Linguistic Supertypes

Durst-Andersen, Per

doi:10.1515/9783110253153

Cited by 34 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Ji et al (2005) reported differences in styles of visual attention (“analytic” vs. “holistic”) between East-Asian and American participants, and attributed these to non-linguistic cultural differences: individualist vs. collectivist values, respectively. Durst-Andersen (2011) disagrees, and rather places languages as diverse as Chinese, Russian, and Spanish in the (super)type of “reality-oriented” languages, on the basis of common structural features such as grammatical aspect. This implies that Russian and Spanish speakers should behave like the Chinese, rather than the North Americans in visual attention tasks.…”

Section: Disassociating Language and Cultural Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language may indeed influence thought

Zlatev

Blomberg

2015

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We discuss four interconnected issues that we believe have hindered investigations into how language may affect thinking. These have had a tendency to reappear in the debate concerning linguistic relativity over the past decades, despite numerous empirical findings. The first is the claim that it is impossible to disentangle language from thought, making the question concerning “influence” pointless. The second is the argument that it is impossible to disentangle language from culture in general, and from social interaction in particular, so it is impossible to attribute any differences in the thought patterns of the members of different cultures to language per se. The third issue is the objection that methodological and empirical problems defeat all but the most trivial version of the thesis of linguistic influence: that language gives new factual information. The fourth is the assumption that since language can potentially influence thought from “not at all” to “completely,” the possible forms of linguistic influence can be placed on a cline, and competing theories can be seen as debating the actual position on this cline. We analyze these claims and show that the first three do not constitute in-principle objections against the validity of the project of investigating linguistic influence on thought, and that the last one is not the best way to frame the empirical challenges at hand. While we do not argue for any specific theory or mechanism for linguistic influence on thought, our discussion and the reviewed literature show that such influence is clearly possible, and hence in need of further investigations.

show abstract

Section: Disassociating Language and Cultural Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, some proponents of the thesis have also been relatively one-sided (Durst-Andersen, 2011). Perhaps it is as stated by Ellis (1993, p. 55): “[T]he Whorf hypothesis seems to bring out the worst in those who discuss it.”…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language may indeed influence thought

Zlatev

Blomberg

2015

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…English can be defined as a hearer‐oriented language that speaks about external reality through the hearer's perspective; a feature shared by the way with the Scandinavian languages (cf. Durst‐Andersen, 2011). This feature is replicated in current mainstream linguistics.…”

Section: Another Kind Of Reductivism In Linguisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reductivism versus perspectivism versus holism: A key theme in philosophy of science, and its application to modern linguistics

Collin,

Durst‐Andersen

2023

Theoria

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use recent developments within philosophy of science and within certain strands of linguistic research to throw light on each other. According to Ronald Giere's perspectivist philosophy of science, the scientific understanding of reality must proceed along different, mutually irreducible lines of approach. Giere's proposal, however, leaves unresolved the problem of how to integrate the ever‐growing multitude of highly diverse scientific accounts of what is, after all, one and the same world. We propose a technique for the alignment of different perspectives that will permit cross‐perspectival explanation, and thus allow for a more holistic picture of reality to emerge. With respect to modern linguistics, however, Giere's perspectivism merely legalises a de facto state of affairs, as this discipline displays the peaceful coexistence of a multitude of different theoretical perspectives. Still, this makes it all the more important to show how the different aspects of language picked out by these different perspectives combine to form one single complex reality. During our investigation, a largely overlooked type of reduction within linguistics comes to light, prevalent in classical as well as current work within speech act theory and politeness theory. We suggest how a more holistic understanding of language can be attained through our technique for integrating different perspectives.

show abstract

“…The focus on knowledge of the laws of nature and the laws of society should be compared to the absence of grammatical means in Russian to express epistemic modality, i.e. laws of the human mind (Durst-Andersen, 2011). This means that the Russian language pays a lot of attention to objective knowledge and little attention to subjective beliefs.…”

Section: Modality and Societal Logic In The Chinese Linguaculturementioning

confidence: 99%

Language, culture and society: Modality, face and societal logic

Durst-Andersen

2023

GLOBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is common to distinguish between individualistic cultures typically associated with Western countries and collectivistic cultures normally linked to Asian countries. Some countries are not easily characterized, because they are placed right in the middle of the continuum. This concerns, for instance, Russia. In this paper, I will attempt to demonstrate on the basis of the theory of communicative supertypes that the notion of individualism is intimately connected to the notion of alethic modality – concerned with laws of nature, i.e. what is possible, impossible, necessary and unnecessary – whereas the notion of collectivism is tied up with the notion of deontic modality having to do with laws of society, i.e. permission, prohibition, obligation and non-obligation. Specifically, the British-English speaking speech community is based on the alethic notion of possibility and guided by the hearer's face, i.e. second person, in contrast to the Mandarin-Chinese-speaking community which is based on the deontic notion of obligation and guided by the speaker’s face, i.e. first person. Compared to this, the Russian-speaking community stands out as a third unnoticed variant that seems to differentiate nature and society by making a sharp distinction within their aspectually defined modality system, between alethic and deontic logic expressed by the perfective and the imperfective aspect, respectively. That Russian culture must be a third variant is confirmed by their understanding of face as being defined in relation to the situation itself, i.e. third person.

show abstract

Linguistic Supertypes

Cited by 34 publications

References 0 publications

Language may indeed influence thought

Language may indeed influence thought

Reductivism versus perspectivism versus holism: A key theme in philosophy of science, and its application to modern linguistics

Language, culture and society: Modality, face and societal logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About