The most frequent interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been that of a synchronic working. This interpretation focuses on how users of different grammars come to a different evaluation of the world at the same time.
In contrast, a diachronic study would research how the same people come to a different evaluation of the world at different moments in time, in order to investigate how their grammar has evolved. This approach would involve studying language change over time and its impact on thought and perception.
Do you know of any research that has been conducted on this topic? My interest is in applying Sapir/Whorf to the role of communication in crisis resolution, starting from the hypothesis that the solution to the crisis must have found its way into linguistic expressions of the people who originally experienced the problem.
So far, I have been unable to find such research. Any help will be greatly appreciated!
#sapir/whorf #linguisticrelativity #diachronical #crisisresolution #CCO
Dear Cees,
what an interesting research proposal. Surely, if the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis holds true for different languages across space, it should also hold true for the same language across time. After all, the difference between simultaneously spoken languages in the present is structurally the same as between the "same" language spoken in the past and present, although the diachronic difference might evidently be smaller. Of course, it will be impossible for research to gain direct, experimental access to linguo-cognitive worldview (to put it like this) of past speakers.
Dear Andreas,
Thank you for the encouraging response. One way to overcome the smaller diachronic difference, could be to conduct a research project around a crisis. Although the timelapse would be small, the difference could be visible.
A second possibility comes from AI now mastering large language models. What if one LLM sold be trained on deliverables of an "older" era and another on a newer. Wild that methodologically provide interesting insights you think?
About your intriguing large language model idea: I guess we could easily identify differences in syntax, morphology and word choice of the language at different time points. But I don't quite see how we could examine the speakers' perceptions using a large language model. In Psycholinguistics, this is usually done in experiments with different L1 native speakers, for instance via their reaction time to the same stimulus. But this is of course impossible in diachronic research, since speakers of earlier time periods are no longer ... available.
Ah. I see. Your approaching this strictly linguistically. You are right. Certainly when you extend the period to longer-than-life. That begs the question what type of input can be used to train a LLM. Did you see AI had translated previously untranslatable cuneic script? Mmm... Discontinuities and continuities across diachronical language development? To test current theories e.g. proto Indo-European? I am too unfamiliar with the field...
I'm thinking more sociolinguistically, specifically in a Dewey-inspired approach to communications (culture resides in communication).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation