How relativistic are Humboldt’s “Weltansichten”?

Trabant, Jürgen

doi:10.1075/cilt.199.04tra

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dua, 1994: especially 201-206;Ehlich, 2005; for the Sapir-Humboldt hypothesis see Trabant, 2000;Werlen, 2005). The critics claim, though perhaps phrased more cautiously, that from the Humboldt-Whorf hypothesis it follows that scientific monolingualism restricts the creation of scientific knowledge.…”

Section: Problems and Potential Advantages Of The Present Situationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Language Planning for International Scientific Communication: An Overview of Questions and Potential Solutions

Ammon

2006

Current Issues in Language Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Problems and Potential Advantages Of The Present Situationmentioning

confidence: 96%

Language Planning for International Scientific Communication: An Overview of Questions and Potential Solutions

Ammon

2006

Current Issues in Language Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the 19th century, Wilhelm von Humboldt connected language differences to differences in thought and proposed that thinking is basically an inner dialog that relies upon the thinker's native language (Losonsky 1999: xvi). Just as the sounds of languages differ, also the inherent meanings may differ from language to language (Trabant 2000). Or, in other words, the diversity of languages occurring in the world is not just a diversity of sounds (or signs in sign language) but a diversity of world views (Losonsky 1999: xvii).…”

Section:  Linguistic Relativitymentioning

confidence: 98%

How subtle differences in orthography influence conceptual interpretation

Banga

Hanssen

Schreuder

et al. 2012

WL&L

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates linguistic relativity. The units of writing investigated are e and en, which are used to represent units of language in Dutch, Frisian, and Afrikaans. Dutch has homographic forms in the plural suffix -en and the linking element of noun-noun compounds en. Frisian does not have homography of this kind, while Afrikaans has a different homography. This raises the question whether second language learners of Dutch consistently interpret the linking en in Dutch noun-noun compounds as plural in the way that native speakers do. Plurality ratings for Dutch modifiers obtained from native Dutch speakers are compared with ratings from Frisian-Dutch bilinguals and Afrikaaners learning Dutch as L2. Significant differences relating to orthography are observed. We therefore argue that differing orthographic conventions in one's native language (L1) can lead to different interpretations for the same everyday words written in Dutch (L2). Orthography thus provides an example of linguistic relativity.

show abstract

“…), 2015; Schieffelin -Garrett (eds. ), 2011;Underhill, 2009;Trabant, 2000;Wierzbicka, 1996 aj.). V evropském prostoru bývá tento typ zkoumání viděn zejm.…”

Section: Kontext Kulturní Lingvistiky a Etnolingvistikyunclassified

“…V ukotvení do kognitivně-kulturního paradigmatu se pak mnohde zdůrazňuje Humboldtovo pojetí jazyka jako -zde srov. formulaci J. Trabanta -"formativního orgánu myšlení"; Trabant nazývá jednu z částí své podnětné studie Cognition as Weltansichten (Trabant, 2000) a v kontextech, kde mluví Humboldt v souvislosti s jazykem o duchu či duši (resp. o duši národa, již podle něj jazyk představuje), je u Trabanta řeč o kognitivitě a kultuře (podobně např.…”

Section: Kontext Kulturní Lingvistiky a Etnolingvistikyunclassified

Ježíšek (‘Baby Jesus’?) as a conceptual construct and the key word of the Czech culture

Vaňková¹

2018

Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný Casopis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study of the relationship between language and culture has recently found an interesting source of inspiration in the theoretical-methodological basis of cognitive linguistics and ethnolinguistics. The paper draws on this resource, especially on the findings of J. Bartmiński’s Ethnolinguistic School of Lublin and the theory of culturally key words by Anna Wierzbicka, and following the previous ethnolinguistic research of Czech Christmas, it focuses on the image of the Christmas giver Ježíšek in contemporary Czech (private and public) discourse. This image has been reconstructed based on the analysis of language data and culturally significant texts dealing with the Ježíšek topic, and also based on a survey conducted among Czechs on social networks. The objective of the analysis is to contribute to the formulation of the so-called cognitive definition connected to the Ježíšek conceptualization, and to identify some of its aspects.

show abstract

How relativistic are Humboldt’s “Weltansichten”?

Cited by 18 publications

References 0 publications

Language Planning for International Scientific Communication: An Overview of Questions and Potential Solutions

Language Planning for International Scientific Communication: An Overview of Questions and Potential Solutions

How subtle differences in orthography influence conceptual interpretation

Ježíšek (‘Baby Jesus’?) as a conceptual construct and the key word of the Czech culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About