Uncategorized

Benjamin Lee Whorfs linguistisches Relativitätsprinzip (German Edition)

Friday, March 01, 2019Friday, March 01, 2019 admin

While Peirce is occasionally tempted by such appeals, overall he is critical of appeals to language, especially as most Western philosophers have been familiar with a small set of Indo- European languages; say, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, and Latin. In particular, I look at unpublished manuscripts where Peirce summarizes his own study of non-European languages, ranging from Arabic, to Ngarrindjeri, to Xhosa.

Peirce was only an amateur linguist, and also aware of the challenges of doing cross-cultural linguistics through comparative grammar; e. Nonetheless, this study left him suspicious of any claims of linguistic universals, and supported his anti-psychologism. That is, not only should logic and philosophy not be based upon psychology at least as a special science , they should also be independent of linguistics.

However, Peirce also advances something like the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis , that language determines, or at least conditions, thought. The question now becomes what is the nature of a philosophy of common sense, even a critical one, without a common language, or possibly no commonalities across languages? American Pragmatism in Philosophy of the Americas.

Gottlob Frege in 20th Century Philosophy. Thomas Annotated Bibliography of John Deely. The paper analyses the conditions and limits of intercultural communication in the light of a critical assessment of linguistic and cultural relativism. Many cognitive scientists consider that the cognitive influence of language on thought is negligible; however, At any rate, it is at the cultural level that the challenge of linguistic relativism is more relevant, because different cultures generate different webs of concepts.

Linguistic relativism can be easily articulated with cultural relativism, the view that it is not possible for outsiders to evaluate and criticize values, practices and basic beliefs of substantially different cultures. Against relativism, ethnocentrism and a naive universalismthat presupposes the existence of universally valid standards that make intercultural communication always possible, the paper proposes a contextualist account of human communication inspired by Wittgenstein and Gadamer that is sensitive to linguistic and conceptual differences and recognizes the existence of limits to intercultural communication.

However, from a contextualist standpoint, these limits are not rigid and they can be overcome, at least partly and gradually, in the course of a cross-cultural dialogue in which the participants engage in a critical reflection aimed at correcting initial assumptions and divergent standards. Linguistic Communication in Philosophy of Language. By taking into account the latest in human knowledge, this paper tries to provide arguments as to why such a claim works wonderfully in fiction, but not in science.

In this paper we propose a modern theory of linguistic iconicity, comparing it with similar, though more primitive ideas expounded in Plato's Cratylus. In the Cratylus two views on natural language compete: Hermogenes favours absolute arbitrariness of names, Cratylus defends the naturalness — iconicity — of names. In the end, both these extreme views are rejected, the main conclusion being that one should not base philosophy on the study of words.

The ancient controversy shows up again as a clash between Saussurean and Peircean thinking, though extreme views are avoided. Onomatopoeia and Plato's articulatory mimicry are instances of imagic iconicity, now recognized by everybody. Less known but more interesting for grammar is diagrammatic iconicity. A well-known example is word-order reflecting temporal sequence. The most interesting area of diagrammatic iconicity is to be found in the opposition between marked and unmarked structures in natural language.

For example, the plural is marked as opposed to the singular. The iconicity lies in the fact that the unmarked form of the singular corresponds to an unmarked meaning, while the marked form of the plural matches a marked meaning, i. Unmarked meaning is then viewed not in objectivist but in experiential terms: Prototypical linguistic structures are seen to go back to biological, psychological and cultural properties of the prototypical speaker.

A number of examples of this kind of iconicity are discussed. On the biological level, so-called freezes exist, whereby unmarked sounds precede marked counterparts. On the biologicalpsychological level, this is paralleled by lexical coordinations.

Metaphor and the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis

In morphological categories, one finds pairs like singular-plural, definite-indefinite, animate-inanimate, masculine-feminine, present-past, positive-negative, locativetemporal. As to semantic-syntactic structures, direct perception and direct causation are unmarked in relation to the indirect counterparts. On the cultural level, politeness structures are adduced.

We conclude that both Plato and Wittgenstein II rejected iconicity too radically: Our view qualifies the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as well. Humboldt is commonly identified as the source of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis , according to which, in its canonical formulation, the structure of language determines the structure of thought. Discusses the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis , which maintains that nature be dissected along the lines laid down by native language. One characteristic of most modern languages is that subject—verb relationships can be expressed only in active and passive voices.

Modern languages might force people into dichotomous thinking patterns, since human action is couched primarily in one voice or the other. Throughout history, several languages have possessed middle voices which allow for a more complex relationship between a subject and verb than English does not have a commonly used MV. This deficit might condition human thinking to possess bipolar characteristics. Modern psychological theories of human agency help scientists, legal scholars, and philosophers to adapt thinking to better reflect the continuous characteristics of the world of human action.

Philosophy of Psychology in Philosophy of Cognitive Science. The Whorfian hypothesis has received support from recent findings in psychology, linguistics, and anthropology. In light of a much broader body of evidence on time perception, I propose to evaluate these findings with respect to their scope. When assessed collectively, the entire body of evidence on time perception shows that the Whorfian hypothesis has a In particular, all the available evidence shows that the scope of language modulation is limited in the case of time perception, and that the most important mechanisms for time perception are cognitive clocks and simultaneity windows, which we use to perceive the temporal properties of events.

Language modulation has distorting effects, but only at later stages of processing or with respect to specific categorization tasks. The paper explains what is the role of these effects in the context of all the available evidence on time cognition and perception. The settling of a language -- 2. The Whorf hypothesis -- 3.

Relativism or a universal theory?

Mehr erfahren über Benjamin Lee!
Metaphor and the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis;
Mirrim Dawn (The Mirrim #1).

What does language have to do with logic and mathematics? A test bed for grammatical theories -- 6. The Chomsky hierarchy in perpsective -- 7. Reflexivity and identity in language and cognition -- 8. The generalized logic hierarchy and its cognitive implications -- 9. The intensionalization of extensions. This study investigated whether and how a person's varied series of lexical categories corresponding to different discriminatory characteristics of the same colors affect his or her perception of colors. In three experiments, Chinese participants were primed to categorize four graduated colors—specifically dark green, light green, light blue, and dark blue—into green and blue; light color and dark color; and dark green, light green, light blue, and dark blue.

The participants were then required to complete a visual search task. These results suggest that all of the lexical categories corresponding to different discriminatory characteristics of the same colors can influence people's perceptions of colors and that color perceptions can be influenced differently by distinct types of lexical categories depending on the context.

Do we draw this boundary where we draw it because our perceptual system is biologically determined in this way? Or is it culture and language that guide the way we categorize colors? These two possible answers have shaped the historical discussion opposing so-called universalists to relativists. Yet, the most recent theoretical developments on color categorization reveal the limits of such a polarization. Aspects of Consciousness in Philosophy of Mind. This paper discusses, from the point of view of the philosophy of psychology, recent behavioral and brain studies showing effects of the diversity of language vocabulary on color perception.

I show that in the domain of colors the traditional Relativism-Universalism dychotomy is explanatorily inadequate. The interesting alternative on the table is rather whether language affects perception by establishing long-term, stable habits of seeing the world habitual or deep whorfianism , or rather by providing short-term online cues during the perceptual process Language-as-a-Meddler I argue that at the moment the evidence underdetermines both interpretations and the question is open.

Color in Philosophy of Mind. But he also saw language as the creator of human differences and diversity of cultures. Herder attributed differences in languages and their corresponding differences in mentalities to differences in climate, time, and place Miller, In his "Sprachphilosophische Schriften". If it be true that we […] learn to think through words, then language is what defines and delineates the whole of human knowledge […].

In everyday life, it is clear that to think is almost nothing else but to speak. Every nation speaks […] according to the way it thinks and thinks according to the way it speaks pp. Concerned with the same topic, Wilhelm von Humboldt - held a very similar view of the linkage between language and the Weltansicht i. For Humboldt, thought and language were inseparable Miller, , p. This notion was later picked up again by the German American anthropologist Franz Boas - , who probably introduced the hypothesis of linguistic relativity to America Miller, , p.

Dressed up Garbage Can.
Practical Design of Ships and Other Floating Structures: Eighth International Symposium - PRADS 2001 (2 Volume set).
Adobe Captivate 7: Beyond the Essentials.
eBooks für Kinder (German Edition);
Search results for `Sapir-Whorf hypothesis` - PhilPapers.

Through his studies in anthropology, Boas gained the insight that in each language, only a part of the complete concept that we have in mind is expressed. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language.

No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached. Sapir's elaboration was vigorously defended by his student Benjamin Lee Whorf - Kramsch, , p. In the following famous and often-quoted passage, he describes his theory in greater detail.

We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. 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 kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems of 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—an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. His formulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis directly translates models from relativity physics to language Lee, People with different languages are like observers in different coordinate systems moving at non-uniform rates through space.

A single event is apprehended differently by observers in each system. People who speak different languages are equivalent to observers who experience an event from different coordinate systems. Note that the phenomenon observed does not change. Perceptual processes do not change either.

All that changes is location within one coordinate frame or another and the differing orientations entailed pp. According to Schlesinger , p. Whorf and Sapir's account of linguistic relativity was interpreted differently by scholars because they did not explicitly mention the extent to which they believed that thought was influenced by language.

The strong version, the so-called linguistic determinism, states that language controls and determines both our thinking and perception. According to Gibbs , p. However, the weaker version of the claim that language influences, but does not determine, thought and culture is still popular among linguists. When we perceive something we usually do not remember it in all its specific detail, but assimilate it to an already existing category - often a category coded in language.

For our mental system Lamb, , p. Without them, it cannot operate at all. However, these strategies naturally lead to imperfect representations. Since, in this view, figurative speech is assumed to be mutually exclusive with ordinary language use, metaphor was regarded as a tool for poets to evoke colourful images or dramatic emotions. In fact, very often, it was viewed with great suspicion because of its alleged propensity to blur the truth and encourage subjective views.

Lakoff claims that, over the centuries, this objectivist tradition was taken so much for granted that most people forgot that it was just a theory. But there is also a very different tradition, albeit less dominant, connected with the notion of metaphor. Two very important proponents of this view are George Lakoff and Mark Johnson.

It can be misleading, therefore, to speak of direct physical experience as which we then 'interpret' in terms of our conceptual system. Cultural assumptions, values, and attitudes are not a conceptual overlay which we may or may not place upon experience as we choose. It would be more correct to say that all experience is cultural through and through, that we experience our 'world' in such a way that our culture is already present in the very experience itself. For them , p. They claim that metaphor is more than just language; it is to a great part the way we think and understand new concepts.

Herder attributed differences in languages and their corresponding differences in mentalities to differences in climate, time, and place Miller, In his "Sprachphilosophische Schriften". If it be true that we […] learn to think through words, then language is what defines and delineates the whole of human knowledge […]. In everyday life, it is clear that to think is almost nothing else but to speak. Every nation speaks […] according to the way it thinks and thinks according to the way it speaks pp.

Concerned with the same topic, Wilhelm von Humboldt - held a very similar view of the linkage between language and the Weltansicht i. For Humboldt, thought and language were inseparable Miller, , p. This notion was later picked up again by the German American anthropologist Franz Boas - , who probably introduced the hypothesis of linguistic relativity to America Miller, , p. Through his studies in anthropology, Boas gained the insight that in each language, only a part of the complete concept that we have in mind is expressed. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society.

It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached. Sapir's elaboration was vigorously defended by his student Benjamin Lee Whorf - Kramsch, , p.

In the following famous and often-quoted passage, he describes his theory in greater detail. We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. 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 kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds.

His formulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis directly translates models from relativity physics to language Lee, People with different languages are like observers in different coordinate systems moving at non-uniform rates through space. A single event is apprehended differently by observers in each system.

Das linguistische Relativitätsprinzip by Marie Glaß on Prezi

People who speak different languages are equivalent to observers who experience an event from different coordinate systems. Note that the phenomenon observed does not change. Perceptual processes do not change either. All that changes is location within one coordinate frame or another and the differing orientations entailed pp. According to Schlesinger , p. Whorf and Sapir's account of linguistic relativity was interpreted differently by scholars because they did not explicitly mention the extent to which they believed that thought was influenced by language.

Bedeutung zum Vornamen Benjamin

In fact, very often, it was viewed with great suspicion because of its alleged propensity to blur the truth and encourage subjective views. Lakoff claims that, over the centuries, this objectivist tradition was taken so much for granted that most people forgot that it was just a theory.

But there is also a very different tradition, albeit less dominant, connected with the notion of metaphor. Two very important proponents of this view are George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. It can be misleading, therefore, to speak of direct physical experience as which we then 'interpret' in terms of our conceptual system. Cultural assumptions, values, and attitudes are not a conceptual overlay which we may or may not place upon experience as we choose.

It would be more correct to say that all experience is cultural through and through, that we experience our 'world' in such a way that our culture is already present in the very experience itself. For them , p. They claim that metaphor is more than just language; it is to a great part the way we think and understand new concepts.

It is pervasive in actual life and is the basis of our conceptual system.