Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  linguistic relativity
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
This paper addresses an interesting issue in name theory, specifically the relationship between toponyms and spatial representations, as well as the cultural differences manifesting themselves in connection with these. Studies have shown that the name model (a general knowledge of names) created based on the mental representation of names is partly language and culture dependent. Thus, the knowledge of the speaker on how reliably the toponyms correlate with the actual features of the landscape or whether they should only be considered as labels identifying an area is culturally determined. This, in turn, influences the extent to which name-users may rely on them in structuring space and in creating a cognitive map.
Studia Semiotyczne
|
2017
|
vol. 31
|
issue 2
201–226
EN
The history of so-called ‘linguistic relativity’ is an odd and multifaceted one. After knowing alternate fortunes and being treated by different academic branches, today there are some new ways of investigating the language-thought-reality problem that (i) put into dialogue the latest trends in language-related disciplines (ii) generate room for philosophical themes previously overlooked, (iii) reassess the very idea of linguistic relativity, despite its popularized versions which have circulated for decades and which have led an otherwise fruitful debate to extremes. It is argued that a multidisciplinary approach is desirable in order to broaden future research. In the last few years the opportunity to study this matter following a common trend in several disciplines has been created. Language, and cognition too, are now conceived as intrinsically social phenomena. It is argued that relativistic effects should be investigated in social realms, and that analytic philosophy could help with this task.
EN
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the methods which are used to mislead the public perception towards reality. I will discuss and try to determine the nature of the relationship between the language we use and the reality we create through words. The close examination of words, the correlation of different advised opinions and the study of particular aspects in language will become dominant features in this study. The linguistic relativity or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has as a primary concern the fact that the spoken language has an important and immediate impact upon the speaker.
EN
The newest research confirms the ‘weak’ version of the linguistic relativity hypothesis, according to which the language we speak influences to some extent the way we think. At the same time, it has been shown that the conceptual representations of reality which have been shaped by the mother tongue from birth play a significant role while using an L2 (L3 etc.), especially when it is weaker than the L1. The present article describes one such conceptual domain – the (non-linguistic) categorization of objects according to their perceived gender, which is influenced by the grammatical gender of their names.
EN
The paper raises the question of whether the linguistic relativity proposal, also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, should be used as a frame of reference for modern research into the relationship of language to cognition. The question is discussed in the context of Whorf’s (1956) writings, with emphasis on factors that are crucial to the proposal, i.e. language, thought, and behavior.The second issue addressed by the paper is whether linguistic categories provide an accurate window on cognition, as was suggested by Whorf and in some of the more recent debates. The analysis takes the form of a correlational study which examines the categorization criteria applied in tests that require language-based and language-neutral judgments.
EN
A survey was conducted among Hungarian-Romanian-English multilinguals (N=237) with the aim of investigating the individual differences in cultural preferences and value priorities. Participants completed questionnaires measuring: (a) the individual level of national identification (Collective SelfEsteem); (b) own-culture preference (Patriotism); (c) ethnocentric proclivity toward other cultures (Generalized Ethnocentrism Scale); and, (d) the relative importance of 10 universal value types (Portrait Values Questionnaire) in three groups. Native (Hungarian) and acquired languages (Romanian, English) were used for filling out questionnaires for the three groups. Linguistic effects appeared on ethnocentrism, patriotism and collective aspects of self-esteem, but the effects were absent on personal aspect of self-esteem and prevailingly on value priorities. Results may indicate a kind of linguistic relativity in identity relevant self-characterization.
EN
The paper presents the second part of the review of experimental research on grammatical or lexical aspect. Two main topics are reviewed: the role of aspect in linguistic relativity and the aspectual coercion hypothesis. In the first part of the paper, it is shown that languages with a similar aspectual system can differ widely in their preferences in the description of certain events, and furthermore that these preferences may influence the speakers’ non-linguistic perception of events. The second part of the paper shows that previous studies on aspectual coercion differ both in their methodology and findings and that the very existence of the aspectual coercion phenomenon is not clear yet.
EN
This paper provides insights into the relationship between language and politically relevant aspects of culture in India and China which are as follows: attitude toward revolution and tradition, the domination of politics over religion or vice versa, and a concern for the liberty of the individual. The paper introduces a novel approach to the comparative study of civilizations by advancing the political-linguistic explanation. In so doing, it combines Hajime Nakamura’s hypothesis of the strict connection between language and culture (understood as a way of thinking) with Samuel P. Huntington’s emphasis on the impact of cultural differences on the political dimension of society – so that our explanatory model can be expressed as follows: language→culture→politics. As far as language is concerned, the focus is on the basic structure of Sanskrit and Chinese; besides, special attention is given to Indian and Chinese philosophies of language. Culturally, the most relevant schools of Hindu philosophy may be called “ultraconservative” since they tend to ground unchanging meaning firmly in metaphysics and rely on the supreme authority of ancient religious texts. In contrast, the Chinese typically considered language a social mechanism for shaping our behavior (so the relation of language and society is the most crucial); they also expressed clearly divergent views on naming. In short, at least four distinctive perspectives are essential: (1) conservative Confucianism, (2) anti-traditional and highly authoritarian Legalism, (3) egalitarian and linguistically skeptical Laozian Daoism, (4) nonconformist and proto-libertarian Zhuangzian Daoism.
9
Content available remote

Jazyk a krajina v antropologickém výzkumu

47%
EN
Language is a key element in the perception, formation, and reproduction of landscapes and group boundaries. It is effective in at least three dimensions, namely, the inner/cognitive, the outward/appropriative, and the collective/identitarian. The inner dimension refers to the fact that our perception of landscape and our spatial cognition are determined, to a large extent, by the linguistic terms and grammatical structures specific to our language. The outward dimension refers to the capacity of language to project linguistically- and culturally-determined understandings into the physical world and create and appropriate places and landscapes by the act of naming. Finally, the collective dimension points to the importance of the linguistic delimitation of landscapes and their association with group identities. The article summarizes crucial recent findings in all three of the aforementioned dimensions and suggests possibilities for further research.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.