Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (Volume 198). Este artículo no está disponible.Evidence for Linguistic Relativity (Volume 198)

This volume has arisen from the 26th International LAUD Symposium on “Humboldt and Whorf Revisited. Universal and Culture-Specific Conceptualizations in Grammar and Lexis”. While contrasting two or more languages, the papers in this volume either provide empirical evidence confirming hypotheses related to linguistic relativity, or deal with methodological issues of empirical research.These new approaches to Whorf’s hypotheses do not focus on mere theorizing but provide more and more empirical evidence gathered over the last years. They prove in a very sophisticated way that Whorf’s ideas were very lucid ones, even if Whorf’s insights were framed in a terminology which lacked the flexibility of linguistic categories developed over the last quarter of this century, especially in cognitive linguistics. To date, there is sufficient proof to claim that linguistic relativity is indeed a vital issue, and the current volume confirms a more general trend for rehabilitating Whorf’s theory complex and also offers evidence for it. It contains articles written by scholars from various fields of linguistics including phonology, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, historical linguistics, anthropological linguistics and (cross-)cultural semantics, which all contribute to a re-evaluation and partial reformulation of Whorf’s thinking.

This volume has arisen from the 26th International LAUD Symposium on “Humboldt and Whorf Revisited. Universal and Culture-Specific Conceptualizations in Grammar and Lexis”. While contrasting two or more languages, the papers in this volume either provide empirical evidence confirming hypotheses related to linguistic relativity, or deal with methodological issues of empirical research.These new approaches to Whorf’s hypotheses do not focus on mere theorizing but provide more and more empirical evidence gathered over the last years. They prove in a very sophisticated way that Whorf’s ideas were very lucid ones, even if Whorf’s insights were framed in a terminology which lacked the flexibility of linguistic categories developed over the last quarter of this century, especially in cognitive linguistics. To date, there is sufficient proof to claim that linguistic relativity is indeed a vital issue, and the current volume confirms a more general trend for rehabilitating Whorf’s theory complex and also offers evidence for it. It contains articles written by scholars from various fields of linguistics including phonology, psycholinguistics, language acquisition, historical linguistics, anthropological linguistics and (cross-)cultural semantics, which all contribute to a re-evaluation and partial reformulation of Whorf’s thinking.