Сulture as an environment for language typology formation
Keywords:
Sepir-Wharf hypothesis, structural typology of languages, neo-Humboldtianism, neo-Wharfism, cognitive-discursive linguistics, culture and its artifacts, types of thinkingSynopsis
The chapter continues the discussion around the question of the essence of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity, which is also called the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis. An updated interpretation of it is presented from the standpoint of cognitive-discursive approach, which examines the processes of human cognition and perception of fragments of life and their reflection in language pictures of different ethnic groups-representatives of other types of writing (including hieroglyphic) to the right hemisphere (spatial-image) type of thinking. It is assumed that culture with its artifacts became a determining factor for the final stage of formation of the grammatical structure of languages, according to which most languages of the world are classified structurally by 4 types. The key position of Humboldt's theoretical concept that languages fix the peculiarities of the national worldview, which was interpreted differently by followers of the scholar, is given. The direction of new research in this area was called neo-Humboldtianism, which was developed by European scholars and American ethnolinguists. The focus is on the critique of the linguistic relativity hypothesis (Sepir-Wharf hypothesis), which was both constructive and destructive. The following conclusion is given: the cognitive-discursive vector in linguistics has forced scholars to return to the hypothesis of linguistic relativity, which is becoming even more popular than it was during the life of Wharf, B. Linguists continue to accumulate facts, especially experimental ones, to confirm it. And, despite the different attitude of scholars to it, still a promising aspect in neo-Wharfism, as well as in the theory of Wharf, B., himself, is taking into account the factor of the subject of knowledge of the surrounding world, who is a representative of a certain type of culture. It is culture that has become the environment for the formation of language typology, where at the current stage of its study, not only formal indicators should be taken into account, but also the plan of content as a fixer of the cognitive style of thinking of speakers of a specific language type.
References
Vaisgerber, L. (1993). Rodnoi iazyk i formirovanie dukha. Moscow: Izdatelskaia gruppa URSS, 232. Available at: https://www.studmed.ru/view/vaysgerber-yohan-leo-rodnoyyazyk-i-formirovanie-duha_31142395c78.html
Ipsen, G. (1924). Der alte Orient und die Indogermanen. Stand und Aufgaben der Sprachvwissenschaft. Festschrift für W. Streiberg, 200–237.
Trier, J. (1932). Sprachliche Felder. Zeitschrift für deutsche Bildung, 8 (9), 417–427.
Boas, F. (1997). Granitcy sravnitelnogo metoda v antropologii. Antologiia issledovanii kultury. Vol. 1. Saint-Petersburg: Universitetskaia kniga, 509–518.
Boas, F. (1997). Metody etnologii. Antologiia issledovanii kultury. Vol. 1. Saint-Petersburg: Universitetskaia kniga, 519–527.
Boas, F. (1965). Vvedenie k "Rukovodstvu po iazykam amerikanskikh indeitcev". Istoriia iazykoznaniia XIX–XX vekov v ocherkakh i izvlecheniiakh. Chast II. Moscow, Prosveshchenie, 170–180.
Sepir, E. (1993). Izbrannye trudy po iazykoznaniiu i kulturologii. Moscow: Progress, 656.
Sepir, E. (2003). Grammatist i ego iazyk. Iazyki kak obraz mira. Moscow: 139–157.
Whоrf, В. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Wharf. The MIT Press, 278.
Gumboldt, V. fon (1984). O razlichii stroeniia chelovecheskikh iazykov i ego vliianii na dukhovnoe razvitie chelovechestva. Izbrannye trudy po iazykoznaniiu. Moscow: Progress.
Kniazeva, E. N. (Ed.) (2012). Evoliutcionnaia epistemologiia: Antologiia. Moscow; Saint-Petersburg: Tcentr gumanitarnykh initciativ, 704.
Rotenberg, V. S., Arshavskii, V. V. (1984). Mezhpolusharnaia asimmetriia mozga i problema integratcii kultur. Voprosy filosofii, 4, 78–86.
Lysenko, V. G., Rubetc, M. V. (2014). Atomizm i alfavitnyi printcip. Materialy "kruglogo stola". Voprosy filosofii, 6, 154–185.
Tolcheieva, T. S. (2006). Asotsiatyvna semantyka syhnifikatyvnykh artefaktiv-mifonimiv anhliiskoi movy. Naukovyi chasopys NPU imeni M. P. Drahomanova. Seriia 9. Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku mov, 1 (9), 271–278.
Vasko, R., Korolyova, A., Tolcheyeva, T., Kapranov, Y. (2020). Human Language as a Natural Artifact of Planetary-Noospheric Mind: Coevolutionary-Macromutational Reinterpretation. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 9 (34), 17–23. doi: https://doi.org/10.34069/ai/2020.34.10.2
Svodesh, M. (1960). Leksikostatisticheskoe datirovanie doistoricheskikh etnicheskikh kontaktov (na materiale plemen eskimosov i severoamerikanskikh indeitcev). Novoe v lingvistike, 1, 23–52.
Uorf, B. (1960). Otnoshenie norm povedeniia i myshleniia k iazyku. Novoe v lingvistike, 1, 135–168.
Zvegintcev, V. A. (1960). Teoretiko-lingvisticheskie predposylki gipotezy Sepira-Uorfa. Novoe v lingvistike, 1, 111–134.
Borodai, S. Iu. (2013). Sovremennoe ponimanie problemy lingvisticheskoi otnositelnosti: raboty po prostranstvennoi kontceptualizatcii. Voprosy iazykoznaniia, 4, 17–54.
Lysak, M. S., Galchenko, A. A., Gavrish, O. V. (2020). Gipoteza Sepira – Uorfa: istoriia, sut I vliianie na nauku. Molodoi uchenyi, 40 (330), 239–242.
Lektorskii, V. A.; Lektorskii, V. A. (Ed.) (2015). Predislovie. Reliativizm kak bolezn sovremennoi filosofii. Moscow: Kanon+, 3–4.
Merkulov, I. P. (2005). Kognitivnye sposobnosti. Moscow: IF RAN, 182.
Gumperz, J., Levinson, S. (Eds.) (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 488.
Iung, K. G. (1988). Razlichie vostochnogo i zapadnogo myshleniia. Filosofskie nauki, 10, 63–82.
Levi-Briul, L.; Gippenreiter, Iu. B., Petukhova, V. V. (Eds.) (1980). Pervobytnoe myshlenie. Psikhologiia myshleniia. Moscow: Izdatelstvo MGU, 130–140.
Eliade, M. (1996). Aspekty mifa. Moscow: "Invest-PPP", ST "PPP", 240.
Ivanov, V. V. (1978). Chet i nechet: Asimmetriia mozga i znakovykh sistem. Moscow: Sovetskoe radio, 184.
Ivanov, V. V. (2012). Istoriia vzleta i gibeli srednevekovykh ieroglificheskikh kultur. Institut Mirovoi kultury MGU.
Ivanov, V. V. (2014). Fonema i pismo v drevnei kulture i ikh sviaz s atomizmom (Atomizm I alfavitnyi printcip: materialy "kruglogo stola"), Voprosy filosofii, 6, 29–38.
Kobzev, A. I. (1994). Uchenie o simvolakh i chislakh v kitaiskoi klassicheskoi filosofii. Moscow: Nauka, 432.
Kobzev, A. I. (2014). Vystuplenie na Kruglom stole "Atomizm i alfavitnyi printcip". Voprosy filosofii, 6, 154–184
Zdenek, M. (2004). Razvitie pravogo polushariia. Minsk: Popurri, 126.
Downloads
Pages
68-78
Published
December 29, 2022
Categories
Copyright (c) 2022 Kyiv National Linguistic University
Details about the available publication format: PDF
PDF
ISBN-13 (15)
978-617-7319-60-2
How to Cite
Korolyova, A. (2022). Сulture as an environment for language typology formation. In R. Vasko (Ed.), LANGUAGE. CULTURE. DISCOURSE (pp. 68–78). Kharkiv: TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC. https://doi.org/10.15587/978-617-7319-60-2.5
