Biochemist Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 ...The primary author is Hirsh, & the dictionary takes its lead from his 1987 book "Cultural Literacy"....I read that when it came out. A great read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 ...Culture usually comes down to language- as somebody mentioned earlier, language is often seen as the "definition" or "descriptor" of culture. So does the language used in a culture affect the thoughts of an individual? ...Linguists usually transpose this idea into the Whorfian hypothesis. 1. Structural differences between language systems will, in general, be paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive differences, of an unspecified sort, in the native speakers of the language. 2. The structure of anyone's native language strongly influences or fully determines the worldview he will acquire as he learns the language (4:158).Ergo, if an idea does not exist in a particular language, it probably does not exist in any weight in that culture. The second part of this hypothesis is commonly referred to as linquistic determinism. Whorf wrote in the '30s. There hs been a lot of dicussion of these ideas since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 It seems that this stikes an interesting idea about translating between languages, Turtle. FOr accurate translation the individual needs to not only "textbook" fluent but understand the cultural inuendos of both cultures to accurately translate the real and whole meaning of one statement from language to language. Just look at English-Japanese translations.Or the Bible. (oh no,not again.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 TOday globalisation and the trend toward homogenization of culture is makig such conclusions a bit obsolite. (Not that they were not astute for the time and situation in which they were written). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 ___I do not think globalization or homogenization is anything new; to the contrary I think these constitute guiding forces of human history. From the first family groups, tribes, etc. the struggle is ongoing to adapt language to change. The expansion of these primary groups is rather a fractal one, that is a city is just a collection of families. ___I suppose if the population increases at a rate faster than language can change, one could paint a disastrous scenario.___Not to get religious here, but rather more a Bible as literature/history observation I have; the story of the tower of Bable is very much similar to our discussion. Other than having the misunderstanding imposed by supernatural means, the result of that misunderstanding is well described. :friday: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 What I was meaning is that it is hard to isolate languages and not have the influence from others (very notebly English today). A language that may not be specificaly agressive in its vocabulary has this "innocence" marred by the intruding languages. Moden technology has spread this in a much more pervasive way as opposed to just as trade and war as in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 ___I see. This brings to mind something we haven't mentioned specifically, ie. is a single language for everyone a laudible ideal? All the confusion & disharmony seems to lie at the feet of misunderstanding.___Fish, I also lost track of what conclusions globalization makes obsolete? :friday: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 Originally Posted by Benjamin Whorf 1. Structural differences between language systems will, in general, be paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive differences, of an unspecified sort, in the native speakers of the language. 2. The structure of anyone's native language strongly influences or fully determines the worldview he will acquire as he learns the language (4:158). Mainly because vaiances are starting to disapear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 ___Ok; danke. So having a single world language nullifies Whorf's first premise, but not the second. Under the second premise, I posit that a single language implies a single world view, & this is in line with my question is a single language a laudible ideal. :friday: :friday: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishteacher73 Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 What ever happened to esparanto (ap?)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 These sources differ with you. Care to elaborate? Merriam-WebsterBrittanicaEncartaWordsmythAmerican Heritage DictionaryInfopleaseDictionary.comWikipediaOneLookWebster's UnabridgedNo, they do not, Word and grammar remain the essence of the definition. What's your point? There are plenty of other aspect of linguistics that have much controversy. Look there for argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 I would say so too. Culture usually comes down to language- as somebody mentioned earlier, language is often seen as the "definition" or "descriptor" of culture. So does the language used in a culture affect the thoughts of an individual? For example- more warlike, more pacifist, more nature appreciation, etc... all based on the language being more warlike, more pacifist, or more conginzant of nature? Language reflects the culture, not the other way around. The words and grammar are tools of expression. (Just curious, what languages do you know that you would place into those categories you mentioned?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 ___I may have an example of one listed: "more nature appreciation". At least different nature appreciation. I recall an anecdote of tribal memebers from a rain forest (New Guiena maybe) being taken by some anthropologists outside of the jungle far enough that they saw the horizon for the first time in their lives. Let alone not having a word for horizon, they were terrified at the very idea. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 What I was meaning is that it is hard to isolate languages and not have the influence from others (very notebly English today)....This is certainly true, but it is still difficult to translate accurately, even between contemporary languages where many individuals are fluent in both. I think the core premises of the Whorfian hypothesis remain fundamtally true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted May 13, 2005 Report Share Posted May 13, 2005 What ever happened to esparanto (ap?)?I think this died with the advent of the EU, since all members wanted to retain their nationalistic flavor by keeping their native languages alive as communication vehicles. All EU communications are translated into all others. It is a real mess to issue a formal memorandum in the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 No, they do not, Word and grammar remain the essence of the definition. What's your point? There are plenty of other aspect of linguistics that have much controversy. Look there for argument.Then maybe I misunderstood you. You stated:Oxford definition number 1: the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way. is the one accepted by linguists. There is no need to expand on it or to reduce it. Other means of communication are other means of communication: bird calls, whale songs, smoke signals..... not language.To me it looked like you specifically stated that the calls animals use to communicate are not language. In fact, it looks to me that your statement would even exclude things like sign language since it falls under "other means of communication". Every source I listed specifically lists the calls animals use to communicate as one of the definitions of language. Somehow I don't see how these statements agree with each other so I must be missing something, perhaps someone else can point out what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted May 14, 2005 Report Share Posted May 14, 2005 Here's another thought for discussion. Humans have literally thousands of languages. I think I remember seeing somewhere that there are more than 6000 languages in use today. As a species, we cannot universally communicate with each other. What about animals? Does a squirrel from France understand an american squirrel? Do dolphins from waters north of the equator understand dolphins from 'down under'? To what extent are languages for various animals species wide? What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.