affirmative it is not conclusive whether certain language causes sexism or vice

Affirmative it is not conclusive whether certain

This preview shows page 31 - 34 out of 145 pages.

affirmative, it is not conclusive whether certain language causes sexism or vice versa. Furthermore, studies of whether changes in politically (in) correct language result in changes in perception have also been inconclusive (Valdes, 2011). Besides, although the perceptions of listeners appear to be affected by this language, a relationship claiming that language determines this type of thought remains in question Kinship systems have similarly been studied to discover how language is related to thought through the ways in which the use of terms like father, brother, or older brother reflect how people behave toward these people reports that the Seminole Indians of Florida and Oklahoma recognize a ‘father’s brother’ to also be ‘father’, as the Seminole recognize same sex siblings to fulfill the same role. While one culture may distinguish between IJOART
Image of page 31
International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2017 55 ISSN 2278-7763 Copyright © 2017 SciResPub. IJOART father and uncle, another may not. The use of the term ‘father’ in a conversation between a native English speaker and a Seminole Indian would logically produce a different image for both people, as culturally each may classify the roles and image of this person differently (Gillanders, & Castro, 2011). Moreover, whereas strong determinism states that language determines thought, weak determinism allows the ‘needed’ room for additional influences to enter into the relationship between language and culture.Notwithstanding individual cognitive processes or general knowledge, it is fair to assume that worldviews may be influenced by culture and not just language. Although language structure provides us with phrasings for our understanding and can manipulate our thoughts in this respect, if preexisting knowledge does not supply a foundation for general understanding, the ways in which we define and evaluate each individual encounter would be left solely to linguistic knowledge(Nishida, 2010). Additionally, when we encounter something familiar we are able to categorize it quite easily and with some degree of confidence thanks to pre- acquainted knowledge or schemata. When a person enters a familiar situation, they retrieve a stock of knowledge of appropriate behavior and or appropriate roles he/she should play in that situation. Similarly suggests that when we hear something new, we associate with it who typically may use it and in what kind of occasion it is appears to be typically used. Our interpretations of our observations in life are guided by how we (are able to) classify those experiences both linguistically and culturally (Coupland, 2010). IJOART
Image of page 32
International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2017 56 ISSN 2278-7763 Copyright © 2017 SciResPub. IJOART On the other hand, people use schemata to help recognize situations, create strategies for addressing them, apply the strategies, and then deal with the resulting actions in the same manner. If we were to verbalize this actual
Image of page 33
Image of page 34

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 145 pages?

  • Summer '15
  • JPCastro
  • Linguistic relativity, ISSN, International Journal of Advancements

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture