 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
The History of Linguistics Matters: Linguistic Relativity and Integral Linguistics
Joseph L. Subbiondo
Full-Text PDF
XML 1145 Views
DOI:10.17265/1539-8080/2017.04.001
California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco, USA
By studying the history of a discipline, scholars often discover theories that can be adapted for contemporary linguistics. A notable example is linguistic relativity. It was made popular byBenjaminLeeWhorfin the early to mid 20th century before being dismissed by generative grammarians. This paper will explore the renewal of linguistic relativity starting in the late 20th century, its resurgence with the emergence of interdisciplinary research, and its growth in the current neo-Whorfianism. The response today to linguistic relativity demonstrates that relevant concepts will always have a place in contemporary scholarship.
linguistic relativity, Whorf hypothesis, interdisciplinary research, integral linguistics, neo-Whorfianism
Boyer, P. (1996). Cognitive limits to conceptual relativity: The limiting-case of religious ontologies (pp. 203-219). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. (1958). Words and things. New York: The Free Press.
Carruthers, P. (1996). Language, thought and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. (2009). All in a word. London: Melville House.
Deutscher, G. (2005). The unfolding of language: An evolutionary tour of mankind’s greatest gift. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass; Why the world looks different in other language. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gumperz, J., & Levinson, S. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2003). Reevaluating linguistic relativity: Language-specific categories and the role of universal ontological knowledge in the construal of individuation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
John, A. L. (1992). Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, M., & Lakoff, G. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lee, P. (1996). The Whorf theory complex: A critical reconstruction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lewis, C. S. (1955). Surprised by joy. New York: Harcourt Brace.
McWhorter, J. H., (2014). The language hoax: Why the world looks the same in any language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rollins, P. C. (1980). Benjamin Lee Whorf: Lost generation theories of mind, culture, and religion. Ann Arbor MI: University Microfilms International for Popular Culture Association.
Schultz, E. A. (1990). Dialogue at the margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and linguistic relativity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Subbiondo, J. (2015). Language and consciousness: The perennial relevance of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Language and History, 58, 55-63.
Subbiondo, J. (2016). Review of Andresen. Language and History, 59, 75-78.
Wierzbicka, A. (2014). Imprisoned in English: The hazards of English as a default language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.