论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】The article elaborates on the relationship between language， thought and culture. The article holds the view that language reflects thought and influences thought. Language is part of culture and reflects culture and culture influences language. It is significant in the fields of anthropology， sociology， linguistics and language teaching.
【Key words】language； thought； culture
【作者簡介】韩瑞芳，包头师范学院外国语学院。
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis， a term first used by J.B. Carroll （1956） refers to the views held by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf on the relationship between language and culture and thought. Today the hypothesis can be broken down into two principles：the strong version， linguistic determinism and the weak version， linguistic relativity. The former refers to the idea that the language determines thought， and the latter holds that similarity between language is relative， the greater their structural differentiation is， the more diverse their conceptualization of the world will be. This hypothesis has aroused heat controversies since it was formulated.
Sapir came to believe that language did not mirror culture and habitual action， but that language and thought might in fact be in a relationship of mutual influence or perhaps even determination.
It was Whorf who elaborated the theory of linguistic relativity. “the linguistic relativity principle…means， in informal terms， that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observations and hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world （Foley 201-201）.”
After Whorf compared English and Hopi， he arrived at the conclusion that：different categories and concepts used in different languages reflect the different ways of the speakers’ understanding the world. In English， words are divided into two major categories：nouns and verbs. This distinction may lead speakers of English to assume that the world is also divided into two categories：actions and objects， but Hopi doesn’t have such distinctions. For example， in Hopi there is a single word-masaytaka-for everything that flies， including insects， aeroplanes and pilots. Eskimo has separate basic roots for snow falling， snow on the ground， drifting snow， etc. But English has only one world snow. Both are unimaginable to native English speakers.
Except the lexical differences， there are more important differences concerning the concept of matter， space and time. On the basis of his comparative study， Whorf is led to the following conclusion：“Concepts of ‘time’ and ‘matter’ are not given in substantially the same form by experience to all men but deepened upon the nature or languages through the use of which they have been developed”（Riley 207）. In Hopi one of the special features that separate it from other language is that it does not use the same means to express time. So instead of saying “four days”， Hopi says “dayness the fourth” or “the fourth dayness”. There is no expressions like：“I see the girl”， “I saw the girl”， and “I will see the girl” in Hopi. Therefore it is hard for an European to discuss physics and chemistry with one concerning in terms of speed. In its extreme form， the theory may be put like this：thought and language are identical. We are not able to make distinctions unless these distinctions are lexicalized. This is groundless because the fact that the Hopi language has one word for “insect”， “aeroplane” and “pilot” does not mean that Hopi speakers cannot easily distinguish between these different objects. And English has one word for all kinds of snow doesn’t mean English speakers are not able to discern the different shapes of snow.
Different categories and concepts used in different languages reflect the different ways of the speakers’ analyzing and categorizing the world. One is so inclined to perceive the world in a way of his own by way of existing concepts that he can easily observe， remember and express with them he sees. In this way the hypothesis is reasonable.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis， which drew attention to the influence of culture on language and the influence of language on thought， furthered people’s knowledge of the relationship between language and thought， language and culture. It is significant in the fields of anthropology， sociology， linguistics and language teaching.
References：
[1]Foley，A.William.（2001）.Anthropological Linguistics：An Introduction[M].Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
【Key words】language； thought； culture
【作者簡介】韩瑞芳，包头师范学院外国语学院。
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis， a term first used by J.B. Carroll （1956） refers to the views held by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf on the relationship between language and culture and thought. Today the hypothesis can be broken down into two principles：the strong version， linguistic determinism and the weak version， linguistic relativity. The former refers to the idea that the language determines thought， and the latter holds that similarity between language is relative， the greater their structural differentiation is， the more diverse their conceptualization of the world will be. This hypothesis has aroused heat controversies since it was formulated.
Sapir came to believe that language did not mirror culture and habitual action， but that language and thought might in fact be in a relationship of mutual influence or perhaps even determination.
It was Whorf who elaborated the theory of linguistic relativity. “the linguistic relativity principle…means， in informal terms， that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observations and hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world （Foley 201-201）.”
After Whorf compared English and Hopi， he arrived at the conclusion that：different categories and concepts used in different languages reflect the different ways of the speakers’ understanding the world. In English， words are divided into two major categories：nouns and verbs. This distinction may lead speakers of English to assume that the world is also divided into two categories：actions and objects， but Hopi doesn’t have such distinctions. For example， in Hopi there is a single word-masaytaka-for everything that flies， including insects， aeroplanes and pilots. Eskimo has separate basic roots for snow falling， snow on the ground， drifting snow， etc. But English has only one world snow. Both are unimaginable to native English speakers.
Except the lexical differences， there are more important differences concerning the concept of matter， space and time. On the basis of his comparative study， Whorf is led to the following conclusion：“Concepts of ‘time’ and ‘matter’ are not given in substantially the same form by experience to all men but deepened upon the nature or languages through the use of which they have been developed”（Riley 207）. In Hopi one of the special features that separate it from other language is that it does not use the same means to express time. So instead of saying “four days”， Hopi says “dayness the fourth” or “the fourth dayness”. There is no expressions like：“I see the girl”， “I saw the girl”， and “I will see the girl” in Hopi. Therefore it is hard for an European to discuss physics and chemistry with one concerning in terms of speed. In its extreme form， the theory may be put like this：thought and language are identical. We are not able to make distinctions unless these distinctions are lexicalized. This is groundless because the fact that the Hopi language has one word for “insect”， “aeroplane” and “pilot” does not mean that Hopi speakers cannot easily distinguish between these different objects. And English has one word for all kinds of snow doesn’t mean English speakers are not able to discern the different shapes of snow.
Different categories and concepts used in different languages reflect the different ways of the speakers’ analyzing and categorizing the world. One is so inclined to perceive the world in a way of his own by way of existing concepts that he can easily observe， remember and express with them he sees. In this way the hypothesis is reasonable.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis， which drew attention to the influence of culture on language and the influence of language on thought， furthered people’s knowledge of the relationship between language and thought， language and culture. It is significant in the fields of anthropology， sociology， linguistics and language teaching.
References：
[1]Foley，A.William.（2001）.Anthropological Linguistics：An Introduction[M].Beijing：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.