Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:25:11.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whorfianism of the third kind: Ethnolinguistic diversity as a worldwide societal asset (The Whorfian Hypothesis: Varieties of validation, confirmation, and disconfirmation II)*†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Joshua A. Fishman
Joshua A. Fishman
Affiliation:
Ferkauf Graduate SchoolYeshiva University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two hypotheses associated with Benjamin Lee Whorf, W1, or the linguistic relativity hypothesis, and W2, or the linguistic determinism hypothesis, have overshadowed a third, W3, that champions ethnolinguistic diversity for the benefit of pan–human creativity, problem solving and mutual cross-cultural acceptance. With respect to W3, Whorf is a disciple of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) with whom he shares many themes and basic perspectives. It may be that different basic methodologies and philosophies of science, particularly those that distinguish linear, quantitative experimentalism from the reborn holistic and ethnographic stress on meaning, will ultimately make it just as difficult to conclude what has been empirically demonstrated with respect to W3 as it already is with respect to W1 and, particularly, W2. Nevertheless, W:3 has a valuable humanizing and sensitizing effect on the language-related disciplines. Indeed, in that respect it may well have value above and beyond its scientific validity. (Whorfian hypothesis, Johann Gottfried Herder, multilingualism/multiculturalism, methodology–theory relationships in the language sciences.)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , April 1982 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alford, D. K. H. (1978). The demise of the Whorf hypothesis (A major revision in the history of linguistics). Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 485–499.Google Scholar
Barrows, T., Clark, J., & Klein, S. (1980). What students know about their world. Change 12: 10–17 and 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1976). Reference: In memorial tribute to Eric Lenneberg. Cognition 4 125–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, M. & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought: A psychological introduction. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Culjak, M. (1968). The theory of linguistic Weltanschauung and B. L. Whorf's hypothesis: Historical sources and critical assessment. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Delhi.Google Scholar
Deutsch, K. W. (1942). The trend of European nationalism: The language aspect. American Political Science Review 36: 533–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergang, R. R. (1931). Herder and the foundations of German nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1978). Historical background of universals research. In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. A. & Moravcsik, E. A. (eds.), Universals of human language. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1960). The systematization of the Whorfian hypothesis. Behavioral Science 5: 323–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1977). The sociology of language: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. In Cole, R. W. (ed.), Current issues in linguistic theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1978). Positive bilingualism: Some overlooked rationales and forefathers. In Alatis, J. E. (ed), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1978. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1980). The Whorfian hypothesis: Varieties of valuation, confirmation and disconfirmation I. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 26: 25–40.Google Scholar
Freidrich, P. (1979). Poetic language and the imagination: A reformulation of the Sapir hypothesis. In Freidrich, P. (ed), Language, context and the imagination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1977). Linguistic relativity: Myths and methods. In McCormack, W. C. & Wurm, S. A. (eds.), Language and thought: Anthropological issues. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haym, R. (1877–1885). Herder nach seinem Leben undseinen Werken dargestellt. 2 vols. Berlin.Google Scholar
Herder, J. G. (1877–1913). Sammtliche Werke. Suphan, B., Redlich, E. et al. (eds.). 33 volumes. Berlin.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity (with examples from Amerindian ethnography). In Bright, W. (ed), Sociolinguistics: Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference, 1964. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1970). Bilingual education: Linguistic vs. sociolinguistic bases. Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 23: 69–76. (Revised in his Foundations in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.)Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1945). The beginning of national self-determination in Europe. The Review of Politics 7 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1938 [1905]). Growth and structure of the English language. 9th edition. Garden City, N.J.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E. & Peal, E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs 76: No. 27 (Whole No. 546).Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Tucker, G. R., & d'Anglejan, A. (1973). Cognitive and attitudinal consequences of bilingual education. Journal of Educational Psychology 65: 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGee, W. J. (1895). Some principles of nomenclature. American Anthropologist 8: 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, O. (1977). Ethnic chauvinism: The reactionary impulse. New York: Stein and Day.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 193–247.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1971). Psycholinguistics. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S. N. (1980). Cognitive determinants of linguistic structure: A cross-linguistic experimental study of sentence production. Ph.D. Dissertation. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Weinreich, M. (1946). Hitler's professors: The part of scholarship in Germany's crimes against the Jewish people. New York: Yiddish Scientific Institute-Yivo. (Yiddish version: 1947).Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1941). A brotherhood of thought. Main Currents in Modern Thought 1 13–14.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Carroll, J. B., ed New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
, Y. M. (1974). Editorial comment: a Herder-Humboldt-Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Romance Philology 28: 199.Google Scholar