Q: Contrast English with One Other Language with Respect to Two Particular Points of Grammar or Vocabulary. with Reference to That Point of Grammar/Vocabulary, State How Native Speakers of These Languages Would Be

Q Contrast side of meat with one other quarrel with pry to TWO particular points of grammar or vocabulary. With reference to that point of grammar/vocabulary, state how autochthonic speakers of these vocabularys would be nameed to differ in their specifying or perception if we stand the lingual relativity speculation. How might you test this prediction experiment everyy? This rise will discuss the lingual relativity supposition contrasting the position speech with the most common Chinese dialect, mandarin.The hesitancy of whether or non the language we speak forces how we view the orbit has interested the fields of anthropology, psychology and linguistics for some(prenominal) years. Using two aspects of vocabulary, which I have elect to be that of space and judgment of conviction, I will attempt to predict how native mandarin and incline speakers may differ in their conceptions of the consequent fiat of duration. Following these predictions I will tabooli ne a proposed manner as to test the predictions experimentally. A definition and brief history of how the linguistic relativity hypothesis developed into what it is directly is the necessary starting computer program for this taste.Today and indeed spanning back through this century, Benjamin lee Whorf is most normally associated with the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. (Slobin, 1996, p. 70). stock-still it is due to the arguments and advancing hypotheses of Hamann, Herder, Humboldt, Boas and Sapir that brought about todays view of linguistic relativism (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996, p. 2). Hamann was the archetypal German philosopher to bring airy and discussion to the relationship of language and cognitive figureing. In 1762 Hamann recorded many ideas with attribute to linguistic relativism in his work Kreuzzuge des Philologen.Here Hamann states how Language did non originate from imagination, but its origin had been prior to position, for thought presupposes a langua ge in which it might manifest itself (Beek, 2005, p. 7). Herder was Hamanns student and it is transpargonnt in his work that he was influenced by the t to each oneings of Hamann. The progression of this discussion began as Herder believed that language was a result of psychological, historical and natural forces, (McAfee, 2004, p. 28), and had no divine origin as thought by Hamann. Whorf also sh ar this belief among others with Herder. Whorf put such eliefs into his studies, the prevalent sh bed theory universe that external features of a particular language could provide clues to its inner type (McAfee, 2004, p. 28). The 19th century paved way for the German philosopher and language theorist, Humboldt. Whorf move many of his theories from those of Humboldts. Humboldt strongly believed that language and thought were one and that with the absence of language, wisdom could not be articulated clearly, (McAfee 2004, p. 28). Humboldt is the inaugural mentioned in this essay to a ttempt a substantial marrow of unlikeiate in ordinate to mount or further predict his thoughts on linguistic relativity.Due to lack of concrete information present in the linguistic comparative research field, Humboldt support up his claims by employ evidence from non-western languages (Beek 2005, p. 8). One of his studies examined the contrary amount of words for the animal elephant, in the incline and Sanskrit languages. He found that in comparison to the position word elephant which carries only one meaning, there were several(prenominal) words for elephant in the Sanskrit language denoting many meanings. His concluding thoughts on this were that because of the differences in their vocabulary, the English and the Sanskrit would perceive the animal contrastively.This tend Humboldt to further believe that each culture had its own world view, a theory known and fitted by Whorf as Weltanschauung (McAfee, 2004, p. 29) Humboldts theory Weltanschauung was brought to the Sta tes by the founder of the American School of Anthropology, Boas. This was due to the fact that Boas shared Humboldts view that each culture had a distinct individuality and could only be fully understood through the select of its history, company, traditions and of ground level language (McAfee, 2004, p. 9). Boas, teacher of Sapir (Sapir, teacher of Whorf), was credited by Whorf with his theory that dissimilar exotic cultures exemplify divergent methods of commemorateing. It was Sapir that introduced Whorf to the claims made by his teacher, Boas. Whorf took this theory and change it, stating that unlike Boas, he felt that it was linguistic structures rather than conceptual differences that led to contrastive world views of several(predicate) cultures (McAfee 2004, p. 29).Sapir argues that through his article entitled The spot of linguistics as a science it is the language of a society that shapes the world we live in. Sapir blatantly states that human beings are at the m ercy of the language they speak. Whorf, learning and drawing from each of his predecessors gave meaning to his hypothesis of linguistic relativity where he believes that it is the different grammars of languages that lead to different types of observations and evaluations of externally different facts of observation (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996, p. 6).Therefor it can clearly be seen that although the linguistic relativity hypothesis has come to being more(prenominal) commonly known as the Whorfian venture, it is not only Whorf who should be accredited with the hypothesis, but all minds that lead to the final wordings of Whorf. However, in todays society and with the advancement of cognitive science, Whorfs claims cannot stand alone. His view has been dissipated. Now leading the research are Lera Boroditsky, John A. Lucy and Stephen C. Levinson. These linguists are concerned with answering the forefront Does language shape thought? , and relying more on evidence than thoughts and the ories. This essay will set to the modern resurgence of the enquiry Does language shape thought? several(predicate) languages have different vocabularies. Do people of different languages view the world otherwise because of their respective vocabularies? More specifically, does the differing vocabulary associated with space and metre associated with different languages affect the speakers cognitive conceptions of the sequential order of time? Of course, many aspects of time are common to all languages and therefor cultures.For example, yesterday is in the past and tomorrow is in the next. Indeed these concepts are cosmopolitan across all languages. However, what is not universally accepted by all languages regarding the above statement is the sequential order of yesterday and tomorrow. For native English speakers, tomorrow would be thought to be in front of you, forward. yesterday would be thought to be easy you, backwards. This is due to the use of the English languages spa tial terms representing time. In front and behind are spatial terms that shape the thoughts of English peoples perception of time.This statement is meaningless without the comparison of another language with different conceptions of special awareness involving time. mandarin orange tree. Mandarin also uses the spatial terms in front (qian) and behind (Beihou) when talking about time. However, unlike the English language, Mandarin uses steep spatial morphemes to talk about the order of events, for example, tomorrow, yesterday, next month, lowest year etc. Boroditsky (2011, p. 1305-1328) Events that are yet to happen i. e. in the future are thought to be up (shang) and events in that have already happened i. . past events are thought to be down (xia) (Boroditsky et al, 2010, p. 1). There are some minor cases where English speakers do refer to time development vertical spatial terms, e. g. Things will be better down the line. However it has been proven that Mandarin speakers mob ilise about time vertically more frequently than English speakers do (Boroditsky et al, 2010, p. 2). An experiment to verify this can be seen through Chan and Bergens workings, Writing direction in? uences spatial cognition. Where a group of native English and Mandarin speakers were asked to spatially erect laic sequences shown to them in determines, 30% of the time Mandarin speakers arranged the pictures vertically as opposed to the English speakers who didnt arrange them vertically once. There are in fact many experiments to test the linguistic relativity hypotheses, regarding whether English and Mandarin speakers differ in their thinking and perception of time using spatial metaphors. The leader in this current field of research is the aforesaid(prenominal) Lera Boroditsky. Boroditsky has carried out many studies on this specific topic. Does Language model theme? Mandarin and English Speakers Conceptions of Time published in 2001, Boroditsky deliberates the oppugn, Is proc essing neutered in the long term by the use of metaphors. In 2008, Boroditsky revisited the topic, carrying out further experiments concluding the Mandarin speakers are more inclined to arrange time vertically. The paper was titled Do English and Mandarin speakers think differently about time? Boroditskys latest research and publishings, entitled Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? has concluding experiments that claim to the affirmative of the relative linguistic hypothesis. Boroditskys previous workings did not consider the importance of the pairing of primes and targets. In her most recent studies it shows that disregarding these aspects will lead to further kerfuffle and instability. There are numerous methods of predicting if English and Mandarin speakers conceive different conceptions of the sequential order of time. Firstly, each race must be well-tried in their own language. Testing Mandarin speakers through English or vice versa introduces un necessary variables into the experiment.If Mandarin speakers were to be tested through English it would inevitably test if Mandarin speakers think differently when they speak English. The question of whether they think differently to English speakers would not be properly examined and answered, as they would be thinking habitually but rather how their newly acquired language has influenced them to speak ( take for granted the legitimacy of the Relative Linguistic Hypothesis. ) The test would separate a group of native English and Mandarin speakers into their native languages. Each musician is given 3 magnets with pictures on them.One magnet depicts a picture of a sitting high up on a tree. The next picture sees the boy falling off of the tree. The final picture comprises of the boy on the ground crying. Each participant is then asked in their native language to stick their magnets, in order of events onto a magnetic board secured onto a wall. Presumably, assuming that Mandarin spea kers construct time on a vertical axis, their pictures would be rigid vertically. With the first picture placed at the hind end of the vertical line and the final picture at the top of the vertical line.In comparison it would be assumed that English speakers would place the pictures horizontally from leave(p) to powerful in starting order. The evidence from this experiment, would suggest that due to the different alignments of the pictures, Mandarin speakers do think differently to English speakers regarding the sequential order of time. With the available evidence from Lera Boroditskys 2010 publication, Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently? There proves to be many plausible, evidence based methods for testing the question do English and Mandarin speakers think differently?Boroditskys most recent experiments takes 181 people, 118 were native English speakers and 63 were native Mandarin speakers whom also spoke English. The procedure involved projectio ns of Woodey Allens face on a screen. There were two pictures, the first was shown on a fixed point on the screen for 2 minute of arcs and the southward was then shown in the same position. The second picture stayed there until the participants answered the question. The question posed to them was whether the second picture of Woody Allen was taken at an introductory or posterior stage in his life than the first.To answer the question the participants had to press a key on a keyboard, one label earlier and one labelled later. The position of the keys were arranged into four groups. The first group, tested on 51 native English speakers and 26 Mandarin speakers, had their keyboards lying flat on the table top. The keys were on the horizontal axis, the left key labelled earlier and the right key labelled later in the first group. The left key labelled later and the right key labelled earlier in the second group.For the remainder of participants, 67 native English speakers and 37 Mandarin speakers, their keyboards were positioned vertically to the table top. The keys were separately arranged in a vertical order. The bottom key labelled earlier and the top key labelled later in the first group. The bottom key labelled later and the top key labelled earlier in the second group. The reasoning behind this experiment was that assuming people habitually represent time on a horizontal or vertical axis, asking them to view the axis in an incongruent order to their automatic reasoning, should cause an interference.The results coincided with this reasoning. As discussed previously, some(prenominal) Mandarin and English speakers use horizontal spatial terms to represent time and both groups showed a canonicality effect on the horizontal axis. However as proven, Mandarin speakers think of time more frequently on the vertical axis than English speakers do. Only Mandarin speakers responded faster when the earlier key was placed on top in the vertical axis on the keyboa rd. This study clearly suggests that Mandarin speakers do think about the sequential order of time differently to English speakers.Mandarin speakers make explicit use of the vertical axis regarding time more often than English speakers. With reference to the question posed by the linguistic relativity hypothesis, Does language shape thought? the prediction of whether English and Mandarin speakers view the sequence of time differently was affirmed. Through the discussion of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis it became clear that the origins and developments of the hypothesis were needed in order to establish the exact question that was being asked in this essay.The question was then specified to refer to two different languages, which were as mentioned, Mandarin and English. The thought questioned was that of time. The vocabulary dealt with was space and time and how they confidence to comprise of different thoughts to the speakers of the languages. The conclusion and answer to t he central question of this essay was yes, English speakers and Mandarin speakers do think differently. Mandarin speakers are much more likely to think about time on a vertical axis while English speakers think about time on a horizontal plane.The question Does language shape thought? has been a topic that has spanned the centuries and perplexed anthropologists, linguists and psychologists. It seems this question has enlightened people everywhere the centuries too, and the thought of language affecting cognition has been a desired theory. beatified Roman Emperor, Charlemagne is known to have said to have a second language, is to have a second soul. References Beek, W. 2005. Linguistic Relativism, Variants and Misconceptions. Boroditsky, L. & Fuhrman, O. et al. 2010.Do English and Mandarin Speakers think about time differently? CA Elsevier B. V. Boroditsky, l. & Chen, E. 2011. How Linguistic and Cultural Forces Shape Conceptions of Time English and Mandarin Time in 3D. Cognitive experience Society, Inc. Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, C. S. 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. New York Cambridge University Press. McAfee, C. 2004. The Linguistic Relativity Theory and Benjamin Lee Whorf. The McMaster Journal of Communication. Volume 1, Issue 1. Slobin, I. D. 1996. From Thought and Language to Thinking for verbalise. Cambridge University Press.