1887
Volume 137, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The relativist point of view in the study of language spreads all throughout the history of linguistics dressed up in different colours. After some time in which this perspective of linguistic analysis had been dismissed, it is nowadays that its survival is taking place. In this sense, we should turn to linguistics as the general framework in order to find the reasons that justify the renovated interest in the mentioned topic. In doing so, we will show that relativist focus will act as a profitable perspective. Its capability of adjusting to the most recent directions in modern linguistics explains how relativist point of view can contribute important data into other linguistic fields of study. The integration of both sociocultural and neurologic aspects on the one hand, the absorption of knowledge from other disciplines on the other, and finally, the empirical experimentation as the best research method, turn into the most important features that define linguistic relativity at the moment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.137-138.06fer
2002-01-01
2019-12-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. En Pütz, Martin & Marjolijn H. Verspoor
    (eds.) (2000), Explorations in linguistic relativity, Amsterdam, John Benjamins 2000:
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CHAFE, Wallace
    , "Loci of diversity and convergence in thought and language", pp. 101–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ENFIELD, Nick J.
    , "On linguocentrism", pp. 125–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. HAYS, Paul R.
    , "From the Jurassic dark: linguistic relativity as evolutionary necessity", pp. 159–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. HOUSE, Juliane
    , "Linguistic relativity and translation", pp. 69–88.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. KOERNER, E.F. Konrad
    , "Towards a full 'pedigree' of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. From Locke to Lucy", pp. 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. KRONENFELD, David B.
    , "Language and thought: collective tools for individual use", pp. 197–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. LAMB, Sidney M.
    , "Neuro-Cognitive Structure in the Interplay of Language and Thought", pp. 173–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LEE, Penny
    , "When is 'linguistic relativity' Whorf s linguistic relativity?", pp. 45–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. MACLAURY, Robert E.
    , "Linguistic relativity and the plasticity of categorization: universalism in a new key", pp. 249–294.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PÜTZ, Martin & Marjolijn H. VERSPOOR
    , "Introduction", pp. ix–xvi.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. TRABANT, Jürgen
    , "How relativistic are Humboldt's 'Weltansichten'?", pp. 25–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. En Niemeier, Susanne & René Dirven (eds.) (2000), Evidence for linguistic relativity, Amsterdam, John Benjamins 2000:
    [Google Scholar]
  14. BlCKEL, Balthasar
    , "Grammar and social practice: on the role of culture in linguistic relativity", pp. 161–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. BOHN, Ocke-Schwen
    , "Linguistic relativity in speech perception: an overview of the influence of language experience on the perception of speech sounds from infancy to adulthood", pp. 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GYÖRI, Gábor
    , "Semantic change as linguistic interpretation of the world", pp. 71–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LUCY, John
    , "Introductory comments", pp. ix–xxi.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MARATSOS, Michael , Demetra Katis & Annalisa Margheri
    , "Can grammar make you feel different?", pp. 53–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. SLOBIN, Dan I.
    , "Verbalized events: a dynamic approach to linguistic relativity", pp. 107–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. TABAKOWSKA, Elzbieta
    , "Grammar and the cult of the virgin: a case study of Polish religious discourse", pp. 223–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. BUNGE, Mario
    (1980), The Body-Mind problem. A psychological approach, Oxford, Pergamon. Cito por la versión española de B. García Noriega , El problema mente-cerebro. Un enfoque psicobiológico, Madrid, Tecnos 1985.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. COSERIU, Eugenio
    (1977), El hombre y su lenguaje. Estudios de teoría y metodología lingüística, Madrid, Gredos 1977.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. DROSTE, Flip & John FOUGHT
    (1993), "Arbitrariness, iconicity and conceptually", enSemiotica, 94/3-4, pp. 185–199.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. EDELMAN, Gerald
    (1992), Bright Air, Brilliant Fire. On the matter of the Mind, Londres, Penguin Books 1992.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. FOLEY, William A.
    (1997), Anthropological linguistics, Oxford, Blackwell 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. GUMPERZ, John J. & Stephen C. LEVINSON
    (eds.) (1996), Rethinking linguistic relativity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. HAARMANN, Harald
    (1990), Language in its cultural embedding: explorations in the relativity of signs and sign systems, Berlín, Mouton de Gruyter 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. HOOSAIN, Rumjahn
    (1991), Psycholinguistic implications for linguistic relativity: a case study of Chinese, Hillsdale (New Yersey), Lawrence Erlbaum 1991.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. HYMES, Dell
    (1966), "Two types of linguistic relativity", en William Bright (ed.), Sociolinguistics: proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference 1964, The Hague, Mouton 1966, pp. 114–165.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. LEE, Penny
    (1996), The Whorf Theory complex: a critical reconstruction, Amsterdam, John Benjamins 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. LUCY, John
    (1992a), Language diversity and thought. A reformulation of the linguistic-relativity hypothesis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1992
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1992b), Grammatical categories and cognition. A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1992.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. NOBLE, William & Iain DAVIDSON
    (1996), Human evolution, language and mind: a Psychological and Archeological inquiry, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1996.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. SLOBIN, Dan I.
    (1996), "From thought and language to thinking for speaking", en Gumperz & Levinson (eds.) (1996), pp. 70–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. SMITH, Marion V.
    (1996), "Linguistic relativity: on hypotheses and confusions", enCommunication and Cognition, 29/1 1996, pp. 65–90.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. WHORF, Benjamin L.
    (1940), "Science and linguistics", enTechnology Review (MIT), 42/6, pp. 229–231, 247–248. Reed, en Whorf (1956), pp. 207–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1956), Language, thought and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, John B. Carroll (ed.), Cambridge Mass, The MIT Press 1956.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. WIERZBICKA, Anna
    (1990), "The meaning of color terms: semantics, culture and cognition", enCognitive Linguistics, 1/1 1990, pp. 99–150.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.137-138.06fer
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): empirical experimentation , interdisciplinarity and linguistic relativity
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error