LANGUAGE, THOUGHT AND CULTURE

How words shape our views

Advertisements – „weasel words”- „unsurpassed”, „ultimate”, „supercharged”, „the right choice”

- „enriched” and „fortified” food

- „medium”, „large”, „extra large” and „jumbo eggs”

Sentence structuring (Loftus, 1976) Did you see the broken headlight? Vs. Did you see a broken headlight?

Shape recognition

Political correctness

Rest rooms, unmentionables

Sanitary engineer, bogármérnök

Menedzserasszisztens, gazdasági levelező

Negro – Black – Afro-American

Mentally (horizontally/vertically??) challenged vs. Szellemi fogyatékos

Receiving waters and assimilative capacity

Substandard dwellings vs. Slums

Does language reflect or shape our world view?

Four main views

Universalism Relativism

Language

thought

Linguistic universalism

Linguistic relativism

Thought

language

Cognitive universalism

Cognitive relativism

Linguistic universalism

Inborn linguistic universals

Expressions of time and placeI hunt and my child sees me.I will hunt.

Lingusitic universals

Example: SVO components in sentences

- 75% of the world's languages: SVO (English, French, Vietnamese) or SOV (Japanese, Tibetan, Korean)

- 10 - 15% VSO ( Welsh) or VOS (Malagasy)- 10 - 15% free word order (Latin, Hungarian),

but SOV common: Márta tortát evett.

NP and VP as main organising sentence components

Cognitive universalism

Universal principles of thinking reflect the conditions and limitations of mental

operations the similar physical and natural

environment

influence linguistic representation as well.

Structuring old and new information in sentences (theme – rheme)

There is a chair in the corner.

A chair is in the corner.

The chair is in the corner.

Lexis

„a fellegekben járt”

„over the moon”, „on top of the world”

Colours

Linguistic relativismThe Whorfian hypothesis

„We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organised by our minds - and this means largely the linguistic system in our minds.” (Whorf, 1956:212)

Determinism vs. Relativism

Organising reality: Time Hungarian, Russian, Romanian, GermanJó reggelt Jó napot Jó estétBună dimineaţa Bună ziua Bună searaGuten Morgen Guten Tag Guten Abend

EnglishGood morning Good afternoon Good evening

FrenchBonjour Bonsoir

Organising reality: Social relations

English

„You” + address forms:

John

Aunt Polly could you sign this?

Mr. Jones No syntactic marking of verbs

Russian and French: 2 distinctions BЫ + 2nd person plural (no distinction betw.

Sg./Pl.) Vu+2nd person plural (no distinction betw. Sg./Pl.)

German: 2 distinctions Sie + verb in 3rd. Person pl. (no distinction betw.

Sg./Pl.)

Romanian: 2 distinctions Dumneavoastră + 2nd pers./pl.

Dumneata +2nd pers./sing.

Social relations: Hungarian

Formal/distant: Between strangers From younger adult to older adult Address forms: „Ön”, „Maga” + 3rd. Person sing./pl.

Ön is a buszra vár?

Formal/familiar: From child to adult, young to old Family, acquaintances, strangers Address forms: „Anna néni”, „Pista bácsi” +

(tetszik, tessék) + infinitive El tetszik tudni jönni?

Informal: Between friends and intimates Often not reciprocal Increasingly between strangers of the same age

in public places Address forms:

„Te”, „Ti” + 2nd. Pers./ sing. and pl.

Láttad már az új fiút?

Differences

Distancing or bringing closer? English: democratic or „keeping everyone at arm’s

length”? (Wierzbicka, 1985) Russian, French, Romanian:

2nd pers./pl. formal reference: someone present, accessible, less distant.

German, Hungarian: 3rd pers./sing./pl. indicate someone distant, not accessible.

Hungarian formal/familiar „tetszik”: indicates respect and choice (do you like it?)

Resulted in ethnocentric evaluations

of cultures

"whether the Japanese are capable of using logical arguments to the degree that other people are" ( Hazen, 1986, p.232)

Arab rhetoric is characterised by "ideational vagueness and formalistic rigidity" (Koch, 1987 as cited in Hatim, 1997, p. 52)

Grounds for criticism

Translation

Circumlocution (e.g. Hungarian másfélszobás lakás)

Possibility of acquiring the logical and conceptual system of another language.

Cognitive relativism

Different cultural experiences and ways of life result in different conceptualisations of reality

Lexis reflecting different physical, natural and cultural objects

Lexis reflecting values, attitudes Másfél szobás lakás vs. Two-room flat

Attitude to money

American English: MAKE money British English: EARN money Russian: 3APAƂATЫBATЪ EARN money German: VERDIENEN EARN money Hungarian: KERES SEARCH for money Francia: GAGNER WIN/EARN money Romanian: CÂSTIGA WIN money

Attitude to life and death

Hungarian „sírva vígad” „majd meghal a

nevetéstől/örömtől” „halálosan jó/vicces” „boldogan éltek, amíg

meg nem haltak”

German „und wenn sie nicht

gestorben sind, dann leben sie noch heute”

English „tickled to death” „and they lived happily

ever after”

Culture-based intellectual traditions influencing rhetoric

Culture-based rhetoric (Kaplan, 1966, 1997)

Weak version of the Whorfian Hypothesis:

Language does not determine thought, but probably influences the way we capture and remember distinctions.

Conclusion

Language and culture influence our interpretation and representation of reality through Lexis (objects, attitudes) Discourse patterns Pragmatics Rhetoric

Wardhaugh (1976): “it is possible to talk about anything in any language.”