ACTAS RELFE (original) (raw)

Reviving Whorf: The Return of Linguistic Relativity

Philosophy Compass, 2009

The idea that natural languages shape the way we think in different ways was popularized by Benjamin Whorf, but then fell out of favor for lack of empirical support. But now, a new wave of research has been shifting the tide back toward linguistic relativity. The recent research can be interpreted in different ways, some trivial, some implausibly radical, and some both plausible and interesting. We introduce two theses that would have important implications if true: Habitual Whorfianism and Ontological Whorfianism. We argue that these offer the most promising interpretations of the emerging evidence. It is a standard position in philosophy that language is nothing more than a means for the expression of thoughts (Locke 1690; Fodor 1975). This is also a popular position in psychology, where many hold that language learners map words onto antecedently existing concepts. The concepts come first, and only later the language to express them (Pinker 1984; Piaget and Inhelder, 1967 ⁄ 1948). Recent empirical research, however, suggests that language is more than a means for expression and communication. There is now compelling evidence that language affects the way people think, and that each language has a distinctive influence on its speakers' mental abilities; speaking Maya rather than Spanish, or Korean rather than English has an effect on the thought or experience of speakers. This idea, known as 'linguistic relativity,' has modern roots in the work of the linguist, Edward Sapir, who claims, [T]he ''real world'' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group…We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (1929: 209) Sapir's remark is offhand , but the idea was developed by his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf's most quoted passage reads: Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly, between different grammars. 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 impression which has to be organized by our minds-and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. (Whorf 1940 ⁄ 1956: 212) These passages suggest two theses that are gaining support in current empirical research. The Sapir's quote indicates something about the means by which language influences thought; we will call it Habitual Whorfianism. And both Sapir and Whorf speculate about the effects of that influence-what we will call Ontoglogical Whorfianism. In this

Linguistic Relativity by Luis Carlos Rubio López.

The natural inquisitive spirit which moves through time and history wich has given shelter to a heap of broken images, namely thoughts, and also has printed its resemblance with such diverse forms as art, language, culture, societies, violence and eventually history itself, cannot be understood without a linguistic point of view, precisely to bring more light in its counterpart, a non-linguistic point of view and the world it explores. Since language is the principal source of information in scientific discourse, but we need to understand the concepts, items and people that language makes reference to, polarities or contrasts between different views of the same picture, such as relativistic vs deterministic, form vs meaning, learning vs acquisition, language vs thought (and reality), among many others have arise from the necessity of discover The Relation to Habitual Thought and Behaviour to Language by Benjamin Lee Whorf (1939).

Linguistic relativity

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2010

The central question in research on linguistic relativity, or the Whorfian hypothesis, is whether people who speak different languages think differently. The recent resurgence of research on this question can be attributed, in part, to new insights about the ways in which language might impact thought. We identify seven categories of hypotheses about the possible effects of language on thought across a wide range of domains, including motion, color, spatial relations, number, and false belief understanding. While we do not find support for the idea that language determines the basic categories of thought or that it overwrites preexisting conceptual distinctions, we do find support for the proposal that language can make some distinctions difficult to avoid, as well as for the proposal that language can augment certain types of thinking. Further, we highlight recent evidence suggesting that language may induce a relatively schematic mode of thinking. Although the literature on linguistic relativity remains contentious, there is growing support for the view that language has a profound effect on thought.

Is Linguistic Relativity a Kind of Relativism?

Paradigmi, 2019

This paper aims to shed light on the terminological and conceptual area around linguistic relativity (nowadays a mostly empirically conceived problem), namely the relations with relativism as a philosophical position. Throughout history and up to now there has been a degree of confusion in handling the terms 'linguistic relativity', 'linguistic relativism', 'linguistic determinism' and the like, all in a more or less conscious fashion. Here it is clarified that linguistic relativity, at least as construed by the recent Neo-Whorfian literature (but also in some important sense, from Whorf 's own point of view as well) is not, by definition, the same as linguistic determinism, but neither is a form or relativism. On the other hand, relativism, maintains the recent philosophical literature, is a family of theses that share a number of common features even though a single defining core is not easily identifiable. While linguistic relativity does have some connections with some of those features, to make it collapse into an easily dismissible kind of relativism is a crucial misconception of the nature and scopes of such an idea, i.e., that different languages have a different bearing on speakers' cognition and actions.

Review of Puetz, M. & Verspoor, M., Explorations in Linguistic Relativity

The past decade has seen a remarkable resurgence of interest in the possible influences of language on ‘thought’, i.e. relativism, the “Whorf Theory Complex” (P. Lee), or the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (LRH). On the occasion of the Whorf centenary in 1997, a number of international conferences, workshops, and symposia were dedicated to the topic. This volume presents a collection of papers from the 26th International LAUD Symposium held at Gerhard Mercator University in Duisburg, Germany, April 1-5, 1998 under the title “Humboldt and Whorf Revisited: Universal and Culture-Specific Conceptualizations in Grammar and Lexis.”

Linguistic Relativity: The Influence of Language on Cognition

"The primary focus of this study is to assess the impact of a spoken language on its speaker’s thoughts, perception and cognitive abilities. It is postulated that language, to a certain extent, can influence a person’s thought and his concept of the world, and that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is less faulty as it seemed to be. This study may be helpful in determining to what degree, does a spoken language shape its speaker’s cognition. It will also attempt to discuss what other pathways prospective researchers can take when conducting further studies on the said topic. Keywords: Language, Cognitive Abilities, Concept of the World "

Language Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity

2012

The classic version of the linguistic relativity principle, formulated by Boas and developed especially in the work of Whorf, suggests that the particular lexicogrammatical patterns of a given language can influence the thought of its speakers. A second version of the argument emerged in the 1970s and shifted the focus to the indexical aspect of language: any given language includes a particular set of indexical signs, and these essentially shape the contexts produced in speaking that language.

A defense of a weak linguistic relativist thesis

Language Sciences, 2022

By confronting two linguistic myths, a strong linguistic relativist thesis and the idea that communication is the only means of language, this article demonstrates that some aspects of language mold some habits of thought and that language provides different speech communities with distinct behavioral patterns to accomplish specific social actions adequately. The article, thus, argues that there is strong empirical evidence to support a reciprocally influential relationship between language, thought, and society.