365bet娱乐

The prominent American linguist Edward Sapir (1921) had earlier suggested that languages are diverse in the way that they structure reality, but had not fully developed the thesis that the linguistic differences might facilitate certain modes of thought. The full presentation of this notion was developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf, the Sapir鈥檚 student, in a series of articles between 1925 and 1941 (see Carroll 1956). Whorf considered thinking as largely a matter of language and inescapably bound up with systems of linguistic expression. In other words, all higher levels of thinking are dependent upon language, and the structure of the language one habitually uses determines his or her world view. And different languages are assumed to lead to different world view. In general, the notion that language shapes thought patterns is commonly referred to as Linguistics Relativity Hypothesis or the Whorf Hypothesis, and also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis to recognize the role of 奥丑辞谤蹿鈥檚 mentor.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis postulates that language influences thought to the extent that speakers of certain languages will tend to think in certain manners, as governed by the rules of that language. Accordingly language affects thought -the language a person speaks affects the way that person thinks, meaning that the structure of the language itself affects cognition.

Kess (1992) pointed out that 奥丑辞谤蹿鈥檚 idea was actually a departure from a tradition as old as Greek philosophy, which normally believed that there was a universal, uncontaminated essence of reason, shared by all thinking humans, and that this unity of thought process was expressed in every language. Such unity allows for translation into any other language without loss of meaning. Lyons (1981: 239) also confirms that 鈥淲horf heirs to a tradition in European thought mediated in all probability by Franz Boas (1848-1942). The tradition is said to go back at least as far as the German philosopher Herder (1744-1803), and the ethnographer Wilhelm Von Humboldt (1762-1835) who was seen as one of its earliest and most influential representatives in the nineteen century. They too had argued for both the diversity of language-structure and the influence of languagestructure upon the categorization of thought and experience.鈥� While Herder mentioned the interdependence of language and thought, Humboldt was strikingly different in as much as his idea was closer to linguistic determinism. Humbold continued to point out that 鈥渓anguage embodied the spirit and national character of a people, a philosophy which coincided with the rise of European nationalism and which is still a major component in most ethic movements鈥� (see Kess (1992: 241). The Whorf Hypothesis is exactly in this intellectual tradition, claiming that one鈥檚 language is the principal determinant of thought processes.

The Whorf hypothesis consists of two parts which combines (i) linguistic determinism; and (ii) linguistic relativity. The former, linguistic determinism, on the one hand, refers to the idea that the language we use to some extent determines the way in which we view and think about the world around us. It means that a language determines certain nonlinguistic cognitive processes. And that, learning a language changes the way a person thinks. The later, linguistic relativity, on the other, states that the resulting thought processes vary from language to language. Linguistic relativity states that distinctions encoded in one language are unique to that language alone, and that 鈥渢here is no limit to the structural diversity of languages.鈥� It means that there is no limit to structural diversity of languages; and speakers of different languages are said to think on different ways.

奥丑辞谤蹿鈥檚 reasoning is reflected in statement from Language Thought and Reality:

We dissect nature 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 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 agreement to organize it in this way鈥攁n agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. (Carroll 1956: 213-4)

奥丑辞谤蹿鈥檚 analysis, as pointed out by Carroll (1994), consists of three salient main points. First, languages carve up reality in different ways. Second, these language differences are covert or unconscious; that is, we are not consciously aware of the way in which we classify objects. Third, these language differences influence our world view. Besides, Whorf seemed to say that the language of a cultural community not only embodies its worldview, but that it also perpetuates that world-view. These 奥丑辞谤蹿鈥檚 profound ideas are proved with his vivid examples which can be generally ordered into lexical and grammatical examples. These examples bring out the matching of linguistics structures with cognitive structures.

According to Carroll (1994), Whorf first claimed that cognitive differences correlate with lexical differences. He also argued that languages differ in the domains that are most differentiated. That is, all languages show high degrees of differentiation in some domains and low degrees in others. And thus, the vocabularies of language tend to be non-isomorphic. The implication is that greater degrees of differentiation are related to culturally significant concepts. Whorf suggested that there is no natural way to carve up reality; different languages do it in quite different ways. In order to confirm his own standpoint, Whorf brought out examples made on the American Indian language of Hopi and Eskimos. On examining the American Indian language of Hopi, Whorf saw that this language has only one word that is used to describe everything that flies except birds; that is, they use the same word for insects, airplanes, aviators, and so on without any apparent difficulty. Another example given by Whorf is of the term implicating to 鈥榮now鈥� of Eskimo.

He found out that while English has a determined word 鈥榮now鈥� and no more specific word than it, there is no single word for 鈥榮now鈥� used by Eskimos, even though many different words for different kinds of snow such as 鈥榩owdery snow鈥�, 鈥榮pring snow鈥� and so on.

We have the same word for falling snow, snow on the ground, snow packed hard like ice, slushy snow, wind-driven flying snow -whatever the situation may be. To an Eskimo, this all-inclusive word would be almost unthinkable; he would say that falling snow, slushy snow, and so on, are sensuously and operationally different, different things to contend with; he uses different words for them and for other kinds of snow. (Carroll 1956: 216)

奥丑辞谤蹿鈥檚 observation of Eskimo word for 鈥榮now鈥� above has been criticized by many other scholars specially Martin (1986) and Pullum (1991). They argued that Whorf and his supporters greatly exaggerated the lexical differrences between the two languages that are Eskimo and English, just because they failed to attend to rich morphological system of the Eskimo language (see Carroll 1994: 374).

Another kind of examples given by Whorf is of grammar. Whorf focused on grammatical diversity concerning the extent to which a language uses word order or morphology to signal meaning. The evidence given is that in English which has basic word order as subject-verb-object (SVO), most the first noun is the agent and the second is the patient. This order is adhered to rather rigidly. If the verb is intransitive, the remainder of the sequence holds (SV). Similarly, when the first noun is deleted, it is often replaced by a pronoun. Many other languages use morphology more extensively than word order to signal meaning. Whorf believed that grammatical distinctions exert an effect on not just the way individuals think but also their overall world view.

In general, one can consider versions of the Linguistics Relativity Hypothesis strongly or weakly. A strong version would see a language system as completely organizing human cognition. It means that language itself determines cognition; that is, the presence of linguistic categories creates cognitive categories. There is, in fact, no strong for this version and hence it has not been supported by many scholars. In contrast, a weak version would simply suggest that that linguistic structure predisposes individuals to pay attention to some things more than others, or to perceive things in one mode rather than in another (Carroll 1963). It means that the presence of linguistic categories influences the ease with which various cognitive operations are performed. That is, certain thought processes may be more accessible or more easily performed by members of one linguistic community relative to those of a different linguistic community (Carroll 1994). Thus, as Hockett (1954: 122) pointed out 鈥渓anguage differ not so much as to what can be said in them, but rather as to what it is relatively easy to say.鈥� Also on this standpoint, Lyons (1981: 307) proposed that 鈥渋t is probably fair to say that most psychologists, linguists and philosophers would accept that language does have the kind of influence on memory, perception and thought... but would be skeptical about any strong version of the hypothesis that language determines the categories or patterns of thought.鈥� Kess (1992) also advocated the this opinion by expressing that linguistic influence on cognition really is limited to the fact that language is primary, but by no means only, tool by which humans represent, store, and communicate information. This version, generally speaking, has been supported by most of scholars.