Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is an assumption of linguistics , according to which language the thought forms. It was posthumously derived from the writings of Benjamin Whorf , who referred to his teacher Edward Sapir . The expression "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" was introduced in 1954 by Harry Hoijer . The hypothesis tries to find an answer to the question of whether and how a certain language with its grammatical and lexical structures determines the world experience of the language community concerned.

In the 19th century, Wilhelm von Humboldt developed the term Inner Language Form in a foreword to a typological study of the Kawi languages , which is often interpreted in the direction of linguistic relativity . This concept of a linguistic world view was later represented by Leo Weisgerber . Benjamin Whorf's concepts are similar to those of Humboldt, although it is not clear whether he was familiar with Humboldt's work. Similar ideas can already be found in the writings of Gottlob Frege and Ludwig Wittgenstein .

Content of the hypothesis

In linguistics , the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that the way a person thinks is strongly influenced or determined by the semantic structure and vocabulary of his mother tongue . It follows that there are certain thoughts of a single person in a language that cannot be understood by someone who speaks another language. The axiom was developed by Benjamin Whorf , who invokes the linguist Edward Sapir . The hypothesis was derived from Whorf's writings on the subject published in the 1950s posthumously . The debate is whether Whorf's train of thought is itself to be understood as a hypothesis, i.e. an assumption that can either be confirmed or rejected, or rather as an axiom, i.e. a context that cannot be questioned. The current literature predominantly deals with the derived hypothesis rather than with the underlying axiomatic concept of Whorf or Sapir, which perhaps was never intended to be negated or affirmed.

The derivative, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, is composed of two theses: the principle of linguistic relativity formulated by Heidrun Pelz and the dependence of concept formation on language . Based on a linguistic determinism , it was claimed that foreign-language texts were fundamentally untranslatable.

Principle of linguistic relativity

definition

The principle of linguistic relativity says “that the languages ​​do not all divide the extra- linguistic reality in the same way”, as it were networks [or more simply and more precisely: cards] that are thrown over reality with different meshes.

The principle of linguistic relativity defined in this way (in Pelz's diction) must be distinguished from linguistic relativism , which concerns the dependence of thought on language (see below).

Examples

With regard to the principle of linguistic relativity, a distinction must be made between the dispute about individual alleged research results, especially those of Whorf, and the ultimately unproblematic finding.

Whorf's research results with the Hopi Indians were confirmed by empirical follow-up investigations “z. T. questioned ”or clearly refuted.

The following are standard examples:

  • Differences in the terms for colors. This research area goes back to a study by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay (see literature):
    German: green, blue, gray, brown
    Welsh: gwyrdd (for green), glas (green, also blue / gray), llwyd (proportions of “gray” and “brown”).
  • Culturally relevant concepts are reflected in the lexicon of a language. This was illustrated by Whorf himself by the alleged existence of an allegedly enormous number of Eskimo words for snow , which, however, are considered refuted. Another example given is lexemes for rice in Japanese.

Cases of so-called lexical incongruity (lack of congruence in vocabulary) are also cited independently of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:

The “wood-forest-tree example” by Louis Hjelmslev is well known , who pointed out that the content area “tree - wood (scenic and obsolete, also meaning forest ) - forest” is structured differently in Danish, French and German is: “ træ (tree and wood) - skov (forest)” in Danish and “ arbre (tree) - bois (wood and forest) - forêt (large forest)” in French.

This inter-lingual and intra-lingual - and a corresponding synchronic and diachronic - finding leads to the investigation of word fields in the lexical semantics .

Empirical research

While it was previously assumed that the 6,000 or so languages ​​of the world differ in their grammatical structure, but these differences are not very far-reaching, research into smaller languages ​​has also shown that there are sometimes drastic differences in language structure. Since the 1990s at the latest, the grammatical development of languages ​​outside of Europe has resulted in a real boom in empirical research on the question of whether language influences thinking. Was examined thereby z. B. Differences in the linguistic conceptualization of time or the effects of different numerical classification systems . In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on psycholinguistic methods that work with non-linguistic tests in order to avoid a circular conclusion: If language has an influence on thinking, according to this train of thought, an experiment must measure thinking and must not be based on or based on linguistic input Measure linguistic output. Overall, empirical evidence indicates that such an influence of language on thinking actually takes place, but this seems to decrease relatively quickly when learning a foreign language.

A case study: In a study, monolingual German native speakers, Spanish native speakers and multilingual people who had learned both languages ​​as their first or foreign language were asked which adjectives they associate with the German or Spanish word for bridge. Monolingual German native speakers associated culturally typical 'feminine' characteristics such as “beautiful, elegant, petite, peaceful, pretty, slim”, Spanish native speakers typically associated male adjectives such as “tall, dangerous, long, powerful”. In the case of multilingual people, however, the associations were significantly more mixed. It is believed that this is due to the fact that the word “die Brücke” in German is a grammatical feminine, but “el puente” in Spanish is grammatically masculine.

Controversy on the interpretation of linguistic relativity

The interpretation of this structure and language dependency of the word meanings is controversial:

If the basic distinction between word and concept is either disregarded or not implemented due to a nominalistic position, the linguistic principle of relativity seems to necessarily lead to conceptual relativism. In the previous version it says: "Central to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the idea of ​​linguistic relativity, which states that the differences in meanings between related terms in a language are often arbitrary and only apply to this language."

In a realistic perspective, the principle of linguistic relativity only means that the meaning of the language signs, due to their arbitrariness and conventionality, depends on the structure of the respective word field, but does not change anything in the one objective reality and its recognizability.

However, a rationalistic, cognitivistic epistemology seems to get into trouble. At least for Hjelmslev it was clear for his example (above) that the “concept” forest is “a linguistic and not a general, language-independent cognitive form of thinking”.

If a realistic position of knowledge is rejected, this runs counter to empiricism or vice versa: In order to support an empirical premise, it is assumed that it is fundamentally untranslatable (see below).

Dependence of knowledge on language

To distinguish from the phenomenon of linguistic relativity is the question of the extent to which human knowledge is conditioned by language.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis also assumes that the semantic structure of a language either determines or limits the possibilities of conceptualization of the world. It is the "assumption that the (mother) language learned determines people's experience, thinking and actions, and that each language conveys a specific worldview"; the thesis that language shapes our worldview.

It should be emphasized that the specific content of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not the influence of language on thinking, but the assertion of a causally compelling influence of language, which the speakers cannot avoid, even if they are aware of this influence . The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is also called linguistic relativism (in the narrower sense, English linguistic relativism ), in an extreme form also linguistic determinism (English linguistic determinism ).

A linguistic determinism was basically already represented by Wilhelm von Humboldt , who in the 19th century represented the hypothesis of the linguistically conveyed “ world view ”. Empirical proof has not been found to date, although this has often been attempted. However, in the context of the euro crisis, a controversial study by the economist Keith Chen from the Yale School of Management was published, in which he shows how strongly economic behavior, including savings rates and wealth accumulation, should ultimately be determined by the respective national language.

As an example of how language influences perception, an incident by Whorf is cited: Benjamin Lee Whorf worked as an inspector for an insurance company. There he examined cases of damage. A boiler that previously contained liquid fuel was marked with an inscription: "Empty". An explosion occurred because workers did not believe in the possibility that an empty container could be dangerous. The word “empty” had deprived them of the opportunity to think of danger. Relevant information would have been: “Caution! The boiler can contain explosive gases. "

Non-translatability of foreign language texts

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis leads to the thesis of the fundamental untranslatability of foreign-language texts. This is then a problem of translation theory .

criticism

Empirical criticism

  • Hopi language : The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis originally goes back to research on the Hopi language carried out by Benjamin Lee Whorf. In doing so, he discovered that the Hopi language does not contain any words, grammatical forms, constructions or expressions that directly relate to what we call time or to the past, present or future.
Whorf's supposed field research, however, was based only on secondary sources. For example, he obtained all of his information about the Hopi language from a single Hopi-expert in New York, an empirical test of his assumptions from native speakers on site was not carried out. In 1983, the linguist Ekkehart Malotki was able to prove that the Hopi have complex ways of expressing tenses. One of the central motivations for building the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was thus obsolete. But even linguist Ekkehart Malotki, who is very critical of Whorf, shows that Whorf - even if his analyzes of Hopi are often imprecise and simplistic - by referring to the differences in grammatical systems, has shown how fruitful the comparison of languages ​​is and how problematic the derivation of universals is is solely from research into Germanic and Romance languages ​​(Thiering 2018: 25).
  • Eskimo language : Whorf claimed that the Eskimo had many words for snow. This is put into perspective, however, since the Eskimo basically only has two roots for snow: aput for falling snow and quana for lying snow. Due to the Eskimo's grammar - the number of possible word formations is almost immeasurable - the Eskimo can create any number of new words with these two roots, just like with any other root. "So the famous snow example says something interesting about Eskimo grammar rather than its lexicon."
  • Color words : The thesis of an arbitrary division of the color spectrum appears to be refuted by the study by Berlin / Kay (1969), according to which 11 basic colors (“basic color categories”) “are reproduced across languages ​​in a consistent manner using their own words, provided that such color differences are named”. "Universals in the form of hierarchies of implications" were determined.
The linguistic relativism appears to be "refuted or at least heavily modified".

criticism

The linguist Guy Deutscher judges the assumption that the language we happen to speak is a prison that limits our imagination. […] It is hard to understand how such a grotesque view could find such widespread use, since so many counter-evidence sticks in the eye wherever you look. Is it difficult for uneducated English speakers who have never heard of the German loan word "Schadenfreude" to imagine that someone is feasting on someone else's misfortune? However, he admits that the idea of ​​a globally homogeneous world of thought is also exaggerated; Linguistic peculiarities could very well influence thinking: “ The habits of mind that our culture has instilled in us from infancy shape our orientation to the world and our emotional responses to the objects we encounter, and their consequences probably go far beyond what has been experimentally demonstrated so far; they may also have a marked impact on our beliefs, values ​​and ideologies. ”(, German:“ The mental habits that have been acquired in our culture since childhood shape our orientation in the world and our emotional reaction to objects that cross our paths. And the consequences of those (cultural habits) are likely to go far beyond what has been found out in experiments so far; they could also have a significant influence on our beliefs, values ​​and ideologies. ")

Other objections go back to the fact that deaf people are equally able to internalize concepts and solve supposedly verbal intelligence tasks with a little more effort. With this and other examples, the science journalist Dieter E. Zimmer comes to the conclusion: “There is certainly no reason to belittle the natural performance of human language; but this should not be transfigured either. In our thinking it probably plays a smaller role than we are inclined to assume after thousands of years of glorifying language. "

literature

Primary literature:

Secondary literature:

  • Brent Berlin, Paul Kay: Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. University of California Press, Berkeley 1969 (discovery of language-independent constants in the conceptual division of the color spectrum).
  • Caleb Everett: Linguistic Relativity. Evidence Across Languages ​​and Cognitive Domains . de Gruyter, Berlin 2013.
  • Helmut Gipper : Building blocks for language content research. More recent language consideration in exchange with humanities and natural sciences. Schwann, Düsseldorf 1963, chap. 5, pp. 297-366.
  • Helmut Gipper: Is there a linguistic principle of relativity? Investigations on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1972, ISBN 3-10-826301-3 .
  • Harry Hoijer: The Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis. In: Harry Hoyer (Ed.): Language in Culture. Conference on the Interrelations of Language and Other Aspects of Culture. Seventh Impression. Chicago University Press, Chicago 1971, ISBN 0-226-34888-1 , pp. 92-105 (and two discussions on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis published in the same volume).
  • Heidrun Pelz: Linguistics. An introduction. 10th edition. Verlag Hoffmann & Campe, Hamburg 2007, ISBN 978-3-455-10331-1 .
  • Iwar Werlen : Linguistic Relativity. A problem-oriented introduction . Francke, Tübingen 2002.
  • Martin Thiering: Cognitive Semantics and Cognitive Anthropology. An introduction. De Gruyter Studium, Berlin 2018, ISBN 978-3-11-044515-2 .

Short entries in reference works:

  • Hadumod Bußmann (Ed.) With the collaboration of Hartmut Lauffer: Lexikon der Sprachwissenschaft. 4th, revised and bibliographically supplemented edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-520-45204-7 .
  • David Crystal : The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language . Campus, Frankfurt am Main / New York 1993, ISBN 3-593-34824-1 .
  • Helmut Glück (Ed.): Metzler Lexicon Language. 4th edition. Verlag JB Metzler, Stuttgart / Weimar 2010, ISBN 3-476-02335-4 .
  • Dietrich Homberger: Subject dictionary on linguistics. Reclam, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-15-010471-8 .
  • James W. Underhill: Humboldt, Worldview and Language. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 2009.
  • James W. Underhill: Creating Worldviews. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 2011.
  • James W. Underhill: Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: love, truth, hate & war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2012.

Web links

Wiktionary: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: linguistic determinism  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ "The Sapir – Whorf hypothesis", in Hoijer 1954: 92-105
  2. ↑ Wilhelm von Humboldt: On the diversity of the human language structure and its influence on the spiritual development of the human race , 1836
  3. ^ Hermann Fischer-Harriehausen: Wilhelm von Humboldt's principle of relativity from today's perspective . In: Anthropos. International Journal of Ethnology and Linguistics . 89 vol. 1994, p. 224-233 .
  4. ^ Hadumod Bussmann: Linguistic determinism . In: Lexicon of Linguistics . With 14 tables. 4th, through and bibliogr. supplementary edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-520-45204-7 .
  5. ^ Hadumod Bussmann: Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis . In: Lexicon of Linguistics . With 14 tables. 4th, through and bibliogr. supplementary edition. Kröner, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-520-45204-7 .
  6. ↑ Helmut Gipper: Is there a linguistic principle of relativity? Investigations on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1972, ISBN 3-10-826301-3 .
  7. ↑ David Crystal, Stefan Röhrich: The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language . Campus-Verl., Frankfurt am Main 1993, ISBN 3-593-34824-1 , p. 14th f .
  8. ^ PH Matthews: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis . In: The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics . 3 Revised. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2014, ISBN 978-0-19-967512-8 .
  9. ↑ See Thiering 2018 for a comprehensive presentation
  10. ^ Fur: Linguistics. 1996, p. 37.
  11. ↑ a b c fur: linguistics. 1996, p. 35.
  12. ^ Fur: Linguistics. 1996, p. 34.
  13. ↑ Ekkehart Malotki: Hopi Time. A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 20). Mouton de Gruyter, 1983.
  14. ^ Trabant: Semiotics. 1996, p. 51.
  15. ↑ a b Trabant: Semiotics. 1996, p. 49.
  16. ^ Nicholas Evans , Stephen C. Levinson: The myth of language universals: Language diversity and is importance for cognitive science. In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32, 2009, pp. 429-492
  17. ↑ Daniel Casa Santo, Lera Boroditsky: Time in the Mind: Using space to think about time. In: Cognition , 106, 2008, pp. 579-593.
  18. ↑ JY Kou, MD Sera: Classifier effect on human categorization: the role of shape classifiers in Chinese Chinese. In: Journal of East Asian Linguistics , 18, 2009, pp. 1-19.
  19. ^ Fabian Bross, Philip Pfaller: The decreasing Whorf-effect: a study in the classifier systems of Mandarin and Thai. In: Journal of Unsolved Questions , 2 (2), 2012, pp. 19-24.
  20. ↑ Lera Boroditsky: Linguistic Relativity. (PDF) Retrieved August 11, 2017 .
  21. ↑ a b Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In: PH Matthews: The Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. 2005.
  22. ↑ Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. In: Ulrich: Basic Linguistic Concepts. 5th edition. 2002.
  23. ↑ Linguistic Relativity Principle. In: Homberger: Subject dictionary for linguistics. 2000.
  24. ↑ a b Stolze: Translation Theories. 4th edition, 2005. p. 30.
  25. ^ Fur: Linguistics. 1996, p. 36.
  26. ↑ Debt grammar. In: Sprachlog. March 26, 2012, accessed October 7, 2019 (German).
  27. ↑ Jürgen Büttner: Why the Greeks would have less debt with German. In: FAZ.net . March 16, 2012, accessed October 13, 2018 .
  28. ↑ in detail in: BL Whorf: Language, Thinking, Reality. Contributions to metalinguistics and the philosophy of language. 2008, p. 74.
  29. ↑ Benjamin Lee Whorf: Language, Thought, Reality. Contributions to metalinguistics and the philosophy of language Rowohlt, 1963, p. 102.
  30. ↑ Guy Deutscher: Im Spiegel der Sprache dtv 3rd edition 2013, ISBN 978-3-423-34754-9
  31. ↑ Ekkehard Malotki: Hopi Time. Mouton, Berlin 1983.
  32. ↑ Volker Harm: Introduction to Lexicology (Introduction to German Studies). WBG, Darmstadt 2015, ISBN 978-3-534-26384-4 , p. 107 with reference to Martin 1986.
  33. ↑ Volker Harm: Introduction to Lexicology (Introduction to German Studies). WBG, Darmstadt 2015, ISBN 978-3-534-26384-4 , p. 108.
  34. ↑ Volker Harm: Introduction to Lexicology (Introduction to German Studies). WBG, Darmstadt 2015, ISBN 978-3-534-26384-4 , p. 109.
  35. ↑ Volker Harm: Introduction to Lexicology (Introduction to German Studies). WBG, Darmstadt 2015, ISBN 978-3-534-26384-4 , p. 109 with additional information
  36. ↑ Guy Deutscher: In the mirror of language. 4th edition. dtv, 2014, ISBN 978-3-423-34754-9 , p. 168.
  37. ↑ Does Your Language Shape How You Think?
  38. ↑ Dieter E. Zimmer: This is how people come to language: through language acquisition, language development and language & thinking. Haffmans, Zurich 1986, p. 192.