The hypothesis of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition. Also known as the Sapir–Whorf. Linguistic relativity; Sapir–Whorf hypothesis Benjamin Lee Whorf plwiki Hipoteza Sapira-Whorfa; ptwiki Hipótese de Sapir-Whorf; rowiki Ipoteza Sapir- Whorf. Hipoteza Sapira-Whorfa (ang. Sapir–Whorf hypothesis), in. prawo relatywizmu jezykowego – teoria lingwistyczna gloszaca, ze uzywany jezyk.

Author: Dazuru Fern
Country: Mauritania
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Photos
Published (Last): 11 September 2008
Pages: 266
PDF File Size: 7.37 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.54 Mb
ISBN: 387-5-85882-298-8
Downloads: 44087
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Taut

This allowed them to compare the linguistic categorization directly to a non-linguistic task. Their two tenets were i “the world is differently sa;ira-whorfa and conceived in different linguistic communities” and ii “language causes a particular cognitive structure”.

Hipoteza Sapira-Whorfa by Jakub Bojarczuk on Prezi

While Sapir never made a point of studying directly how languages affected thought, some notion of probably “weak” linguistic hipotdza underlay his basic understanding of language, and would be taken up by Whorf. Evidence for discursive relativity”. They showed that in languages with few color terms, it is predictable from the number of terms which hues are chosen as focal colors, for example, languages with only three color terms always have the focal colors black, white and red.

Paper is based on a critical analysis of the literature. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. He concluded that cognitive differences between the grammatical usage of Swedish prepositions and Finnish cases could have caused Swedish factories to pay more attention to the work process while Finnish factory organizers paid sapiraa-whorfa attention to the individual worker. Totally unrelated languages share in one culture; closely related languages—even a single language—belong to distinct culture spheres.

Linguistic relativity

Another is the Hopi language ‘s words for water, one indicating drinking water in a container and another indicating a natural body of water. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came into focus in the s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor among linguists. Swedish speakers describe time using distance terms like “long” or “short” while Spanish speakers do it using volume related terms like “big” or “small”.


Philosophers such as PutnamFodorDavidson, and Dennett see language as representing directly entities from the objective world and that categorization reflect that world. Whorf also examined how a scientific account of the world differed from a religious account, which led him to study the original languages of religious scripture and to write several anti- evolutionist pamphlets.

Malotki used evidence from archaeological data, calendars, historical documents, modern speech and concluded that there was no evidence that Hopi conceptualize time in the way Whorf suggested. In Reply to Alfred Bloom”Cognition17 3 By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Where Brown’s weak version of the linguistic relativity hypothesis proposes that language influences thought and the strong version that language determines thought, Fishman’s ‘Whorfianism of the third kind’ proposes that language is a key to culture.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates CS1 maint: This is because there is a correspondence of the language with the intellectual part of man, or with his thought, like that of an effect with its cause. The defining example is Whorf’s observation of discrepancies between the grammar of time expressions in Hopi and English. Hence the paradox, because typically programmers are “satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs”.

Researchers such as Maclaury continued investigation into color naming. Den Ouden, Language and Creativity: Malotki later claimed that he had found no evidence of Whorf’s claims in ‘s era speakers, nor in historical documents dating back to the arrival of Europeans.

Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf never co-authored any works, and never stated their ideas in terms of a hypothesis.


Psycholinguistics Relativism Arguments in philosophy of mind Hypotheses Anthropological linguistics Linguistic universals Language comparison Linguistic hypotheses Cognition. Plato held instead that the world consisted of eternal ideas and that language should reflect these ideas as accurately as possible.

As Jane Hill and Bruce Mannheim write: The “domain-centered” approach selects a semantic domain and compares it across linguistic and cultural groups.

Itis important also to take into account the global processes of changes associated with the dissemination of digital hipkteza and communication technologies. Gumperz, John; Levinson, Stephen, eds. The purpose of the article is to introduce into a current condition of scientific dispute concerning the views of these authors on the relationship between language and cognition.

One of Whorf’s examples was the supposedly large number of words for ‘snow’ in the Inuit languagean example which later was contested as a misrepresentation. The term “Sapir—Whorf sapira-whirfa is considered a misnomer by linguists for several reasons: International Journal of Bilingualism. Enter your Username Email below. Index of language articles.

It is the ‘plainest’ English which contains the greatest number of unconscious assumptions about nature. We do not realize what tremendous power the structure of an habitual language has. Introduction to language development. He further noticed that while no employees smoked cigarettes in the room for full barrels, no-one minded saoira-whorfa in the room with empty barrels, although sapirw-whorfa was potentially much more dangerous because of the highly flammable vapors still in the barrels.

Journal of Unsolved Questions. Lakoff concluded that many of Whorf’s critics had criticized him using novel definitions of linguistic relativity, rendering their criticisms moot.