language, thought and culture. how words shape our views advertisements – „weasel words” -...
TRANSCRIPT
LANGUAGE, THOUGHT AND CULTURE
How words shape our views
Advertisements – „weasel words”- „unsurpassed”, „ultimate”, „supercharged”, „the right choice”
- „enriched” and „fortified” food
- „medium”, „large”, „extra large” and „jumbo eggs”
Sentence structuring (Loftus, 1976) Did you see the broken headlight? Vs. Did you see a broken headlight?
Shape recognition
Political correctness
Rest rooms, unmentionables
Sanitary engineer, bogármérnök
Menedzserasszisztens, gazdasági levelező
Negro – Black – Afro-American
Mentally (horizontally/vertically??) challenged vs. Szellemi fogyatékos
Receiving waters and assimilative capacity
Substandard dwellings vs. Slums
Does language reflect or shape our world view?
Four main views
Universalism Relativism
Language
thought
Linguistic universalism
Linguistic relativism
Thought
language
Cognitive universalism
Cognitive relativism
Linguistic universalism
Inborn linguistic universals
Expressions of time and placeI hunt and my child sees me.I will hunt.
Lingusitic universals
Example: SVO components in sentences
- 75% of the world's languages: SVO (English, French, Vietnamese) or SOV (Japanese, Tibetan, Korean)
- 10 - 15% VSO ( Welsh) or VOS (Malagasy)- 10 - 15% free word order (Latin, Hungarian),
but SOV common: Márta tortát evett.
NP and VP as main organising sentence components
Cognitive universalism
Universal principles of thinking reflect the conditions and limitations of mental
operations the similar physical and natural
environment
influence linguistic representation as well.
Structuring old and new information in sentences (theme – rheme)
There is a chair in the corner.
A chair is in the corner.
The chair is in the corner.
Lexis
„a fellegekben járt”
„over the moon”, „on top of the world”
Colours
Linguistic relativismThe Whorfian hypothesis
„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 organised by our minds - and this means largely the linguistic system in our minds.” (Whorf, 1956:212)
Determinism vs. Relativism
Organising reality: Time Hungarian, Russian, Romanian, GermanJó reggelt Jó napot Jó estétBună dimineaţa Bună ziua Bună searaGuten Morgen Guten Tag Guten Abend
EnglishGood morning Good afternoon Good evening
FrenchBonjour Bonsoir
Organising reality: Social relations
English
„You” + address forms:
John
Aunt Polly could you sign this?
Mr. Jones No syntactic marking of verbs
Russian and French: 2 distinctions BЫ + 2nd person plural (no distinction betw.
Sg./Pl.) Vu+2nd person plural (no distinction betw. Sg./Pl.)
German: 2 distinctions Sie + verb in 3rd. Person pl. (no distinction betw.
Sg./Pl.)
Romanian: 2 distinctions Dumneavoastră + 2nd pers./pl.
Dumneata +2nd pers./sing.
Social relations: Hungarian
Formal/distant: Between strangers From younger adult to older adult Address forms: „Ön”, „Maga” + 3rd. Person sing./pl.
Ön is a buszra vár?
Formal/familiar: From child to adult, young to old Family, acquaintances, strangers Address forms: „Anna néni”, „Pista bácsi” +
(tetszik, tessék) + infinitive El tetszik tudni jönni?
Informal: Between friends and intimates Often not reciprocal Increasingly between strangers of the same age
in public places Address forms:
„Te”, „Ti” + 2nd. Pers./ sing. and pl.
Láttad már az új fiút?
Differences
Distancing or bringing closer? English: democratic or „keeping everyone at arm’s
length”? (Wierzbicka, 1985) Russian, French, Romanian:
2nd pers./pl. formal reference: someone present, accessible, less distant.
German, Hungarian: 3rd pers./sing./pl. indicate someone distant, not accessible.
Hungarian formal/familiar „tetszik”: indicates respect and choice (do you like it?)
Resulted in ethnocentric evaluations
of cultures
"whether the Japanese are capable of using logical arguments to the degree that other people are" ( Hazen, 1986, p.232)
Arab rhetoric is characterised by "ideational vagueness and formalistic rigidity" (Koch, 1987 as cited in Hatim, 1997, p. 52)
Grounds for criticism
Translation
Circumlocution (e.g. Hungarian másfélszobás lakás)
Possibility of acquiring the logical and conceptual system of another language.
Cognitive relativism
Different cultural experiences and ways of life result in different conceptualisations of reality
Lexis reflecting different physical, natural and cultural objects
Lexis reflecting values, attitudes Másfél szobás lakás vs. Two-room flat
Attitude to money
American English: MAKE money British English: EARN money Russian: 3APAƂATЫBATЪ EARN money German: VERDIENEN EARN money Hungarian: KERES SEARCH for money Francia: GAGNER WIN/EARN money Romanian: CÂSTIGA WIN money
Attitude to life and death
Hungarian „sírva vígad” „majd meghal a
nevetéstől/örömtől” „halálosan jó/vicces” „boldogan éltek, amíg
meg nem haltak”
German „und wenn sie nicht
gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute”
English „tickled to death” „and they lived happily
ever after”
Culture-based intellectual traditions influencing rhetoric
Culture-based rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966, 1997)
Weak version of the Whorfian Hypothesis:
Language does not determine thought, but probably influences the way we capture and remember distinctions.
Conclusion
Language and culture influence our interpretation and representation of reality through Lexis (objects, attitudes) Discourse patterns Pragmatics Rhetoric
Wardhaugh (1976): “it is possible to talk about anything in any language.”