Linguisticdeterminism
“Linguistic determinism” is mostly defined as “all thinking goes on in language” (Schlesinger, 1991, p. 19). Thus, it is implicated that a speaker of language A can never understand a speaker of language B. As hasty as this interpretation of the SWH has been established, it was refuted by the same scholars. On the contrary, Lehmann (1996) suggests that this version was developed by linguists mostly relying on secondary literature with the intention to position themselves as representatives of a more moderate version of the SWH (p.31, p.98-99). It is easy to falsify this reading of the SWH since one can blame Whorf for contradicting himself. Furthermore, empirical research is not even necessary. There are common sense evidences confounding this version of the SWH: Translation and communication between two speakers of a different native language would be impossible (Black, 1959, p. 232; Macnamara, 1991, p. 48; Penn, 1972, p. 33; Pinker, 2007, pp. 53–54; Schlesinger, 1991, pp. 19–20).
According to the definition of the SWH stated in the previous chapter, “linguistic determinism” as a form of the linguistic relativity principle is beyond doubt inaccurate. While Sapir (1921) already relativized the relationship between thought and language in his only book “Language”, a careful reading of Whorf’s articles about human perception (isolates of experience) urges a relativistic reading of the SWH (1941, p. 239). Thus, translation and communication is naturally possible in the model of the linguistic relativity, however there might occur certain problems as misunderstandings or one-to-many correspondences in translation.14 Furthermore, Whorf clearly distinguishes between thinking as a linguistic process, which is determined largely by the native language, and expressions independent of linguistic processes (1936, p. 66). In conclusion, we can debunk the obscure term “linguistic determinism” or the corresponding “strong form” and attend to the more sound criticism of the SWH.
b) Empirical research
Lenneberg (1953) established a methodology towards testing the SWH, which became the most famous case study in the reception of Whorf:15 The lexical coding of color in different languages. Even though Lenneberg developed an almost solid case study, it is
النتائج (
العربية) 1:
[نسخ]نسخ!
لينجويستيكديتيرمينيسم"الحتمية اللغوية" معظمهم يعرف بأنه "كل تفكير يدور في اللغة" (شليسنغر، 1991، ص 19). وهكذا، فإنه تورط متكلم اللغة A ويمكن ابدأ أن تفهم متكلم اللغة باء كما متسرع كهذا التفسير لدليل قد أنشئت، قد فند علماء نفس. على العكس من ذلك، تقترح ليمان (1996) أن هذا الإصدار قد وضعته اللغويين معظمهم الاعتماد على الأدب الثانوي بقصد وضع أنفسهم كممثلين لإصدار أكثر اعتدالا من دليل (م – 31، م-98-99). أنه من السهل تزييف هذه القراءة من دليل حيث يمكن لأحد أن يلوم رف ليتناقض مع نفسه. وعلاوة على ذلك، أن البحوث التجريبية ليس ضروريا حتى. هناك أدلة الحس الخلط هذا الإصدار من دليل: الترجمة والتواصل بين اثنين من المتكلمين من لغة أصلية مختلفة سيكون مستحيلاً (أسود، 1959، ص 232؛ مكنمارا، 1991، ص 48؛ بنسلفانيا، 1972، ص 33؛ وردي، 2007، ص 53-54؛ شليسنغر، 1991، ص 19 – 20).According to the definition of the SWH stated in the previous chapter, “linguistic determinism” as a form of the linguistic relativity principle is beyond doubt inaccurate. While Sapir (1921) already relativized the relationship between thought and language in his only book “Language”, a careful reading of Whorf’s articles about human perception (isolates of experience) urges a relativistic reading of the SWH (1941, p. 239). Thus, translation and communication is naturally possible in the model of the linguistic relativity, however there might occur certain problems as misunderstandings or one-to-many correspondences in translation.14 Furthermore, Whorf clearly distinguishes between thinking as a linguistic process, which is determined largely by the native language, and expressions independent of linguistic processes (1936, p. 66). In conclusion, we can debunk the obscure term “linguistic determinism” or the corresponding “strong form” and attend to the more sound criticism of the SWH.b) Empirical researchLenneberg (1953) established a methodology towards testing the SWH, which became the most famous case study in the reception of Whorf:15 The lexical coding of color in different languages. Even though Lenneberg developed an almost solid case study, it is
يجري ترجمتها، يرجى الانتظار ..
