Academic literature on the topic 'Chinese language Sapir-Whorf hypothesis'

The present article explores the interrelationships between language and thought in the literature of the Vedic Canon. Whether language shapes thoughts or vice versa has remained a topic pregnant with perpetual discussions, interpretations, and explanations since the beginning of human civilization. Throughout the multiple crossroads of the development in the intellectual tradition, the dimensions of language and thought attracted many scholars and linguists. However, linguists like Edward Sapir and Benjamin L. Whorf in the twentieth century have systematically interpreted and analyzed the language-thought dimensions. Whorf postulated that language shapes thoughts while Sapir projected that language is in the grip of thought. The literature of the Vedic Canon has also logically and systematically projected the multiple dimensional, but agglutinative relationships between language and thought. The hymns of the Rig Veda, myths from Brahmanas, and the lore from Upanishads unravel, interpret, and enrich the language-thought interconnection in such a way that the Vedic literature remains as the classical version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis written in Sanskrit. In this regard, the Vedic literature and Sapir-Whorf hypothesis play the same tune of music in different lyres. The present paper attempts to reveal this point of unity in diversity between the two seemingly diverse schools of thoughts—classical Vedic literature and modern linguistic theory of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Being the qualitative research, this paper explores, interprets, and correlates the theoretical concepts, ideas, and phenomena from the Vedic literature and Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Summary A scholarly consensus traces the roots of the ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’ to German language theory of the late 18th to early 19th century, which connects the ‘inner form’ of a language with the potential for cultural achievement of the nation that speaks it. This paper attempts to complexify that genealogy by exploring more immediate sources of the idea that one’s native language determines individual and cultural patterns of thought. In the version of this idea held by Herder and Humboldt, called here the ‘magic key’ view, language is seen as embodying the national mind and unfolding in line with the Romantic (Hegelian) theory of history. But there is another version, here dubbed ‘metaphysical garbage’, which envisions language developing within an evolutionary view of history and introducing obstacles to logical thought. This view was a commonplace of Cambridge analytical philosophy (Whitehead & Russell) and Viennese logical positivism (Carnap). A key Cambridge-Vienna link was C. K. Ogden, whose series included books by the leaders of both groups, and whose own book The Meaning of Meaning (with I. A. Richards, 1923) – the subtitle of which begins The influence of language on thought – synthesizes many of their positions. Sapir’s positive review of this book marks a turning point from his view of language as a cultural product (as in Language, 1921) to a sort of template around which the rest of culture is structured, as in his “The Status of Linguistics as a Science” (1929). This paper, like others of Sapir’s writings from 1923 on, takes up the rhetoric of metaphysical garbage almost exclusively. Whorf, drawn by Sapir to structuralism from originally mystical interests in language, likewise takes up the ‘garbage’ line, interweaving it with ‘magic key’ only in the two years between Sapir’s death and his own. Other influences on Whorf s views are examined, including Korzybski’s General Semantics, to which he has intriguing connections.