Language and culture Flashcards
How does Willem Humboldt describe language?
Language as a system that makes infinite use of finite means. It is a tool we use to represent our ideas in the form of sentences.
What are the implications of Humboldt’s ideas?
- The conceptual world represented in each language
functions by itself and cannot be judged using the
same criteria as for other languages. - Implications for foreign language (FL) learning: to learn
a language is to leave behind the ways of thinking
acquired through the first language (L1). -> It requires
switching your world view. - There is a connection between language and thought: the different conceptual systems represented in different languages direct the speakers to focus on different aspects of reality. ->Language conditions thinking.
Who said ‘‘the limits of my language are the limits of my world?’’
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote this in his work ‘Philosophical Investigations’. He explored the relationship between language and the world: the logical structure of language limits meaning ->the limits of language are the limits of philosophy.
What are some of Wittgenstein’s ideas about communication? How did they change throughout time?
- Communication as an exchange of ‘pictures’.
- Miscommunication is possible, clarity of expression is vital: “That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.” (Tractatus)
- A representational theory of language (a picture
theory): the world as a totality of facts, not of things. –>“The limits of my language mean the limits of my
world.” - later believed that language is a tool, not as pictures. It is like a game and misunderstandings are possible because we are not always sure about the games we play.
Pragmatics: anguage bound up with our everyday
practices and forms of life. Members of a linguistic
community play a conventionally accepted language game.
In your opinion, does thought equal language? Support your claim.
In general yes, thought does equal language. It is possible to think without language (emotions, feelings, colours, … ). We can therefore say that there are two kinds of thinking. One with and one without language. An emotional response does not require language whereas telling a story/logical thinking does. Based on these positions, there are two radical theories.
- language and thought are completely separate entities.
- language and thought are identical
Who came up with the ‘linguistic relativity’ theory and what is it about? Give an example that supports this.
Edward Sapir but this was then further expanded upon by Benjamin Lee Whorf, which is also why it’s called the Sapir-Whorf theory). The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis claims that a given language (and its grammar) provides its speaker with habitual grooves of expression which predispose them to see the world in readymade patterns. (For example, extreme position is that a language has two genders so I only understand the world in this two genders. Another example would be that a language without many numerals would result in the speaker’s inability to count ). This hypothesis affirms the position that language determines thought.
What does the Whorfian Hypothesis suggest? How was it later criticised?
It suggests that language is a filtering system. It heightens certain perceptions and dims others. This is because reality is perceived using the same set of physical organs (eyes,…). Thus, it should be the same for all. However, not all sensations reach our consciousness- a filtering system reduces them to manageable portions.
Example: Hopi vs. European (hopi has cylical, no expression relating to time) –>this was later criticised because Hopi does have future/present discinction. Other arguments against it:
- translation is possible
- mutual comprehension is possible
- circumlocution can be used to tackle lack of words
- languages with few words for numerals do not prevent their speakers from learning to calculate
How does the typological differ from the universalist approach?
For typologists, a number of languages evolved at the same time and this is seen through the generalizations on word order, word classes, sounds,…Universalists believe in a single language with abstract properties. For example, English incorporates the universal properties of human languages and the individual features make it English.
Who developed the generative theory of language? What does it claim?
Noam Chomsky. Language has a single set of rules from which all grammatical sentences can be derived. These rules are defined by general principles that represent universal properties of language, which are biologically necessary. The aim of the theory is to determine universal properties of languages and establish a universal grammar that accounts for linguistic variation.
Which are the types of universals?
THERE ARE NO absolute universals, only tendencies, trends, details (only relative)
-> Substantive (The set of categories needed to analyse a language, what is absolutely necessary in a language e.g. verb, noun, subject, question, vowel,…)
-> Formal universals (A set of abstract conditions governing the way in which language analysis can be made; the relationship between such pairs is accounted for by some kind of transformation; are then the rules that we use to form meaningful syllables, phrases, sentences. For example, phrase structure rules determine how phrases and sentences can be build up from words. Derivational rules guide the reorganization of syntactic structures such as the transformation from a statement into a question)
->Implicational universals ( Take the form “If X, then Y.” They define the constant relationships between two or more properties of language; An implicational universal applies to languages with a particular feature that is always accompanied by another feature, such as If a language has trial grammatical number, it also has dual grammatical number, while non-implicational universals just state the existence (or non-existence) of one particular feature.)
What explains or affirms language universals?
Generative linguists say that there are several factors that can explain universals.
- Innateness> the fact that we acquire vocabulary so fast leaves no other explanation than that we are born with some innate understanding of language and grammar (Chomsky’s theory)
- monogenesis> universals are retained properties of the proto-language (perhaps even proto-world language) > problems? No way of proving a single ancestor language, some believe the origins of language polygenetic
- functional and pragmatic explanations (that would also explain these characteristics) –>humans need language in order to survive which is why universals have similar functions
Describe the relationship between language and gender
It has become especially important in the last decades as it relates to the equality between men and women. Language reflects and maintains social attitudes towards men
and women.
Enumerate classifiers
- Terms describing the grammatical means for the
linguistic categorization of nouns
1. Noun classes or genders (masculine/feminine)
2. Noun classifiers. (Yidiny, an Australian language, 19 classifiers, even one for ‘edible food’, generic (classifier) element+ specific element)
3. Numeral classifiers. (Japanese> special morphemes next to numeral according to size, shape, animacy, …)
4. Possessed classifiers. (Tariana (South American language)>
special morpheme characterizes a possessed noun in a possessive construction)
5. Relational classifiers. (Fijian (Austronesian language): A special morpheme in a possessive construction characterizes the way in which the referent of a possessed noun relates to that of the possessor)
6. Verbal classifiers. (Waris, a Papuan language> Such classifiers appear on the verb, but they categorize a noun, typically a subject or an object. The classifier put (‘round objects’) in the example is used with the verb get to characterize the object coconut.
7. Locative classifiers. (alikur, an Arawak language from Brazil.
(7a) pi-wan min
2SG-arm on+VERT
‘on your (vertical) arm’
(7b) ah peu
tree on+BRANCH-LIKE
‘on (branch-like) tree’)
8. Deictic classifiers (andan, a Siouan language:
(8a) dɛ-mãk
‘this one (lying)’
(8b) dɛ-nak
‘this one (sitting)’)
What feature of Chinese is exemplified below? Why is this feature interesting for linguists
exploring the linguistic relativity hypothesis?
Example 1: Example 2:
Chinese: san zhang chuang san ben shu
Gloss: three sth-flat bed three volume book
Translation: ‘three beds’ ‘three books
The classification of nouns.
The classifier ‘ben’ (本): * root native, original, basic, fundamental…
* a pictogram of a tree + a stroke indicating
the roots
* a classifier for dictionaries, notebooks,
diaries, photo albums etc.
Different morphemes specify some properties of nouns (hi (支): long, stick-like objects: pen,
chopsticks, rose, rifle
* zhang (张): sheet: table, painting, ticket * chuan (串): something on a string, …). There are over 400 such classifiers.
It is especially interesting for the field of linguistic relativity because according to the Sapir-Whorf theory, it could imply that this is a reflection of a human tendency to categorize nouns. This is supported by the fact that speakers of Chinese lump objects with the same classifiers together; they are rated higher on similarity. Other studies have shown that both English and Chinese speakers chose taxonomic pairs despite English not having such classifiers. An additional study by Jiang measured the reaction times of grouping nouns matching in the classifiers and showed that Chinese speakers were not faster than English speakers. However, when written labels were given to objects, Chinese did respond faster; conclusion of study was that it had a weak impact on categorization with the exception of adding labels which could support the Sapir-Whorf theory.
What is this an example of: ‘‘If anyone would like to contact the editor, he should contact the editor’’
It is an example of linguistic biases that occurs in English where the male pronouns are deemed as neutral and referring to both men and women or it assumes that women do not engage in such behaviour. This is changed to the neutral ‘they/them’, ‘one’.
How did English combat the linguistic bias of using male pronouns for women early on?
They proposed to implement gender-neutral pronouns. First they borrowed from French (one, le, en). Then, blending ‘thon, he’er’, shem, clippings: e, per; root creations:na, ae, ip and others like: they, co, thon, mon, heesh, ha, hash, et, hit, xe, person…
However, while these early proposals recognised a semantic gap in the language, they lacked feminist motivation and were not very successful. This is because pronouns are a closed word class and it is very difficult to introduce new terms smoothly (unlike nouns which can be added and lost with reasonable ease).
How has feminist criticism influenced linguistic biases?
Following the Sex Discrimination Act and Employment Protection Act, rapid changes occurred in language as well. The use of man standing for all of humanity fell out of fashion, male forms were replaced by alternatives especially ‘they’. This was especially noticeable in women’s magazines but also elsewhere.
What are some widely held beliefs in regards to the differences between men and women in their use of language?
1 Women are less assertive, more tentative;
2 Women use fewer taboo forms, more euphemisms
3 Women talk more than men,
4 Women are more sensitive to correctness,
5 Women are more polite
‘Women are more sensitive to correctness’ - What have studies shown?
Macaulay’s study on pronounciation showed that lower middle-class seemed more prone to hypercorrection (reading aloud from a list); women also avoided the glottal stop (which is deemed as lower class). However, this cannot be generalised as Nichol’s study showed that older Black speakers in South Carolina gravitated towards least prestigious forms (reasons are employment). A similar study was performed in Ireland and the results showed what other studies show as well- women are not more sensitives to norms of correct speech than men and other factors like relationships, age, class and employment play a greater factor.
‘Women are more polite, less assertive’
Fishman studied three heterosexual couples. The women kept the conversation going, introduced new topics and developed the ones introduced by men (more attentive to the needs of those around them). However, it is not specified what kind of questions were asked by women.
Holmes, Cameron performed another study which deduced that women use more tag questions, which they assumed meant it signalled a lack of confidence, insecurity. However, question tags have different functions beside signalling insecurity- facilitating ones support conversation (That was a good film, wasn’t it- vs. checking You like living here, do you?). Problem 2: women use more facilitating tags but so do men. Problem 3: The homework isn’t very good, is it?. It depends on the mechanism of exchange- turntaking (transition is signalled by changes in pace, pitch of speech, gestures, … a departure from fluency signals to the other person to take their turn).
What does this example show?
FEMALE: Both really. It just strikes me as too 1984ish y’know to sow your seed or whatever. An’ then have it develop miles away not caring if …
MALE: It may be something uh quite different. You
can’t make judgements like that without all the fact being at your disposal
This is a study on focuses on cross-sex talk and looks at interruptions that represent incursions into the speaker’s ongoing turn. Other studies with mixed sex pairs showed that interruptions were frequent and coming from men usually. The conclusion of these studies was that men interrupt more and are less supportive of the topic. This begs the question if women are not assertive enough ((((or maybe men r just dickwads)))))
How do universalists approach colour categories?
Universalists believe that languages are just a variation of the same universal structure or laws that dictate all languages. They support their theory that since the perception of colour has a biological basis it follows that it is the same for everyone and that the differences in the number of words for colours in different languages can be explained through cultural conditioning. This can be seen in the graph that follows 110 languages from non-industrialised societies (Berlin and Kay) from The World Colour Survey, that shows most languages focus around certain clusters (red, yellow, green, blue…). These are called focal colours and languages are constrained to using these (or fewer) categories. A basic colour category is defined as: consisting of a single morpheme (red vs. brick red), being in common use (indigo), applying to many objects (blonde), not contained within another colour (*scarlet). Berlin and Kay also provided the order in which colours emerge as language evolves: [white, black] < [red] < [green/yellow] < [blue] < [brown] < [purple, pink, orange, grey]
How do relativists approach colour categories?
Relativists believe that the speaker’s language influences their colour cognition. This is because colour term boundaries vary across languages, even if the array of colours is the same These linguistic differences cause cognitive differences. Relativists criticize the methodology/approaches used by universalists because of their referents, grammar and the fact that it is English-based.
What are some recent approaches to colour categories?
Evidence of today shows that colour categories are neither completely universal nor completely relative. There is clear evidence that language does affect colour cognition but that there are universal tendencies in colour naming across many languages, which may be caused by our biological predisposition for cardinal colours red, yellow, green and blue. Some naming systems can be explained by UV radiation in some regions and the fact that some colours occur in some environments more often than in others. The categorical perception of colour varies with category boundaries across language (something that is orange in one language is red in another; Japanese has a single word for green, blue and pale while green-brown is part of the spectrum in Literary Welsh). We can conclude that colour naming is not a matter of arbitrary linguistic convention and that cross-language differences in colour naming cause corresponding differences in colour cognition.
Explain the term: ethnosemantic analysis
Ethnosemantic analysis is a research method developed by anthropologists and linguists that focuses on the referential meaning of linguistic expressions across cultures and languages. It assesses the limits of linguistic relativity by theorizing the universal logical, perceptual and adaptive constraints on human understandings of the world and is used to study ‘alien’ cognitive domains: provides a way of understanding the reality of another person’s experience from the way they talk about it.
‘An ethnosemantic analysis of Inuit understandings of ‘snow’ would be based on systematic
empirical observations of how Inuit people talk about those phenomena (in fact, the Inuit ‘snow’
vocabulary is much more elaborate that that of nonspecialist English’’
Is colour naming completely arbitrary
If you subscribe to the relativist theory, yes. However in reality, there are constraints when it comes to colour naming and there is also a universal inventory of ‘basic’ (focal) colours that appear in specific order.
Do the differences in colour naming cause differences in cognition?
If you are a universalist, no. However, in reality, boundaries between colours differ across languages, hence speakers understand colours in different ways. Linguistic differences cause cognitive differences.
Define the term ‘pidgin’ and ‘pidginization’
Pidgin is a system of communication that emerges among groups of people who do not share the same language but are in regular contact. Etymology is uncertain (could be the Cantonese pronounciation of ‘business’, or English ‘pigeon’, who knows); there are no native speakers, it is auxiliary, makeshift, limited vocabulary, reduced grammar and a narrow range of function.
Pidgnization is the creation of a pidgin communication; historically, it is often based on European languages because of colonisation. There are some Non-European pidgins in Asia, Africa and America like Chinuk Wawa.
What are typical features of pidgins?
- Reduced forms of dominant languages.
- Morphological changes: lack of inflections.
- The vocabulary of the dominant language (1000-2000
words). - The pronunciation of the non-dominant language.
- A basic vowel system: /a e i o u/.
- Simple grammar, S V O. Words functioning as tense markers.
- Duplication (for plural, superlatives etc.)
What is Pidgin French (in Vietnam) an example of? What are the characteristics?
It is an example of a short-lasting Pidgin that grew out of necessity but disappeared after the two language groups lost contact.
- Usually last for a few years only:
> Lost contact / learning the language of the other group.
- Pidgin French in Vietnam
> Tây Bôi: during the colonization period (Vietnamese servants in French households)
> Moi faim. = J’ai faim.
> Pas travail. = Je ne travaillerai pas.
> Gradually disappeared after the French withdrawal in the 1950s.
- Pidgin English in Vietnam
> Used during the war, disappeared afterwards.
