Sapir Whorf
Robert H. Robins
The chapter identifies a number of key examples of flaws in the deterministic interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, contrasting this interpretation to the relativistic interpretation of the same hypothesis. Drawing on the viewpoints of numerous learned individuals, the author effectively outlines the failure of the hypothesis to support the theory of linguistic determinism, while addressing the valuable evidence that the Sapir-Whorf theory provides in support of the theory of linguistic relativity. A brief history of the publishing and reception of the hypothesis is given, and Whorf’s role in directing the hypothesis towards the metaphysics of the natural sciences is highlighted. Studies such as Hoijer’s application of Whorfian ideas to the relations between language structure and aspects of culture among the Navajo are mentioned in the article, providing perspective on the scope and scale of applications resultant of the hypothesis. However, due to a lack of specific examples, the article does not present much in light of the hypothesis’ reasoning on the relationship between language and thought.
Daniel Chandler
Chandler refers to a number of external works when describing the reception of the hypothesis by different parties. He states his view that meaning arises in the interpretation of a text, as opposed to merely residing within a text, and that interpretation is shaped by sociocultural contexts. The differences between the much-easier received “moderate” form of the Sapir-Whorf theory and the “extreme” form in an easily comprehendible format. Background knowledge is provided through references to the alternate “cloak theory”; the extreme “universalism” derived by the “cloak theory” is identified as the basis for the most common refutation of the “mould theory” of Whorfianism. This article provides a thorough introduction to the hypothesis’ stance on the relationship between language and thought. This is illustrated most notably
The chapter identifies a number of key examples of flaws in the deterministic interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, contrasting this interpretation to the relativistic interpretation of the same hypothesis. Drawing on the viewpoints of numerous learned individuals, the author effectively outlines the failure of the hypothesis to support the theory of linguistic determinism, while addressing the valuable evidence that the Sapir-Whorf theory provides in support of the theory of linguistic relativity. A brief history of the publishing and reception of the hypothesis is given, and Whorf’s role in directing the hypothesis towards the metaphysics of the natural sciences is highlighted. Studies such as Hoijer’s application of Whorfian ideas to the relations between language structure and aspects of culture among the Navajo are mentioned in the article, providing perspective on the scope and scale of applications resultant of the hypothesis. However, due to a lack of specific examples, the article does not present much in light of the hypothesis’ reasoning on the relationship between language and thought.
Daniel Chandler
Chandler refers to a number of external works when describing the reception of the hypothesis by different parties. He states his view that meaning arises in the interpretation of a text, as opposed to merely residing within a text, and that interpretation is shaped by sociocultural contexts. The differences between the much-easier received “moderate” form of the Sapir-Whorf theory and the “extreme” form in an easily comprehendible format. Background knowledge is provided through references to the alternate “cloak theory”; the extreme “universalism” derived by the “cloak theory” is identified as the basis for the most common refutation of the “mould theory” of Whorfianism. This article provides a thorough introduction to the hypothesis’ stance on the relationship between language and thought. This is illustrated most notably