LING2003 Lecture Notes - Lecture 12: Grammaticalization, Speech Community, Determinism
Wednesday, 6 September 2017
LECTURE 12
LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT: SPACE
-Questions
•Does language shape thought?
•Is it possible to think without language?
•Does the language we speak influence our view of reality?
•Is X the same in [English] as it is in [Motu] as it is in …?
•Is it possible to translate [word] into [language]?
•If you translate [word] into [language], does it elicit the same thought?
•Are cognitive categories universal with different labels attached? (universalism hypothesis)
•Or are they determined/influenced by culture, and therefore also by language? (relativity hypothesis)
-Edward Sapir
•“The upshot of it all would be to make very real to us a kind of relativity that is generally hidden from
us by by our naive acceptance of fixed habits of speech as guides to an objective understanding of
the nature of experience. This is the relativity of concepts, or as it might be called, the relativity of
the form of thought… For its understanding, comparative data of linguistics are a sine qua non”.
(Sapir, 1949, p.159)
•Sapir’s proposal
-“The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with
different labels attached” (Sapir, 1949, p.162)
-Different concepts are reflected in different habits of speech
•Habits of speech which become grammaticalised go back to different ways of thinking
-This affects how people interpret their worlds
-Language is “a constraining channel through which speakers construe experience” (Foley 1997, p.
198)
•Ex/ How we might remember events
-Ex/ In some languages if an action is accidental, they use a less agentive construction,
perhaps forgoing the agent
•In these languages, people are less likely to remember who the agent was
!1
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Wednesday, 6 September 2017
-Whorf’s proposal
•“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
organised by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We
cut nature up, organise it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are
parties to an agreement to organise it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our
speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an
implicit and unstated one, BUT ITS TERMS ARE ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all
except by subscribing to the organisation and classification of data which the agreement
decrees.” (Whorf, 1940. pp.212-13)
•Whorf’s view is very strong
-The language you speak determines how you view the world
-Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
•Reaction
-Not very well received, especially strong, deterministic description (Whorf)
-We are prisoners of our native language? But…
•We can learn other languages
•We can translate (at least to some extent…)
•If there is no word available in a language, the concept can still be communicated
•We also know that counting systems differ across languages, but people can still learn to
count and calculate in other languages
•Determinism vs relativity
-Strong version: language determines thought (prison metaphor)
-Weak version: Languages reflect what is culturally salient
•Context plays an important role in decoding the meanings of linguistic signs (Kramsch, 1998)
•Language mediates concepts (rather than determine them)
-Exploring the concept of space
•People look at things like space in order to see if people think about space in the same way
-That is, whether people have the same cognitive categories
•Why look at space?
-“Spatial cognition is a fundamental design requirement for every mobile species with a fixed
territory or home base” (Levinson and Wilkins, 2006 p1)
!2
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
This is the relativity of concepts, or as it might be called, the relativity of the form of thought for its understanding, comparative data of linguistics are a sine qua non . (sapir, 1949, p. 159: sapir"s proposal. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached (sapir, 1949, p. 162) Different concepts are re ected in different habits of speech: habits of speech which become grammaticalised go back to different ways of thinking. This affects how people interpret their worlds. Language is a constraining channel through which speakers construe experience (foley 1997, p. 198: ex/ how we might remember events. Ex/ in some languages if an action is accidental, they use a less agentive construction, perhaps forgoing the agent: in these languages, people are less likely to remember who the agent was. Whorf"s proposal: we dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages.
