Cultural Linguistics and linguistic relativity
Abstract
This article aims to contribute to scholarly attempts to clarify the claims made by the early proponents of linguistic relativity. It also presents an account of the recently developed area of Cultural Linguistics and outlines how the scope of this multidisciplinary area of research differs from that of studies dedicated to linguistic relativity. For example, while linguistic relativity has been viewed as presenting a lsquo;hypothesisrsquo; or a lsquo;theory complexrsquo; regarding the relationship between thought and language, Cultural Linguistics offers a theoretical and analytical framework that focuses on examining features of language that encode conceptualisations rooted in the cultural experiences of speakers. The basic premise underlying the approach of Cultural Linguistics is that certain features of human languages are entrenched in such cultural conceptualisations as cultural schemas, cultural categories, and cultural metaphors.
Keywords
Cultural Linguistics
Linguistic relativity
Language and thought
Linguistic determinism
1. Introduction
Linguistic relativity is commonly defined as lsquo;the claim that the words your language gives you determine and limit what it is possible for you to thinkrsquo; (Leavitt, 2015, p. 19; see also Wolff and Holmes, 2011). This strong view of the relationship between language and thought has sparked a significant amount of theoretical debate and empirical research over the past 60 years. However, there is no consensus about whether or not the proponents of linguistic relativity, in particular Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, held such a strong view regarding the influence of language on thought. Leavitt, for example, notes that
none of the actual proponents of linguistic relativity made such claim; on the contrary, no language, they insisted, puts limits on what it is possible to conceptualize – while they continued to demonstrate a seductive power of established language patterns to offer easy-to-follow mental paths. (Leavitt, 2015, p. 19)
Leavitt (2015, p. 25) admits, however, that lsquo;[b]oth Whorf and Sapir indulged in some language that sounds highly deterministic, and it is these passages that are the most frequently quoted.rsquo; In this article, I will examine these passages and attempt to shed some light on the kinds of claims that they give rise to. I will then outline what makes Cultural Linguistics distinct from linguistic relativity. This discussion will be more intelligible if the reader has a basic understanding of the nature of Culture Linguistics from the beginning. I will therefore begin by giving an overview of the development of Cultural Linguistics, and clarifying and exemplifying some of its basic tools.
2. Cultural Linguistics
Cultural Linguistics is a discipline with multidisciplinary origins that explores the relationship between language and cultural conceptualisations (Sharifian, 2011, Sharifian, 2014, Sharifian, 2015). In particular, Cultural Linguistics explores the features of human languages that encode culturally constructed conceptualisations of human experience. Cultural Linguistics offers both a theoretical framework and an analytical framework for investigating the cultural conceptualisations that underlie the use of human languages. Cultural Linguistics has drawn on several other disciplines and subdisciplines to develop its theoretical basis. In particular, the notion of cultural cognition has afforded an integrated understanding of the concepts of lsquo;cognitionrsquo; and lsquo;culturersquo; as they relate to language (e.g., Sharifian, 2008, Sharifian, 2011). This notion offers a multidisciplinary understanding of cognition that moves beyond the level of the individual mind and its associated notions, such as lsquo;mental representationrsquo; (e.g., Clark and Chalmers, 1998, Sutton, 2005, Sutton, 2006, Wilson, 2005). Cultural cognition is a form of enactive cognition (外文文献翻译
本文旨在促进学术上的尝试,以澄清语言相对论的早期支持者提出的主张。 它还介绍了最近发展起来的文化语言学领域,并概述了这一多学科研究领域的范围与致力于语言相对论的研究有何不同。 例如,虽然语言相对论被视为关于思想与语言之间关系的“假设”或“理论复杂”,但文化语言学提供了一个理论和分析框架,侧重于研究编码根植于其中的概念化的语言特征。 发言者的文化体验。 文化语言学方法的基本前提是人类语言的某些特征在文化图式,文化范畴和文化隐喻等文化概念中得到了巩固。
如图所示,从形态句法特征到语用和语义意义的各种语言特征和层次可以以文化图式,文化范畴和文化隐喻的形式嵌入文化概念中。
[2]F. Sharifian(Ed。),劳特利奇语言和文化手册,劳特利奇,伦敦和纽约(2015),第417-430页
[4]B.G. 布朗特(Ed。),语言,文化和社会:一本读物书,Waveland出版社[扩展了1974年的重新发行],Prospect Heights,IL(1995)
[6]F. Sharifian(Ed。),劳特利奇语言和文化手册,劳特利奇,伦敦和纽约(2015),第294-308页
改革开放以后,语言不规范的现象“在报刊、书籍上也屡见不鲜”,有人指出,大众传媒应该肩负起语言规范的重要责任。这一时期涌现出了大量有关纠正报刊语言语病现象的文章,如:
金锡谟(1998)《少涂饰,勿造作——文风杂谈之二》,从不同的的事实报道所需要的语言风格出发,对报刊语言中语体运用和写作语法提出了四个方面的建议。
在新时代到来以后,人们开始把报刊语言与网络传播联系到一起,分析的内容和手段不再像以前那样有限。同时,因为网络传播带来的语言“网络化”现象,使得人们更加关注语言规范化建设,主要文章有:
lt;a data-cke-saved-href='http://ssl123e00fc0d2d668841684b2702a17387e5e.vpn.nuis
资料编号:[20306],资料为PDF文档或Word文档,PDF文档可免费转换为Word
课题毕业论文、外文翻译、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。