The relation of language and mind has interested philosophers for many centuries.(61)The Greeks assumed that the structure of language had some connection with the process of thought which took root in Europe long before people realized how diverse language could be.
Only recently did linguists begin the serious study of languages that were very different rom their own.Two anthropologists—linguists，Franz Boas and Edward Sapir，were pioneers in describing many native languages of North and South America during the first half of the twentieth century.
(62)We are obliged to them because some of these languages have since vanished，as the people who spoke them died out or became assimilated and lost their native languages.Other linguists in the earlier part of this century，however，who were less eager to deal with bizarre(古怪的)data from“exotic(外来的)”language，were not always so grateful. (63)The newly described languages were often so strikingly different from the wellstudied languages of Europe and Southeast Asia that some scholars even accused Boas and Sapir of fabricating their data.Native American languages are indeed different，so much so in fact that Navajo could be used by the US military as a code during World WarⅡto sand secret messages.
Sapir’s pupil，Benjamin Lee Whorf，continued the study of American Indian languages. (64)Being interested in the relationship of the language and thought，Whorf developed the idea that the structure of the language determines the structure of habitual thought in a society.He reasoned that because it is easier to formulate certain concepts and not others in a given language，the speakers of that language think along one track and not along another. (65)Whorf came to believe in a sort of linguistic determinism which，in its strongest from，states that language imprisons the mind，and that the grammatical patterns in a language can produce farreaching consequences for the culture of a society.Later，this idea became to be known as the SapirWhorf hypothesis，but this term is somewhat inappropriate.Although both Sapir and Whorf emphasized the diversity of languages，Sapir himself never explicitly supported the notion of linguistic determinism.
全文参考翻译
许多世纪以来哲学家一直对语言与思维的关系颇感兴趣。(61)希腊人认为，语言结构与思维过程之间存在着某种联系。这一观点在人们尚未认识到语言的千差万别以前就早已在欧洲扎下了根。
直到最近语言学家才开始认真研究与自己的母语截然不同的语言。两位人类学家、语言学家佛朗茨•博厄斯和爱德华•萨皮尔在二十世纪上半叶描述了北美和南美许多土著语言，在这方面他们堪称先驱。
(62)我们之所以感激他们(两位无驱)，是因为在此之后，这些(土著)语言中有一些已经不复存在了，这是由于说这些语言的部族或是消亡了，或是被同化而丧失了自己的本族语言。不过，在该世纪早期其他语言学家并不那么热心处理“异域”语言中的怪异数据，因此他们常不被人们所称道。(63)这些新近被描述的语言与已经得到充分研究的欧洲和东南亚地区的语言往往差别显著，以至于有些学者甚至指责博厄斯和萨皮尔编造了材料。美洲土著语言的确十分特异，纳瓦霍语实际上在二战中可以被美军用作密码发密码电报。
萨皮尔的学生本杰明•李•沃夫继续研究美洲印第安人的语言。(64)沃夫对语言与思维的关系很感兴趣，逐渐形成了这样的观点:在一个社会中，语言的结构决定习惯思维的结构。他论述说，某一特定语言中比较容易形成某些特定概念，但与此有别的其他概念则不易形成，因此该语言的使用者思考问题只会沿着这一条道而不会沿着那一条道进行。(65)沃夫进而相信某种类似语言决定论的观点，其极端说法是:语言禁锢思维，语言的语法结构能对一个社会的文化产生深远的影响。后来，这种观点成为了知名的萨皮尔—沃夫假说，不过这个术语有点不妥。虽然萨皮尔和沃夫都强调各种语言之间的差异性，但萨皮尔自己从来没有明确地表示过支持语言决定论的观念。
发表于 2016-8-9 08:15:48