1 / 29

Linguistic relativity

Linguistic relativity. A.K.A. “Whorfian hypothesis” After Benjamin Lee Whorf, author of Language, thought, and reality. Linguistic relativity. A.K.A. “Whorfian hypothesis” That different languages shape different perceptions of the world. Linguistic relativity.

kellycollins
Download Presentation

Linguistic relativity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Linguistic relativity • A.K.A. “Whorfian hypothesis” • After Benjamin Lee Whorf, author of • Language, thought, and reality English 306A; Harris

  2. Linguistic relativity • A.K.A. “Whorfian hypothesis” • That different languages shape different perceptions of the world. English 306A; Harris

  3. Linguistic relativity • “ the principle of linguistic relativity holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated” • (Language, thought, and reality, 214) English 306A; Harris

  4. Whorf on Hopi (as a metonym) • I find it gratuitous to assume that a Hopi who knows only the Hopi language and the cultural ideas of his own society has the same notions, often supposed to be intuitions, of time and space that we have, and that are generally assumed to be universal. In particular, he has no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the universe proceeds at an equal rate, out of a future, through a present, into a past … • In [the] Hopi view, time disappears and space is altered, so that it is no longer the homogeneous and instantaneous timeless space of our supposed intuition or of classical Newtonian mechanics. • Language, thought, and reality (56, 58). English 306A; Harris

  5. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influ-ences thought English 306A; Harris

  6. Navajo and “obligation” • English • I must go there. • Navajo • It is only good that I go there. English 306A; Harris

  7. Navajo and striking-with-foot • Navajo “kicking” [yizta¬] • The horse kicked the mule. • The mule kicked the horse. • The man kicked the horse. • The horse kicked the man. English 306A; Harris

  8. Navajo and striking-with-foot • Navajo “kicking” [yizta¬] • The horse kicked the mule. • The mule kicked the horse. • The man kicked the horse. • The horse kicked the man. English 306A; Harris

  9. Navajo and striking-with-foot • Navajo “kicking” [yizta¬] • The horse “kicked” the mule. • The horse controlled the action. • The horse struck the mule with its foot/feet. • The mule did not help bring this action about. English 306A; Harris

  10. English and striking-with-foot • English “kick” • The horse kicked the mule. • The horse controlled the action. • The horse struck the mule with its foot/feet. • The mule did not help bring this action about. English 306A; Harris

  11. English and striking-with-foot • English “kick” • The horse kicked the mule. • The horse controlled the action. • The horse struck the mule with its foot/feet. • The mule did not help bring this action about. English 306A; Harris

  12. Navajo, English and striking-with-foot • kick/yizta¬ • The horse kicked the mule. • The horse controlled the action. • The horse struck the mule with its foot/feet. • The mule did not help bring this action about. Substantial overlap Full overlap Full mismatch; irrelevant English 306A; Harris

  13. Semantic Roles English 306A; Harris

  14. Navajo Agency • yizta¬ mules and horses, reciprocal agencynon-human-animate  non-human-animate humans and horses (and mules), unilateral agency human  non-human-animate • kick mules, horses, humans, reciprocal agencyanimate  animate (assuming an intension that includes feet, locomotive capacity, etc.) English 306A; Harris

  15. Colour terms • 2-color system: black, white • 3-color system: black, white, red • 4-color system: black, white, red, yellow or GRUE • 5-color system: black, white, red, yellow, GRUE • 6-color system: black, white, red, yellow, green, blue • then purple, pink, orange, gray English 306A; Harris

  16. Colour, language, perception English 306A; Harris

  17. Colour, language, perception 6+ colour terms 2 colour terms English 306A; Harris

  18. Colour terms purple pink orange gray GRUE yellow white black green blue red yellow GRUE There is something about the world, our brains, or our eyes (or any combination thereof) that constrains lexicalization. English 306A; Harris

  19. Linguistic relativity • “ the principle of linguistic relativity holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated” • (Language, thought, and reality, 214) English 306A; Harris

  20. Linguistic relativity • “ the principle of linguistic relativity holds that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated” • (Language, thought, and reality, 214) English 306A; Harris

  21. Cross-linguistic calibrators • Semantic primes. • Semantic roles. • Event schemata. • Perception. • (goodwill, common-interests, …) English 306A; Harris

  22. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influences thought English 306A; Harris

  23. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influences thought Translation is impossible. English 306A; Harris

  24. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influences thought False Translation is impossible. English 306A; Harris

  25. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influences thought False Translation is impossible. There are cultural Misunderstandings. English 306A; Harris

  26. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influences thought False Translation is impossible. True There are cultural Misunderstandings. English 306A; Harris

  27. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influences thought False Translation is impossible. True Trivial There are cultural Misunderstandings. English 306A; Harris

  28. Linguistic relativity hypothesis • Strong form Language determines thought; speakers of different languages inhabit different, mutually inaccessible realities • Weak form Language influ-ences thought English 306A; Harris

  29. Semantics • Linguistic relativity • Universality • Semantic roles • Semantic primes • Cognitive and experiential universals • Colour systems • Parity (calibration) English 306A; Harris

More Related