Language Relativity Hypothesis

phraseology surmise of relativity Hypothesis lingual communication theory of relativity Hypothesislinguistic Relativity Hypothesis Does Language Affect pop out Thoughts?Abstract gum benjamin lee(prenominal) Whorf and his teacher and mentor Edward Sapir contriveed the theory that verbiage affects our surveys and perceptions. This theory proposes that thither is a clayatic traffichip mingled with the grammar of a speech communication a person speaks and how that person both actualize the world and be shakes in it. Today linguists now call that theory the lingual Relativity Hypothesis, or Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis. Studies have not conclusively proven Whorfs and Sapirs theory, however, in that location is intriguing data to support their idea. Does Language Shape our Thoughts?Most human being communicate with each other finished language. At this sentence, there is popular opinion to be over 5000 contrastive languages in rehearse today, and most be quite una kindr ed from each other (Stanford encyclopedia, n.d.). The relationship among language and thought is an important question in Cognitive accomplishment. Do speakers of different languages entail differently around the world? This question has been attracting conceive ofers from Plato to Whorf, but despite often times attention and debate, definitive settles have not been forthcoming. Benjamin Lee Whorf and his mentor and teacher Edward Sapir, examined the question of how language affects our thoughts, in their renowned and much considered linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. lingual relativity hypothesis/ Whorf-Sapir hypothesisLinguistic relativity or what is also referred to as the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, was modernizeed by Benjamin Lee Whorf and was an expansion on his mentor, Edward Sapirs, theory that language has a seamless and establishmentatic nature and interacts at a wider level with thought and behavior (Yale University, n.d.). Whorf proposed that there is a systematic relationship between the grammar of a language a person speaks and how that person both understand the world and behaves in it (Whorf, 1956). The hypothesis postulates that a particular languages nature influences the habitual thought of its speakers that different language patterns yield different patterns of thought (Stanford encyclopedia, n.d.)Though there is no empirical proof of this hypothesis, there is convincing data to support this theory. In the past, the bulk of research was concentrated on supporting or disproving the Whorfs hypothesis, with very(prenominal) little in the buff research being done (Lucy, 1992). According to Lucy (1992) there is little experimental data that is able to disprove Whorfs theory, and they be questioned payable to the research methods apply (Lucy, 1992). However, in the expiry decade, Whorfs idea has taken on new enthusiasm within the linguist research community and new data is emerging that supports the original idea.Benjamin Lee Whorf According to the Linguistic department at Yale University (n.d.) Benjamin was an influential American linguist that setoff graduated maiden from the Massach personatts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1918 with a degree in chemical engineering. In 1931, Whorf changed focus and began studying his choler for linguistics at Yale University, where he first began developing his now storied hypothesis under his professor and mentor Edward Sapir.In 1936, Whorf was selected for an Honorary seek Fellowship in Anthropology at Yale and received the Sterling Fellowship in 1937. He was a lecturer in Anthropology from 1937 through 1938 in the theatre of operations of linguistics. Whorf focus was Linguistic Anthropology, Psychological Linguistics, Mayan hieroglyphics and a dictionary of Hopi languages (Yale Linguistics, n.d.). This is where he began to develop his ideas most language and our perceptions.Principle of Linguistic RelativityZhu Zhifang (2002) author of Linguistic relativity an d Cultural Communication, sh bes that while Whorf was investigated Hebrew, Aztec, Maya, Hopi and other unfamiliar languages, he find that these languages were structured differently from that of face and other European languages. Languages, with different collocations of semantic ideas index provide different segmentation of experience (Whorf, 1956 p. 56). Zhifang (2002) continues to clarify that Whorf put up a great lease of emphasis on the Hopi language.A language, he thought, had a grammar much to a greater extent complicated and subtle than that of the European languages. Whorf adage that experiences were segmented by language in a very different way, not unless by its lexicon but also by its grammatical organization. The notion of linguistic relativity is the suggestion that all ones life has been tricked by the structure of language into a certain way of perceiving reality, with the implication that aw beness of this trickery will enable one to see the world with br ight insight (Zhifang 2002, p.263). With a detailed description of the grammatical and semantic structure of the Hopi language, Whorf concludesAll this is an illustration of how language produces an organization of experience. We are inclined to think of language simply as a technique of showion, not to wee that language first of all is a classification and arrangement of the be adrift of sensory experience which results in a certain world order, a certain segment of the world that is easily expressible by the fictitious character of symbolic means that language employs. (Whorf, 1956, p. 55)Language Metaphysics (Philosophy)Eleanor Rosch (1987) explains in her paper, Linguistic relativity, and so on A Re legal opinion of General Semantics, that the average European languages uses objects (nouns) as the rudimentary unit of reality, which is composed of substance, form, and actions (verbs). All of which, Rosch (1987) describes, as existing in an objective, multidimensional spac e, and a one-dimensional uniform and perpetual flow of time, expressed in fate tense, that create our perceptions.Rosch (1987) come along explains that in his study of the Hopi language, Whorf discovered that they do not differentiate between objects and actions. Object and actions are more accurately described as so farts, different from each other gibe to a length of time. Instead of considering substance, motion, space, and time, Hopi grammar separates their world by two main beliefs about language, manifested (objective) and Un-manifest (Subjective) (Rosch, 1987). Manifested comprises all that is or has been accessible to the senses, and un-manifested is considered all that the Hopi call the future (Rosch, 1987).Zhifang (2002) takes Roschs ideas and further demonstrates that Whorf discovered the Hopi language functions entirely without tenses for its verbs and has no general understanding or perception of time and does not think of time as a linear continuum in which all in the world moves at an able rate. The Hopi language contains no words, grammatical forms, constructions or expressions referring directly to what Europeans call time, or to past, present, future, or to enduring or lasting . (Zhifang, 2002, p. 164).Rosch (1987) states that the metaphysics understood in the sentence structure of European languages, makes it reasonable to examine and evaluate sentences into, what we consider actions, and results of actions. However, according to Whorf, these ideas are gross distortions when used as units of analysis for various American Indian Languages. (Rosch, 1987).According to Rosch (1987), Whorf uses the example of how Indian languages translate into English as a demonstration of the differences in thought processes between the two languages. He uses Apache, It is a dripping spring is deciphered as As water, or springs, whiteness moves downward in English. Another example, in Shawnee, cleaning grinder with a ramrod is direct hollow moving dry spo t by movement of tool in English (Rosch, 1987).Zhifang (2002) sums up Roschs observations by stating that Whorf argued that either language conceals a metaphysics. (Zhifang 2002, p. 163) The Hopi language applies a philosophy unlike that of European languages. Zhifang, (2002) explains that the difference in concepts and abstractions associated with Hopi language make up a immaterial metaphysics from that of European languages. From the Western standpoint, this philosophy appears mystical in nature (Zhifang, 2002).They are ideas which we are accustomed to consider as part and parcel either of so-called animistic or vitalistic beliefs, or of those transcendental unifications of experience and intuitions of things unseen that are felt by the consciousness of the mystic, or which are accustomed out in mystical and (or) so-called occult systems of thought. These abstractions are in spades given either explicitly in wordspsychological or metaphysical termsin the Hopi language, or, ev en more, are implicit in the very structure and grammar of the language, as nearly as being observable in Hopi culture and behavior. (Whorf, 1956, p. 58-59).Whorf is not the only one who had this idea of cultural differences in language. Alfred Korzybski came to a comparable view of cultural differences in language, several years before Whorf. He explained that, culturally inherited structure of an individuals language, including his or her terminology, grammar, logic, semantics, doctrines, etcetera relates to assumptions, premises, implications about the structure of ourselves and the world. (Korzybski, 1933, p. 92). compose Alfred Korzybski (1933), in is article Science and Sanity, summed up the power of language wellWe do not realize what tremendous power the structure of a habitual language has. It is not an exaggeration to say that it enslaves us through the mechanism of semantic or evaluational reactions and that the structure which a language exhibits, and impresses upon us unconsciously is automatically projected upon the world around us (Korzybski, 1933, p. 90).Language and Thought As demonstrated through Whorfs observation of the Hopi language and the differences in semantics from European language, we see a pattern of information that gave rise to his hypothesis. However, Lera Boroditsky, professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (MIT), reminds us that a definitive answer to the questions does language shape thoughts?, has been a challenging task (Boroditsky, 2003). Not until the last decade, has research on language and thought gained new interest. As a result, new evidence has become available on peoples perspectives of space, time, and objects.Spatial differences in Language and ThoughtRemarkable differences in semantics have been observed in the way languages illustrate spacial locations. While most languages rely a great deal on relative spatial terms to express the relative locations of objects (left, right, appear, spur), Tze ltal, a Mayan language, relies largely on autocratic eccentric (a system similar to English compass north and to the south direction system) (Levinson, 1996) .Levinson (1996), points out that to the Tzeltal, spatial observations that are north are expressed as downhill and those south are expressed as uphill. This absolute uphill/downhill coming is the main system to express spatial relations between objects in Tzeltal. There is no corresponding equivalent to the English term front/back or left/right (Levinson, 1996). To test whether this difference between the two languages has cognitive consequences, Levinson (1996) created a study whereas Dutch and Tzeltal speakers were tested in spatial tasks. In one study, participants were seated at a duck and an arrow lay in front of them pointing either to the right (north) or to the left (south). Levinson (1996) explains how the arrows were rotated 180 degree to a second defer which had two arrows (one pointing to the left (north) an d one to the right (south), and were asked to identify the arrow like the one they saw before.The study reveled that Dutch speakers would choose the relative solution. make headway testing of Levinsons (1996) theory showed that if the arrow pointed to the right (and north), Dutch speakers would chose the arrow that unflustered pointed to the right (though this time it pointed south instead of the previous north).Tzeltal did precisely the reverse, and chose the absolute solution. Levinson (1996) confirmed that if the arrow direction was to the right (and north) Tzeltal speakers chose the arrow that still pointed north (though it now pointed left instead of right). Thus, explains Levinson (1996), the Tzeltal language relies a great deal on absolute reference in spatial description. It has also touch their understanding of a non-linguistic orientation task (Levinson, 1996).Time Differences in Language and Thought Languages also differ from one another on their use and understanding of time. While all languages use spatial expressions to address time (I will see you tomorrow, he was ahead of his time, he is behind in his homework), different languages use unique spatial terms (Boroditsky, 2001). He demonstrates how English primarily uses front/back vocabulary to talk about time, as evidence in terms much(prenominal) as we still have our vacation ahead of us, or that incident is behind us, or we are moving forward, or go back to the beginning and take your situation off before you enter. The language employed to organize events are the same(p) as those used to articulate asymmetric horizontal spatial relations (he is looking forward to tomorrow or the hard times are behind us) (Boroditsky, 2001, p. 2).According to Boroditsky (2001), the mandarin orange tree language also uses front/back spatial terms to describe time relationships such as the spatial term Xian (front) and Hou (back). What makes Mandarin remarkable is that the Mandarin language also consistentl y uses good metaphors to address time. The special word shang (up) and xia (down) are often used discuss the sequence of events roughly translated into English as last and contiguous (Boroditsky, 2001). Earlier events are utter to be shang (up) and later events are said to be xia (down). In summary, both the Mandarin and English language use horizontal terms to talk about time. In addition Mandarin speakers also use the vertical term shang and xia (Boroditsky, 2001). Boroditsky (2001) discusses how the English and Mandarin slipway of talking, lead to differences in how people think about time. Boroditsky (2001) analyzed a group of studies and discovered that Mandarin speakers tend to think about time vertically even when they are thinking for English. Boroditsky (2001) observed that Mandarin speakers could more rapidly confirm that March comes earlier than April, if they had just seen a vertical group of objects than if they had seen a horizontal arrangement. Boroditsky (2001) n oticed that the opposite was true for English speakers.Another study showed that the extent to which Mandarin-English bilinguals think about time vertically is related to how old they were when they first began to learn English. According to Boroditsky (2001), this last termination implies two things language is a convincing tool in the influence of thought and ones native language plays a role in geological formation habitual thought.Objects Languages also differ in how names of objects are classify into grammatical categories. Boroditsky (2001) uses the argument that a many languages use grammatical grammatical sex activity and unlike English, many languages use a grammatical gender system where all nouns (chair, socks and books) are assigned a gender. Languages that use grammatical gender are required to assign objects a gender role by using gendered pronouns and modifying adjectives or verbs to match gender use with nouns (Boroditsky, 2001). This effects the how a person thi nks about inanimate objects when assigned a gender. Boroditsky, together Michal Ramscar and Wendy Ham, conducted quadruple studies that suggests assigning grammatical genders to objects with language does influence peoples mental representations of objects (Boroditsky, Ham Ramscar, 2002).Spanish and German speakers were asked to rate similarities between pictures of people (male and female) and pictures of objects (the names of which had opposite genders in Spanish and German). Both groups rated grammatically feminine objects to be more similar to females and grammatically mannish objects more similar to males. This was true even though all objects had opposite genders in Spanish and German. It appears that even a thin fluke of grammar (the seemingly arbitrary assignment of a noun to be masculine or feminine) can have an effect on how people think about things in the world (Boroditsky, et al, 2002, p. 136)Summary Through Whorf study of languages, specially his interest in Nativ e Indian languages, he expanded on his mentors idea that language has a coherent and systematic nature to develop his now famous Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. He was not the first to propose the idea that language affects our thoughts and perception, but it is his hypothesis that inspired others such as Levisons research on spatial relationships and language, and Boroditskys study of language in relationship to objects and time, to continue the search to find answers for his assumptions. Additional investigation into linguistic relativity will eventually reveal the exact nature of the connections between language and cognitive function. These studies will help us to establish what might be the commonality of all human cognition.ReferencesBoroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakersconception of time. Cognitive Psychology 43 (1) 1-22.Boroditsky, L., Ham, W. and Ramscar, M., (2002). What is universal about event perceptions?Comparing English an d Idonesian speakers. Proceedings of the 24th Annual clashing of the Cognitive Science Society. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http//www.cogsci.rpi.edu/CSJarchive/Proceedings/2002/CogSci02.pdfKodish, B. (2003). What we do with language what it does with us. Etc A Review of GeneralSemantics, 60(4), 383-395. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.Korzybski, A., 1994 (1933). Science and Sanity An introduction to non-aristotelian systemsand general semantics. Fifth Edition. Institute of general Semantics. Brooklyn, NYLevinson, S., (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneuxs question research into cross-linguistic evidence. In Bloom P and Peterson M (eds) Language and Space, pp. 109-169.Lucy, J. (1997). Linguistic relativity.Annual Review of Anthropology,26,291-312. RetrievedAugust 21, 2008, from Research Librarydatabase. (Document ID21752097).Rosch, E. (1987, Fall). Linguistic relativity, etc. A Review of General Semantics, 44(3), 254- 27 9. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from Education Research screw database.Stanford Encyclopedia, (n.d.). The Linguistic relativity hypothesis. Stanford University.Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.htmlYale Linguistics, (n.d.), Benjamin Lee Whorf. Yale University. Retrieved August 22, 2008,from website http//www.ling.yale.edu/ account statement/whorf.html and http//www.ling.yale.edu/history/sapir.html.Whorf, B., (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee WhorfEdited by Carroll, J., Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1998. Retrieved August 20, 2008, from http//books.google.com/books?id=W2d1Q4el00QCprintsec=frontcoverdq=Language,+thought+and+realitysig=ACfU3U0-0aOK_v3HYwbXt0FxR-AVFVaT0APPA1,M1Zhifang, Z. (2002, May). Linguistic Relativity and Cultural Communication. EducationalPhilosophy Theory, 34(2), 161-170. Retrieved August 22, 2008, doi10.1080/00131850120102231.