语言学论文题目

成绩

XXXXX大学

课程论文

英文题目:LanguageandThought

中文题目:语言和思维

学院:外国语学院

专业:英语班级:

学生姓名:学号:

ShenRongLanguageandThought

i

Contents

Contents..........................................................................................................................................i

Chapter1Introduction..............................................................................................................1

Chapter2LanguageandThought...........................................................................................4

2.1LanguageStronglyInfluencesThought...........................................................................4

2.2LanguageDoesNotInfluenceThought...........................................................................5

2.3LanguagePartiallyInfluencesThought...........................................................................6

Chapter3Conclusion..............................................................................................................10

Bibliography................................................................................................................................11

ShenRongLanguageandThought

1

Chapter1Introduction

Therelationshipbetweenlanguage,thoughtandrealityhasoccupiedphilosophers,linguists,

backtoPlatoandhistheoryofforms,in

whichPlatodescribedtheideaofthoughtandlanguagehavingmeaningasstemmingfrom

abstractdefinitionsorconceptscalled“forms”andwhichallthe“entitiesandqualities

designatedtherebycanbesubsumed”(Gill,1997:132).Alongwiththestandardwesternthought

rlyJohnLockeofamore

recenttimedescribestherelationshipbetweenrealityandlanguage:

Ourns,conversantaboutparticularnsibleobject,doconveyintothemindveraldistinct

perceptionso

thuswecomebythoideaswehaveofyellow,white,heat,cold,soft,hard,bitter,sweetandall

thowhichwecallnsiblequalities;whichwhenIsaythensconveyintothemind,Imean,

theyfromexternalobjectsconveyintothemindwhatproducesthoperceptions(Essay

ConcerningHumanUnderstanding,book2,chapter1).

Lockeexemplifiesinthisstatementwhatmanyphilosophersandpsychologistsfeltabouthow

wethinkandhowweperceiverealityandhowthatisthenreflectedinourlanguage.

Contrarytothecommonbeliefsamongphilosophersconcerninglanguage,awell-known

Germanscholaranddiplomatfromthe18thcentury,WilhelmvonHumboldtequatedlanguage

andthoughtasinparable,aslanguagecompletelydeterminingthought,inahypothesisknown

astheWeltanschauung(worldview)hypothesis(Brown,1968).Humboldtalsoemphasized

ShenRongLanguageandThought

2

“profoundmantic”differencesbetweenlanguageswhichleadtovarying“cognitive

perspectives,”anideacommonlyknownasculturalrelativity(Wierzbika,3).Althoughlittle

attentionwasgiventothixtremeviewatthetime,thissameideadrewmuchinterestand

criticisminthe1930’sintheemergenceofahypothesisknownastheSapir-WhorfHypothesis

(LinguisticRelativity).ThishypothesiswasrootedinSapir’sstudyofNativeAmerican

Languages,whichlaterdrewtheparticularattentionofSapir’sstudentBenjaminLeeWhorf.

Whatcaughttheattentionofmanyscholarsandnon-scholarsalikeandhasstimulated

comparativerearchamongmanydifferentlanguageswasaparagraphthatSapirreadtoa

groupofanthropologistsandlinguistsin1928:

Humanbeingsdonotliveintheobjectiveworldalone,noraloneintheworldofsocialactivity

asordinarilyunderstood,butareverymuchatthemercyoftheparticularlanguagewhichhas

becomethemediumofexpressionfortheirsociety…Thefactofthematteristhatthe‘realworld’

isanguages

areeversufflds

inwhichdifferentsocietieslivearedistinctworlds,notmerelythesameworldwithdifferent

labelsattached(Salzmann,1993:153).

ThisstatementandsimilaronesbyWhorf,attemptingtoillustratethatlanguageisthemedium

bywhichoneviewstheworld,culture,realityandthoughthavearoudanintendesireinnot

onlysarchers

todaycurrentlyargueoneofthefollowingthreepositionsinrelationtotheSapir-Whorf

HypothesisorLinguisticRelativity:languageheavilyinfluencesthought(stronginterpretation),

languagedoesnotinfluencethoughtorlanguagepartiallyinfluencesthought(weak

ShenRongLanguageandThought

3

interpretation).

Chapter2LanguageandThought

2.1LanguageStronglyInfluencesThought

BenjaminWhorf,itesveralexamples

formtheNativeAmericanlanguage,Hopi,tosupporthishypothesisthatthoughtisstrongly

ingtoWhorftheHopilanguagedoesnotcontainanywords,

grammaticalconstructionsorexpressionsthatrefertotheEnglishconceptof‘time.’Whorf

goesontoexplainthatitispossibleintheHopilanguagetoexpresstheworldorrealityin

waysotherthanwhatmanylanguagesrefertoas‘time.’TheHopiviewofrealityisspecific

tothelanguageandcanonlybebestexpresdifoneisfamiliarwiththelanguage(Carroll,

1956:57).InthixamplewhereWhorffeelslanguagestronglyinfluencesthought,heisoften

criticizedwithcircularitybecauhe“inferscognitivedifferencesbetweentwospeakersfrom

anexaminationoftheirrespectivelanguages,”(HopiandEnglish).Hisproofofcognitive

differencesisonly“badonreiterationofthelinguisticdifferences”(Harre,1990:5).

TheSapir-WhorfHypothesishasremainedadivisivetopicformanyyearsbecaumany

rearchersfeelthatWhorf’xamplesfailedtoshowarealrelationshipbetweenlanguageand

thoughrly

rearchersfinditdifficulttofindatofvariablesthatfitavalidrearchanddonotcome

underthesamecriticismasWhorf’ghtheconstraintscontinueto

makeitdifficultforrearchers,manycontinuetolookforwaystoproveordisprovethe

Sapir-WhorfHypothesis.

ShenRongTheAnalysisoftheCurrentSituation&StrategiesforForeignTradeCompetitivenessof

YangtzeRiverDeltaEconomicZone

5

AcommonargumentfortheSapir-WhorfHypothesisistheperceptionofcoloracross

ingtothehypothesis,ifonelanguagecategorizescolordifferentlythan

anotherlanguage,dydone

inthe1970’sagroupofrearchersstudiedthedifferenceinperceptionofcolorinEnglish

inmoweregiven

inmonotonlyhadless

categories,theydidnotdifferentiatebetweentheEnglishcolorsblueandgreen,however,they

diddrawacategorybetweencolorsintheirlanguagenolandworwhichinEnglishwouldboth

earchersfoundthattheBerinmospeakerswere

betteratmatchingcolorsacrosstheirnol,worcategoriesthanacrosstheEnglishblueand

greencategoriesandEnglishspeakerswerebetteratmatchingcolorsacrossblueandgreen

thanacrosstheBerinmonolandwor(Sawyer,1999).Accordingtotherearchersbyshowing

thatthecolorperceptionofthetwolanguagegroupsisdependentonthecategorizationinthe

languagetheresultssupporttheSapir-WhorfHypothesis.

2.2LanguageDoesNotInfluenceThought

TherearethreemainpointsthatrearchersutodisputetheSapir-WhorfHypothesis:

translatability,differencesbetweenlinguisticandnon-linguisticeventsanduniversals.

Translatabilityisacommonargumentscholarsuagainstthehypothesis,foralthough

languagemaydifferconsiderablyinthewaytheyexpresscertaindetails,itisstillquite

possibletotranslatethodetailsfromonelanguagetoanother(Fishman,1976:273).

ShenRongTheAnalysisoftheCurrentSituation&StrategiesforForeignTradeCompetitivenessof

YangtzeRiverDeltaEconomicZone

6

TheargumentmadebyEricLennebergagainsttheSapir-WhorfHypothesisisthat“linguistic

andnon-linguisticeventsmustbeparatelyobrvedanddescribedbeforetheycanbe

correlated”(Carroll,1956:28).Hearguesthatthereisnowaytodefinelanguageasinfluencing

thoughtwhenthereisnodistinctionbetweenthetwoeventsandthattheevidencewhich

supportslanguageasinfluencingthoughtisbadpurelyonlinguisticdifferences.

Thethirdargumentthatgivevidenceagainstlanguageinfluencingthoughtistheconceptof

aofuniversalscanbetracedbacktothePortRoyale:

Thereareinthegrammarobrvationsthatapplytoalllanguages;theobrvations

r,whichhasforitsobjecttheexpressionof

thoughtbythehelpofspeed,spokenorwritten,dare

immutablytrueanduniversallyfollowed,theyapplytotheformofthoughtitlf,theyfollow

fromtheanalysisofitandareonlytheconquenceofit…(Cowie,1999:227).

ThetheoryofUniversalscommonlyattributedtoChomskyandgenerativegrammaristhe

claimthattherearedeepstructuresthatarecommontoalllanguages(Fishmann,1976:13).In

examiningthisthoughtinrelationtolinguisticrelativityallcultureswouldberelatedandhave

similarrealitieswhichisindeepcontrastwithWhorf’sideasthatallculturesetheworld

differentlybecauoftheirlanguage.

2.3LanguagePartiallyInfluencesThought

ShenRongTheAnalysisoftheCurrentSituation&StrategiesforForeignTradeCompetitivenessof

YangtzeRiverDeltaEconomicZone

7

ThewritingsofSapirandWhorfbroughtaboutahugechangeinthewayscholarsview

chersscurriedtofindevidencethatwouldgivethehypothesis

ghtherearchiasytoformulate,theproblemliesinfindingatof

archersuptothistimehavefoundithard

toconcludethatlanguagedeterminesthought,howeverthroughexamplesfromWhorf’s

studiesinHopiandotherobrvationsfromrearchersitisvalidtosuggestthatlanguagedoes

rmininglinguisticrelativitythequestionisnotwhethera

languageaffectsonesthoughtsbuttowhatdegree(Wierzbicka,1992:7).

Manyexa

experread

astorytstread

thestoryinEnglishwhileobrvingthatthechildren’sbrainswereactiveintheleft

hemisphereandthenreadthestoryinNavahoandobrvedtheirbrainactivityintheright

cordingtoRogersgaveevidencetothefactthatEnglishasanoun-centered

languagewasprocesdintheleftsideofthebrainandtheNavahoasaverb-centered

veevidencetothefactthat

althoughthesamestorywastoldtothesamechildrentheyprocesdthestorydifferently

accordingtowhichlanguageitwastoldin(Gill,1997:140）.

AnotherexampleisastudycontrastingJapaneandEnglishpassiveconstructionsdoneby

dyexplainsthatJapanehastwotypesofpassive

ShenRongTheAnalysisoftheCurrentSituation&StrategiesforForeignTradeCompetitivenessof

YangtzeRiverDeltaEconomicZone

8

constructionsinwhichwhenoneiscombinedwiththeotherthemeaningchangessothatthe

subjectofthentencewas“caud”slating

storiesfromJapanetoEnglishthisconstructionwasnoten,however,inthetranslation

fromrlywhen

askedtointerpretcartoonsthatdealtwithinterpersonalconflict,theJapane“werefoundto

attributeresponsibilityforthenegativeoutcometoothers”

study’spurpowastoshowthatalthoughnotconsciouslyenbynativeJapane,this

constructionofgrammarcontributestoa“perceptualhabitorculturaloutlook”intheJapane

culture(Salzmann,1993:163).

Supportfortheideathatlanguagepartiallyinfluencesthoughtcanalsobeenintheconcept

litycanbeenastheabilitytotranslateaword,phraorideafrom

thatspeakstwolanguageswouldagreethatsomeideasare

mesinlanguagetherearewordsthatexplain

athought,location,otherlanguagescouldtakeuptoaparagraphlongto

motribeinAlaskacalledtheDena’inaAthabaskanshasanentirelexiconthat

ordtheDena’inaareabletodescribe

thefollowingphras:“aplaceoffastorslowcurrent,coveredwithslushiceoroverflowice,a

packedsnowtrailoratrailwithsnowdriftedover,ananimaltrail,oratrailudforgetting

wood”(Lord,1996).Theconceptofcodability,theabilitytocodeinonelanguageawordor

phrainanother,exemplifiestheideaoflanguagepartiallyinfluencingthoughtbecauinone

languageaspeakermaybeabletoperceivealexicalcategorybetterthananotherbutthatinno

ShenRongTheAnalysisoftheCurrentSituation&StrategiesforForeignTradeCompetitivenessof

YangtzeRiverDeltaEconomicZone

9

waylimitsanotherlanguagefrombeingabletoperceivethesamecategory.

LinguistsandAnthropologistshavebeenconcernedwiththeSapir-WhorfHypothesisandthe

implicationsthatsurroundtheclaimsmadebySapirin1928andcontinuetolookforwaysto

proveordisprovetheideathatlanguagedirectlyinfluencesthewayrealityisperceived.

Becautheperfectrearchsituationtocompletelyproveordisprovethishypothesisdoesnot

existrearchersarelefttoexaminesmallexamplesofspecificregistersinwhichlanguagecan

beentoaffectthoughtandrealityandthroughrearchintheregistersmostrearchers

agreewiththeweakinterpretationoftheSapir-WhorfHypothesis.

ShenRongTheAnalysisoftheCurrentSituation&StrategiesforForeignTradeCompetitivenessof

YangtzeRiverDeltaEconomicZone

10

Chapter3Conclusion

“Languageandsocietyaresointertwinedthatitisimpossibletounderstandonewithoutthe

snohumansocietythatdoesnotdependon,isnotshapedby,anddoesnotitlf

shapelanguage”(Chaika,1989:2).Thisstatementbestdefinestherelationshipbetween

language,thoughtandrealityforlanguagenotonlyshapesthewayrealityisperceivedbut

ir-WhorfHypothesishaschangedthewaymany

nfluencedmanyscholarsandopeneduplargeareasofstudy.

WhilemanylikeSapirandWhorfsupportthenotionthatlanguagestronglyinfluencesthought

andothersarguethatlanguagedoesnotinfluencethought,theevidencefromrearchindicates

thatlanguagedoesinfluencethoughtandperceptionofrealitybutlanguagedoesnotgovern

thoughtorreality..

ShenRongTheAnalysisoftheCurrentSituation&StrategiesforForeignTradeCompetitivenessof

YangtzeRiverDeltaEconomicZone

11

Bibliography

[1]rdPress，1968.

[2]ge,ThoughtandReality:SelectedwritingsofBenjaminLeeWhorf

MassachuttsInstituteofTechnology，1956.

[3]yHouPublishers，1989.

[4]’sWithin?UniversityPress，1999.

[5]mpanzeecouldtalkandotherreflectionsonlanguageacquisition.

UniversityofArizonaPress，1997.

[6]HarreRom,nsandPeople:TheLinguisticConstructionof

lackwellLtd.，1990.

[7]donPress，1975.

[8]Nov./Dec.，1996：46.

[9]ge,CultureandSociety:AnIntroductiontoLinguistic

ewPress，1993.

[10]SawyerKathy,eNotebook,WashingtonPost，

1999,March:A09.

[11]ics,Culture,andCognition:Humanconceptsin

UniversityPress，1992.