薩丕爾沃爾夫假說

1、薩丕爾沃爾夫假設主要內容美國人薩丕爾及其弟子沃爾夫提出的有關語言與思維關系的假設是這個領域里至今為止最具爭議的理論。 沃爾夫首先提出，所有高層次的思維都倚賴于語言。說得更明白一些，就是語言決定思維，這就是語言決定論這一強假設。由于語言在很多方面都有不同，沃爾夫還認為，使用不同語言的人對世界的感受和體驗也不同，也就是說與他們的語言背景有關，這就是語言相對論。 Linguistic relativity stems from a question about the relationship between language and thought, about whether one's

2、 language determines the way one thinks. This question has given birth to a wide array of research within a variety of different disciplines, especially anthropology, cognitive science, linguistics, and philosophy. Among the most popular and controversial theories in this area of scholarly work is t

3、he theory of linguistic relativity (also known as the SapirWhorf hypothesis). An often cited "strong version" of the claim, first given by Lenneberg in 1953 proposes that the structure of our language in some way determines the way we perceive the world. A weaker version of this claim posi

4、ts that language structure influences the world view adopted by the speakers of a given language, but does not determine it.1由薩丕爾沃爾夫假設的這種強假設可以得出這樣的結論：根本沒有真正的翻譯，學習者也不可能學會另一種文化區(qū)的語言，除非他拋棄了他自己的思維模式，并習得說目的語的本族語者的思維模式。詞和意義人們普遍接受了這一點：語言中的詞匯只是一些無意義的標簽，語言使用者用它們來引起情緒上的或行為上的反應，傳遞信息或引導聽者的注意力。詞和短語的意義在很多程度上倚賴于語境。

5、詞句的語境變了，它們的要旨和意義也隨之而變。語法結構語言的句法系統(tǒng)和使用該語言的人的感知系統(tǒng)之間并沒有薩丕爾沃爾夫假設所聲稱的那種相互倚賴的關系。語言的許多語法特征都純粹是語言結構的表層現(xiàn)象。翻譯對薩丕爾沃爾夫假設的另一批判來自于語言間可以有成功的翻譯這一事實。我們可以用英語來解釋如霍皮語這樣的語言的概念上的獨特性，這一事實可以證明翻譯批判的觀點。第二語言習得如果不同語言有不同的概念體系，那么說某種語言的人就會因為沒有所需要的概念體系而無法學會另一種語言。然而，由于人們可以學會完全不同的語言，因而這些語言不應該有不同的概念體系。 語言與世界觀語言體系并不一定能影響一個人對世界的看法。一方面，說

6、同一語言的人對世界可能有不同的看法，包括政治觀點、社會觀點、宗教觀點、科學觀點和哲學觀點都可能有所不同。另一方面，說不同語言的人也有可能有相似的政治觀點、社會觀點、宗教觀點、科學觀點和哲學觀點。另外，一種語言也可以描述對世界的多種不同的看法，這一點在成功的翻譯作品中可以看得很清楚。 英文版The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis The American anthropologist-linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed a sweeping, two-pronged hypothesis

7、 concerning language and thought. Whorf proposed first that all higher levels of thinking are dependent on language. Or put it more bluntly, language determines thought, hence the strong notion of linguistic determinism. Because languages differ in many ways, Whorf also believed that speakers of dif

8、ferent languages perceive and experience the world differently, that is, relative to their linguistic background, hence the notion of linguistic relativism. If follows from this strong version of the hypothesis that there is no real translation and that it is impossible to learn the language of a di

9、fferent culture unless the learner abandons his or her own mode of thinking and acquires the thought patterns of the native speakers of the target language. Arguments against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis Words and meaning. It is widely accepted that the vocabulary of a language consists of nothing mor

10、e than meaningless labels which are manipulated by language users to elicit emotional reactions or behavioral responses, to impart information or to direct the listener's attention. The meaning of a word or phrase depends largely on the communicative context. As the context of a word or sentence

11、 changes, its effect and meaning also change. Grammatical structure. The syntactic system of a language and the perceptual system of the speakers of that language do not have the kind of interdependent relationship that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis claimed to have. Many grammatical features of a langu

12、age are purely superficial aspects of linguistic structure. Translation. Another major argument against the hypothesis comes from the fact that successful translation between languages can be made. The translation argument is supported by the very fact that conceptual uniqueness of a language such a

13、s Hopi can nonetheless be explained in English. Second language acquisition. If languages have different conceptual systems, then someone who speaks one language will be unable to learn the other language because he lacks the right conceptual system. However, since people can learn radically differe

14、nt languages, those languages couldn't have different conceptual systems. Language and world views. The language system does not necessarily provide specifics of one's world views. On the one hand, people speaking the same language may have different world views, including political, social,

15、 religious, scientific and philosophical views. On the other hand, people speaking different languages may share similar political, social, religious, scientific or philosophical views. Moreover, one language can describe many different world views, as is evident in the case of successful translatio

16、n. 薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說是上個世紀語言學上具有重大意義的理論薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說：美國人類學家薩丕爾及其弟子沃爾夫提出的有關語言和思維的假設是最具爭議的理論。薩丕爾-沃爾夫假說有兩個部分：1 語言決定論，即一個人的思維完全由母語決定，因為一個人只能根據(jù)其母語中編碼設定的范疇和區(qū)別定義來認識世界；2 語言相對論， 即語言結構有無限的多樣性，因此一種語言系統(tǒng)中所編定的范疇類別和區(qū)分定義為該語言系統(tǒng)所獨有，與其他語言系統(tǒng)中所編定的范疇類別和區(qū)分定義不同。Linguistic relativityFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  (Redi

17、rected from Whorf-Sapir hypothesis)The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the ways in which its speakers are able to conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view. Popularly known as the SapirWhorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is general

18、ly understood as having two different versions: (i) the strong version that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories and (ii) the weak version that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavio

19、r.The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century thinkers, such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. The early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward Sapir also embraced the idea. Sapir's student Benjam

20、in Lee Whorf came to be seen as the primary proponent as a result of his published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behavior. Harry Hoijer, one of Sapir's students, introduced the term "SapirWhorf hypothesis",1 albeit i

21、nfelicitously due to Sapir's non-involvement with the idea and the term's misleading use of hypothesis in a colloquial (i.e. non-scientific) sense.2 Whorf's ideas were widely criticized, and Roger Brown and Eric Lenneberg decided to put them to the test. They reformulated Whorf's pri

22、nciple of linguistic relativity as a testable hypothesis and conducted experiments designed to find out whether color perception varies between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came into focus in the 1960s

23、the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor. A 1969 study by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay claimed to demonstrate that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and hence to discredit the SapirWhorf hypothesis.From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity schola

24、rs have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts.3 Effects of linguistic relativity have been shown particularly in the domain of spatial cognition and in the social use of langua

25、ge, but also in the field of color perception. Recent studies have shown that color perception is particularly prone to linguistic relativity effects when processed in the left brain hemisphere, suggesting that this brain half relies more on language than the right one.4 Currently a balanced view of

26、 linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors. Current research is focused on exploring the ways in which language influences thou

27、ght and determining to what extent.3 The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields from philosophy to psychology and anthropology, and it has also inspired and colored works of fiction and the invention of

28、constructed languages.Contentshide· 1 History o 1.1 Benjamin Lee Whorf o 1.2 Eric Lenneberg o 1.3 The universalist period o 1.4 Fishman's 'Whorfianism of the third kind' o 1.5 Cognitive linguistics o 1.6 Present status · 2 Empirical research o 2.1 Color terminology research

29、83; 3 Linguistic relativity and artificial languages o 3.1 Programming languages o 3.2 Experimental languages · 4 See also · 5 Notes · 6 References · 7 Further reading · 8 External links edit HistoryThe idea that language and thought are intertwined goes back to the classica

30、l civilizations, but in the history of European philosophy the relation was not seen as fundamental. St. Augustine for example held the view that language was merely labels applied to already existing concepts.5 Others held the opinion that language was but a veil covering up the eternal truths hidi

31、ng them from real human experience. For Immanuel Kant, language was but one of several tools used by humans to experience the world. In the late 18th and early 19th century the idea of the existence of different national characters, or "Volksgeister", of different ethnic groups was the mov

32、ing force behind the German school of national romanticism and the beginning ideologies of ethnic nationalism.In 1820 Wilhelm von Humboldt connected the study of language to the national romanticist program by proposing the view that language is the very fabric組織; 體制of thought, that is that thoughts

33、 are produced as a kind of inner dialog using the same grammar as the thinker's native language.6 This view was part of a larger picture in which the world view of an ethnic nation, their "Weltanschauung", was seen as being faithfully reflected in the grammar of their language. Von Hum

34、boldt argued that languages with an inflectional morphological type, such as German, English and the other Indo-European languages were the most perfect languages and that accordingly this explained the dominance of their speakers over the speakers of less perfect languages.Wilhelm von Humboldt decl

35、ared in 1820:The diversity of languages is not a diversity of signs and sounds but a diversity of views of the world.6The idea that some languages were naturally superior to others and that the use of primitive languages maintained their speakers in intellectual poverty was widespread in the early 2

36、0th century. The American linguist William Dwight Whitney for example actively strove to eradicate the native American languages arguing that their speakers were savages and would be better off abandoning their languages and learning English and adopting a civilized way of life.7 The first anthropol

37、ogist and linguist to challenge this view was Franz Boas who was educated in Germany in the late 19th century where he received his doctorate in physics.8 While undertaking geographical research in northern Canada he became fascinated with the Inuit people and decided to become an ethnographer. In c

38、ontrast to von Humboldt, Boas always stressed the equal worth of all cultures and languages, and argued that there was no such thing as primitive languages, but that all languages were capable of expressing the same content albeit by widely differing means. Boas saw language as an inseparable part o

39、f culture and he was among the first to require of ethnographers to learn the native language of the culture being studied, and to document verbal culture such as myths and legends in the original language.According to Franz Boas:It does not seem likely . that there is any direct relation between th

40、e culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as只要, 在.條件下范圍內 the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by the morphological traits of the language."9Boas' student Edward Sapir

41、 reached back to the Humboldtian idea that languages contained the key to understanding the differing world views of peoples. In his writings he espoused支持, 擁護 the viewpoint that because of the staggering differences in the grammatical systems of languages no two languages were ever similar enough t

42、o allow for perfect translation between them. Sapir also thought because language represented reality differently, it followed that the speakers of different languages would perceive reality differently. According to Edward Sapir:No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as rep

43、resenting the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.10On the other hand, Sapir explicitly rejected pure linguistic determinism by stating, "It would be naïve to imagine that any analys

44、is of experience is dependent on pattern expressed in language."11While Sapir never made a point of studying how languages affected the thought processes of their speakers, the notion of linguistic relativity lay inherent in his basic understanding of language, and it would be taken up by his s

45、tudent Benjamin Lee Whorf.edit Benjamin Lee WhorfMore than any other linguist, Benjamin Lee Whorf has become associated with what he himself called "the principle of linguistic relativity". Instead of merely assuming that language influences the thought and behavior of its speakers (after

46、Humboldt and Sapir) he looked at Native American languages and attempted to account for the ways in which differences in grammatical systems and language use affected the way their speakers perceived the world. Whorf has been criticized by many, often pointing to his 'amateur' status, thereb

47、y insinuating that he was unqualified and could thereby be dismissed. However, his not having a degree in linguistics cannot be taken to mean that he was linguistically incompetent. Indeed, John Lucy writes "despite his 'amateur' status, Whorf's work in linguistics was and still is

48、recognized as being of superb professional quality by linguists".12 Still, detractors such as Eric Lenneberg, Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker have criticized him for not being sufficiently clear in his formulation of how he meant languages influences thought, and for not providing actual proof o

49、f his assumptions. Most of his arguments were in the form of examples that were anecdotal or speculative in nature, and functioned as attempts to show how "exotic" grammatical traits were connected to what were apparently equally exotic worlds of thought. In Whorf's words:We dissect仔細分

50、析或研究nature along lines laid down by our native language. 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 kaleidoscope萬花筒flux of impressions which has to be organized

51、by our mindsand this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this wayan agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified

52、 in the patterns of our language . all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.13Among Whorf's well known examples of linguistic relativity are examples of instances

53、 where an indigenous土生土長的language has several terms for a concept that is only described with one word in English and other European languages (Whorf used the acronym SAE "Standard Average European" to allude to the rather similar grammatical structures of the well-studied European languag

54、es in contrast to the greater diversity of the less-studied languages). One of Whorf's examples of this was the supposedly many words for 'snow' in the Inuit language, which has later been shown to be a misrepresentation14 but also for example how the Hopi language describes water with t

55、wo different words for drinking water in a container versus a natural body of water. These examples of polysemy served the double purpose of showing that indigenous languages sometimes made more fine grained semantic distinctions than European languages and that direct translation between two langua

56、ges, even of seemingly basic concepts like snow or water, is not always possible.Another example in which Whorf attempted to show that language use affects behavior came from his experience in his day job as a chemical engineer working for an insurance company as a fire inspector.14 On inspecting a

57、chemical plant he once observed that the plant had two storage rooms for gasoline barrels, one for the full barrels and one for the empty ones. He further noticed that while no employees smoked cigarettes in the room for full barrels no-one minded smoking in the room with empty barrels, although thi

58、s was potentially much more dangerous due to the highly flammable vapors that still existed in the barrels. He concluded that the use of the word empty in connection to the barrels had led the workers to unconsciously regarding them as harmless, although consciously they were probably aware of the r

59、isk of explosion from the vapors. This example was later criticized by Lenneberg15 as not actually demonstrating the causality between the use of the word empty and the action of smoking, but instead being an example of circular reasoning. Steven Pinker in The Language Instinct ridiculed this exampl

60、e, claiming that this was a failing of human insight rather than language.Whorf's most elaborate argument for the existence of linguistic relativity regarded what he believed to be a fundamental difference in the understanding of time as a conceptual category among the Hopi.16 He argued that in contrast to English and other SA