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