Class Notes (836,069)
United States (324,324)
LIN 207 (19)
Lecture 17

LIN 207 Lecture 17: Untitled
Premium

5 Pages
51 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Linguistics
Course
LIN 207
Professor
Abigael Candelas
Semester
Spring

Description
LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY(I) ▯ Linguistic anthropology, founded by Whorf and Sapir ▯ Sapir believed experience is filtered through language and culture ▯ The world in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels.(Sapir, 1949, p. 162) ▯ Studies differences in linguistic categorization in Native American and European languages LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY(II) ▯ “Empty gasoline drums” → connotations of an expression change the speaker’s view of the world ▯ Concept of time in English (rigidity) and Hopi (continuity, cyclicity) ▯ Attention directed to specific realities (Paiute example with landscape terms LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY(III) “[W]e are parties to an agreement to organize [nature] in this way – an agreement that holds true throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. This agreement is of course an implicit and understated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees”(Whorf, 1956: 213-214) ▯ It implies some determinism (¿?) ▯ Thought constrained by language (¿?) LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY(IV) ▯ Whorf calls it the “ Linguistic Relativity Principle” 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 that has to be organized by our minds – and this means largely bu 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. (Whorf, 1956, p. 213) LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY(V) ▯ Nothing new as we see in Orwell’s 1984: ▯ Although the purpose here was ideological control. [T]he purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever. (Orwell, 2009, p. 312-313) LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY(VI) ▯ Positive re-evaluation: ○ Lucy (1996) → Yucatec and English speakers coding of plurality makes them pay more attention to the number of entities of a different nature ○ Boroditsky (2001) → Chinese and English speakers react faster (when primed) to temporal utterances that are coherent with their linguistic coding of time. ■ March come before April ■ March comes earlier than April LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY(VII) ▯ Linguistic Relativity in SLA ▯ Slobin’s “Thinking for speaking” The language or languages that we learn in childhood [...] is a subjective orientation to the world of human experience, and this orientation affects the ways in which we think while we are speaking. (Slobin, 1996, p. 91) SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION(XIX) ▯ Semantic typology: cross-linguistic study of semantic categorization ▯ Semantic categorization: how a given stimulus/concept is expressed in a specific language ▯ The Big Question: What properties are universal and which ones vary across languages? DOMAINS(I) ▯ Semantic domain: An group of words with common meaning at their core E.g. plants, kinship, colors, body parts, motion, etc. ▯ Distinctions reflect cultural interest ▯ English words for ‘horse’, namely mare, stallion, foal, filly, colt. ▯ Diachronic change, e.g. Tzeltal čih COLOR TERMINOLOGIES(II) ▯ Berlin & Kay (1969) collected color terms for 20 languages ▯ They used a color chart and had speakers point at them ▯ They named each chip individually and signal the focal color (“best” chip) for each lexical item COLOR TERMINOLOGIES(III) ▯ Criteria for considering “ basic color terms”: ○ Monomorphemic ○ Not specialized language ○ Autochthonous ○ Not referentially restricted to objects COLOR TERMINOLOGIES(IV) ▯ The circularity charge by Lucy (1997) ○ Biased results due to use of etic grid ○ Should be suplemented with emic perspective ○ Assuming naming color terms implies exhaustive partitioning ▯ Findings of B & L (1969) ○ Basic color terms vary substantially cross-linguistically ○ BUT focal color clusters are the same (11 foci) COLOR TERMINOLOGIES(V) ▯ The basic color terms follow an implicational hierarchy with an evolutionary basis COLOR TERMINOLOGIES(VII) ▯ The World Color Survey ▯ Analysis of 110 systems of basic color terms ▯ 25 speakers per language ▯ Same methodology as B & K (1969)
More Less

Related notes for LIN 207

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit