DOCSLIB.ORG

A Positive Look at the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; How This Effect Affects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Positive Look at the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; How This Effect Affects Acknowledgements Thank you to both Melinda Reichelt and Melissa Gregory for all your help, encouragement, and time that you have given me on this thesis. I did not think that I could write a thesis (especially in one semester) before I started this class, but with the excellent assistance that I received, I was proven wrong. Thank you also to friends and family, for formatting help, proofreading, and making improvements on this paper. ii A Look at the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; How this Effect Affects Language Jana Lintz In this paper, I present the various views of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is the idea that language affects the way we think and ultimately how we see the world. Developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir, the stronger version of this hypothesis argues that language determines thought, while the weaker version suggests that language influences but does not determine our thoughts. I argue in support of the weaker version of this hypothesis, using not only Sapir and Whorf’s own work as evidence but also the differing views that scholars hold of this hypothesis. More specifically, I examine studies by Hoffman, Lau, and Johnson (1986), Prins and Ulijin (1998), and Fausey and Boroditsky (2011), as support for the weaker version of the hypothesis. Ultimately I present my own version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is that all the languages in the world may be used as a way to communicate though not necessarily in the same way. iii Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………iv Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1, Whorf as an Amateur Linguist………………………………….…..…5 Chapter 2, Scholarly Articles and Other Texts Against the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………8 Chapter 3, Scholars and Other Texts in Favor of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis….15 Chapter 4, Future Study………………………………………………………….25 Chapter 5, Conclusion……………………………………………………………27 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………..29 iv Introduction What is envisioned when thinking about the color blue? The sky? The ocean? Nearly everybody is familiar with the color blue, and every language identifies this color. However, many people cannot see any other distinction within this color besides light blue and dark blue. Russian speakers can, though, because their language differentiates between several different shades of blue (Boroditsky, 2010). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the theory that whatever language we speak influences the way that we think about and perceive the world. After researching this subject, I will demonstrate my belief that this hypothesis holds credence by showing both the favorable and the unfavorable studies that illustrate how language influences thought. There are stronger and weaker versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The stronger version of this hypothesis, linguistic determinism, claims that language in general determines every thought, and there cannot be any new ideas. Many scholars view this as false, because people are constantly inventing and thinking up new ideas that are thought up even before there are ways to describe them. Language does, however, seem to effect the way we think about some issues. This is the weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Most of my thoughts consist of objects or ideas that I am already aware of through my language. The weaker version, linguistic relativity, claims that language influences how we view the world, but it does not determine it. 2 The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is named after Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941). The hypothesis got its name years after their deaths. These two men spent time studying the Native American cultures and their languages. Sapir (1949) noted that: 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 attached (as cited in Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, p. 62). According to Sapir, languages are more than simply knowing how to pronounce words. Each language is so different from one another that a speaker of one language will have different views and thought processes from someone speaking in another language. A different thought process will then lead to differing perceptions. These perceptions help shape how we see the world. Whorf (1956) continues with Sapir’s work. He explains that …The forms of a person’s thoughts are controlled by inexorable laws of pattern of which he is unconscious. These patterns are the unperceived intricate systematizations of his own language-shown readily enough by a candid comparison and contrast with other languages, especially those of a different linguistic family (as cited in Language, Thought, and Reality; Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf p. 252). 3 I think that Whorf is saying that most people are able to learn their native tongue and speak it intelligibly. The native language’s grammar patterns seem natural, but when one is learning a different language, then all the many parts of grammar tend to jump out. Then language will suddenly seem more complex. This complexity may appear more obvious when the learner’s second language has a completely different structure than his or her native language. However, grammar patterns are present in all languages. This complexity that Whorf is writing about is the sentence structure. He believes that this is more important than the words (as cited in Language, Thought, and Reality; Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf p. 253). In other words, Whorf believes that the sentence structure (syntax) causes a different thought process more than the words do. He gives the example that in Hopi (a Native American language that he studied) a verb is allowed to appear by itself. Whorf explains that this is different in English, because a verb never appears by itself; it must always be an action. Verbs in English are always assigned a subject; therefore, they do not allow us to think of a verb otherwise. Boroditsky (2010) gives a similar kind of example. She writes about a study on the Piraha tribe in the Amazon where she explains an effect that language has on thought. The Piraha tribe does not give the exact amount of anything. Their language does not have any numbers. This means that they cannot count. An English speaker may say something like I gave a speech in front of 150 people today, or I gave a speech in front of five people today. The same example in Piraha might sound something like, I gave a speech in front of many people today, or I gave a speech in front of a few people today. They seem to 4 favor these general estimates instead of giving an exact number. Can they count? The answer is no. They cannot count. Their language does not allow them to count. This does not make them stupid. If they were bilingual, then they would have a new way to think and express themselves. This is exactly what Sapir and Whorf meant when they formulated their hypothesis. Every language differs in some way to every other. As this example showed, languages tend to focus on different concepts, but the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis believes that these differences cannot be thought of when only one language is known. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis appeared after Sapir and Whorf’s deaths in the 1930’s, but the idea goes back for centuries. An emperor in Europe, Charlemagne, noticed that speaking a second language gives a life more meaning (as cited in Boroditsky, 2010, page 82). Nevertheless, the hypothesis is named after Sapir and Whorf. Many scholars are not very happy that the hypothesis was attributed to them, especially to Whorf. Sapir was respected as an educated linguist. Whorf was not. 5 Whorf as an Amateur Linguist Many scholars are against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis simply because of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Swoyer (2003) explains that this is because Whorf was more extreme in expressing his ideas than Sapir was. His writings were also more contradictory, so nobody clearly knows where he stands. Therefore, some scholars prefer to call the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis linguistic relativity, in order to separate Whorf’s views. I will use these titles interchangeably throughout this paper since they are synonymous. One of Whorf’s critics, Pullum (1991), explains that there was a misleading article about the number of Eskimo words for snow, Eskimo words for snow (as cited in Pullum, 1991, pp. 161-162). This is because the author, Laura Martin, was misled by the sloppy information that the popular Whorf presented on this subject. She has since realized her mistake, but finds that it is nearly impossible to take it back. This Eskimo misunderstanding is now taken as fact and quoted by many scholars. Whorf gathered his Eskimo information from an introduction from one of Boas’ (1911) books, exaggerated it incorrectly, and had it published. There have been sloppy research rebuttals since then - some even sloppier than Whorf’s. Pullum explains that though Whorf enjoyed language, he is called an amateur linguist because he did not have a degree in linguistics; rather he had a B.S. in chemical engineering and was a fire prevention inspector. 6 However, Subbiondo (2005), another scholar, argues that Whorf’s hypothesis and research overshadows his position as a chemical engineer. This career choice brought a valuable science to linguistic study that would otherwise probably not have entered into this field. Whorf believed that western sciences, such as psychology, anthropology, etc, should also be studied in connection to language in order to keep the planet in balance. Subbiondo (2005) writes that Whorf had an urgency to convince the human race to familiarize themselves with the hypothesis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: the Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 403 761 FL 024 384 AUTHOR van Troyer, Gene TITLE Linguistic Determinism and Mutability: The Sapir-Whorf "Hypothesis" and Intercultural Communication. PUB DATE Dec 94 NOTE 18p. PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) Journal Articles (080) JOURNAL CIT JALT Journal; v16 n2 p163-78 Dec 1994 EDRS PRICE MFO1 /PCO1 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Foreign Countries; *Intercultural Communication; *Language Research; *Linguistic Theory; Research Methodology; Scientific Methodology IDENTIFIERS *Sapir (Edward); Whorf (Benjamin Lee); *Whorfian Hypothesis ABSTRACT The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, long considered a factor in intercultural communication, is discussed. Empirical studies that have tended to validate the hypothesis are reviewed, and the hypothesis is then considered from the standpoint of empirical and scientific research requirements. It is shown that the hypothesis has never been formally defined for testing, and therefore does not exist as a scientifically testable thesis. As a result, all studies that have attempted to interpret empirical data accorded to the hypothesis are either flawed or invalid because they have tested something other than the hypothesis. It is concluded that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis exists only as a notion, and has no meaningful relation to intercultural communication. Includes an abstract in Japanese. Contains 22 references. (Author/MSE) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION AND CENTER (ERIC) DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL This document has been reproduced as HAS BE N GRANTEDBY ceived from the person or organization originating it. Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Today
    ISSN 1799-2591 Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 642-646, March 2012 © 2012 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland. doi:10.4304/tpls.2.3.642-646 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Today Basel Al-Sheikh Hussein Department of English Language and Literature, Al-Zaytoonah Private University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan Email: [email protected] Abstract—The Sapir-Whorf's Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis provokes intellectual discussion about the strong impact language has on our perception of the world around us. This paper intends to enliven the still open questions raised by this hypothesis. This is done by considering some of Sapir’s, Whorf’s, and other scholar’s works. Index Terms—perception, language, thought. I. INTRODUCTION Needless to say that the “Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis”, well-known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, has been the subject of controversy ever since it was first formulated. Its originator was the American anthologist and linguist E.Sapir. He clearly expresses the principle of this hypothesis in his essay “The Status of Linguistics as a science “(cf. Sapir, selected Essays, 1961). B.L. Whorf reformulated the hypothesis in his 1940 published essay “Science and Linguistics” (cf. Whorf, Selected Writings, 1956). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proclaimed the influence of language on thought and perception. This, in turn, implies that the speakers of different languages think and perceive reality in different ways and that each language has its own world view. The issues this hypothesis raised not only pertain to the field of linguistics but also had a bearing on Psychology, Ethnology, Anthropology, Sociology, Philosophy, as well as on the natural sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme Donald Davidson
    On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme Donald Davidson Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, Vol. 47. (1973 - 1974), pp. 5-20. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-972X%281973%2F1974%2947%3C5%3AOTVIOA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association is currently published by American Philosophical Association. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/amphilosophical.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. http://www.jstor.org Fri Jan 11 03:30:37 2008 On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme* DONALD DAVIDSON Philosophers of many persuasions are prone to talk of concep- tual schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEWS Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language
    The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics NUMBER 90 DECEMBER 2008 123–128 REVIEWS Key Thinkers in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language Siobhan Chapman, Christopher Routledge (eds.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, xii+282pp. ISBN-13:978-0-19-518767-0 Reviewed by Jun Qian, Peking University is dictionary-like book comes as a useful reference book for people interested in lan- guages sciences. ere are eighty entries alphabetically arranged in terms of the linguists’ or philosophers’ surnames. Each entry consists of three parts, with an introduction to the thinker’s essential ideas as the main body, followed by “Primary works” by that thinker, which is in turn followed by “Further reading”. e eighty articles come from thirty contributors (the two editors included). And the eighty ‘key thinkers” are as follows: Aristotle (384–322 BC), Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694), John Langshaw Austin (1911–1960), Alfred Jules Ayer (1910–1989), Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895–1975), Roland Barthes (1915–1980), Émile Benveniste (1902–1976), George Berkeley (1685–1753), Basil Bernstein (1924–2000), Leonard Bloomfiled (1887–1949), Franz Boas (1858–1942), Franz Bopp (1791–1867), Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002), Karl Brugmann (1849–1919), Deborah Cameron (b. 1958), Rudolf Carnap (1891–1970), Noam Chomsky (b. 1928), Donald Davidson (1917–2003), Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Rene Descartes (1596–1650), Michael Dummett (b. 1925), John Rupert Firth (1890–1960), Jerry Fodor (b. 1935), Gottlob Frege (1848–1925), Peter Geach (b. 1916), Nelson Goodman (1906–1998), Joseph Green- berg (1915–2002), Algirdas Greimas (1917–1992), Herbert Paul Grice (1913–1988), Jacob Grimm (1785–1863), Michael Halliday (b.
    [Show full text]
  • Applied Relativism and Davidson's Arguments Against Conceptual
    精神科学 第49号（2011） Applied Relativism and Davidson’s Arguments against Conceptual Schemes Lajos L. Brons Nihon University In response to Davidson’s ‘On the very idea of a conceptual scheme’ (1974), Lynch (1997), Wang (2009), and others have argued that Davidson did in fact not attack the veryLGHDEXWDVSHFL¿FYHUVLRQRIWKHLGHDQDPHO\4XLQH’s, and that there may be other versions that are (more or less) immune to the attack. Lynch suggests a Wittgensteinian theory, and Wang follows a suggestion by McDowell, but even among the members of the odd band of ‘schemers’ that Davidson explicitly targeted WKHUHPD\EHVRPHWKDWKLVDUURZVPLVV6XUHO\:KRUIDQG%HUJVRQZHUHQRW4XLQ- eans, and Kuhn expressed his dissatisfaction with Davidson’s interpretation on a number of occasions. 'DYLGVRQGLGQRWLQWHQGWRMXVWDWWDFN4XLQHDQFRQFHSWXDOUHODWLYLVPEXWDPXFK broader range of scheme theories, some mentioned explicitly, some suggested by the metaphors he used and borrowed. ‘Conceptual schemes, we are told, are ways of organizing experience; they are systems of categories that give form to the data of sensation; they are points of view from which individuals, cultures, or periods survey the passing scene’ (p.183). ‘Points of view’ is the central metaphor of per- spectivism, which has been ascribed at times to Heraclitus, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Searle, Zhuangzi (莊子), Dôgen (道元), and a few others; and considering the im- mense differences between (the interpretations of) the apparent relativisms of these philosophers, if there is a doctrine of ‘perspectivism’, it is a very heterogeneous one. The point of view from ‘periods’ may be a reference to conceptual relativism in the history of ideas, hermeneutics, philology, and so forth (or could be easily 221 (mis-) understood as such): Pocock’s (1971) paradigms or langues, Foucault’s (1966, 1969) discourses and épistèmes, Gadamer’s (1960) horizons (an intentional- ly perspectivist metaphor), and so forth.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Sapir
    Linguistics Relativity: Edward Sapir’s Perspective on Language, Culture, and Cognition Ronald Maraden Parlindungan Silalahi Bunda Mulia University Abstract Language is a sign system which is used by society to cooperate, interact, and identify. Culture, Society, and Cognition is built based on human perception in their world. It is reflected through linguistics element used by language users for communication purposes. The idea about inter-relation of language and those three elements (Culture, Society, and Cognition) is conducted by an anthropologist and linguist, Edward Sapir. Sapir‟s perspective on culture is highly influenced by some western linguist and philosopher (like Boas, Morris, and Saussure). Sapir believes that language is cultural product. The linguistic constructions in particular language are built from influence mechanisms. Each language related to immeasurable variety of experiences and a limited array of formal categories (both lexical and grammatical). These categories coherently related to the interpretation of experience in the world. Whorf believes that the system of categories in each language provides an unusual system to certain language. Together with Whorf, Sapir conducted a hypothesis. The hypothesis conducted is an idea of differentiating the way of language is encoded cognition category and culture. Their existence in society influences the way of thinking. It influences human thought and action. Language determines thought and linguistics category determine cognitive category. Hypothesis which was conducted by them is named Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Key Words Edward Sapir, Relativity, Culture, Society, Cognition 1. Introduction Language is an arbitrary sign system, which is used by society to cooperate, interact, and identify. Such language sign form a mutually-dependent relationship between concept and mental characteristic and acoustical picture.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Thoughts on the Relationship Between Language and World View with Reference Tothailanguageand Culture 1
    SOME THOUGHTS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND WORLD VIEW WITH REFERENCE TOTHAILANGUAGEAND CULTURE 1 Martin Schalbruch2 Introduction: The Study of Thai perception of the world as a Language as a Study of Culture hierarchy. It is also a linguistic represent­ ation of the different status of men and One of the most important reasons to learn women and the importance of the principle another language is to get acquainted with of seniority. "In a striking way it [the Thai another culture. This may be for reasons of pronominal system] mirrors some of the necessity such as immigration or studies in more important features of Thai culture· a foreign country or for reasons of personal and at the same time it provide~ interest, for instance, in the literature, the considerable scope for the expression of customs or the religion of a different individual attitudes and personality." country. Language is the medium of (Cooke 1968:68) description and communication of religious, indigenous and ideological beliefs In my thesis (Schalbruch 1997), I have and, therefore, functions as a means of examined some features of the Thai conservation and transmission of such language with regard to their capacity as beliefs. It yields a wealth of information on being expressions of Thai cultural culture and also chronicles culture's characteristics. Cultural characteristics are changes. Most people would agree that understood here as aspects of a world view language is one of the most important whose distinctive character has developed sources of cultural information. Metaphors, from religion. Although statements on idiomatic expressions and proverbs cultural characteristics are never of an obviously refer to conditions of everyday absolute nature, because culture {like life, .
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Thinking
    1/48 Language and thinking Keith Allan http://users.monash.edu.au/~kallan/homepage.html Abstract People have speculated that language arose through emotively expressive cries, by virtue of human rationality, and from our need to interact socially and maintain advantageous social relations with our fellows. But whichever of these speculations is correct, they all required the biological development for the production of language in speech and its management in the brain. Humboldt seems to have conceived the idea that the interdependence of language and thought was affected by the cultural environment of language speakers (itself responsive to the physical environment) such that different languages reflect the different world-views of their language communities. Humboldt is arguably the originator of the so-called ‘Sapir- Whorf’, ‘Whorfian’ or ‘linguistic relativity’ hypothesis: ‘Die Sprache ist das bildende Organ des Gedanken’ (Humboldt 1836: LXVI). Humboldt judged that because language and thought are intimately connected, the grammatical differences between languages are manifestations of different ways of thinking and perceiving. The structure of language affects perceptual processes and also the thought processes of speakers. Language mediates world- view such that different world-views correlate with different language structures that no sole individual can change; consequently, languages are stable organic wholes. This view passed via Steinthal to Whitney for whom ‘the “inner form” of language’ causes ‘the mind which was capable of doing otherwise has been led to view things in this particular way, to group them in a certain manner, to contemplate them consciously in these and those relations’ (Whitney 1875: 21f) and to Boas 1911, Sapir 1929 and Whorf 1956.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 9: American Structuralism
    4.41478 – Survey of Linguistic Theories Semester 1, 2018: Lecture 10 1 Lecture 10: American Structuralism In America, linguistics began as an offshoot of anthropology: at the beginning of the 20th century. Anthropologists were eager to record the culture of the fast-dying American Indian tribes, and their languages were, of course, a fundamental aspect of their cultures. A programme was undertaken to record the Amerindian languages, large number of which were in danger of extinction. Although quite interesting, the work of those early researchers was rather haphazard, and unsystematic. There were no firm guidelines or methodologies for linguists to follow in their attempt to describe unwritten languages. Leonard Bloomfield (1887 – 1949) got interested in language from a scientific, descriptive viewpoint. He believed that linguistics, just like the natural sciences, should deal objectively and systematically with observable data. In 1933 he published his masterpiece, called simply Language, which attempted to lay down rigorous procedures for the description of any language. It had a profound influence on linguistics, for it was a clear statement of principles that soon became generally accepted, such as . that language study must always be centred on the spoken language, as against written documents; . that the definitions used in grammar should be based on the forms of the language, not on the meanings of the forms; and . that a given language at a given time is a complete system of sounds and forms that exist independently of the past – so that the history of a form does not explain its actual meaning. The Americans developed techniques for phonemic analysis, which they used to identify which sounds in a language were phonemic and which were allophonic.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Schemes After Davidson David K. Henderson I. Introduction
    Conceptual Schemes After Davidson David K. Henderson I. Introduction: Philosophers and social scientists have written of people or peoples holding various conceptual schemes. In "The Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme," Donald Davidson (1984d) argues that such talk is either hyperbole or incoherent. On the one hand, he explains, there is little to be excited about in the differences that can defensibly be alluded to in connection with such formulations. On the other hand, he insists, the radical differences envisioned in much talk of conceptual schemes are incoherent. Much can be learned from careful examinations of Davidson's position. However, I argue that it mistakenly papers over the real possibility of rather deep differences in beliefs, theories, and concepts--the sorts of differences that have interested many proponents of conceptual schemes. I examine the form of interpretive practice (or translation) that can lead us to unproblematically posit such differences. While I agree with Davidson that the disagreements we find in interpretation will rest upon a background of found agreement, this does not preclude the sort of differences that many have thought to differentiate conceptual schemes. Defending a recognizable notion of conceptual scheme in a way that does not talk past either Davidson's important points or the positions of those who posit such schemes can be ticklish. It is not at all clear that the friends of conceptual schemes have themselves shared the same concept of a conceptual scheme. Nor is it clear that Davidson has managed to criticize the most plausible variants distillable from the writings of proponents. But, it is fairly clear that conceptual schemes, have, on most accounts, certain central characteristics that we should take as a starting point.
    [Show full text]
  • Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’ from LOCKE to LUCY
    E.F.K. Koerner Towards a ‘Full Pedigree’ of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’ From LOCKE to LUCY Series A: General & Theoretical Papers ISSN 1435-6473 Essen: LAUD 1998 (2., unveränderte Auflage 2006) Paper No. 455 Universität Duisburg-Essen E.F.K. Koerner University of Ottawa (Canada) Towards a ‘Full Pedigree’ of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’ From LOCKE to LUCY Copyright by the author Reproduced by LAUD 1998 (2., unveränderte Auflage 2006) Linguistic Agency Series A University of Duisburg-Essen General and Theoretical FB Geisteswissenschaften Paper No. 455 Universitätsstr. 12 D- 45117 Essen Order LAUD-papers online: http://www.linse.uni-due.de/linse/laud/index.html Or contact: [email protected] E. F. K. Koerner Towards a ‘Full Pedigree’ of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’ From LOCKE to LUCY 1. Introductory remarks In traditional scholarship concerning the intellectual roots of the so-called ‘Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis’ - a term perhaps first used by Harry Hoijer (1904–1976) in 1954 in a paper at a conference devoted to the subject, but probably made more widely known through John B. Carroll’s (b.1916) posthumous edition of Benjamin Lee Whorf’s papers in 1956 (cf. p.27) - these are traced largely, but not exclusively, to German language theory of the 17th (e.g., Leibniz) through the early 19th century, which, in Humboldt’s version, connects the ‘inner form’ of a language with the particularity of a world view of the nation that speaks it. This traditional view (surveyed in Koerner 1992) has recently been challenged by Joseph (1996) and, where Whorf’s work in general is concerned, by Lee (1996) in her monograph treatment of Whorf’s ‘theory complex’ (especially chapter 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Two: American Structuralism Lesson 07: American Structuralists
    Mohamed Khider University, Biskra Level: second year Faculty of Arts and Languages Semester One Course: linguistics Teacher: Dr. SAIHI H. Unit two: American structuralism Lesson 07: American Structuralists Structural linguistics in Europe was partly concerned with meaning and interpretation but in N. America Franz Boas and Leonard Bloomfield took a more descriptive/ positivist stance. They also reversed de Saussure's emphasis on the creative aspect of everyday language. 1. Franz Boas (1859–1942) Major changes in the study of Amerindian languages came about as a result of the influence of Franz Boas. Boas took up linguistic work originally as a necessary tool for the investigation of culture, language being a particularly revealing aspect of culture. The Handbook of American Indian Languages written by Boas marks a major turning point in the study of linguistics in America. 2. Edward Sapir (1884–1939) The German-born American anthropologist Edward Sapir (1884–1939) was responsible for many enduring concepts in linguistic research. Author of the landmark volume Language (1921), Sapir emphasizes that language is tightly linked to culture. For Sapir, language is an acquired function of culture rather than being biologically determined. This view is diametrically opposed to that of the transformationalists, who believe (but have not proved) that human beings possess a genetically determined predisposition for language—including many of its most specific and distinguishing features—that is already present at the moment of birth. 3. Benjamin Lee Whorf, (1897- 1941) U.S. linguist noted for his hypotheses regarding the relation of language to thinking and cognition and for his studies of Hebrew and Hebrew ideas, of Mexican and Mayan languages and dialects, and of the Hopi language.
    [Show full text]