The hypothesis of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition. Also known as the Sapir–Whorf. Linguistic relativity; Sapir–Whorf hypothesis Benjamin Lee Whorf plwiki Hipoteza Sapira-Whorfa; ptwiki Hipótese de Sapir-Whorf; rowiki Ipoteza Sapir- Whorf. Hipoteza Sapira-Whorfa (ang. Sapir–Whorf hypothesis), in. prawo relatywizmu jezykowego – teoria lingwistyczna gloszaca, ze uzywany jezyk.

Author: Mazule Vudozil
Country: Bulgaria
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 17 February 2007
Pages: 125
PDF File Size: 15.90 Mb
ePub File Size: 8.16 Mb
ISBN: 625-6-20813-420-3
Downloads: 23973
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Mazucage

While many languages use combinations of them, some languages exhibit only one type and related behaviors.

Hipoteza Sapira-Whorfa – przegląd argumentów zwolenników i przeciwników

Journal of East Asian Linguistics. Speakers define a location as “north of the house”, while an English speaker may use relative positions, saying “in front of the house” or “to the left of the house”. The “structure-centered” approach starts with a language’s structural peculiarity and examines its possible ramifications for thought and behavior. Speakers rely on the linguistic conceptualization of space in performing many ordinary tasks.

Researchers such as BoroditskyLucy and Levinson believe that language influences thought in more limited ways than the broadest early claims.

Linguistic relativity

Shibbolet Login Shibboleth authentication is only available to registered institutions. His peers at Yale University considered the ‘amateur’ Whorf to be the best man available to take over Sapir’s graduate seminar in Native American linguistics while Sapir was on sabbatical in sapira-whora He concluded that the use of the word empty in connection to the barrels had led the workers to unconsciously regard them as harmless, although consciously they were probably aware of the risk of explosion.

This is because there is a correspondence of the language with the intellectual part of man, or with his thought, like that of an effect with its cause. A Preliminary History and a Bibliographical Essay”. Among Whorf’s best-known examples of linguistic relativity are instances where an indigenous language has several terms for a concept that is only described with one word in European languages Whorf used the acronym SAE ” Standard Average Hipotezz ” to allude to the rather similar grammatical structures of the well-studied European languages in contrast to the greater diversity of less-studied languages.


Although Whorf lacked an advanced degree in linguistics, his reputation reflects his acquired competence. Communications of the ACM.

Paper is based on a critical analysis of the literature. Levinson and others reported three basic spatial categorizations.

Uniwersytet Adama Mickiewicza Keywords: University of California Press. The studies showed a correlation between color term numbers and ease of recall in both Zuni and English speakers. They assessed linguistic relativity experimentally and published their findings in Detractors such as Lenneberg, Chomsky and Pinker criticized him for insufficient clarity in his description of how language influences thought, and for not proving his conjectures.

The general semantics movement influenced the development of neurolinguistic programminganother therapeutic technique that seeks to use awareness of language use to influence cognitive patterns.

Another is essentialistwhich holds that essential differences [ clarification needed ] may influence the ways individuals or groups experience and conceptualize the world.

Gumperz, John; Levinson, Stephen, eds. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. It sapira-wyorfa easy to show that language and culture are not intrinsically associated. In a later experiment, speakers of two languages that categorize colors differently English and Zuni were asked to recognize colors.

General semantics and Neurolinguistic Programming.

Members of the early 20th-century school of American anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward Sapir also embraced forms of the idea to one degree or another, including in a meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, [3] but Sapir in particular wrote more often against than in favor of anything like linguistic determinism. He concluded that the debate had been confused.


They studied color terminology formation and showed clear universal trends in color naming. Linguistic relativity inspired others to consider whether thought could be influenced by manipulating language. Philosophers such as PutnamFodorDavidson, and Dennett see language as representing directly entities from the objective world and that categorization reflect that world.

The strongest form of the theory is linguistic determinism, which holds that language entirely determines the range of cognitive processes. Since neither Sapir nor Whorf had ever stated a formal hypothesis, Brown and Lenneberg formulated their own. The researchers asked the participants to estimate how much time had passed while watching a line growing across a screen, or a container being filled, or both.

The idea that some languages are superior to others and that lesser languages maintained sapir-awhorfa speakers in intellectual poverty was widespread in the early 20th century.

There are many excellent examples in Aboriginal America. For example, they found that even though languages have different color terminologies, they generally recognize certain hues as more focal than others.

In the philosophy of language the question addresses the relations between language, knowledge and the external hipoetza, and the concept of truth. It is the ‘plainest’ English which contains the greatest number of unconscious assumptions about nature.

Plato argued against sophist thinkers such as Gorgias of Leontiniwho held that the physical world cannot be experienced except through language; this made the question of truth dependent on aesthetic preferences or functional consequences. While Sapir never made a point of studying directly how languages affected thought, some notion of probably “weak” linguistic relativity underlay his basic understanding of language, and would be taken up by Whorf.

No Comments

Categories: Literature