This position was extended in the thirties by his student Whorf, who, in another widely cited passage, declared that We cut nature along lines laid down by our native languages.The categories and types that we seclude from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare each 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 in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an stipulation to organize it in this government agency an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one,but its terms are absolutely indispensable we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and sorting of data which the agreement decrees. (Whorf 1940, pp. 213-14 his emphasis) I will not attempt to disengage the details of the ad hominem standpoints of Sapir and Whorf on the degree of determinism which they felt was involved, although I sound off that the above extracts give a fair idea of what these were. I should lineage that Whorf distanced himself from the behaviourist stance that mentation is entirely linguistic (Whorf 1956, p. 6). In its most extreme version the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can be described as consisting of two associated principles. According to the first,linguistic determinism, our studying 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 basis, the Whorfian sentiment is that translation between one language and another is at the very least, problematic, and sometimes impossible. Some commentators also get into this to the translation of unverbalized thought into language.Others suggest that even within a unity languageanyreformulation of nomenclature 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, seeing reading as a kind of translation is a useful reminder of the reductionism of representing textual reformulation simply as a determinate change of meaning, since meaning does not resideinthe text, but is generated byinterpretation.According to the Whorfian stance, content is bound up with linguistic form, and the use of the medium contributes to shaping the meaning. In common usage, we often talk of different verbal formulations meaning the same affair. But for those of a Whorfian persu asion, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as the literary theorist Stanley Fish, it is impossible to mean the same thing in two (or more(prenominal)) 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 linguistic process are not merely the dress of thought.The importance of what is lost in translation varies, of course. The thing is usually considered most important in literary writing. It is illuminating to disgrace how one poet felt about the translation of his poems from the original Spanish into other European languages (Whorf himself did not in fact regard European languages as significantly different from each other). Pablo Neruda noted that the better translations of his own poems were Italian (because of its similarities to Spanish), but that English and French do not correspond to Spanish neither in vocalization, or in the placement, or the colour, or the lading of words. He continued It is not a question of interpretative comparing no, the sense can be right, but this correctness of translation, of meaning, can be the destruction of a poem. In many of the translations into French I dont avow in all of them my poetry escapes, nothing remains one cannot resist because it says the same thing that one has written. But it is obvious that if I had been a French poet, I would not have said what I did in that poem, because the value of the words is so different. I would have written something else (Plimpton 1981, p. 3). With more pragmatic or less expressive writing, meanings are typically regarded as less hooked on the particular form of words used. In most pragmatic contexts, paraphrases or translations tend to be treated as less canonicalally 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 pro blems in translation. Even outside the humanities, pedantic texts concerned with the social sciences are a case in point.The Whorfian perspective is in strong contrast to the extremeuniversalismof those who adopt 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 say whatever we necessity 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 universalists do acknowledge that translation may on occasions involve a certain amount of circumlocution. Individuals who regard writing as fundamental to their sense of personal and professio nal identity may experience their written style as inseparable from this identity, and insofar as writers are attached to their words, they may save a Whorfian perspective.And it would be hardly surprising if individual stances towards Whorfianism were not influenced by allegiances to Romanticism or Classicism, or towards either the arts or the sciences. As I have pointed out, in the context of the written word, the untranslatability claim is loosely regarded as strongest in the arts and weakest in the case of formal scientific papers (although rhetorical studies have increasingly blurred any carry 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 stimulate the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its strong, extreme or deterministic form, many now accept a weak, more moderate, or limited W horfianism, 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 world(a) by members of a particular social group) * emphasis is given to the social context of language use rather than to purely 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 whimsy 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 general structures of a language (langueto use de Saussures term) but to pagan 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 exist both in everyday uses of language and in specialist usage. In academia, there are general conventions as well as particular ones in each disciplinal and methodological context.In every sub coating, the dominant conventions regarding appropriate usage tend to practice a conservative influence on the framing of phenomena. From the media theory perspective, thesociolectsof sub- agri grows and theidiolectsof individuals represent a subtly selective view of the world tending to weathercertain kinds of observations and interpretations and torestrictothers. And this transformative power goes largely unnoticed, retreating to transparency. - The Relationship between Language and assimilation Jan 4th, 2010 ByEmma CategoryTopic It is generally agreed that language and culture are closely related. Language can be viewed as a verbal expression of culture. It is used to maintain and convey culture and cultural ties.Language provides us with many of the categories we use for expression of our thoughts, so it is therefore pictorial to assume that our thinking is influenced by the language which we use. The values and customs in the country we grow up in shape the way in which we think to a certain extent. Cultures 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 spoken in Ireland, focuses on the locating of the Irish language nowadays and how it has c hanged 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. 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 strike 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 snow of an English person and an Eskimo person. The Eskimo has many words to describe snow, while the English only has one. An Eskimo has a specific word to describe the wet snow, the snow rate of flowly dropping and so on. Therefore an Eskimo perceives the snow in a different way than an English person. Another example is theDanipeople, a farming group from modern Guinea. They only have two words to describe the two basic change 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 topic 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 culture? break up Language is the verbal expression of culture. Culture is the idea,custom and be liefs 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 female 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 specific set of ideas, practices, customs and beliefs which make up a carrying out society as distinct.A culture must have at least one language, which it uses as a distinct medium of communication to conveys its delimitate ideas, customs, beliefs, et al. , from one member of the culture to another member. Cultures can develop dual 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 run along 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(prenominal) cultures). Language is heavily influenced by culture as cultures come up with new ideas, they develop language components to express those ideas. The reverse is also admittedly the limits of a language can define what is expressible in a culture (that is, the limits of a language can prevent certain concepts from being part of a culture). Finally, languages are not solely defined by their developing culture(s) most modern languages are amalgamations of other prior and current languages.That is, most languages borrow words and phrases (loan words) from other live 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 steal that word directly, 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 language is of foreign origin (i. e. those words were originally imported from another language). Conversely, English is currently the worlds largest donor language, with considerable quantities of English words being imported directly into virtually all other languages.