Linguistic relativity
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 10:37, 14 August 2010 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | {| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5" | ||
| + | | style="text-align: left;" | | ||
| + | "We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. 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 kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances 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 codified in the patterns of our language [...] 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." --[[Benjamin Lee Whorf]], "[[Science and linguistics]]" first published in 1940 in MIT Technology Review (42:229–31) | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | [[Image:The Big Swallow.jpg|thumb|right|200px|This page '''{{PAGENAME}}''' is part of the [[linguistics]] series.<br> | ||
| + | <small>Illustration: a close-up of a [[mouth]] in the film ''[[The Big Swallow]]'' (1901)</small>]] | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | The '''linguistic relativity''' principle, or the '''Sapir-Whorf hypothesis'''<ref>This usage is now generally seen as a misnomer. As Jane Hill and Bruce Mannheim write:Yet, just as the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" is neither consistent with the writings of Sapir and Whorf, nor a hypothesis (Hill & Mannheim 1992)</ref> is the idea that differences in the way [[language]]s encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it. A strong version of the hypothesis holds that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. A weaker version states that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour. | + | The '''linguistic relativity''' principle, or the '''Sapir-Whorf hypothesis''' is the idea that differences in the way [[language]]s encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it. A strong version of the hypothesis holds that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. A weaker version states that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour. |
| The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century thinkers, such as [[Wilhelm von Humboldt]] who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. The early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed by [[Franz Boas]] and [[Edward Sapir]] also embraced the idea. Sapir's student [[Benjamin Lee Whorf]] came to be seen as the primary proponent of the hypothesis, because he published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behaviour. Whorf's ideas were widely criticised, and [[Roger Brown (psychologist)|Roger Brown]] and [[Eric Lenneberg]] decided to put them to the test. They reformulated Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity as a testable hypothesis, now called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and conducted experiments designed to find out whether [[color perception]] varies between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came in to focus in the 1960s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor. A 1969 study by [[Brent Berlin]] and [[Paul Kay]] showed that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was seen as completely discredited. | The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century thinkers, such as [[Wilhelm von Humboldt]] who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. The early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed by [[Franz Boas]] and [[Edward Sapir]] also embraced the idea. Sapir's student [[Benjamin Lee Whorf]] came to be seen as the primary proponent of the hypothesis, because he published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behaviour. Whorf's ideas were widely criticised, and [[Roger Brown (psychologist)|Roger Brown]] and [[Eric Lenneberg]] decided to put them to the test. They reformulated Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity as a testable hypothesis, now called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and conducted experiments designed to find out whether [[color perception]] varies between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came in to focus in the 1960s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor. A 1969 study by [[Brent Berlin]] and [[Paul Kay]] showed that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was seen as completely discredited. | ||
| - | From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts.<ref name=Koerner>Koerner, E.F.K."Towards a full pedigree of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:from Locke to Lucy" Chapter in Pütz & Verspoor 2000:17"</ref> Effects of linguistic relativity have been shown particularly in the domain of spatial cognition and in the social use of language, but also in the field of color perception. Recent studies have shown that color perception is particularly prone to linguistic relativity effects when processed in the left brain hemisphere, suggesting that this brain half relies more on language than the right one.<ref>Drivonikou et al. 2007, Gilbert et al. 2008</ref> Currently a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors. Current research is focused on exploring the ways in which language influences thought and determining to what extent.<ref name=Koerner/> The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields from [[philosophy]] to [[psychology]] and [[anthropology]], and it has also inspired works of fiction and the invention of [[constructed language]]s. | + | From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts. Effects of linguistic relativity have been shown particularly in the domain of spatial cognition and in the social use of language, but also in the field of color perception. Recent studies have shown that color perception is particularly prone to linguistic relativity effects when processed in the left brain hemisphere, suggesting that this brain half relies more on language than the right one. Currently a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors. Current research is focused on exploring the ways in which language influences thought and determining to what extent. The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields from [[philosophy]] to [[psychology]] and [[anthropology]], and it has also inspired works of fiction and the invention of [[constructed language]]s. |
| + | == See also == | ||
| - | ==See also== | + | * ''[[Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution]]'' |
| - | *[[Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution]] | + | * [[Eskimo words for snow]] |
| - | *[[Eskimo words for snow]] | + | * [[Ethnolinguistics]] |
| - | *[[Language and thought]] | + | * [[Hypocognition]] |
| - | *[[Linguistic anthropology]] | + | * [[Language planning]] |
| - | *[[Linguistic Determinism]] | + | * [[Language and thought]] |
| - | *[[Relativism]] | + | * [[Linguistic anthropology]] |
| + | * [[Linguistic determinism]] | ||
| + | * [[Psycholinguistics]] | ||
| + | * [[Relativism]] | ||
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. 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 kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances 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 codified in the patterns of our language [...] 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." --Benjamin Lee Whorf, "Science and linguistics" first published in 1940 in MIT Technology Review (42:229–31) |
Illustration: a close-up of a mouth in the film The Big Swallow (1901)
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
The linguistic relativity principle, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it. A strong version of the hypothesis holds that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. A weaker version states that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour.
The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century thinkers, such as Wilhelm von Humboldt who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. The early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward Sapir also embraced the idea. Sapir's student Benjamin Lee Whorf came to be seen as the primary proponent of the hypothesis, because he published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behaviour. Whorf's ideas were widely criticised, and Roger Brown and Eric Lenneberg decided to put them to the test. They reformulated Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity as a testable hypothesis, now called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and conducted experiments designed to find out whether color perception varies between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came in to focus in the 1960s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor. A 1969 study by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay showed that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was seen as completely discredited.
From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts. Effects of linguistic relativity have been shown particularly in the domain of spatial cognition and in the social use of language, but also in the field of color perception. Recent studies have shown that color perception is particularly prone to linguistic relativity effects when processed in the left brain hemisphere, suggesting that this brain half relies more on language than the right one. Currently a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors. Current research is focused on exploring the ways in which language influences thought and determining to what extent. The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields from philosophy to psychology and anthropology, and it has also inspired works of fiction and the invention of constructed languages.
See also
- Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution
- Eskimo words for snow
- Ethnolinguistics
- Hypocognition
- Language planning
- Language and thought
- Linguistic anthropology
- Linguistic determinism
- Psycholinguistics
- Relativism
