1. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
1.1. Definition: Also known as linguistic relativity, this theory is focused on the relationship between language and the mind, and specifically how a language influences the way speakers of a particular language see the world.
1.2. The Stimulus of Sapir's Writing
1.2.1. The link between culture & language
1.2.1.1. Ex. Great Plains American Indians shared similar culture & spoke mutually unintelligible languages.
1.2.2. Franz Boas (1911)
1.2.2.1. Wrote the book "Handbook of American Indian Languages"
1.2.2.2. The book heavily influenced Sapir's theories
1.2.2.3. Sapir was greatly influenced by Franz Boas
1.2.3. Boas & Sapir believed language was not intrinsically connected to culture
1.2.3.1. Ex. Japanese Chicano
1.2.4. Language is not biological, but a "historical coincidence" (Sapir 1921: 228)
1.2.5. Language is instrumental for the youngest to learn how to operate in society or culture
2. Semantics
2.1. Dwight Bolinger (1975)
2.1.1. Researched the exact point when sound creates meaning
2.2. Definition: The study of the relationship between linguistic forms and structures and their meanings.
2.3. Noam Chomsky
2.3.1. Validates Semantics
2.3.1.1. Detailed the notion of "linguistic competence"
2.3.1.1.1. Syntax
2.3.1.1.2. Phonology
2.3.1.1.3. Morphology
3. Concepts
3.1. Modern Linguistics
3.1.1. Quantify and contextualize the social structure/semantics
3.1.1.1. Done through measurable and closed units of sound and script
3.1.1.1.1. Phonemes
3.1.1.1.2. Morphemes
3.2. Ogden and Richards (1923)
3.2.1. Developed the semiotic triangles
3.2.1.1. Referents
3.2.1.1.1. Things in the world
3.2.1.2. Symbols
3.2.1.2.1. Words
3.2.1.3. Thoughts/Image
3.2.1.3.1. The mind
3.3. Murphy's (2002) Mental Glue
3.3.1. Connecting "concepts" to "words"
3.3.2. Mental glue sticks words & concepts to:
3.3.2.1. Indexical Log or Categories
3.3.2.1.1. Categories are subtle infinitely different
3.3.2.1.2. Bridge between generalization & distinction
3.3.2.1.3. Filter important and not important
3.3.2.1.4. Brain reacts instantaneously
3.4. Five points to notice of Categories & Concepts
3.4.1. 1. Categories are arbitrary
3.4.1.1. Our ability to apply knowledge to the category is important.
3.4.2. 2. Referent/categorizations contain variations in reference to phonemes
3.4.2.1. 1. Spin [p] 2. Pin [ph]
3.4.3. 3. Cognition and categorization, we categorize linguistically
3.4.3.1. Ex. Pet names: Rocky = Dog, Garfield = Cat.
3.4.4. 4. Ability to apply categorizations correctly
3.4.4.1. Jackendoff (1983)
3.4.4.1.1. "without categorization, memory is virtually useless."
3.4.4.2. Ex. food at a restaurant (menu)
3.4.5. 5. Not all categories are linguistic
3.4.5.1. We can usually make distinctions between pain and not pain without linguistic categories.
3.5. Rise & Fall of ethnoscience
3.5.1. It locks culture into a static understanding
3.5.2. Has too many factors to make into a science
3.5.3. Neglects nonverbal behavior & other lecixal phenomena
3.6. Folk Taxonomy
3.6.1. Field worker uses it to uncover how natives conceive the structure of a particular domain.
3.6.2. Ex. concept of "cars" in the US vs England
3.6.2.1. "Hood" of a car --> "Bonnet"
3.7. Deriving Meaning from Speech Acts
3.7.1. Speech Act Theory
3.7.1.1. Locutionary
3.7.1.1.1. Process of saying itself
3.7.1.2. Illocutionary force
3.7.1.2.1. Speaker's intention
3.7.1.3. Percolutionary effect
3.7.1.3.1. Listener's response
3.7.2. Five Types of Speaker actions
3.7.2.1. Commissive
3.7.2.1.1. Speaker commits to future action
3.7.2.2. Directives
3.7.2.2.1. Speaker gets listener to do something
3.7.2.3. Expressives
3.7.2.3.1. Speaker indicates psychological state
3.7.2.4. Declarations
3.7.2.4.1. Utterance brings a new state of affairs
3.7.2.5. Representatives
3.7.2.5.1. Speaker conveys beliefs about truth
3.7.3. Conversational Analysis
3.7.3.1. Examines conversations in great detail and is highly inductive
3.7.3.2. Emphasizes on choices and alternatives available to speakers
3.7.3.3. Emphasis on what is actually in data rather than intuition
3.7.4. Discourse Analysis
3.7.4.1. Methodologically
3.7.4.2. Attempts to adopt methods of autonomous linguistics to levels beyonds a sentence
3.7.4.3. An appeal to intuition determines what constitutes a well- formed sequence
3.7.4.4. Only a few texts are analyzed in depth
3.8. Lexical Nature
3.8.1. Words create our references to the world
3.8.1.1. Sense - connection between words connection (or not) to another word
3.8.1.1.1. Ex. Hell and heaven ... are they related
3.8.1.2. Reference - connection between word and object or situation
3.8.2. Distinctions in language are important
3.8.3. Claude Levi-Strauss
3.8.3.1. Invented Structuralism
3.8.3.2. Binary oppositions
3.8.3.2.1. Definition: "Antonyms; words with opposite meaning that are absolute and are not gradable"
3.8.3.2.2. Ex. Left and Right, Hot and Cold
3.8.4. Synonyms
3.8.4.1. Definition: "Refers to words with similar or the same meanings.
3.8.4.2. Create boundaries for categorizations
3.8.5. Polysemy
3.8.5.1. Definition: single lexeme that carries more then one meaning
3.8.5.2. Ex. Patch of land Patch on those shorts
3.8.6. Homonymy
3.8.6.1. Definition: two different lexemes that have similar appearance
3.8.6.2. Ex. Sole 1 Any of various flatfishes Sole 2 The undersurface of a foot Sole 3 Being the only one Sole 4 Part of a plow
3.8.7. Connotation vs. Denotation
3.8.7.1. Denotation Definition: A relationship between a lexeme and that to which the lexeme refers
3.8.7.1.1. Like reference or category
3.8.7.1.2. Ex. Winter is a season
3.8.7.2. Connotation Definition: Meaning or meanings associated with a word in addition to its literal meaning
3.8.7.2.1. The sentiment attached to a word
3.8.7.2.2. Ex. Words associated with a dog are "loyalty and friendships."
3.8.8. Measuring meaning
3.8.8.1. Charles Osgood (1970)
3.8.8.1.1. Developed semantic differential scale