Anúncio

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.ppt

26 de Mar de 2023
Anúncio

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Anúncio

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.ppt

  1. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction RESOURCE PERSON: Rashid Mahmood Department of English Okara University SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS
  2. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • Sapir (1929) Human beings do not live in the society alone. Language of the society predispose certain choices of interpretation about how we view the world.
  3. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • Whorf (1941) We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. We categorise objects in the scheme laid by the language and if we do not subscribe to these classification we cannot talk or communicate.
  4. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be divided into two basic components • Linguistic determinism • Linguistic relativity
  5. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • The linguistic relativity hypothesis states that language structure affect the way people conceptualize the world for instance in the Eskimo language, different words are used to denote different kinds of snow. According to “Linguistic relativity” a speaker should thus tell apart different kinds of snow by its physical feature.
  6. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction The linguistic relativity • One well-known example Whorf used to support his theory was the number of words the Eskimo Language has for ‘snow for example ‘apun’ snow on the ground ‘qanikca’ hard snow on the qround ‘ etc. Arabic has many words for different kinds of camels, in Chinese there is only one term luotuo and in English there is camel.
  7. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction The linguistic relativity • Here's an example that you might find amusing. In a certain part of New Guinea, people live a hand-to-mouth existence as they always have done. Consequently, they have no wealth and no reason to count things. Their language has a word for one and another word for two. But, that's the extent of their counting system. Today, because of contact with the outside world, they've had to adapt their language. They use the word for dog to indicate the number four (possibly because a dog has four legs). So, here's how the system works (using English-equivalents): One = 1 Two = 2 One and two = 3 Dog = 4 Dog and one = 5 Dog and two = 6 Dog and one and two = 7 Dog dog = 8 Dog dog and one = 9 and so on.
  8. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction The linguistic relativity • The Whorfian perspective is that translation between one language and another is at the very least, problematic, and sometimes impossible. • One such example is of the Punjabi word “joot.”
  9. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Linguistic determinism • Linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language has an impact on the way that its speakers view the world. Because we can only really think of the world through the use of language and words, it seems to make sense that the structure of our language would have an impact on how we perceive the world. • Linguistic determinism does not disagree with this general idea. Instead, it goes beyond it. Linguistic determinism argues that the structure of language does not simply affect our way of looking at the world; it actually determines how we look at the world.
  10. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Linguistic determinism • Popularly known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or Whorfianism , the principle is often defined to include two version • That language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories Strong version • That language categories and usage influence thought and certain kind of non linguistic behavior. Weak version
  11. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Linguistic theories • Within linguistic theory, two extreme positions concerning the relationship between language and thought are commonly referred to as 'mould theories’ and 'cloak theories'
  12. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Linguistic theories • Mould theories Thoughts categories are cast • Cloak theories Customary categories of thoughts of its speaker
  13. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Mould Theory • Mould theory :The idea that language moulds thought rather than simply expressing it. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, content is bound up with linguistic form, and the use of the medium contributes to shaping the meaning. In common usage, we often talk of different verbal formulations ‘meaning the same thing’, but for those of a Whorfian persuasion, such as Fish, ‘it is impossible to mean the same thing in two (or more) different ways’ (at least in literary contexts).
  14. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Cloak theory • Cloak theory :The neoclassical idea of language as simply the dress of thought, based on the assumption that the same thought can be expressed in a variety of ways (linguistic dualism). Linguistic universalists argue that we can say whatever we want to say in any language, and that whatever we say in one language can always be translated into another .
  15. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • 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 and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. 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... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 [1929], p. 69)
  16. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • Human beings do not live alone in the world they need a medium to communicate their expression of thought. It is not possible to realities of societies or world without use of language. A ‘real world’ is to at large extent unconsciously built upon the language habit of the group. No, two languages can express the same social realities.
  17. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • 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 organized by our minds - and this means largely by 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 - 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 organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. (Whorf 1940, pp. 213-14; his emphasis)
  18. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • The world is organized by our mind and this means largely by the linguistics system in our mind. • According to the article, Whorf distanced himself from the behaviorists stance that thinking is entirely linguistic.
  19. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Linguistic determinism • Our thinking is determined by language. People who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently.
  20. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Linguistic determinism • According to the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there is no real translation. The Whorfian perspective is that translation between one language and another is at the very least problematic and sometime impossible.
  21. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction Linguistic determinism • It is impossible to learn the language of a different culture unless the learner abandons his or her own mode of thinking and acquires the thought patterns of the native speakers of the target language.
  22. TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS • Moderate Whorfianism differs from determinist in these ways: • Patterns of thinking can be influenced rather than determined, • Language influences the way we see the world and it is influenced by that also, • Any influence should be ascribed to the variety in a language rather than the language itself (sociolect*), • Influence can be seen on the social context but not in purely linguistic form.
Anúncio