Lingustic relativities

1. Kelompok 2 “Linguistic Relativities”
Created and presented by :
Haical Purnama Alif
Nauzia Pranawati
Language, Society, and Culture

2. JohnLeavitt
The principle of linguistic relativity, as put
forward by linguists and anthropologists in the 1920s
and 1930s, holds that the characteristics of one’s
language can affect other aspects of life and must be
taken into account. In the modern West, the
overwhelming tendency has been either to deny or
affirm the importance of language differences
depending on one’s philosophical preference for
universalistic explanatory models that seek causes or
pluralistic essentialist models that seek understanding.
This is particularly evident in the switch in the 1950s
from a principle of linguistic relativity to a “hypothesis
of linguistic relativism” or “determinism”, often dubbed
the “Sapir–Whorf hypothesis” that language
determines thought, a classically essentialist position.
LINGUISTIC RELATIVITIES

3. Each of the six to ten thousand languages known is
distinct at every level: in sound, lexicon, word order,
grammatical categories, discourse patterns, and the culture
of language. One of the most striking universals of language,
then, is its diversity – not an unlimited diversity, but a
tremendous diversity nonetheless. This has been the majority
position in the West at least since Aristotle (On
Interpretation 16a), and it characterizes the natural sciences
and those who would like the human sciences to emulate
them. Both law-seeking universalism and essence seeking
pluralism continue to be the evident choices in many
disciplines (Leavitt 1991). The Boasians, while often adopting
pluralist-essentialist language to argue against the
institutionally more powerful universalist position, did not, in
fact, promote an integral essentialism: while defending the
importance of language specificity, they maintained that
there was no necessary link between a people’s language,
their culture, and their cognitive processes.
Universal, particulars, and relativity

4. The dominant philosophical view in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries was that thought is everywhere either a more or
less faithful reproduction of the reason that God had put in the
human mind (Descartes and subsequent rationalisms) or a more or
less faithful reflection of relations the mind picked up from the world.
Herder
Johann Gottfried Herder was a philosopher and important
intellectual presence in eighteenth-century Germany. Herder's
Political Thought examines the work of this significant figure in the
context of both historical and contemporary developments in political
philosophy. Herder was a good essentialist in maintaining that the
real nature of human understanding is not to follow out a line of
reasoning but to grasp wholes, to seize the essence in its manifold
expression. He shared this view with the philosopher Immanuel Kant
(1724–1804).
 Before Boas: a universe of laws or a
multiverse of essences

5. Friedrich Wilhelm Christian Karl Ferdinand von
Humboldt (22 June 1767 – 8 April 1835) was a Prussian
philosopher, government functionary, diplomat, and
founder of the Humboldt University of Berlin, which
was named after him in 1949 (and also after his
brother, Alexander von Humboldt, a naturalist). His
younger brother, Alexander von Humboldt, was famous
as a geographer, naturalist, and explorer. Humboldt
was born in Potsdam, Margraviate of Brandenburg, and
died in Tegel, Province of Brandenburg. In June 1791,
he married Karoline von Dacheröden. They had eight
children, of whom five survived to adulthood.
humboldt

6. While Humboldt’s picture of language included an
important universalist component, in its broad lines it
draws out the implications of Romantic essentialism.
For Humboldt:
a. Plurality and difference are inherently good.
“Individuals” indicates not only individual people, but
individual nations, his- torical periods, languages
(Trabant 1989).
B. One should therefore consider the largest possible
number of maximally different languages.
C. Each language possesses a unique inner form and
should be understood as a system or a whole.
D. Humboldt, like the Schlegels, finds a key in
morphology. Within linguistics, Humboldt will be
remembered primarily as the great expositor of
language typology.

7. E. Each language operates on the basis of distinctive
principles, and the grammarian must grasp these to
provide an adequate description (Trabant1986: 173–
175).
F. Language is not only the means of expression of
thought, but enters into its very constitution,
G. The fact of linguistic difference thus means that each
language implies “a diversity of world views”.
H. Literature and poetry are the most developed
expression of a linguistic essence (Trabant 2000: 33–
34).
I. Under normal circumstances, national character,
language, race, world view all fit together.
J. Humboldt maintains the superiority of inflectional
Indo-European languages over others (Trabant 2000:
38).

8. Social theory developed in the 19th century, which had
fundamental influence on sociological and anthropological
thinking up until the First World War (see structural
functionalism). In the 19th century, however, one often also
imagined that development proceded by necessity toward
morally "superior" and more "civilized" conditions (a view
that was widely abandoned after the First World War).
In the post-Second World War years, the American
anthropologist Julian Steward developed a neo-evolutionist
theory, which influenced his many students, and was an
inspiration for American ecological anthropology (cultural
ecology), subtantivism in economic anthropology, and peasant
studies throughout the the next decades.
Steward built on his teacher Robert H. Lowie's theory
of multilinear evolution (which posited that cultures could
evolve along several parallel, though different, lines), and
developed a true materialist evolutionary theory, in which a
society's evolutionary stage could be measured quantitatively,
as the amount of energy, per capita, it could extract from the
environment.
Evolutionism

9. Boas was the founder of the North American schools of
cultural anthropology and linguistics. Boasian linguistics was
most often coupled with work on other aspects of culture. This
new practice corresponded to a new theoretical stance. The
Boasians rejected the evolutionist package on every level:
they held that each language deserves to be treated on its
own terms, that the specifics of each language are important,
and that each linguistic system orients the habitual thought of
its users.
Boas, science, and linguistics
Boas himself was intensely aware of the tension, particularly
in nineteenth century German thought, between the positivist
and universalist explanatory procedures and objectivist goals
of the natural sciences and the particularist and essentialist
interpretive procedures of what were called the spiritual
sciences ( Geisteswissenschaft ).
Boas and Boasian linguistics

10. In 1887, after his Baffin Island expedition, Boas wrote "The
Principles of Ethnological Classification", in which he developed
this argument in application to anthropology:
Ethnological phenomena are the result of the physical and
psychical character of men, and of its development under
the influence of the surroundings ... 'Surroundings' are the
physical conditions of the country, and the sociological
phenomena, i.e., the relation of man to man. Furthermore,
the study of the present surroundings is insufficient: the
history of the people, the influence of the regions through
which it has passed on its migrations, and the people with
whom it came into contact, must be considered.
Cradled between Boas’s two negative affirmations, of the lack of
necessary correlation between language, race, and culture and
between language and thought, is the actual presentation of
language. Here we have a picture of coherent structure at the
levels of phonetics, lexicon, and grammar. In phonetics, Boas
argues that the potential production of sounds by the human vocal
apparatus is unlimited.

11. Sapir, Lee, Whorf
 Edward Sapir (1884–1939), who was
initially trained in literature, had a strong
sense of the poetry of linguistic sound and
patterning as well as an abiding concern
for individual experience, for how
languages were lived by human subjects.
Like Boas, Sapir denies any necessary
connection among language, race, and
culture.

12. Sapir, Whorf, and Einstein
 In sum, those critics who attempt to make
or retain their reputations by attacking
the so-called "(Sapir-) Whorf Hypothesis"
must henceforth be seen as attacking, as
well, the physics principle and theory (not
"hypothesis") which Whorf merely
restated for linguistics: Einstein's General
Theory of Relativity.

13. Beside Boas: structuralism and
Neoromanticism
 Other twentieth-century schools posed
questions about linguistic difference. A
parallel “return to Humboldt” was taking
place in Germany in what would be called
neo-Humboldtian or Neoromantic
linguistics, which sought to make.

14. After Boas: the near-death and
rebirth of linguistic relativity
 Sapir died in 1939, Whorf in 1941, Boas in
1942. At a conference on language in
culture, Hoijer (1954) first named a
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis that language
influences thought.To call something a
hypothesis is to propose to test it,
presumably using experimental methods.
To paraphrase Boas’s reply to the
evolutionists on numbers: The way people
live in some societies means that they do
not need very many basic color terms.

15. Returns of relativity
 Through all this there remained a stubborn little
band of defenders of linguistic relativity (Hill and
Mannheim1992;Lucy1997b). Paul Friedrich
articulated this in terms reminiscent of Sapir: “I
feel that Americanas against British English, and
English of any major dialect as against Russian,
 and both languages as against the Tarascan
language of Mexico constitute different worlds.
Ethnosemantics. Relativity of use.In the 1960s,
Dell Hymes (1926–) sought to define distinctive
cognitive styles implied in different language
types (1961) and proposed

16. CONCLUTION