Cronica Ideilor:

Acvariul cu mentaliti de Sorin Lavric

Romnia literar

Home > Arhiv > 2008 > Numarul 45 > Acvariul cu mentaliti

http://www.romlit.ro/acvariul_cu_mentaliti
Aa cum exist bariere genetice ntre specii sau bariere lingvistice ntre
comuniti, tot aa exist granie mentale ntre oameni. Graniele acestea nu au
fermitatea unor frontiere politice i nici soliditatea unor hotare naturale: ele sunt
inaparente i, la prima vedere, par cu totul inofensive, dovad c, intrat de curnd
ntr-o comunitate strin, nimeni nu te trage de cot spre a-i atragea atenia c,
n noua lume n care te miti, trebuie s te pori dup anumite norme. Numai c,
pe ct de inofensive par, pe att de constrngtoare se dovedesc de ndat ce
ncerci s le ncalci. E ca i cum, trebuind s iei parte la un joc ale crui reguli nu
le tii, te simi exclus ncetul cu ncetul din desfurarea lui. Constai c normele
cu care fusesei obinuit i pierd puterea i c, n schimb, i se cere s te
adaptezi noilor legi aflate n vigoare, dar nite legi pe care nu le gseti scrise
nicieri i pe care nimeni nu st s i le explice. Pe scurt, trebuie s nvei totul
din mers, dup ce o via ntreag ai trit n alt regim psihic.
Cam aa s-ar putea descrie succint diferena de mentalitate dintre popoare, etnii
sau populaii aezate ntr-un anumit areal geografic. Diferena aceasta poate fi
constatat i descris ca atare, dar nu poate fi generalizat sub forma unor tipare
specifice. Cci, ca s descrii mentalul unei colectiviti, trebuie s pui piciorul
acolo, sau, dac nu poi, mcar s-i citeti pe cercettorii care au apucat s-o fac
naintea ta. Cu alte cuvinte, nu poi transforma studiul mentalitilor ntr-o
disciplin teoretic. Ea cere descriere empiric i fapt divers: adic strngerea
unor informaii care, provenite din bazarul pestri al populaiilor planetare, pot fi
rnduite
n
caleidoscopul
uria
al
unei
cri
de
antropologie.
i chiar asta face Dan Ungureanu n Zidul de aer. Tratat despre mentaliti:
strbate continent cu continent i ar cu ar spre a descrie specificul mental al
populaiilor indigene: obiceiurile, moravurile i reflexele tradiionale. Cartea nu
seamn defel cu tomurile acelea fade de antropologie care i descriu cu lux de
amnunte nite fleacuri locale, fcnd uz de un munte de informaii pentru a vorbi
despre nimic: ritualuri moarte, reminiscene barbare sau excentriciti de
comportament al nu tiu crui trib din Africa subsaharian. Lucrarea e un fel de
ghid turistic ridicat la puterea unei lucrri de specialitate: e scris pentru cititorul
care poate ntr-o zi s ajung el nsui n locurile pe care le descrie autorul, tiind
de la bun nceput la ce s se atepte dac calc prin Chile, prin Islanda sau prin
Cambodgea, i asta dup ce, firete, a trecut prin toate rile Occidentului.
Dincolo de informaia etalat n paginile ei, a crei acuratee pledeaz pentru
acribia documentar a lui Dan Ungureanu, cartea atrage atenia prin
consideraiile teoretice de la nceputul crii (capitolul "Mentalitile") i prin
concluziile de la sfrit ei. E vorba aadar de acele cteva distincii teoretice pe
care o disciplin att de ne-teoretic ca "studiul mentalitilor" le poate ngdui.
Ce nseamn n fond termenul acesta att de banal i de vag: mentalitate? Dac
am defini-o drept "totalitatea reprezentrilor pe care le au indivizii despre
societatea n care triesc" (p. 11), n-am spune mare lucru. De aceea, s
ncercm s surprindem mentalitatea urmrindu-i cteva din trsturile
constitutive. n felul acesta o vom putea deosebi de acei termeni cu care pare a fi
sinonim.
n primul rnd, mentalitatea e o nsuire a unui grup de oameni i nu a unei
persoane izolate. Ai o mentalitate numai alturi de alii, nu de unul singur.
Apartenena la grup preced dobndirea mentalitii. n al doilea rnd,
mentalitatea e invizibil, precum un cmp psihologic pe care nu-l vezi, dar pe care
l simi mereu, prin felul n care reacioneaz oamenii care sunt prini n el. Un
pete inut ntr-un acvariu a crui ap are o anumit compoziie organoleptic, de
cum va fi mutat ntr-o incint avnd o alt compoziie a apei, i va schimba vizibil
comportamentul. La fel i oamenii: mutai ntr-o ambian psihologic creia i sau schimbat variabilele, vor acuza schimbri radicale de atitudine. Simptome de
inadaptare i chiar de respingere a anturajului. Ceea ce nseamn c un mediu

Alte
articole
de
Sorin
Lavric
Despre
Sorin
Lavric
Tipreste

este cu att mai eficient cu ct este mai insesizabil. Tot ce-i ascuns i imperceptibil
are un efect mai mare asupra minii oamenilor. n schimb, ceea ce sare n ochi nu
ne poate influena n profunzime. Dac mentalitatea ar putea fi vzut, i-ar
pierde
fora
constrngtoare.
n al treilea rnd, mentalitatea unei comuniti nu e totuna cu ideologia ei.
Mentalitatea presupune o rspndire difuz, vag i generalizat, n vreme ce
ideologia cere idei precise, explicite. Tocmai de aceea ideologiile pot fi schimbate
cu uurin, n vreme ce mentalitile nu. Din acelai motiv, ideologiile pot fi
exportate i ntiprite n mentalul altor colectiviti. n schimb, mentalitile nu
pot fi exportate: ele sunt precum plcile tectonice pe deasupra crora vin i trec
aluviunile ideologiilor la mod. Ceea ce nseamn c o ideologie nu poate schimba
o mentalitate. O poate influena n bine sau n ru, dar nu o poate nlocui. n
adncime, ea rmne aceeai ap n care comportamentul petilor e condiionat de
compoziia ei. Iar compoziia unei mentaliti e alctuit dintr-o infinitate de
variabile
a
cror
evoluie
ideologia
nu
o
poate
influena.
Ce nseamn asta? C formele nu pot crea fondul unei naiuni. Cadrul legilor nu
poate s modifice cu timpul gndirea oamenilor. A imita legi nu nseamn a
schimba tipare de comportament. "Popoarele nu sunt mulimi de pioni statistice,
ci snt organizate n familii, n clanuri, clici, grupuri de interese, interacioneaz
diferit cu legile." (p. 346) Aadar, aplicarea unei legi d natere unor reacii care
depind de fondul ierarhic al poporului, i nu de previziunile psihologilor cu privire
la efectul pe termen lung al legii n cauz. Aa cum efectul unui medicament
depinde de particularitile genetice ale individului, tot aa efectul unei legi
depinde de mentalitatea comunitii cu pricina. Concluzie: justiia nu poate
disciplina
mentalitatea
unei
comuniti.
n al patrulea rnd, mentalitatea unui popor nu se confund cu obiceiurile lui.
"Mentalitile sunt diferite de moravuri, tradiii i obiceiuri. Moravurile, tradiiile i
obiceiurile au n comun cu mentalitatea transmiterea informal, tacit, implicit,
de la o generaie la alta, i stabilitatea. Mentalitatea ns nu e obiectivabil ca
moravurile, tradiiile i obicieurile, ci este invizibil. Nici o comunitate nu poate
vorbi de mentalitatea noastr, ci doar de obiceiurile noastre. Tradiiile i
obiceiurile
sunt
ritualizabile,
pe
cnd
mentalitatea
nu."
(p.
9)
n al cincilea rnd, mentalitatea unei comuniti nu e totuna cu prejudecile
ntreinute de membrii ei. "Mentalitile sunt diferite de prejudeci. i
mentalitatea i prejudecile sunt seturi de ateptri privitoare la comportamentul
i valorile celorlali, dar prejudecile sunt un set mai restrns de ateptri,
privitoare numai la membrii altor comuniti; mentalitatea este setul de ateptri
privitoare la membrii in-grupului, grupul cruia indiviul i aparine. Unii autori
definesc prejudecile ca atitudine negativ fa de un individ bazat doar pe
apartenena sa la un anumit grup. Exist ns i prejudeci pozitive i
prejudeci indiferente: unguroaicele snt focoase i francezii tiu s fac
dragoste. Prejudecile indiferente sunt suma cunotinelor despre un individ
dedus din apartenena la un grup; se poate spune c prejudecile, n general,
sunt cunotinele nesistematizate despre mentalitatea altor grupuri." (p. 10)
n ciuda erudiiei pe care o arat, Dan Ungureanu nu las impresia c teoria i-ar
fi sufocat pofta polemic. Dovad necruarea cu care i judec pe doi din autorii
aflai n vog: Samuel Huntington i Francis Fukuyama. Primul este un epigon al
lui Spengler (iar The Clash of Civilizations e o pasti dup Der Untergang des
Abendlandes), un diletant care scoate naiviti americane pe band rulant,
pretndu-se la un fast-food de idei i fcnd un talme-balme din criteriile
lingvistice, geografice, politice i religioase. Nici Fukuyama nu scap de
vituperrile autorului: un politolog improvizat care ntreine ideea utopic c
democraia parlamentar se va instala pretutindeni n lume, c aadar modelul
politic
american
e
destinat
rspndirii
implacabile.
"Politologi improvizai ca Samuel Huntington vd globul zguduit de ciocnirea ntre
civilizaii eterne, reciproc ireconciliabile, sau descriu o extindere triumfal a
democraiei liberale, ca Francis Fukuyama. Primul pune accentul pe mentaliti
perene, al doilea pe instituii politice recente, care par a se rspndi. Nici unul,
nici cellalt n-au dreptate. Ariile de mentaliti sunt altele dect cele identificate
aiurea de Samuel Huntington, iar mentalitile nu sunt ideologii, nu declaneaz

i nici nu ntrein conflicte, i nici s se rspndeasc nu pot, ca ariile de influen

politic: mentalitatea britanic nu s-a rspndit n India, nici cea francez n Asia
de Sud-Est. Francis Fukuyama, dimpotriv, nu ine cont c instituiile politice i
legile nu apar prin generaie spontanee, ci se nasc din mentaliti i sunt
meninute de acestea: dei par a avea valoare universal, dei par chemate s se
extind, ele nu pot dinui dect acolo unde mentalitatea e favorabil. Instituiile
politice i legile sunt o pojghi subire, mentalitile - placa tectonic subiacent.
Legile i instituiile ader mai mult sau mai puin la mentaliti, dup cum s-au
nscut
spontan
din
ele
sau
nu."
(p.
345)
n concluzie, o carte erudit scris de un autor cruia nu-i lipsete defel
ndrzneala ideologic.

Istoria mentalitilor
De la Wikipedia, enciclopedia liber

Cele mai recente perspective din domeniul discursului istoric (la nouvelle histoire - istoria nou) se
refer la promovarea unei imagini novatoare i globale asupra trecutului, avnd n vedere modul
(sau mai degrab modurile), manierele n care oamenii societilor trecute vd, percep i i
imagineaz cosmosul, lumea care-i nconjoar, cum se vd pe ei nii, cum i vd pe ceilal i,
precum i sistemele de valori n funcie de care i modeleaz atitudini, comportamente, reacii unii
fa de ceilali i fa de provocrile mediului natural, social sau politic. ntr-un cuvnt, paradigma
mental specific unui anumit timp istoric. Istoria mentalitilor a inaugurat o perspectiv dinamic
asupra trecutului, ncercnd s evite capcanele unui determinism rigid, care merge direct de la
cauz la efect. Spiritul pluridisciplinar prin care se caracterizeaz noua viziune istoric (psihologie
social,geografie uman, demografie istoric, lexicologie, semantic, etc.) este unul ditre
principalele atribute ale noului tip de discurs. n centrul investigaiei este aezat nu un
omabstract i universal, ci o fiin concret din punct de vedere istoric, aezat n mijlocul lumii sale i
nu rupt de aceasta. Atenia aste aadar acordat oamenilor cu toate tririle, emo iile, pasiunile,
crizele i reveriile lor, uneori raionali, dar cel mai adesea instinctivi, i nu indivizilor care se reduc la
o simpl proiecie social a unei imagini mascate, fie voit, fie accidental.
Cuprins
[ascunde]

1 Etimologie

2 Metode i concepte operaionale

3 Aportul psihologiei

4 Bibliografie

5 Reprezentanii istoriei mentalitilor

Etimologie[modificare | modificare surs]

Istoria mentalitilor vine de la adjectivul mental care se refer la spirit; dar epitetul latin mentalis,
ignorat de latina clasic, aparine vocabularului scolasticii medievale i cele cinci secole care
despart apariia cuvntului mental (n francez n mijlocul secolului XIV) de a

cuvntului mentalitate (mijlocul secolului XIX) indic faptul c substantivul rspunde i altor nevoi i
aparine unei alte conjuncturi dect adjectivul.
Pentru limba englez, geneza substantivului mentalitate (mentality) apre n secolul XVII, de
asemenea din forma adjectival mental (n englez mental). Mentalitatea este fiica psihologiei
engleze din secolul XVII. Ea desemneaz coloratura colectiv a psihismului, modul particular de a
gndi i a simi al unui popor, a unui anumit grup de persoane, ntr-un cuvnt, ceea ce n limba
german desemnm prin termenul Weltanschauung.

Metode i concepte operaionale[modificare | modificare surs]

A face istoria mentalitilor nseamn, mai nti de toate, a face un anumit tip de lectur oricrui gen
de document. Orice surs este bun pentru istoricul mentalitilor. Aceast lectur se va concentra
mai ales asupra prilor tradiionale ale textelor: formule i preambuluri care dau glas motivaiilor
(adevrate sau false) care formeaz scheletul mentalitilor.
Dar mai nti un inventar al surselor: * documentele care vdesc sentimentele i comportamentele
paroxistice sau marginale care, datorit distanrii, aduc n lumin mentalitatea comun;*
documentele literare i artistice, documente ale imaginarului i ale reprezentrilor colective;* este
important a nu se separa istoria mentalitilor de studiul locului i al mijloacelor de producere,
adic vocabularul, sintaxa, locurile comune, concepiile asupra spaiului i timpului, cadrele logice,
ceea ce Lucien Febvre numea utilaj mental.
Istoria mentalitilor i-a asumat ca obiectiv reconstituirea comportamentelor, a expresiilor i a
tcerilor care traduc concepiile asupra lumii, sensibilitile colective, reprezentri i imagini, mituri i
valori recunoscute sau doar subnelese de ctre grupuri sau de ctre ntreaga societate, care
constituie coninutul psihologiilor colective, acestea furniznd elementele fundamentale ale acestei
cercetri.

Aportul psihologiei[modificare | modificare surs]

"Faptele istorice sunt prin excelen fapte psihologice" (Marc Bloch n Apologie pour l`histoire ou
metier d`historien). Istoria, fie ea diplomatic sau realist, conceptual sau evenimenial,
genealogie sau cronic, se prezint ntotdeauna i sub forma unei analize mai mult sau mai pu in
subtile a strilor de spirit ale indivizilor, grupurilor sau chiar ntregii societi.
Istoricul, pentru a nelege i a face s se neleag conduita personajelor sale, le atribuie acestora
anumite dorine, conduite, atitudini. Aici apare i unul dintre principalele riscuri ale istoriei
mentalitilor - transferarea propriilor idei i concepii asupra timpului i eroilor supuse studiului, sau
anacronismul psihologic. Istoricilor, psihologia social le poate oferi n primul rnd tehnici noi de
observare i mijloace mai exacte de a verifica i interpreta sursele.

Bibliografie[modificare | modificare surs]

Introducere n istoria mentalitatilor colective : antologie [Carti] / stud. introd., selectia si trad.
textelor Toader Nicoara

Identitate/alteritate: despre experiena romneasc a strinului (Identit/altrit: de

l'exprience roumaine de l'tranger). Edit. de: Zub, Al. Iai, Ed. Universitatea "Al. I.Cuza", 1995,
400 p.

Identitate i alteritate n spaiul cultural romnesc (Identit et altrit dans l'espace culturel
roumain). Volum ngrijit de: Zub, Al. Iai, Ed. Universitii "Al. I.Cuza", 1996, 431 p.

Boia, Lucian. Istoria imaginarului sau dinamica arhetipurilor (L'histoire de l'imaginaire ou la

dynamique des archtypes). In: Miscellanea in honorem Radu Manolescu. Bucureti, 1996,
p.32-43.

Deletant, Dennis. Fatalism and Passiveness in Romania: Myth and Reality. In: Saeculum,
1995, 1, nr. 3-4, p.75-87 ; In: In Honorem Paul Cernovodeanu, Bucureti, 1998, p. 325-337.

Duu, Alexandru. Igiena moral i revoluia. Dimensiunile istoriei mentalitilor (L'hygiene

morale et la revolution. Les dimensions de l'histoire des mentalits). In: Xenopoliana, 1995, 3,
nr. 1-4, p.24-29 ; In: Miscellanea in honorem Radu Manolescu, Bucureti, 1996, p. 25-31.

Duu, Alexandru. Southeastern Europe between the "oriental lethargy" and the prosperous
West In: In Honorem Paul Cernovodeanu. Bucureti, 1998, p.313-324.

Florea, Gelu; Srbu, V. Imagini i imaginar n Dacia preroman (Images et imaginaire en

Dacie prromaine). Brila, Ed. Istros, 1997, 224 p.

Mamina, Alexandru. Societate, instituii, reprezentri sociale. Studii de istoria mentalit ilor i
a imaginarului (Socit, institutions, reprsentations sociales. Etudes de l'histoire des mentalits
et de l'imaginaire). Cuvnt nainte de: Constantiniu, Florin. Bucureti, Ed. Enciclopedic, 1998,
156 p.

Neumann, Victor. Mitul monoculturalismului centralist (Le mythe du monoculturalisme

centraliste). In: AC, 1998, nr. 2, p.18-22.

Pecican, Ovidiu. Miturile originii la romni (Les mythes de l'origine chez les Roumains). In:
AC, 1998, nr. 2, p.5-12.

Reprezentanii istoriei mentalitilor[modificare | modificare surs]

Lucien Febvre

Marc Bloch

Johan Huizinga

Fernand Braudel

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie

Jacques Le Goff

Georges Duby

Philippe Aries
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istoria_mentalit%C4%83%C8%9Bilor

http://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/en/razdely/filology/correlation-between-languageworldview-and-mentality-modern-linguistics
Correlation between Language Worldview and Mentality in Modern Linguistics

Varvara S. Sosedova teacher of English Department 1 MGIMO University, Moscow, Russ

mail:sosedovavarvara@gmai
The article is devoted to the correlation between concepts of mentality and language worldview in
modern linguistics. Considering mentality within modern linguistics reflects the principle
expansionism which consists in the fact that no science can remain within the borders of itself, it
needs access to the adjacent areas of knowledge to produce the most comprehensive research.
That is why linguistics is to use the data provided by such sciences as cultural studies, anthropology,
sociology, etc.
The paper highlights the main approaches to the issue of language worldview. The most relevant
modern theory concerning the topic is the hypothesis of linguistic relativity in its weak form, which
consists in the fact that language is only one of the factors that influence the way in which we
conceptualize reality. Further in the article we put definitions of language worldview and give our own
definition of the term.
The part of the article dedicated to the mentality also provides definitions of the concept, indicates
the relative novelty of studying the mentality of a nation within language sciences, it also provides a
comparison of the given concepts. The author finds both similarities and differences and comes to
the conclusion that, despite the apparent synonymy of the discussed concepts, there are important
differences: they deal with different sides of world perception, they put emphasis on peculiar features
of reality.
Mentality is associated with the cultural aspect and the language worldview with the liguocultural
aspect. What is important is that both concepts are relevant to modern linguistics.
Key words: mentality, language worldview, expansionism, hypothesis of linguistic
relativity, conceptualization.

References
1. Kubrjakova E.S. Change of knowledge paradigm in the linguistics of the 20th century
[Smena paradigm znaniia v lingvistike KhKh veka] // Lingvistika na ishode 20 veka: itogi

i perspektivy [Linguistics at the end of 20th century: results and prospects], Moscow,
MGU,1995. S. 606.
2. Gumbol'dt V. Language and culture philosophy [Iazyk i filosofiia kul'tury] M.: Progress,
1985. S. 450.
3. Vajsgerber L. Mother tongue and spirit formation [Rodnoi iazyk i formirovanie dukha]
Moscow, Editorial URSS, 2004. S. 232. (Istorija lingvofilosofskoj mysli)
4. Kubrjakova E.S. Language and knowledge [Iazyk i znanie] // Ros. akademija nauk. In-t
jazykoznanija. Moscow, Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury, 2004. S. 560.
5. Brutjan G.A. Language and worldview [Iazyk i kartina mira] // NDVSh. Filos. nauki.
1973. 1. S. 107-114.
6. Karaulov Ju.N. General and Russian ideography [Obshchaia i russkaia ideografiia],
Moscow, Nauka, 1976. S. 356.
7. Maslova V.A. Cognitive linguistics [Kognitivnaia lingvistika] // V.A. Maslova. Moscow,
TetraSistems, 2004. S. 256.
8. Dzhioeva A.A. English mentality through key words: Understatement [Angliiskii
mentalitet skvoz' prizmu kliuchevykh slov: Understatement] // Vestnik MGU. Ser. 19.
Lingvistika i mezhkul'turnaja kommunikacija. 3. 2006. S. 45-56.
9. Gurevich A. Ja. The problem of mentality in modern historiography [Problema
mental'nostei v sovremennoi istoriograaii] // Vseboshhaja istorija: diskussii, novye
podhody. Moscow, 1989. S.75-89.
10. Mitina O. S., Petrenko V. F. Psychosemanic research of political mentality
[Psikhosemanticheskoe issledovanie politicheskogo mentaliteta] // Obshhestvennye
nauki i sovremenost'. 1994. 6. S. 52-54.
11. Gachev G. National mentalities [Mental'nosti narodov mira], Moscow, Algoritm,
2003. S. 349.
12. Dzhioeva A.A. Stiff Upper Lip through Anglo-Saxon mentality [Stiff Upper Lip
skvoz' prizmu anglosaksonskogo mentaliteta] // Anglijskij jazyk na gumanitarnyh
fakul'tetah. Vyp.4, Maks Press, Moscow, 2010. S. 15-43.

Posted on 15/11/2012by yulia

, , ,

-, ,
. , ,
, (
fatica-a-re, . fatica
).


?
, ,
bello (), buono (), meraviglioso ().

? , ,
, , !
, ,
, ?

? ,
- ?
?

, .
,
. ,
, , .
,
.
-
XVIII XIX . ,


.
.

: ,
.
1930 -,
. ,
, .
,
, ,
.


, . , ,
,
, .
,
, , , . ,
Standard Average European ( ,
)
:
, , .
(
,
- ).
, :
.
,
( ).
,
, ( ).
,
, , ,
. ,
. , , ,
,
, ,
, ,
,
( ).
, ,
, ,
, blue ()
. ,
,
,
( ,
). , ,
,


. ,
,
(
).
,
, ,
. ,
,
, ,
, .

,
,
:
- Bellezza (), bello ()
. ,
bello mio (
),
. ,
- , ,
, , ,
belle arti ( ,
, ..).
.
,
- ,
, , ,
,
. ( , ., 2006, . 6). (
,
).
bello
bella gente (- ,
,
).

 ,
, , . bella gente
bella vita ( ), ,
bella.
(bellezza)
: ,
, ,
.
(bello) , URBS
, CIVITAS
. CIVITAS
, URBS ,

.
- : simpatia () antipatia
(), , ,
. simpatia
, , ,
.
, , ..
,
, .
,
, ,
.
, bont (, ,
) bellezza (),
(simpatia antipatia)
.
, (una persona simpatica
, , , .. ), ,
, , , , (
un simpatico giardino ),
, .

; : Egli un simpatizzante di centro (
).

- Divertimento () , divertirsi (,
) .
:
divertissement, , .
: , .
, divertimento
, , .
Ti sei divertito? (
?) ,
,
.
. : ,
,
divertimento . , divertimento divertente (). Hoepli : ,
, , ..
: spettacolo divertente ( ), libro
divertente ( ); una scenetta divertente ( ).
: persona
divertente ( ), , .
una persona divertente
, ,
.
, , divertente (),
, . ,
,
divertirsi enjoy (.) (Ti sei divertito?/ Did you enjoy?)
, , ,
. , ,
mi diverto col pensiero che ( ),

. enjoy it (
), ,
.
, -,
, .
- ,
spettacolo.
, ,

, , , ,
.[1]

spettacolare (, ..) (
). , ,
, ,

:
giustizia
(),
informazione
().
Amico () ,
, : un caro amico ( ); amico fraterno ( ), amico del
cuore ( ).
Corriere della sera :
- , , ,
.
- : . , paese amico ( ).
- ( ) ,
, :
sentilo lamico! (- !)
- , , : la sua amica ( ).
- , -,
- - (: , ). , un
amico degli animali ( ).
(,
) amico
. , ,
, amico. , amico
, ,
: Ma lui un amico! ( !).

[1]

http://dizionari.corriere.it


,
, , ( ,
, ).
, (
), . (
, :
):
- Tira pi un pelo di donna che cento paia di buoi ( ,
).
- Chi nasce bella non nasce poverella (, ,
)
- Chi nasce bella nasce con dote (, , )
, Le donne ne
sanno una pi del diavolo ( )
, .
,
,
:
- Dio ti tenga lontano dalla donna che parla latino. (
, ).
, .
:
- ,
- ,
-
- ,
- ,

 , .
, -
. . ,
, .
, , ,
. ,
, La bellezza
non fa bollire la pentola ( ) La donna che si
marita, deve portare la dote nelle dita ( ,
). , , bella
donna ( ) , ,
: Chi ha moglie bella
da tutti corteggiato ( , ),
Uomo sposato, uomo
rovinato ( , ). ,
, ,
, ,
.

Introduction to the thesis Language that shapes mentality:

the influence of semantic and grammatic structures on mind
Posted on 05/11/2012by yulia

In Japan, the country that is well-known for its work capability, exist the words like
karoschi death from excessive work efforts or karo-suru , that means work
excessively, overwork, be tired from the hard work. In Italy, in the Campania region, the
verb to work is already associated with weariness, fatigue (it is called exactly fatica-are).
How strong is the connection between the language and national character and how
does the language reflect the way of living of the whole nation?
For example, as in daily life of Italian language the words like bello (beautiful), buono
(good), meraviglioso (marvellous) can often be heard, so could this habit affect the
inclination of the whole nation to a beauty? As a matter of fact, the Italians had created
the masterpieces of painting, architecture, all this that became the artistic heritage of
humanity!
And what could we conclude, instead, about the Germans, the only word of the language
of whom is morphologically structured in the way that can mean an entire phrase?
Could the morphological construction of the language answer to the famous accuracy

and punctuality of the German people? Isnt it for it that in Germany (and, before it, in
Austro-Hungary) the military science had been born?
How does the language determine our behaviour?
The world reflection in the language is represented by the collective creativity of people
who speak certain language, and every new generation receives with its native language
an entire cultural complex, where the best features of national character, the worlds
vision are posed. The language, therefore, reflects the world and culture and forms its
own speakers. It is the mirror and at the same time it is the cultural instrument, which
develop the passive functions of the reflection and the active functions of the creativity.
The theory that every spoken language means a particular way to perceive the world and
a way of thinking, representing its own mentality, has existed already for about one
hundred years. In my study I try to develop this theory, basing especially on Russian,
Italian and English languages.

The influence of words on our mind

To show how languages conceptualize the extralinguistic reality, often, the simple
examples as names of a bodys parts, terms of relationship or designation of colours
system are used. For example, in Russian language to designate more immediate
parents of the same generation two different words that depend on parents gender are
used brat (brother) and sestra (sister). In Japanese language this fragment of
parental system of terms supposes a more detailed segmentation: an indication to the
relative age of the parents is obligatory; or rather, instead of two words with meanings
of brother or sister four words are used: ani (an elder brother), ane (an elder
sister), otooto (a younger brother), imooto (a younger sister). Besides, in Japanese
the term with collective meaning kyoodai (broche or sister), (brothers and/or sisters)
also exists. It determines more immediate relative (or relatives) of the same generation
with the speaker independently from its gender and age. (The similiar generalized
denominations also exist in European languages, as, for example, sibling (brother or
sister) in English. It is possible to say that the way to conceptualize the world, which is
used by native Japanese speaker, proposes a more detailed classification of concepts,
compared, for example, to the way of conceptualization of native Russian speaker. In
the same way well-known today examples of different manners of the worlds
conceptualization, can be given:
The presence in English language of the word hand which in Italian has the
same translation, i.e. mano, in Russian, insted, is translated as the part of the arm
under the wrist. It is used in the contexts: wash the hands, shake the hand. Another

word is arm, which in Russian would be translated as the part of the hand above the
wrist or the part from the shoulder to the wrist. In Russian in both cases only one
term is used, which is ruka.
The similiar example that can be given is about the differentiation of colours (in
this case in English and Russian) blue/ siniy and light blue/ goluboy, given that
in many languages one only term of blue exists.

Grammatical structure of language as an indicator of

National mentality
Any language consists of vocabulary and the rules of its composition, i.e. Grammatic (or
grammar). The Grammatic, in its turn, consists of two sectors: morphology (which
concerns the rules and means of changes and words formations) and syntax (which
includes the rules and means of changes and constructions of combinations of words
and phrases). Both morphology and syntax belong to the structure, however only the
proposition (and not the word) is a complete statement with a conscious thought, which
is an argument in favour of syntactical studies. In its turn, the syntax of a language is
also a system with its own hierarchy and we can imagine what in this system concerns
basic characteristics and transfers the most important settings which regards the spirit
of mentality.
The main and basic characteristic of a proposition is the way to combine words. There
two types of words combinations in propositions: rigid and free. The rigid way of
composition fixes a determined position for every member of the proposition. This
determined position does not depend on a speaker, but usually on type of the
proposition. Meanwhile a free type of the proposition allows a speaker to choose a way
to order the words in the proposition according to ones necessities and objectives (for
example, a speaker can not only communicate information, but with certain words
order can underline and emphasize something). This hypothesis supposes that anyone
who speaks a language with a rigid order of words will have some determined
characteristics of the mentality which are different from those of a native speaker who
uses a free words order.
It is possible to presume the following. As a proposition is a complete statement which
represents the world, therefore in its structure there are the main worlds images
established in the syntactical system, which is national ontology. A precise and
understandable system of the proposition, independently from a speaker, which
regulates in a haughty manner the words chaos, formulates the idea of logical world,
where everything is rationally conditioned. The absence of this type of the structure
correspond to the idea of the world, with no rigid system which organizes everything

and no rigid cause-and-effect relations. It determines a contrast and a position of

protest regarding any system, which is above and has a regulative function. Besides it,
it is possible to expect even a denial of everything that can function as a joining
component (either of systematic character or not). Combining words in a free way, the
order of their disposition depends on speaker, thus it can be supposed that in
ontological representations of this type of languages, the role of a subject, probably, will
be increased.
Analysing additional factors of the basis of mentalities, it is possible to single out the
following characteristics of languages structure:
1. A positional relationship between verb and noun. If the first place in a proposition is
occupied by a noun, it predisposes to the representation of a subject as an active
principle. It is the subject to transform the world, and thus it can have a dominant
position regarding all other subjects and objects. If, instead, the verb is in the beginning
of the proposition, that means that activity is a category that is organized by itself,
subordinating both the world and the subject. The studies of the American linguists
Edward Sapir, Benjamin Whorf and G. Heidegger (about whom we have already talked
in previous chapters) on materials of native Americans Hopi, Nutca and Navaho, had
discovered such a specificity of the worlds characterization, that consists in prevalence
of verbal forms of the realitys description, i.e. the description of the world through the
action. Analysing this particularity of some native American languages, G. Heidegger
had expressed an opinion, that this description is a reflex of their images of the world
in continuous movement. Even today, writes the scientist, Navaho represents
mostly a nation of nomads and vagabonds.
[1]

2. Disposition of subject and complement. In the troika of subject (S), complement (C)
and predicate (P), six variations of orders are possible (S-C-P, S-P-C, P-S-C, P-C-S, C-PS, C-S-P). Generally, in the worlds languages all combinations variations can be met,
but many languages rigidly fix one of the combination. (In Russian all six combinations
are possible). Those languages which had chosen one of six combinations for its
structures, will have a stronger orientation of opposition regarding subjects and objects
of the terrestrial world, and not regarding the governing systematic principles. This
happens because the order combination they had chosen underline a dominant position
of a subject of action in regard to that object and subject, to which the action was
addressed.
The syntactic relations mentioned above reflect general features of the spirit of the
mentality. Those features can be specified by means of analysis of other types of
syntactical relations. For example, if a certain language belongs to a linguistic group
which expresses the idea of possession through the verb to have (somebody has

something) contribute to the strengthening of a distances setting regarding other

subjects and objects. In this case, from the syntactical point of view, the possession
corresponds to an active operation. That means that a verb to have is equal to verbs
to take, to hold, to put. (So, the phrase in English I have a cat, in Russian is
normally translated as There is a cat in my place (literally translation)). This
construction with a verb to have forms in a subject a feeling of importance regarding
all other subjects and objects, facilitating to divide the world on I and they, and
they are transformered in a utilitys objects. The subject becomes an acquirer,
meanwhile all the rest get the characteristics of objects fit for the acquisition (this can be
attributed also to those objects and subjects, regarding the purchase of which one could
not even speak. For example, the phrase I have a brother usually does not mean that
somebody had acquired a brother).
[2]

Languages with an idea of having contrast with languages of verb to be, which put
at the first place the idea of being of somebody or something. Examining these two types
of languages, Erich Fromm in his book To have or to be? highlighted, that these types
have two principal ways of being, two different types of auto-orientation and worldorientation, two different structures of social character. Analysing being according to
the principle of possession, he underlined, that in this case my relation with the world
expresses a wish to make it an object of possess and possession, desiring to transform
everything and everybody in my property. Almost all languages of the Western Europe
(i.e. languages with rigid words orders) and also almost all Slav languages, and not only
Czech, Polish, Bulgarian, but also languages very similar to Russian, as Ukrainian and
Belarusian belong to the category of have-languages, These latest examples make us
comprehend well, how syntactical rules transmit various mental characteristics even in
languages, whose structures are very similar.
[3]

Therefore, the analyse of the languages structure, and, first of all, of the syntactical
constructions, gives possibilities to individuate basic characteristics of the mentality, its
guides pivot and a spirit. Understanding these basic characteristics of the mentality
will help to make a dialogue in a productive way, because during the construction of
this dialogue will be possible to consider the particularities of representations of other
culture.

Vasiliev S.A. Philosophic analysis of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity, Kiev,

Nauk. Dumka, 1974, p.30

[1]

Alla Melnikova, magazin Literaturnaia ucheba, article Russia and Europe: the
spirite of mentality, N6, 2008
[2]

Erich Fromm Man for himself. To have or to be, Moscow, Izdatelstvo Ast, 1998, p.
37-38
[3]

Linguistic world view

One of the first significant experiments of the contemporary linguistic currenst in
Russia was a publication in 1998 of the collective treatise The role of human factor in
language. Language and linguistic world view. The authors of this monograph: B.A.
Serebrennikov, V.I. Postovalova, E.S. Kubryakova, V.N. Telia and others justify
legitimacy of the individuation of the scientific concept called linguistic world view
and propose ways to reconstruct structural attributes of this phenomenon through the
analysis of all levels of the linguistic system in lexicon and phraseology, in words
formation and in grammar system. It is possible to resume the main ideas of this work
as follows:
1) In the language (as well as in the mind) it is necessary to distinguish between
conceptual and proper linguistic content, generally and specifically national.
2) The main characteristics of any language are anthropologically conditioned. (These
characteristics are: modality semantic category, which expresses an attitude of a
speaker towards the enunciated content and reality; personalization; predicativity an
expression of the relation between the content of the utterance and the reality, through
the linguistic means; deixis a linguistic function which is used to collocate an
utterance in a situation in space and time, that is to connect a text with a context;
polysemy which indicates that one word can have different meanings, etc.).
3) In the real functioning of the language the role of extralinguistic factors (cognitive,
value, regulative, sociocultural) often is more important, than the role of
interlinguistical structural rules.
4) The world concept in linguistic sign (according to Yu. D. Apresian) has a naf
and unconscious character, which distinguishes the linguistic world view from the
scientific world view, which is the result of conscious abstraction of the reality in
knowledge through the logical-formal apparatus. In the linguistic mind the
component of a concrete image subjectively coloured is very strong.
The linguistic world view in this respect represents the dialectics between general and
nationally specific understanding of the world. The unity is reached with: a) identity of
the habitat which is the world, where human lives, with its physical equal for everybody
attributes; b) identity of general types of the orientation, based on importance for
humans binary oppositions (for example, above/under, life/death, quality/quantity,

etc.); c) equal linguistic capability (linguistic competence) as a general gift to humans,

which has its genetic nature.
http://yuliaprokhorenya.wordpress.com/the-influence-of-words-to-our-mind-2/

Multiculturalism, Linguistic Relativity and Education

Posted on March 25, 2011by jondarrallrew

At present, there is a fierce debate going on regarding the state of multiculturism within
Britain, and the degree to which it can be considered to have been a success.
Government has made the valid point that while we have many different communities
living among each other, the levels of integration have remained low in places, some
communities have remained isolated, and at times, moral standards have been
sacrificed for fear of cultural elitism. For these reasons, David Cameron has recently
called for a new muscular liberalism to begin to address these issues; one that
understands the value of different cultural perspectives to be function of their alignment
with universal values of equality, respect and humanitarian concern. I agree with this
position, but it has come to my mind that there are some tricky corners of culture for
this policy to navigate. One of these relates to how different cultural worldviews are
mediated by linguistic relativity, and what this means for education.
The linguistic relativity hypothesis is one that has had a long history, beginning with
such persons as St Augustine, Immanuel Kant and is now the subject of investigation by
such eminent scientists and theorists as Steven Pinker, and our very own Professor
Guillaume Thierry. It relates most basically to the question of how much our thought,
and the way in which we are able to understand and conceptualise the world, is
constrained by our language itself an expression of culture. In this respect, we are
probably all familiar with the (actually false) idea that while we only have one word for
snow, the Eskimos of Alaska have a great many.
The linguistic relativity argument has been formulated in both weak and strong forms.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is an example of a weak form, making the suggestion, now
barely contended, that different languages influence thought, perception and worldview
in different ways, and that this is some part of the equation of what it is that
differentiates cultures around the world (there is a nice paper here on how English- and
Chinese-speaking cultures differ in their worldview as a function of culturally important
concepts being asymmetrically expressed in one language but having no equivalent in

the other). There have been those that have advanced a strong form of the argument
also, though. Wittgenstein was one of these, with his famous quote encapsulating this
strong position, The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. Within the
field of developmental psychology, this question was also a point of departure between
classical Piagetian and Vykotskian perspectives, with Piaget considering language as just
another type of cognitive skill to be acquired, but with Vygotsky claiming that language,
along with culture and social experience, may indeed constrain development. As noted
in my blog last week also, Kieran Egan is another educational theorist that sees language
acquisition as fundamental to cognitive development.
Whether the weak or strong forms of the linguistic relativity hypothesis are closer to the
truth has been a subject of great debate and controversy within the field of linguistics for
about half a century now. The majority of theorists have taken up camp behind the weak
form of the argument, and in modern developmental research, though the questions
raised by such theorists and Piaget and Vygotsky have been substantially refined and
adapted according to the research, no definitive answer has been found. Recently,
however, evidence from the field of cognitive neurolinguistics has begun to support the
strong form of the argument. Professor Thierry, here at Bangor, has been conducting
studies into this area, and has found evidence to suggest that thought is not just
influenced by language, but, as Wittgenstein suggested, is actually constrained by
language.
On the most basic level, this speaks to how incredibly important linguistic education is.
This research suggests that if a person does not have the language to represent
something (an abstract noun such as compassion, respect, fairness or equality, for
instance), then that person may be unable to fully ground such a concept in their sense
of values and general worldview. It suggests that a broad vocabulary is fundamental to a
broad understanding of the world. Also, importantly, implicit in these findings is the
fact that linguistic education opens the door to being able to fully enter into and begin to
appreciate ones cultural heritage.
Practically speaking, it raises questions related to the challenges faced by teachers in our
increasingly multicultural, and thus multilinguistic classrooms. In a conversation with
Abigail a couple of weeks ago, we were discussing how in some inner city areas, often
kids will be introduced into classes despite having almost minimal ability to speak
English. How can we expect teachers to fulfil their important role when even basic
communication in a language that both parties are fully at home with is an issue,
especially in the present context where performance targets are seen to be so key? This
is an extreme example, but it highlights the reality that in a world where we understand
that different languages may maintain definitely different worldviews, and where
classrooms are often composed of students for whom English, or Welsh, is not their first

language, the challenges on teachers and schools to promote the mental, emotional and
social unfoldment of kids on increasingly sophisticated levels, is great indeed.
I have been very impressed by the orientation of many Welsh schools to teach
bilingually, and I value how this process not only prevents the erosion of Welsh culture,
but allows the kids that pass through it to experience both English and Welsh cultural
worldviews. I do not, though, see any clear way in which such a bilingual approach to
education could be instituted in inner city London, for instance, where the number and
variety of different first languages is much greater.
The present governments orientation toward deepening the level of multicultural
integration in Britain in a manner that honours variety in cultural perspectives but yet
entails their alignment to universal values of freedom, respect and societal
responsibility, is one I support. There are, though, as perhaps this blog has suggested,
some tricky issues that will need to be addressed as this ideal begins to find form. Quite
how this might work in relation to the interface between government policy, education
and cognitive/linguistic developmental research remains to be seen, and I would be
interested in any other perspectives that people have.
http://infoacquisitionhub.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/43/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view#Linguistics
A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an
individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of
view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative
postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[1] The term is a calque of
the German word Weltanschauung [vlt.ana.] ( listen), composed of Welt ('world')
and Anschauung ('view' or 'outlook').[2] It is a concept fundamental toGerman
philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the
framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or
culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.

Linguistics[edit]
The true founder of the idea that language and worldview are inextricable is
the Prussian philologist, Wilhelm von Humboldt (17671835). Humboldt argued that language was
part of the creative adventure of mankind[vague]. Culture, language and linguistic communities
developed simultaneously, he argued, and could not do so without one another. In stark contrast
to linguistic determinism, which invites us to consider language as a constraint, a framework or a
prison house, Humboldt maintained that speech is inherently and implicitly creative. Human beings
take their place in speech and continue to modify language and thought by their creative exchanges.
Worldview remains a confused and confusing concept in English, used very differently
by linguists and sociologists. It is for this reason that Underhill suggests five subcategories: world-

perceiving, world-conceiving, cultural mindset, personal world, and perspective (see Underhill 2009,
2011 & 2012).
Edward Sapir also gives an account of the relationship between thinking and speaking in English.
[citation needed]

The linguistic relativity hypothesis of Benjamin Lee Whorf describes how the syntactic-semantic
structure of a language becomes an underlying structure for the world view orWeltanschauung of a
people through the organization of the causal perception of the world and the
linguistic categorization of entities. As linguistic categorization emerges as a representation of
worldview and causality, it further modifies social perception and thereby leads to a continual
interaction between language and perception.[3]
The hypothesis was well received in the late 1940s, but declined in prominence after a decade. In
the 1990s, new research gave further support for the linguistic relativity theory, in the works of
Stephen Levinson and his team at the Max Planck
institute for psycholinguistics at Nijmegen, Netherlands.[4] The theory has also gained attention
through the work of Lera Boroditsky at Stanford University.

Written on February 4, 2012 at 12:25 pm by Jennie

Linguistic Semantics: Language Reflects Ways of Living and Thinking

Filed under Learning French, Learning Other Languages, PhD

Research {19 comments}
Anna Wierzbicka is a Polish-Australian linguist who has extensively researched
intercultural linguistics, semantics and pragmatics. I have been reading many of her
books and articles for my PhD research because she is interested in how language
reflects ways of living and thinking, and more specifically, how the lexicon or words
of a language can provide valuable clues to understanding culture.
Linguistic relativity, better known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, has been debated
for quite a while by certain researchers who argue that human thought and language
are completely separate and independent. Steven Pinker, author of The Language
Instinct, is probably the most popular denier. However, Pinker was attempting to
describe human thought and cognition on the basis of English alone. Wierzbicka,
among others, has rightly criticized Pinker for his views on the link between language
and thought. Here are a few quotes from the introduction to her book, Understanding
Cultures through their Key Words:
To people with an intimate knowledge of two (or more) different languages and
cultures, it is usually self-evident that language and patterns of thought are
interlinked Monolingual popular opinion, as well as the opinion of

some cognitive scientists with little interest in languages and cultures, can be quite
emphatic in their denial of the existence of such links and differences.
The grip of peoples native language on their thinking habits is so strong that they are
no more aware of the conventions to which they are party than they are of the air they
breathe; and when others try to draw attention to these conventions they may even go
on with a seemingly unshakable self-assurance to deny their existence.
The conviction that one can understand human cognition, and human psychology in
general, on the basis of English alone seems shortsighted, if not downright
ethnocentric.
The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language constrains thought
and prevents users of a language from thinking about certain concepts
is indeed wrong. The weak version of the hypothesis, which Guy Deutscher attempted
to explain in his popular article Does Your Language Shape How You Think? and his
book, Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other
Languages, is generally accepted by most linguists. Deutscher, however, insists on
stating that language creates thought when in fact it may be more accurate to say that
culture influences thought, which is then expressed through language. Personally, I
believe that language reflects and describes ways of living and thinking, but it does
not necessarily shape or determine how you live or think.
This is precisely John McWhorters criticism of Deutschers book, though I do have
to disagree with his assertion that color perception as evidence of linguistic relativity
is dull. If someone does not think cultural elaboration through the lexicon, such as
the famous words for snow example, is interesting or relevant, then why does that
person bother researching languages and cultures in the first place? Besides, as
Wierzbicka explains, once the principle of cultural elaboration has been established
as valid on the basis of boring examples, it can then be applied to areas whose
patterning is less obvious to the naked eye.
Heres an interesting experiment you can try with color perception. It will be very
easy to choose which square is a different color in the image below.

However, it will probably be a tiny bit harder to find which square is different in the
second image. (If youve seen these circles before, beware that I did change the
location of the different square!)

Yet the Himba of northern Namibia have the exact opposite problem. They are able to
detect the different square quite easily in the second image, but took longer for the
first image, because their culture, and therefore language, has a different way of
categorizing shades of colors. Not every human being thinks in terms of ROYGBIV.

Because English speakers do not normally classify colors based on slightly different
shades (or at least what we perceive as slightly different shades) of green in the
second image, it is harder for English speakers to see it at first glance, but the absence
of that word does not mean that English speakers cannot see it at all or do not have the
ability to form the concept in their minds.
My native language does not have a word for Schadenfreude but I certainly know
what it is and can understand the concept. The fact that German has one word for this
concept and English does not simply means that the concept is perhaps more salient
for users of German, but it does not mean that users of other languages cannot
conceive of what it is. There are countless untranslatable words such
as saudade, hyggelig, or litost that express the values and thoughts of the people who
use these words. They provide insights into the life of the society and culture to which
the language belongs. We cannot even begin to understand a different culture if we do
not know the words because it is through language that culture and ways of living and
thinking are expressed.

Another book by Wierzbicka I recommend, Translating Lives: Living with Two

Languages and Cultures, includes the experiences of twelve Australians who speak
more than one language. Their stories and their lives show how language, culture and
identity cannot be separated and what it is like to live with, and between, multiple
languages and cultures. For anyone who is a speaker of another language, the idea that
you are a different person and that you interact with other human beings in a different
way when using different languages seems a bit obvious. But most monolinguals are

not aware that their worldview is shaped by their native, and only, culture and
language. They tend to assume that the every human being thinks in the same way but
simply uses different words for concepts, objects, ideas, etc. Even if they know a few
words in another language, they believe that translations found in dictionaries are
sufficient. Dictionaries may list freedom as the translation for French libert, but are
they really the same thing? How about truth and Russian pravda? Anger and
Italianrabbia?
To quote Sapir: The fact of the matter is that the real world is to a large extent
unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever
sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The
worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world
with different labels attached.
When I speak French, I am fully aware that I am not the same person as when I speak
English. I do not interact with other French speakers in the same manner as I do with
English speakers while Im speaking English. There are certain concepts that I find
easier to express in French, and yet others that do not have a strong enough emphasis
or connotation for me if I use French rather than English. When I hear the
word milk in English, I have a different concept of what it is compared to when I
hear lait in French. Ive explored some of these cultural differences before (Cultural
Differences in Photos & Culturally Relevant Photos), but they are not limited to
separate languages. There are, of course, differences among dialects of the same
language. Whenever Australians say the word thongs, I picture a very different article
of clothing than they do!
That is not to say that all words in a language are culture-specific. If they were,
cultural differences couldnt really be explored. Linguistic relativity is actually
combined with linguistic universality. Wierzbicka is also the lead researcher
on Natural Semantic Metalanguage, an approach to cultural analysis that is based on
the idea that there are, in fact, a few universal meanings expressed by words (semantic
primes) shared by all human languages and that using these primes can help eliminate
cross-cultural miscommunication. Listen to/read her interview with the Australian
Broadcasting Corporatio
http://ielanguages.com/blog/linguistic-semantics-language-reflects-ways-of-livingand-thinking/ n for more information.

LINGUISTIC WORLDVIEW: MAIN FEATURES, TYPOLOGY AND

FUNCTIONS
Gabbasova A.R. 1, Fatkullina F.G. 1
1. Bashkir State University, Ufa,
:
.
.

- .

, .
, .
:
, , ,
,
, ,
.
Keywords: conceptualization, multiplicity of worldviews, worldview, Russian language, linguistic
worldview

2
LINGUISTIC WORLDVIEW: MAIN FEATURES, TYPOLOGY AND
FUNCTIONS
Abstract:
The articleis dedicated to the study of the linguistic worldview phenomenon. The notion of the
linguistic worldview is regarded here as one of the methods of conceptualization of the reality. An
attempt is made to comprehend the peculiarity of the linguistic worldview as a means of representing
the reality in a certain verbal and associative scope. Achievements of different directions of
researching various linguistic worldviews are systematizedin the article and an integrated description
of the linguistic worldview is proposed.The following phenomenological peculiarities of this notion have
been specially singled out: the status and variety of interpretations of the notion, the object of research
and the structure, features and functions of the linguistic worldview, the correlation of the individual
and the collective, the universal and the unique in it, its dynamic and static aspects, peculiarities of
variation and typology of linguistic worldviews.

3

. . ,

 XIX .
( - )

- , , , ,

[5: 63]. . : ,
( ) ,
,
. , ,
, [3].
,
, ,
,
. ,
. .
, , . , XX
(sprachliches Weltbild), ,
, ,
[2].
. .
[11]. . . ,
- , .
. , C.
, , ,
- : ...
.
, [11:279].
, ,
, ,
, - ,
. , ,
, , - ,
.
.
- I ., . .
, ;

; <...> ,
;
, ;
, ,
[8].
(. . , . .

, . . , . . .).
, ,
:
, , ,
, ,
,
.
,

.
: .
1. , (. ., . ., . ., . ., .
., . ., . . .)
, ,
, , ,
[6: 12]. -
, .
, ,
, ,
[4].
(. . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . .
, . . .) ,

[12: 47].

,
<...>,
<...> [9: 117-118].
. . , , ,
, , ,
- [1: 43]. . .
. , , , ,
.
, - , , ,
, .
; ,
, , , - ,

 .
. (language-spcific) ,
.
.. , .. , .. , ..
, .. , .. , . , .. , .. ,
.. , .. , .. , .. , .. , .. ,
.. , .. , ..
, ,
, ,
, (..
, ,, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , . ( . , ..
, .. ), , , ,
, , (.. ) .
.
, ,
.
, , ,
, - ,
.

[10,12].
, -
,
.

, ,
, .
.

. . ,
, . . ,
, .. ,
, ,

, . . , ,
. . ,
, . . ,

 .
(.. , .. , ..
, .. , .. , .. .).

. , ..
[7]. ..
. ..

, , .
, ,
. (..
, .. , .. , .. ), (.. ,
.. , .. ,
, (..
, .. , .. .).
.. , .. , ..
, .. , .. , .. , .. .
, , , ,
, .
, .. . -
, .. - .
.
. , :
(), (),
()
.
, . ,
, ,
, , . ,
: ,
, ,
, , . [1, 10,12 ].
. . , , ,
( ) - , (), ,
,
, (), , [6: 12].
.

. (..
), (.. ).
.. , .. .
.
, ,
, , (
.. ), .. ,
- .
( )
, .
, .
,
, ,
,

, (. . ).
,
.

, 14.B37.21.1000.
:
. , ..., ,
, . .
. ., ..., -
, . .

4
References
1. . . (
): . [] / . . . : -
, 2008. 319 .
2. . . [] / . . . .:
, 2004. 232 .
3. . . : // ". . " http://www.zpujournal.ru/gum/new/articles/2007/Vorotnikov/

4. , . [] / . ,
.. , .. . .: , 2005. 544 .
5. .. : [] / . . //
. 2010. 9. . 61-65.
6. . . : . .
- . [] / . . . ., 2008. 65 .
7. . . : [] / ..
. .: , 1981. 200 .
8. . .
[] / . . //
:
. 6. 14-15 2007 . : -
, 2007. . 281-286.
9. . . [] / . . //
. 2002. 1(3). . 117-126.
10. . ., . .
// . .16, 3(1). , 2011. . 1002-1005.
11. . . [] / . . //
XIX XX : 2 . . II. .: , 1965. .
255-281.
12. . . [] / . . //
. 1996. 13. . 47-57.

http://www.science-education.ru/en/110-9954
---

Whorf was right: Language influences world view

after all
Linguistic Science, The Latest Word
Feb

212011

New evidence is beginning to emerge that idea of linguistic relativity, which rose to
prominence in the 1930s due to the efforts of early linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf, might

not have been wrong after all. The Whorfian hypothesis, as it has come to be known,
suggests that what language you speak influences how you see and understand the
world. Originally dismissed by linguists in the 1970s due to a lack of evidence, and in
favor of a more modern idea of language equality, the hypothesis is now experiencing
resurgence of support.
Researchers Lera Boroditsky and Alice Gaby conducted a study of speakers of
languages native to Australia. These speakers were shown to have an understanding of
time and space that relied on absolute compass directions (such as north or south),
rather than the relative directions (like left or right) that English speakers tend to
use.
In one task, Boroditsky and Gaby gave subjects a set of cards that depicted a passage
of time. (For example, one set of cards showed a man aging, with each card showing
him at a different point in his life.) They then asked the subjects to arrange the cards
chronologically, so that the man started as a baby and progressed into old age. In
another task, subjects were asked to draw dots to represent different abstract concepts
of time. For example, the experimenter would draw a dot representing today and the
subject would be asked to draw dots representing yesterday and tomorrow. In a
third task, subjects were asked to point in the four cardinal directions.
At first, Boroditsky and Gaby tested subjects from the community of Pormpuraaw who
spoke at least one aboriginal language on a daily basis (though they were also fluent in
English as a second language). These same conditions were later replicated in California
using

native

speaker

of

American

English.

The

results

showed

that

the

Pormpuraawans very often portrayed time as passing from east to west. Americans,
however, always arranged time as passing from left to right, no matter what compass
direction they were facing.
This study suggests that Pormpuraawans are constantly aware of their absolute
orientation and that it affects how they view the passage and arrangement of time. The
subjects were never told which direction they were facing, yet they were still able to
use that knowledge in the task they were performing. Other studies have shown that
absolute direction also affects how Pormpuraawans describe the spatial relationship of
objects. (For example, they would say that the fork is to the northeast of the plate,
rather than to the right.)
Boroditsky has written an article, appearing in the February 2011 issue of Scientific
American, which further explores the Whorfian hypothesis.

Further

Reading:

Remembrances of Times East: Absolute Spatial Representations of Time in an

Australian Aboriginal Community. Lera Boroditsky and Alice Gaby in Psychological
Science, Vol. 21, No. 11, pages 16351639; November 2010.
How Language Shapes Thought. Lera Boroditsky in Scientific American, Vol. 304, No. 2,
pages 6265; February 2011.

http://popularlinguisticsonline.org/2011/02/whorf-was-right-language-influencesworld-view-after-all/
===

Language and Meaning: Versita

publishes The Linguistic Worldview.
Ethnolinguistics, Cognition, and Culture
in the Open Access Book Program
18.12.2013

The linguistic worldview or linguistic views of worlds? The concepts of entwined relation between language and
culture explored from the Slavic perspective.
The relationship between language and culture has been debated by philosophers, linguists and social scientists
alike. The very notion of the linguistic worldview rose to prominence in the early 20th century, when Benjamin Lee
Whorf suggested, that language affects our perception of the world. Western philosophy has been addressing this
question at least since the Ancient Greek debate between those who thought that the relationship is natural and
those who considered it to be subjective and conventional. In the Middle Ages, realists claimed that words denote
concepts that correspond to actual entities, whereas nominalists maintained that concepts only signify names or
words. These considerations assumed a more specific form with the growing awareness of the sometimes
unbridgeable differences between languages, as expressed by Martin Luther or John Locke.
Versita now brings out an edited collection of papers dedicated to the linguistic worldview as has been defined and
developed in the Ethnolinguistic Schools of Lublin (ESL). Adam Glaz and Przemysaw ozowski, both from UMCS in
Lublin, Poland and David S. Danaher from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, showcase the complex
intricacies of Ethnolinguistics in the newly released title: The Linguistic Worldview. Ethnolinguistics, Cognition, and
Culture
The ESL offers a unique perspective on the concept of the linguistic worldview. The book identifies and analyses in a
systematic approach well-documented arrays of diverse data, and examines the construct of the linguistic worldview
integrating several more local notions, such as the cognitive definition, language-cum-culture, point of view and
perspective, profiling, linguistic valuation or stereotypes.

Most of the presented material derives from the conference, which was held in October 2011: The linguistic
worldview or linguistic views of worlds?, giving the book a very up-to-date and methodical approach that will benefit
both linguists and cultural scientists. The research builds upon the ESLs previous work, most significantly the
Aspects of Cognitive Ethnolinguistics published in 2009, by Jerzy Bartmiski, the central and arguably foremost
figure of the movement. The publication remains the only major text on the issue in English, nonetheless, the present
Versita volume not only reformulates some of the problems, criticizing to some extent the solutions proposed within
the ESL frame; it also aims to fill the gap between the theoretical assumptions and analytical method to stimulate
further research in the area.
The book will prove an essential reading to the English-speaking linguistic community, eager to keep abreast with the
advancements in Cognitive Linguistics in Central and Eastern Europe. So far, the ESL approach has proven popular
in Slavic circles, but it is hoped that the work presented in this volume will win recognition and be endorsed at a
global level.
The volume has already drawn high praise from reviewers. Kat Dziwirek from the University of Washington comments
on the importance of the investigations of lexical and phraseological clusters advanced in the book, an analysis which
shows that, despite similar etymologies, worlds are understood quite differently in Czech and English.
The book is available fully open access here
About The Authors:
Adam Gaz and Przemysaw ozowski both work at the the UMCS in Lublin, Poland, Department of English. Gazs
main research interests lie in the applications of vantage theory. ozowski, recipient of scholarships and grants from
the University of Oxford, investigates the notion of language as a symbol of experience in his most recent
publications. David S. Danaher, awarded PhD at Brown University is a specialist in Slavic languages. He teaches at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research examines questions regarding the culture of dissent in Eastern
Europe.

http://degruyteropen.com/language-and-meaning-versita-publishes-the-linguisticworldview-ethnolinguistics-cognition-and-culture-in-the-open-access-book-program/
===

erzy Bartmiski

Linguistic worldview as a problem of cognitive

ethnolinguistics
(SCLA, Praha, October 15-17, 2009)
Jzykowy obraz wiata w programie etnolingwistyki kognitywnej
Jerzy Bartmiski
Panie Przewodniczcy, Szanowni pastwo, Panie i Panowie,
Przyjem z radoci zaproszenie do wygoszenia referatu na temat JOS i programu badan
etnolingwistyki kognitywnej (EC). Czuj si zaszczycony tym e mog wystpi na konferencji

miecie, ktre zasyno w wiecie jako miejsce szkoy lingwistycznej, z ktrej dorobku obficie
korzystalimy i korzystamy take w Polsce. A poza tym - Praga jest pikna, chtnie si tu przyjeda i
chtnie wraca. Czyst radoci jest spotkanie z przyjacimi, ze znajomymi, z jedinomyszlennikami e
uyj tego porcznego rosyjskiego sowa, ktrym czsto w naszych rozmowach posuguje si profesor
Swietana Tostojowa. Zainteresowanie badaniem JOS jest ywe zarwno w Moskwie, jak w Lublinie i w
Pradze.
Osobicie przyjmuj z du satysfakcj, e skromne badania nad gwarami ludowymi i folklorem, ktre
prowadz z grup wsppracownikw od 40 lat, ktrych syntez jest wydawany od 1996 roku SSiSL,
okazay si bliskie nurtowi kognitywnemu. Wok Sownika rozwina si bogata refleksja i dziaalno
wydawnicza, powstao na jego potrzeby pismo Etnolingwistyka, ktre zreszt od pewnego czasu dziaa
ju samodzielnie (zob. t. 2 i 20), wydalimy te sporo tomw zbiorowych, o ktrych za chwil powiem.
Wybitna reprezentantka lingwistyki kognitywnej prof. Elbieta Tabakowska, napisaa niedawno sowa
ktre przyjem z wielk satysfakcj:
Podejmujc prb opisu polskiego kognitywizmu naley chyba stwierdzi, e najlepiej
reprezentowane s te badania, ktre sytuuj si w nurcie etnolingwistycznym, od lat
prowadzone w lubelskim orodku akademickim. (E.Tabakowska, Kognitywizm po polsku
Wczoraj i dzi, Krakw 2004, Universitas, s. 24).
Podobne opinie o cisym zwizku lubelskiej etnolingwistyki z kognitywizmem - formuowali Henryk
Kardela 1988, Renata Grzegorczykowa 1995, Swieana M. Tostaja 2005, Henryk Duda 2005, Jrg Zinken
2004, 2009. Bardzo mi odpowiada formua etnolingwistyka kognitywna, ktr zaproponowa dla
naszych prac prof. Jrg Zinken (2004). Uya jej take prof. Lidia Nepop-Ajdaczy w wydanej w Kijowie w
roku 2007 ksice (Polska etnolingwistyka kognitywna. Ta nazwa dobrze si wpisuje w naukowy pejza
slawistycznych bada antropologiczno-kulturowych, podkrela zbieno ale i odrbno w stosunku do
takich nurtw etnolingwistyki sowiaskiej, jak etnolingwistyka etymologiczna Wadimira Toporowa i
etnolingwistyka dialektologiczna Nikity Iljicza Tostoja.
Etnolingwistyka etymologiczna
Etnolingwistyka dialektologiczna
Etnolingwistyka kognitywna
Na temat przedmiotu etnolingwistyki i jej zada opublikowalimy pakiet materiaw w tomie 18 E
(o e. rosyjskiej, biaoruskiej, serbskiej i polskiej)
Content of my paper:
{1} Basic concepts of cognitive ethnolinguistics
{2} What is cognitive ethnolinguistics?
{3} Problems with terminology
{4} The dilemmas of Slavic ethnolinguistics
{5} Ethnolinguistic research in Lublin

{6} Basic concepts of cognitive ethnolinguistics

{7} Linguistic worldview conception - as a key idea of cognitive ethnolinguistics.
{8} How can we reconstruct the linguistic worldview?
{9} Conclusion
{10} Perspective - EUROJOS
{1} My presentation will deal with the basic concepts of cognitive ethnolinguistics {CE} as it is
understood and practiced by scholars associated with the
international journal Etnolingwistyka[Ethnolinguistics], published by Maria Curie-Skodowska
University Press in Lublin, Poland (vols. 1-20, 1988-2008).
The basic concepts of CE include:
i) the linguistic worldview;
ii) the values underlying that worldview;
iii) stereotype as a component of the linguistic worldview;
iv) the cognitive defnition as a method of describing stereotypes;
v)viewpoint and perspective;
vi) profling;
vii) the conceptualising and profling subject.
These notions are interlinked with one another and together constitute what I hope is a coherent
conception. Since 1981, they have been subjected to discussion at a series of conferences called
Language and Culture. The volumes were published in so called czerwona seria in Lublin and biaa
seria (Jzyk a kultura) in Wrocaw:

Jzykowy obraz wiata, 1990 (II wyd. 1999, III wyd. 2004)

Stereotyp jako przedmiot lingwistyki, "JAK" t. 12, 1998;

Konotacja 1988, O definicjach i definiowaniu 1993;

Punkt widzenia w jzyku i w kulturze, 2004

Profilowanie w jzyku i w tekcie, 1993

Nazwy wartoci, 1993; Jzyk w krgu wartoci, 2004

Podmiot w jzyku i w kulturze, 2008.

Of fundamental importance is the linguistic worldview conception which has become the major idea of
Polish cognitive ethnolinguistics;sometimes even it is considered as the central idea of cognitive
linguistics (Grzegorczykowa 2001: 162).
Recently, the conception of the linguistic worldview (JOS) has been applied to the study of various
languages and constitutes a basis for a contrastive research project known as EUROJOS, initiated at
the 14th International Slavic Congress in Ohrid, Macedonia, in September 2008. II will return to it in the
end of my paper.
But at the beginning I would like to put a general question:
{2} What is cognitive ethnolinguistics?
Ethnolinguistics as a domain of linguistics emerged and grew to its mature form in America, though it is
rooted in European, especially German scholarship. This stage in its development is relatively well known
and has even received encyclopedic treatment (Crystal 1997, Gudaviius, 2000; Yudin, 1998; Senft, 1998).
The last decades of the twentieth century saw a rebirth of ethnolinguistics as it said Professor Nikita
Tolstoy (1995), a rebirth in Eastern and Central Europe. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis received renewed
attention, research on language as a cultural phenomenon gained momentum.
This was accompanied by a wave of criticism of structuralist thinking, which isolates language from its
psychological, social and cultural context.
This trend also had social and political aspects. Citizens of communist (now post-communist)
countries actually experienced the infuence of language on their worldview, feelings and behavior;
they knew what linguistic intimidation really was. There was one dominant ideology and one type of
public idiom; whole societies experienced the painful incommensurability of the prevalent communist
newspeak with reality. This resulted, on the one hand, in social resistance to the imposition of what was
perceived as linguistic hypocrisy, and on the other hand in profound refection on the social and
cultural aspects of language. Jerzy Bralczyk, Anna Wierzbicka, Micha Gowiski, Jolanta Rokoszowa,
Mirosawa Marody and others researched the parlance of the communist propaganda, in which language,
in an outdated pseudo-magical manner,took priority over the real world.
On the theoretical plane, emphasis was placed on the problem of linguistic worldview, a picture of the
world suggested or imposed (on those not used to reflective thinking) by language.
{3} Problems with terminology
This domain of linguistics has received various names. Apart fromethnolinguistics, there are analytical
and less ambiguous terms:
cultural linguistics (Anusiewicz, 1995),
linguo-culturology,
anthropological linguistics,
anthropological-cultural linguistics, or
linguistic anthropology.

All these terms contain the same basic idea: the study of language must also take into account the human
speech community and its culture. They are all close to one another; indeed, anthropological
linguistics oranthropological-cultural semantics are often treated as synonymous
with ethnolinguistics. I prefer the latter term for several reasons.
The inner form of the term ethnolinguistics allows or even favors the interpretation of
the component ethno- as a subject, who does conceptualise the reality, and not as object, which is
conceptualized.
That subjective understanding puts it together with other terms, such
asethnoscience, ethnobotany science of the folk knowledge of plants,ethnophilosophy, ethnohistory/folk
history science of the social perception of history, medical ethnoscience science of beliefs and practices
connected with health and methods of treatment. Other terms
include ethnopoetics, ethnosemantics (IEL, 1992), ethnosynta, with a few more possibilities opening up
with the ethnolinguistic paradigm, such asethnophraseology.
The basic understanding of ethnolinguistics finds support inethnomethodology, which focuses on the
subjective reconstruction of folk understanding of phenomena. It renders ethnolinguistics similar
tocognitive anthropology, as well as justifying the use of the termcognitive ethnolinguistics. The
term has been proposed by Jrg Zinken (2004.
{4] The dilemmas of Slavic ethnolinguistics
Contemporary views of Slavic linguists on the scope of ethnolinguistics have been mainly shaped by
the Moscow school of Nikita I. Tolstoys(1995). Tolstoy defined ethnolinguistics narrowly, as a
branch of linguistics dealing with language in its relation to culture, or broadly, as a complex discipline
whose focus is the whole content plane of culture, folk psychology and mythology,
understood independently of the means and methods of their formal representation (a word, thing,
custom, belief, etc.) (cf. Tolstaya, 2006).
Thus arose ethnolinguistics first dilemma: should it be a branch of linguistics or an
interdisciplinary field?
The extensive research of the Moscow group, which dealt with Slavicspiritual values, was based on
the broad understanding and went beyond the verbal code into the realm of behavior (the actional code)
and beliefs (the mental code), as well as into all kinds, genres and forms of folk culture (Tolstaya, 2006).
Te problem of the focus and data for ethnolinguistic analysis has been solved in a similar manner in
Lublins SSSL. The dictionary is also based on three categories of data: linguistic, folkloristic and
ethnographic, with the intention to integrate them all on the semantic level.
Does this encroachment of the research scope of ethnolinguistics into culture, entail an extension of
ethnolinguistics beyond linguistics proper and onto the interdisciplinary platform? I think not.
If we accept that culture is a set of norms and beliefs, which exist in peoples minds and pertain to
the recommended courses of action and proper judgements, consciousness and a plan of action,
(Koskowska, 1991: 23) - we can conclude that culture exists in language and constitutes its
inalienable component.

The second dilemma concerns an important choice, still pending, betweenmicro- and macroethnolinguistics. The former option prefers research on small ethnic communities and their oral
micro-languages, i.e. rural folk dialects in connection with the specific folk culture. Thebroader option
tends to focus on national languages, also those of an international application, such as English or
Russian.
The third dilemma, so far unresolved, has far-reaching methodological implications. Te defnition of
ethnolinguistics as a branch of linguisticsthat deals with the language-culture relationship (the 1969
supplement toSJPDor, 1962) can mean research on the place of language in culture or vice versa.
In fact, the two conceptions of ethnolinguistics do exist side by side: one is concerned
with external, social aspects of language, the other with its internal characteristics, with a pairing of
cultural content and linguistic forms, with grammar, lexis and their usage.
The former investigates the status, prestige and power of language in culture, its contact with other
languages, bilingualism, languages of national minorities and social groups (cf. Crystal, 1997; Zieniukowa,
1998; Zikowski, 1987). In this context ethnolinguistics is treated as
a subfieldof sociolinguistics (Helbig, 1986: 239) or ecolinguistics (Haugen, 1972).
In the latter understanding, ethnolinguistics deals with manifestations ofculture in language. It
investigates linguistic structure in relation to the history and culture of specifc communities,
especially with thementality of the group, its behaviors and value system. It attempts todiscover the
traces of culture in the very fabric of language, in word meanings, phraseology, word formation, syntax
and text structure. It strives to reconstruct the worldview entrenched in language as it is projected by
the experiencing and speaking subject, homo loquens. This is the conception I embrace. (Cf. the
entry of J.Bartmiski etnolingwistyka in Wielka encyklopedia PWN, vol. 8, Warszawa 2002, pp. 380
381).
Finally, let me mention the fact that ethnolinguistic research embraces both the oftentimes archaic
linguistic past, e.g. Proto-Slavic and Proto-Indo-European, and the linguistic present.
Thus, Russian ethnolinguistics is predominantly historically-oriented, while Polish ethnolinguistics
is more concerned with the present.However, the diachrony-synchrony distinction is not so important
now as it was in structuralism and sometimes not even overtly recognized:panchronic accounts are
frequent and the past versus - present question is resolved through the conception of the heritage of
the past in the present. A particularly apt formula, zhivaya starina living ancestry, is used by
Russian scholars who publish the results of their research in a journal with the same title.
{5] Ethnolinguistic research in Lublin
Against the Slavic background, Lublin ethnolinguistics (cf. Bartmiski, 1986) must be considered
a subfield of linguistics for a few reasons.
First, it is based above all on linguistic data, although it also pays much attention to the social and
cultural context, the ad-linguistic data, relevant to the process of linguistic communication.
Second, it starts with descriptions of small communities, regional folk dialects, but by definition it
also transcends the boundaries of folklore onto the national variety of Polish (its literary and
colloquial varieties, elite and mass culture) and even into the inter-ethnic, trans-cultural sphere.

Third, it poses questions about the manifestations of culture in language, not about the position and
role of language in culture. Finally, it focuses on the contemporary status quo, which it treats as a
stage in the historical process of the development of the language. When it addresses the relationship
between language and the mentality of the people who speak it, it draws near and even converges
with cognitive linguistics.
Hence, it has for some time now been called cognitive, which distinguishes it from the otherwise
related dialectological andetymological Moscow ethnolinguistics.
{6} Basic concepts of cognitive ethnolinguistics
The fundamental concept of CE - fhe linguistic worldview bases on thecognitive function of the
sign.
All the other notions which were mensioned above - relate to the linguistic worldview conception. What
are those relationships?
a) First, the linguistic worldview is founded on the values professed by language speakers.
(b) Second, the linguistic worldview embraces socially entrenched orstereotyped images.
(c) Third. a stereotype, its content and the structuring of that content can be systematically captured by
the cognitive definition.
(d) Fourth, the linguistic worldview depends on the point of view and perspective on the world
assumed by the conceptualizing subject.
(e) Next, the base linguistic worldview is intentionally adapted in discourse and functions in
subjective variants called profiles.
(f) Finally, profiling is performed by the speaker (subject) of the utterance, who follows specific
intentions and values.
A more comprehensive overview of ethnolinguistics is offered in Bartmiski 2006, 2007, 2009,
2005.
{7} Let me to stay at linguistic worldview conception - as a key idea of cognitive ethnolinguistics.
{7.1] A little history
Almost a century ago, a linguist and a logician independently formulated very similar opinions on the
role of language in the process of learning things about the world. Edward Sapir wrote:
Language is heuristic [] in the [] sense that its forms for us certain modes of observation
and interpretation. This means of course that as our scientific experience grows we must
learn tofight the implications of language. (Sapir, 1957: 7; from the essay Language first
published in 1933 in Te Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, New York, vol. IX, pp. 155169)
Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, a Polish logician, stated:

Not only some but in fact all judgments which we accept and which make up our world view,
depend on the conceptual apparatus we use to portray our experience, rather than on the
experience itself. Te choice of this or that apparatus will change the picture. (Ajdukiewicz,
1934/1985: 175)
Today, it makes little difference that one statement pertains to languagewhile the other to thinking because one of the most significant achievements of the cognitive linguistics enterprise is an integrated
view of language and thought (Evans, Bergen and Zinken, 2007: 2930). The conception which
unites language and thinking, what is linguistic and what is mental, as well as providing the basis for their
methodical analysis, is the linguistic worldview conception.
The conception of the linguistic worldview derives from the American ethnolinguists
Eward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, but is also related to German ethnolinguistic thought - Wilhelm
von HumboldtsWeltansicht and the work of his continuator Leo Weisgerber.
According to Philip Bock (2003), its roots lie in Aristotles idea oftopoi (loci communes)
(Aristotle, Poetics, II, 2122).
Since the 1970s the worldview conception has been developing intensively in Slavic countries, especially
in Russia and Poland, but recently also in Belarus, Ukraine and the Czech Republic (Bartmiski, 2004a;
Yudin, 2004b).
{7.2.} The conception of the linguistic worldview embraces all three apices of Ogden and
Richards triangle (1923): the linguistic sign(pies dog), the mental image of a dog, and the class
of real-life dogs:
obraz (pojcie) mental image of a dog
jzykowy (wyraz) wiata (zjawisko realne)
the linguistic sign (pies /dog),the class of real-life dogs

The three elements are considered in the onomasiological and/or semasiological perspectives.
onomasiological perspectives:
the class of real-life dogs > mental image of a dog
> the linguistic sign (dog)
semasiological perspectives:
the linguistic sign (dog) > the class of real-life dogs
> mental image of a dog (connotation)
A systematic description of the linguo-cultural worldview of the folk variety of Polish (one of the two
basic varieties of the language) isDictionary of folk symbols and stereotypes (SSSL, 19961999).

{7.3} What is linguistic worldview?

Linguistic worldview is a language-entrenched interpretation of reality, which can be expressed in the
form of judgments about the world, people, things or events. It is an interpretation, not a refection; it
is a portraitwithout claims to fidelity, not a photograph of real objects. The interpretation is a result
of subjective perception andconceptualization of reality performed by the speakers of a given
language; thus, it is clearly subjective and anthropocentric but alsointersubjective (social). It unites
people in a given social environment, creates a community of thoughts, feelings and values.
Itinfluences the perception and understanding of the social situation by a member of the community.
The worldview is naive in the sense of Apresyan, i.e. constructed by a human being, relative to human
measure, anthropometric, but also adapted to social needs and ethnocentric mentality (Apresjan,
1994).
For example - in the colloquial, naive view of humans and their world, the sun
still rises and sets (five centuries after Copernicus!), starstwinkle, the road goes from one place to
another, water is healthy or not, plants are good and useful (corn, herbs) or not (weeds), things
are cold,heavy or tall in relation to an average person, etc. Te worldview is based onsensory
stimuli, concrete and practical: it suffices for the purpose of everyday communication. It is at the
disposal of the speaker as his or hercultural endowment: as all linguistic constructs, it may be subjected
toindividual modulation.
{7.4} How can we reconstruct the linguistic worldview?
{7.4.1} Lexis
The most obvious, unquestionable basis for investigating linguistic worldview has so far been the lexis,
conceived of as a classifier of social experience. The lexis provides access to the conceptual sphere
of a given culture, the realm of conceptions and images crucial for that culture. Sapir emphasised that
vocabulary is a very sensitive index of the culture of a people (Sapir, 1957: 34, 36). In this context, the
first and fundamental question is the very range of lexis (words and concepts); lexis as an inventory of
culture, living and dynamic, continually enriched with new items, a kind of seismograph registering
changes in the society, civilization and culture.
Interesting aspects of lexis include the organization of lexical-semantic fields (colour, measurement or
kinship terms, names of emotions, values etc.), axiological and semiotic oppositions (good/bad,
close/distant, us/them, familiar/alien) or the semantic content of individual items, especially of cultural
key words.
The next issue is that of lexical meaning. I understand the meaning of a word in the integral sense,
comprising both the core with the superordinate hyperonymous category (e.g. donkey animal) and a
number of characteristics attributed to the object on the basis of encyclopedic information about it
(a donkey is a domesticated animal, pack or draught, grey, with long ears, with a thin tail, half as tall
as a person, with a big head, similar to a horse). Te meaning also includes several clearly subjective
features, traditionally called lexicalconnotations and excluded from linguistic description (a donkey
is stubborn, stupid, hence Pol. osio also means a stupid, stubborn person). The whole recognizable
semantic richness of a word, with its lexical, encyclopedic and cultural connotations, can be
described by means of the cognitive definition. The meaning of word can be described only in a
lexical-semantic field by means of cognitive definition, also in the whole extensive network of
relations between the elements of a given field. These relations are hypero- and hypo-nymic, equonymic

(i.e. synonymic and antonymic), regular derivational sequences of a word-formational and semantic
nature, as well as syntagmatic, describable in terms of Fillmores conception of semantic roles.
I will illustrate cognitive definition by the entry for ko horse from SLSJ - the tentative volume of
SSiSL, published in 1980 in Wrocaw.
The horse in traditional village culture is perceived not so much as an animal, but as a domestic
animal, an element of the livestock. Te closesthyperonyms of ko are inwentarz ywy, ywina,
chudoba livestock.
Hyponyms of ko are, with regard to sex: kobya mare and ogierstallion/waach gelding; with regard
to age: rebi foal; with regard to colour: kasztan chestnut, buan/buanek dun, siwek grey etc.
Co-hyponyms of ko as an element of livestock are other domestic animals: frst of all wol ox
and krowa cow, wieprz hog and winia pig,baran ram and owca sheep, then pies dog
and suka bitch.
The horse is perceived in certain typical collections: with a saddle, reins and bridle (a saddle-horse),
with a cart and a plough (a draught-horse) or with a man who rides it (a cavalryman, a soldier). With
regard to its strength the horse is similar to the bull, lion and bear; the sun is also compared to the horse.
Cultural equivalents of the horse are the motor-bike and the car.
The horse is conventionally contrasted with the gentle ox, stupid donkey, slow slug, wild and stupid
wolf, small and limp frog and the useless mouse.
Te word ko enters into regular semantic derivations, is subjected to the process of metaphorisation: a
grown-up man is called stary ko old horse, a sexually active man is called ogier stallion, if someone
laughs too loudly, the person ry neighs, someone who has died wyciqgn kopytastretched his/her
hoofs, a horse may be sorry for its owner (in a soldiers song) or may laugh (ko by si umia, lit. a horse
would laugh, used when a joke fell fat).
The lexeme ko also participates in word-formational derivational sequences: koski of a horse;
like a horse; equine but also in the qualitative sense in koska dawka lekw big, powerful dose of
medication,koski zb a type of maize with long seeds which have a hollow at the top;koski ogon pony
tail.
The entry for ko in SLSJ contains collocations, in the form of defining statements, which answer the
following questions:

what is a horse like? the characteristics: strong, bay, grey;

what is a horse built like? it has a mane and a tail, hoofs, the head, four legs;

how is the horse quantified? in what numbers does it occur? a pair, a herd of horses;

what does the horse do? the behaviour: eats hay, snorts, neighs, kicks about;

what is done to the horse? what is it the object of? they buy it, saddle it, harness it to the
plough;

what is the horse used for? for horseback rides, pulling carts, ploughing;

where does the horse stay? the location: the stables.

In the dictionary of symbols and stereotypes (SSSL), which is a record of a traditional linguistic
worldview, all entries are explicated in more or lessthat way. Depending on the specific nature of
individual entries, varioussemantic subcategories are distinguished, such as collections of objects, the
structure (the components of the object), attributes, quantification, actions (the object as the agent,
sensor, stator, processor), the origin, the object as the source or stimulus of peoples sensations, the theme
of activity, the addressee of utterances, the object as a tool or instrument, the place and time of its
occurrence, its similarities to other objects etc.
The particular interesting problem is that of hyperonyms.
It is important in defining words to establish the point of departure, i.e. the superordinate category to
which a given object is assigned and in terms of which it is characterized. A definition which aims to
reflect the conceptualization of the object must, in the case of, say, bluebottle (Pol.bawatek) choose
between a plant, flower and weed, in the case ofwheat (Pol. pszenica) between a plant, grass and
corn, in the case of the sun between a gaseous sphere, a heavenly body, a star, light etc. Each choice
has its consequences, for it determines the perspective of conceptualization, as well as introducing more
or less distinct characteristics. Sometimes the super ordinate categorizing element determines the content
and structure of the definition. If the dictionary definition is to have a linguistic nature, to reflect the
understanding of the object by the speaker and to contribute to the reconstruction of linguistic worldview,
it must respect the colloquial conceptualization. First, it must select the hyperonym from the closest
taxonomic level, relative to the language user, not the researcher (e.g. wheat is a corn, not a plant (the
principle is discussed in Bartmiski, 1991a). Second, it must take note of the point of view of the subject
(the sun is light, not a gaseous sphere). Te selection of the superordinate category is also related to the
accepted system of values: the identification of categories such as weeds and cornderives from
the pragmatic outlook onto the plant world typical of a farmer.
An important aspect of linguistic worldview is the so called inner form of a word (Humboldts innere
Sprachform, innere Gedankenform), also mentioned by Jan Rozwadowski (died 1935), a pioneer of
the cognitivist approach in Poland. Especially in the case of languages with rich word formation, e.g. the
Slavic branch, asking questions about the mechanism of creating names and about their onomasiological
foundations, allows for accessing the linguistic means of interpretation of a given object or
phenomenon.
Let me to give some examples.
The conceptualisations of natural phenomena can also be revealed through an analysis of their names.
For example, a rainbow may receive its name from its connection with clouds (e.g. the Polish tcza is
related to Russian tua cloud), the rain (German Regenbogen, English rainbow), an arch-like shape
(French arc-en-ciel, Lithuanian vaivorykt, English rainbow).
The Earths satellite is called ksiyc in Polish (a young priest, prince, originally new moon)
or miesic (from measuring time; the root *ms-measure is present in many other languages); in
Russian it is calledluna (from luna, Pol. una glow in the sky, cf. REW, 19501958).

The planet Venus is colloquially categorised as a star and termed relative to the time of its
appearance: Gwiazda Poranna The Morning Star/Jutrzenka, from jutro tomorrow, or Gwiazda
Wieczorna/Wieczornica The Evening Star (SSSL, 19961999, vol. 11 5), or the time when it can be seen,
cf. Ukrainian Zirnycia, from zora light, glow, Russian Dennitsa, from den day.
The names of other stars are clearly mythological, e.g. the Pleiades, in Polish folk tradition
called Baby women, Kwoka broodhen (with chiks), orSito sieve. The last name is connected with the
image of the sky as a dome with holes in it through which the light of heaven can be seen (cf. SSSL, 1996
1999, vol. 11: 246249).
Names contain a perspective from which reality is viewed.
The Polish suwerenno sovereignty is treated as a synonym
ofniezaleno, niezawiso and niepodlego independence, but each form represents a diferent
viewpoint.
Suwerenno is an adapted borrowing of the French souverenit and is conceptually related
to zwierzchnictwo supremacy: it is a manifestation of the top-down perspective.
Niezaleno, niezawiso and niepodlego manifest a rank-and-file perspective, from the point of view
of the party threatened with the loss of self-government and self-sufficiency, with dependence and
subordination. A similar internal form can be found in other languages: Russiannezavisimost,
Ukrainian nezalezhnist, German Unabhngigkeit.
{7.4.2} Phraseological units, collocations, metaphors
Researchers of linguistic worldview are especially interested in phraseological units, although many of the
latter are idiomatic combinations with opaque motivations (e.g. wiesza psy na kim abuse someone, lit.
hang dogs on someone). Their conventionality can be seen in cross-linguistic comparisons.
For example, referring to someones speedy escape Poles say wzi nogi za pas, lit. take ones legs behind
ones belt, Germans say die Beine in die Hand nehmen, lit. take legs in the hand, the English say to take
to ones heels, the French say prendre ses jambes a son cou, lit. take the legs on the neck, and Slovaks
say vziat nohy naplecia, lit. take the legs on the back - and it is difficult to draw any far-reaching
conclusions from those data.
The phraseological picture of the world has certain peculiar characteristics and is usually based
on historical, often fossilized knowledge, which can only be accessed through etymological
investigations.
Closer to contemporary linguistic feeling, more informative for the contemporary interpretation of the
world are living collocations.
For example, much can be learned about the colloquial conceptualization of the
category TEKST (English text) from the collocability of the wordtekst with other words. Te analysis of
collocations (Niebrzegowska-Bartmiska, 2007: 23-31) allows one to reconstruct the colloquial picture,
whose features are grouped into facets, pertaining to:
[AUTHOR]

[STYLE]
[GENRE], [SUBJECT MATTER]
[STRUCTURE]
[CHARACTERISTICS]
[ACTION IN RELATION TO IT]
[ADDRESSEE]
[TIME] [PLACE]

tekst poety/polityka
a poets/politicians text;
tekst urzdowy/poetycki/naukowy an ofcial/poetic/scholarly text;
tekst dramatu/pieni a plays text/song lyrics;
tekst podzielony na rozdziay i akapity
a text divided into chapters and paragraphs;
tekst rozwleky/krtki a verbose/short text;
redagowa/korygowa/streszcza tekst edit/correct/summarise a text;rozumie/przyswoi/objani
tekst understand/explain a text;
teksty niezrozumiae dla niewtajemniczonych texts inaccessible to the uninitiated; mwi otwartym
tekstem speak openly, lit. in an open text;
tekst z okazji imienin
a text for someones birthday;
tekst w gazecie/na murze
a text in a newspaper/on the wall.
In Polish, texts are conceptualised metaphorically in a number of ways: as a result of the work of:
a crafsman, such as a weaver (snu opowie/wtek/ni opowiadania, lit. spin a story/motif/the
thread of a story),
a cook (a text may be pikantny spicy, smakowity delicious, niestrawnyunpalatable),

a builder (plan/szkic tekstu a plan/sketch of a text; pitra tekstu several storeys of a

text; budowa/kleci tekst to build/botch up a text);
a farmer or gardener (tekst dojrzewa a text ripens; pomys kiekuje an idea sprouts; tekst jest
owocem pracy a text is the fruit of ones work);
an artist or a musician (rama tekstu the frame of a text; drugi plan tekstu the background of a
text; autor maluje co w jakich barwach the author paints something in such and such colours; autor
porusza czu strun the author pulls a sensitive string).
A text may rani hurt and be ostry sharp or city biting thus it may be conceptualised as
an instrument or a weapon.
Niebrzegowska-Bartmiska says:A survey of all metaphorical modelsclearly shows that metaphors are
selective and concentrate on some characteristics at the expense of others. [] In all models, text is
treated as the result of the activity of a given subject. (2007: 31). Hence, metaphorsselect features from
a rich, multiaspectual characterization of text and profile the concept.
{7.4.3} Grammar
Te most stable, unquestionable basis for the reconstruction of linguistic worldview is grammar, uniform
throughout a national language. Te categories of person, number, gender, tense, mood or case are
relatively easily observable and comparable (on the cross-cultural scale) mechanisms of the
conceptualization of reality. Te conceptualization is forced by the language system, though as all linguistic
forms it can be used by the speaker in various ways, also consciously omitted or even contested.
Let me offer an example. In Polish inflectional morphology, in noun declensions, there exist
the categories of masculinity and non-masculinity: the endings -i and -owie in Nom.Sg. occur with
nouns referring to persons of male sex (chop-i peasants, pan-owiegentlemen), while the remaining
nouns, i.e. referring to non-male persons and things, occur with a single ending -y (kobiety women,kot-y cats, sto-y tables, problem-y problems).
The distinction also occurs in verbs in the past tense: stal-i they stood (male persons) vs. stay they stood (non-male persons or things).
The greater salience of reference to male persons is treated as a manifestation of the virilisation of
Polish (Baudouin de Courteneys expression) and is thought to be a remnant of male dominance in
public life. Te dominance is a tradition-sanctioned relic, recently contested as a manifestation of
linguistic discrimination of women (Szpyra-Kozowska and Karwatowska, 2005).
{7.4.5} Texts
Linguistic research at large, including the reconstruction of linguistic worldview, is primarily based
on analyses of texts, i.e. holistic messages with a topic, sender, receiver and a communicative context.
Texts contain both systemic features and manifestations of social conventions(stylistic and generic
norms), as well as individual features, which result from the creativity of the speaker. Let us begin with
what I call stereotyped texts.
The shortest stereotyped texts are proverbs. They express the so called folk wisdom, general knowledge
passed on to individual receivers by the community for pedagogical purposes. They tend to

contain universal quantifiers, such as every, no, always, never, as is typical of stereotypes. Proverbs
are based on typical events and figures from the represented world, which allows one to use them
as linguistic evidence in the reconstruction of the worldview.
In authored rather than reproduced texts, the element of auctorialcreation is very strong, 9 so the texts
require a special analysis,distinguishing what is communicated as a novelty and asserted from what
has been used as a point of departure, the background, a hiddenpresupposition. Te communicative
strategy requires that novel information be conveyed (one usually apologizes for platitudes). For the
researcher of linguistic worldview it is the opposite: attention is paid to what in the utterance is treated as
obvious, unquestionable, trivial or banal.
A special role in this context is played by coordinate contrastive clauses, clauses of concession,
result or cause, introduced by the conjunctions and adverbs but, so, because or therefore:
John is a father but he does not look afer his children (presupposition: fathers look afer their children);
Mikhail does not like music, though he comes from Ukraine(presupposition: Ukrainians are music
lovers);
He got himself a dog, so he felt safer immediately
(presupposition: a dog gives its owner the feeling of safety);
I told him everything frankly because I considered him a friend(presupposition: a friend can be
trusted).

{7.4.6} Ad-linguistic data

A full reconstruction of linguistic worldview must also take into account yet another type of
data, which I call ad-linguistic, composed of the socially entrenched, belief-based knowledge of the
world, common to the speaker (sender) and the hearer (receiver). Without reference to this type of
knowledge, normal communication or interpretation of utterances is impossible (Muszyski, 1988;
Koryk, 1999).
The set of ad-linguistic data, relevant to the process of communication, also includes
conventionalized patterns of behavior. Regardless of the fact that speaking as such is behavior
and action (Austin, 1962), an important clue in interpreting verbal texts is the awareness
of obligationsand prohibitions especially those obtaining in a given culture.
For example, doubts as to a metaphorical or mythologicalunderstanding of sentences such as : The
sun is joyful, The stars look upon us, The heaven/sky is angry or The earth gives birth is decided by
the knowledge of beliefs relating to the animistically understood nature and to the principles of
behaviour with respect to it. 10
Let us take the heavenly bodies. In archaic folk tradition, one must behave towards them in the same way
as one would towards living creatures: the sun must not be pointed at, the earth must not be hit with a
stick in spring, when it is pregnant with new life, etc. Therefore, the sentences above have, for the
members of the community in which they exist, a mythological, rather than a metaphorical, sense. It

is the behavior (obligations or prohibitions) that defnitely interprets the meanings of terms in the
sense proposed by Charles Peirce.
{7.7}Questionnaires
A distinct place in research on linguistic worldview is reserved
forquestionnaires. Open questions about the meanings of words and characteristics of objects are
particularly valuable, but they are moredifficult to interpret than closed ones, which contain
ready-made answers to choose from. Those are easier for the researcher to handle but pose a danger of
creating artifacts.
The examples of home, mother, homeland or a German (discussed in later chapters) show
that experimental (questionnaire-based) research gives access to the contemporary linguistic
awareness of speakers, allows one to reveal more features attributed to the object, and indicates
different degrees of entrenchment of specific features (manifested as different ranks in frequency lists).
Systemic data, on the other hand, embrace well-entrenched, historical, sometimes frozen features,
which, however, are not numerous.
Results of questionnaires may diverge from systemic data - but the two may certainly be reconciled.
Indeed, they complement each other.
At the stage of statistical breakdown of questionnaire data, an important characteristic of meaning is
manifested, namely its openness.
For example, features attributed to a typical mother are indicated withdifferent frequencies (from
about 35% to a mere handful), which points not only to different degrees of their entrenchment but also to
a lack of a clear threshold level below which a given feature is not included in the words meaning as
insignifcant in the speakers awareness. Is it 50%, 40% (Kapiszewski, 1978) or perhaps 20%? In closed
questionnaires the percentage is higher; in open ones it is much lower. 11
Two factors are worth mentioning here.
First, rare or idiosyncratic answers may be very interesting from the cognitive perspective, as they
may signal new, emerging linguistic tendencies.
Second, if the rare answers are collected from large numbers of respondents and analyzed collectively,
they may indicate changes in the evaluation of the object or show otherwise hardly noticeable shifts
in the objects linguistic profiling. This is exactly what we observed in our axiological questionnaires,
consisting of a hundred questions each, administered in 1990 and 2000 to two thousand students in
Lublin (results in Bartmiski, 2006a).
The fact that the results of questionnaires need not coincide withdictionary definitions or with
phraseological analyses must not be taken, in the spirit of Kiklevich (2007), as an indication of flaws in
the former. It may suggest that lexicographic definitions are imperfect (it is enough to compare
definitions from various dictionaries) and should in fact be verified with respect to the more reliable
questionnaire data (cf. Bartmiski, 2007b: 5052).
{8) Conclusion

The linguistic worldview conception is strictly semantic and unites all levels of language, it has
become a tool for the holistic and integrateddescription of language, without a split into unrelated
fields, such as lexicology and grammar, text linguistics and pragmatics, syntax and morphology. The
linguistic worldview approach facilitates theirintegration; see the entry Jzykowy obraz wiata - JOS in WE PWN 2002, vol. 8,written by J.Bartmiski.
The global linguistic worldview includes stereotypes. These arecollective images of people, places and
events, containing features treated as normal and typically attributed to those objects and events.
Linguistic worldview is diversified for style and genre, and at the level of discourse it is subjected
to profiling depending on the intentions of the speaking subject.
Finally, the linguistic worldview conception can play a major role in comparative research.
{9}. Perspective
Interest in comparative research on linguistic worldviews was openly voiced during the International
Slavic Congress in Ohrid, Macedonia, September 1016, 2008.
About it you can find information in 20 volume of Etnolingwistyka (2008), and in my paper Kakie
cennosti uastvujut v formirovanii jazykovoj kartiny mira slavjan (published after the Congress) - some
copies of the last paper I am leaving on the chairmandesk for the interests;
The paper is available in Internet http:// etnolinguistica-slavica.org).
I would like to add, that in my opinion very important lecture during the Congrss was the one delivered by
Aleksandr Moldovan. The head of the Institute of Slavic Studies within the Russian Academy of Sciences,
said in his opening address that (quotation):
Ethnolinguistics is a continuation of the former tradition of global approaches to Slavic languages, folk
cultures and social and national life, with a view to reconstructing the relevant cultural content. It also
responds to a wider need of developing a culture-oriented philology. Relating to the work of Nikita
Tolstoy, Svetlana Tolstoy, Nina Arutyunova, Yuriy Apresjan or Yuriy Stepanov, he underscored the
importance of research on cultural codes, of explicating cultural concepts, and of inquiring into the
nature of words and texts from the perspective of the underlying categories of worldview and cognition,
such as time, space, the human being, boundary/border, freedom, shortage, gender differences, eroticism,
or the oppositions: centreperiphery, goodevil, usthem, sacredprofane, lifedeath ((Moldovan,
2008: 9; 3435).
In my opinion - all the crucial ideas discussed in my paper and in my book SCE 2009 - i.e. the
linguistic worldview, stereotypes as colloquial images, the reconstruction of stereotypes by means of the
cognitive definition, the profiling of base images in discourse relative to a viewpoint and a system of
values relate to the subject as the prime experiencing, conceptualizing and coding authority. Having
been marginalized by structural linguistics, the subject especially the individual but also the collective
is appreciated by cognitive ethnolinguistics. Te individual subject is experienced empirically,
the collective subject is a secondary conceptual construct, which is derived from the former, but which
is also important for its role in establishing national (but regional and transnational too) identities.
Thank you for attention.

Dzikuj za uwag.
References:

Bartmiski, Jerzy, 2006, Jzykowe podstawy obrazu wiata,Lublin : Wyd. UMCS (III wydanie
2009).

Bartmiski, Jerzy, 2007, Stereotypy mieszkaj w jzyku. Studia etnolingwistyczne, Lublin :

Wyd. UMCS.

Bartmiski, Jerzy, 2009, Aspects of Cognitive Ethnolinguistics. London and Oakville, CT:
Equinox.

Grzegorczykowa, Renata. 2001. Wprowadzenie do semantyki jzykoznawczej. [Introduction to

linguistic semantics] 3rd ed. Warszawa: PWN.

Jzykowy obraz wiata, red. J. Bartmiski, Lublin : Wyd. UMCS, 1990 (III wyd. 2004).

Obraz svta v jazyce, red. I. Vakov , Praha 2001.

Ogden, C. K. and A. I. Richards 1923, The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden,
C. K. and A. I. Richards (eds.) The Meaning of Meaning. 296-336. London: International library
of psychology, philosophy and scientific method.

SSSL, 1996-1999. Sownik stereotypw i symboli ludowych. [Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and
Symbols] Vols. 1-1 and 1-2. Ed. J. Bartmiski. Lublin: Wyd. UMCS.

Wierzbicka, Anna, 1985, Lexicography and conceptual analysis, Ann Arbor.

, , 2005, : , M :
.

P e, . . A. , M, 1988.

C, 1995-2009 .
.., . 1-4.

Ethnolinguistic dictionaries (Dictionary of Folk Stereotypes and Symbols, SSSL 1996-1999,

Lublin, or ,C I - IV, 1994-2009, Moscow) provide linguistic-cultural
portraits of the Universe, plants, animals and people signs of the spiritual culture of Slavs (cf.
Polish niebo, Russian 'sky, heaven'); they also describe the oppositions of us/them,
human/animal, or left/right.

: 2010-03-10

http://www.rastko.rs/rastko/delo/13731
--

Notes on Whorfian Relativism

Dustin M. Wax (from www.dwax.org)

The study or linguistics over the last century, as in the social sciences in general, has
been characterized by a departure from the historical comparative method dominant in
the 1800s. Modern students of language left behind the strongly evolutionist search
for origins and took up the investigation of language as a working system and its
implications for humans who use language in society. The foundation for such
synchronic investigation was laid by Ferdinand de Saussure, from whom all following
investigations have either developed or departed (or both). One of the important
developments inspired by Saussurean linguistics was the examination of language's
role in thought, a problem which led Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf to develop
their Relativity Hypothesis. Although their work ultimately failed to answer
satisfactorily the question of how language and thinking are related, the Sapir-Whorf
Relativity Hypothesis has continued to be influential, and the implications for further
study has been significant.
Put simply, Sapir and Whorf believed that the language we speak profoundly
influences the way we construct our worlds. Saussure himself had stated that language
is fundamental to human thought. "[T]hought is like a swirling cloud, " he says
in Course in General Linguistics, "where no shape is intrinsically determined. No
ideas are established in advance, and nothing is distinct, before the introduction of
linguistic structure" (Saussure: 110[155]). But where Saussure took this relationship
for granted, Sapir and Whorf investigated what it means that we think with language.
The focus is not on the words themselves, the vocabulary, but on the system, in the
Saussurean sense of the total language considered as a self-contained and integrated
whole, wherein sounds, words, and grammar operate according to mutual
relationships.
The effect of language on thought was especially developed by Whorf in his
investigation of "covert" categories, systematic relations in language which are not
overtly marked. A basic instance of this is the difference between "sheep" (singular)
and "sheep" (plural), where the plurality of the second word is not indicated by the
word itself, but by grammatical relations within the sentence. Covert categories were
interesting to Whorf because they function on a deeply unconscious level and thus,
Whorf believed, would have a motivational quality not easily resisted.
One covert category Whorf found especially significant is the case of gender in
English. In contrast to other languages such as French and German, English has no
covert gender markings for nouns. However, Whorf points out, many English nouns
are not gender-neutral. For example, in Romance languages, female names are overtly

marked with an "-elle" or "-ella" affix, as in "Danielle" or "Marguella". In English,

though, there are no clear differences between male and female names. Despite this
lack of overt markings, it is still understood that George, William, and Richard are
male, while Jane, Susan, and Betty are female. The gender of the named person is
determined unconsciously, covertly; it is established through systematic relations
within the entire language structure.
The implications of language for world-view are drawn more dramatically in Whorf's
comparison of Western European languages (called "SAE", Standard Average
European, for convenience) with Hopi. In SAE, non-real abstracts, such as time, are
dealt with the same way real objects are. Thus time is spoken of in terms of
measurable units (years, hours, days) and is counted as if those units were physical
objects (1 hour, 10 days, compared with 1 chair, 10 walnuts). Furthermore, we apply
spatial adjectives to temporal phenomena ("What a long day. " "Is your week going
smoothly?"). Hopi, on the other hand, does not treat time and other abstract concepts
at all the same way. Where SAE expresses time in terms of units, Hopi expresses it in
terms of the process of getting later. Thus, a "length of time" in SAE becomes a
relational comparison of the difference in lateness between two events. Time units are
not expressed as things which can be considered together, but as a measure of how far
along in the process of becoming later an event occurs.
The metaphorical treatment of abstract concepts as reified entities recurs throughout
SAE; words and ideas are treated as things which, when "relayed", "carry" a message
which, if "made clear", a person could "receive", and thus we "get a messages across";
substance qualities, such as "water" are used which treat them as if it were possible to
apprehend them as a whole ("I'd like water" is said the same way as "The Earth's
surface is 70% water"). Hopi does not use metaphorical analogy in describing the
world. Where SAE speakers say "water" as a description of any substance with that
quality, the Hopi term describes the specific form in which it appears, so that it is
unnecessary to use phrases like "a cup of... " or "a gallon of... " in order to give the
water manipulable form. Likewise, instead of relying on spatial metaphors to describe
abstract concepts, Hopi has "abundant conjugational and lexical means of expressing
duration, intensity, and tendency directly as such" (Whorf: 146).
Whorf argues that the differences between SAE and Hopi linguistic systems are
expressed in the cultural behaviours of their speakers. The Hopi linguistic expression
of time as a process of becoming later is seen reflected in the Hopi cultural emphasis
on preparedness and "constant insistent repetition" (Whorf: 151). Whorf says that, "To
the Hopi, for whom time is not a motion but a 'getting later' of everything that has
ever been done, unvarying repetition is not wasted but accumulated" (151). Similarly,
the SAE linguistic reification of abstracts is held responsible for "materialism,

psychophysical parallelism, physics... and dualistic views of the universe in general,

Indeed... almost everything that is 'hard, practical common sense'" (Whorf: 152).
Unfortunately, Whorf's arguments are ambiguous as to the exact relationship between
language and world-view. He seems to be arguing for a causal relationship: "Concepts
of 'time' and 'matter'... depend upon the nature of the language or languages through
the use of which they have been developed" (Whorf: 158). However, his evidence
does not prove causality--the statement quoted above could as easily read "The nature
of a language depends upon the concepts which it has been developed to express."
Whorf himself admits that culture and its language system develop together in a state
of feedback. It is no surprise then that at any given moment, linguistic structure is
reflected in cultural world-views. To point out such correlations as exist at a given
moment does not seem to be Whorf's goal, anyway; besides, such correlations would
shed little light on the nature of the relationship between language and culture. In
keeping with Saussure's notion of a language imposed on the individual from without,
however, a sort of causal relationship can be inferred which has not so much to do
with the relation between language and culture as between language and individuals,
by saying that language as it is learned and used by individuals shapes the way they
apprehend and construct their world. The problem is that this sort of argument
necessitates dealing with language as an individual phenomenon, a situation which
goes against one of the basic premises of Saussurean linguistics: that the object of
study is langue, the level of language which is collective and shared by all speakers,
and not parole, which is the level of language which is individual and variable. In
order to study the motivational aspect of language in forming individual world-views,
we should have to enter the forbidden realm of parole.
Saussure's langue/parole distinction stood as a major factor in Sapir's and Whorf's
failure to satisfactorily develop their Relativity Hypothesis. In Whorf's writing, the
tendency towards the field ofparole is apparent. In "The Relation of Habitual Thought
and Behavior to Language", he uses examples from his experience as an insurance
investigator to illustrate the relation between thought and language. For instance:
A drying room for hides was arranged with a blower at one end to
make a current of air along the room and thence outdoors through a
vent at the other end. Fire started at a hot bearing on the blower,
which blew the flames directly into the hides and fanned them along
the room, destroying the entire stock. This hazardous setup followed
naturally from the term 'blower' with its linguistic equivalence to
'that which blows' implying that its function necessarily is to 'blow.'
Also its function is verbalised as 'blowing air for drying,' overlooking
that it can blow other things, e. g. flames and sparks. In reality, a

blower simply makes a current of air and can exhaust as well as

blow (Whorf: 136-7).
Whorf makes it clear that the accident described was caused as a result of habitual
thinking which reflects linguistic usage. The word "blower" acts more powerfully to
motivate behaviour than does the actual function of the device, to "create a current of
air. " However, this example, as well as the others he gives, is dependent on the
context in which the speech act occurs. In other words, Whorf's examples are all
instances of language in use, that which Saussure designated parole and declared
"ancillary and more or less accidental" ( Saussure: 14 [30]) and thus unnecessary for
linguistic consideration. Much of Whorf's ambiguity is the result of trying to study
instances of parole according to the rules of langue. His failure to do so reflects not so
much a lack of reasoning ability on his part but a weakness in the basic assumptions
of Saussurean linguistic analysis. What is called for is a linguistic methodology for the
study of language in use, and of the complex relationship between the shared system
of meanings (langue) and the way those meanings influence behaviour in specific
contexts (parole). While Saussure's method is adequate for the study of language as a
human trait, Whorf's method begins to look at language as something which people
do, for which Saussure's method is sorely lacking.
While the Sapir-Whorf Relativity Hypothesis ultimately failed, it did so in interesting
and even constructive, ways. As students of Franz Boas, Sapir and Whorf set out to
prove the intellectual equality between Westerners and so-called "primitive" peoples.
Whorf stresses that while the Hopi language and world-view are certainly different
from our own. they are not inferior, and in many ways may in fact be superior as a
way of perceiving and describing the world; "English compared to Hopi is like a
bludgeon compared to a rapier" (Whorf: 85). While Whorf certainly succeeds in
making this point, he fails in adequately addressing the greater issues raised by his
work. Perhaps, had he lived longer, he may have transcended the Saussurean
limitations on his work. Perhaps not. As it stands, he left a slew of unanswered
questions, and a clue that the study of language has to be expanded it we are ever
going to understand what itmeans to be language-using creatures.
References Cited
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1972 (trans. 1983) Course in General Linguistics. La Salle, IL: Open
Court.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee

1956 Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge. MA: M. I. T. Press.

--