Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, Malotki's monumental study of time expressions in Hopi presented many examples that challenged Whorf's "timeless" interpretation of Hopi language and culture, [74] but seemingly failed to address the linguistic relativist argument actually posed by Whorf (i.e. that the understanding of time by native Hopi speakers differed from ...
Precise estimates depend on an arbitrary distinction (dichotomy) established between languages and dialects. [2] Natural languages are spoken, signed, or both; however, any language can be encoded into secondary media using auditory, visual, or tactile stimuli – for example, writing, whistling, signing, or braille.
The concept of linguistic relativity concerns the relationship between language and thought, specifically whether language influences thought, and, if so, how.This question has led to research in multiple disciplines—including anthropology, cognitive science, linguistics, and philosophy.
Almost all names a human language attributes an object are thus arbitrary: the word "car" is nothing like an actual car. Spoken words are really nothing like the objects they represent. This is further demonstrated by the fact that different languages attribute very different names to the same object.
In fact, the relationship of language to parole (or speech-in-context) is and always has been a theoretical problem for linguistics (cf. Roman Jakobson's famous essay "Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics" et al.). A famous thesis by Saussure states that the relationship between a sign and the real-world thing it denotes is an arbitrary one.
Central to what de Saussure says about words are two related statements: First, he says that "the sign is arbitrary". He considers the words that we use to indicate things and concepts could be any words – they are essentially just a consensus agreed upon by the speakers of a language and have no discernible pattern or relationship to the thing.
In semiotics, signified and signifier (French: signifié and signifiant) are the two main components of a sign, where signified is what the sign represents or refers to, known as the "plane of content", and signifier which is the "plane of expression" or the observable aspects of the sign itself.
For example, one might say that: "Given an arbitrary integer, multiplying it by two will result in an even number." Even further, the implication of the use of "arbitrary" is that generality will hold—even if an opponent were to choose the item in question. In which case, arbitrary can be regarded as synonymous to worst-case. [5]