Difference Between Linguistic Relativity And Linguistic Determinism

Determinism is the idea that everything we do as humans is determined by events prior to us being born and events that have happened in the past. Decisions that you may think are based on your desires, are actually based of things beyond your control. But the big question is, if determinism is

Have you ever wondered how we speak? How about why our communication is considered a language and other animal’s communication is not considered language? A wide range of beliefs exist on what defines language. Thus, by exploring the definition of language and lexicon, evaluating language’s key features, the four levels of language structure and processing, and the role of language in Cognitive Psychology, an understanding of what language is becomes clear. Let us begin by defining language and a term named lexicon.

Most questions of whether and how language shapes thought start with the simple observation that languages differ from one another. And a lot! Just look at the way people talk, they might say. Certainly, speakers of different languages must attend to strikingly different aspects of the world just so they can use their language properly.

Determinism (as defined by Webster) is “A doctrine that acts of the will, natural events, or social changes are determined by preceding events or natural causes”. Likely, the most radical definition of determinism would state that all events in the world are the result of a previous event, or a combination of previous events. Within the realm of the all encompassing radical determinism there are philosophies that are somewhat better thought out or backed by science. One example of this is Genetic Determinism. We know that people are in some way determined by their genes both physically and behaviorally, as the human DNA is applied. Two categories of genetic determinism are Genetic Fixity and Innate Capacity.

The main reason that Boroditsky’s argument that language shapes our minds is valid is that the research she did with her teams covers a wide variety of aspects on this topic while still keeping her article cohesive. The first research Boroditsky introduces to her audience is the research on the Kuuk Thaayorre, which is an

For instance, in weak determinism language does not define or does not impact one’s view of the world, whereas, in strong determinism this view is defined strongly by language. Linguistic determinism is the idea that language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. The possibility of linguistic determinism has been explored by a variety of authors, mostly in science fiction. There exist some languages, like Ithkuil and Toki Pona for instance, which have been constructed for the purpose of testing the assumption. However, no formal tests appear to have been

In his article "Does Your Language Shape How You Think?" the author Guy Deutscher discusses how the acquisition of one's mother tongue shapes one's view of the world. The article was published in The New York Times in August 2010. The author's major paradigm is that every language one learns influences one's mind and feelings in a different way. Deutscher explains that depending on one's mother tongue, objects can be considered masculine or feminine, which results in the speaker feeling differently about them. The author believes that different languages do indeed make one speak about space in different ways as well; although he claims people do not have entirely different views of it. Deutscher then explains that experiments have shown that

Famous American anthropologist and social theorist Clyde Kluckholm , claims in one of his publication that “Every language is also a special way of looking at the world and interpreting experience concealed in the structure of language are a whole set of unconscious assumptions about the world and the life in it”(Writing logically, Thinking critically 7th edition P 35). Based on this theory, we can learn more

Linguistic relativity is the notion that language can affect our thought processes, and is often referred to as the ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’, after the two linguists who brought the idea into the spotlight. Whorf writes how “Language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity” (1956:212), and I will explain how it is able to do so. In this essay I will argue that certain ways of mental categorization, spatial cognition and reality interpretation, based on the characteristics of our specific variety of language, influence our perception of the world. I will discuss how languages divide up nature differently, and

One of the most important themes in this novel is power. The society of Gilead restructures the meaning of words to establish power. Gilead’s new vocabulary reinforces a totalitarian regime by using language to regulate the words and ideas that people can express, similar to linguistic determinism. In Eleanor Rosch’s (1974) article of Linguistic relativity, she identified both a strong and weak version of the linguistic relativity hypotheses, a degree in which language is presumed to influence our thought and behavior. The weak hypothesis is linguistic relativity, where linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions. (Rosch, 1974). However, the Gilead’s use of language reflects that more of the strong hypothesis.

In the article “Lost in Translation”, the author, Lera Boroditsky, maintains as her thesis that the languages we speak not only reflect or express our thoughts, but also shape the very thoughts we wish to express. Boroditsky begins the main section of her essay with the history of the issue of whether or not languages shape the way speakers think. Charlemagne was the first to think that languages do in fact shape the mindset of speaker, but Noam Chomsky rebutted this idea with his thought that languages do not differ much from each other, thus in turn proposing that linguistic differences do not cause a difference in thinking. Now with scientists

No matter where you are in the world, you are taught about language. Whether it’s in your home learning your language or in school trying to learn a foreign language. Although while learning language the notion is never really thought about or brought up that the language and way we speak can influence the way we think and interact. Phycologist and neuroscientist alike have spent years, with multiple different tests to see if there is a connection between the various languages that are spoken and the way people not only think but also how they go about their daily lives. She writes to not only her colleagues and neuroscientists but also to anyone in the general public that is genuinely interested in the connection between

Linguistics has impacted cognitive psychology as the quest to understand language acquisition and the structure of language itself is undertaken. Linguistics is a complex and multifaceted; it includes language structural patterns and language development (Barsalou, 2005). The process of language development is complicated and dense, as the study of language is examined; the role of cognition is inherently examined and analyzed. Sternberg (2006) also explores language as an innate process and presents the idea that humans are born ready for language as a biological and cognitive process.

The Sapir Whorf hypothesis mentioned above is based on the ideas of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf who studied aboriginal languages among Native American tribes, mostly the Hopi. They believed that the language one speaks is directly related to the way they understand the reality and see the world. For example, Whorf once wrote ‘we dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages’ (Whorf cited in Salzmann 1993: 153) which led to Zdenek Salzmann’s conclusion of Whorf’s ideas: ‘Difference among languages must therefore be reflected in the differences in the worldviews of their speakers’ (1993: 156). This hypothesis has been challenged many times by several anthropologists and linguists and there are arguments and evidence for and against it.

In contrast to the synchronic study of languages, is the diachronic study which studies the evolution of a linguistic system over a period of time and are treated