Gdy mówi do nas język. Krytyczne spojrzenie na współczesne aplikacje hipotezy Sapira-Whorfa w feministycznych teoriach językoznawczych

Main Article Content

Michał Jahns

Abstrakt

In this paper I discuss a common argument put forward by the feminist movement and present in academic publications in the field of gender and language studies. Based on the assumption that language is not a transparent means of communication, the argument states that a patriarchal worldview is embedded in linguistic structure of Polish and other languages. This leads some feminist activists to advocating language change that would alter certain elements of linguistic structure in an attempt to eradicate the perceived bias. I argue that the feminist argument is based on a debatable interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that does not take into consideration recent developments in the field, notably the theory of language ideologies. I conclude that for a scientific investigation of values allegedly carried by language, it is necessary to go beyond the study of linguistic structure alone and incorporate methods of other social sciences that will allow us to grasp the social context from which language cannot be ultimately separated.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Jahns, M. (2012). Gdy mówi do nas język. Krytyczne spojrzenie na współczesne aplikacje hipotezy Sapira-Whorfa w feministycznych teoriach językoznawczych. Investigationes Linguisticae, 25, 90-107. https://doi.org/10.14746/il.2012.25.6
Dział
Artykuły

Bibliografia

  1. Aneta Pavlenko (2005). Bilingualism and Thought. [W:] J. Kroll, A. de Groot (red.) Handbook of Bilingualism. Psycholinguistic Approaches, 433-453.
  2. Błaszkowska, Hanka i Gabriela Koniuszaniec (2003). Language and gender in Polish. [W:] Marlis Hellinger i Hadumod Bußmann (red.) Gender Across Languages. The linguistic representation of men and women. Volume 3. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  3. Cameron, Deborah (1990). Introduction: why is language a feminist issue? [W:] D. Cameron (red.) The Feminist Critique of Language. A reader. New York: Routledge, 1-28.
  4. Chudy, Wojciech (2000). Alienacja. [W:] Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozofii. Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu.
  5. Clark, Herbert (1996). Communities, Commonalities, and Communication. [W:] J. Gumperz i Stephen Levinson (red.) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 324-355.
  6. Giddens, Anthonty (2007) [2001]. Socjologia. tłum. A. Szulżycka, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Hanks, William F. (1996). Language form and communicative practices. [W:] J. Gumperz, S. Levinson (red.) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 232-270.
  7. Hymes, Dell (1996). Ethnography, Linguistics, Narrative Inequality: Toward an Understanding of Voice. Routledge.
  8. Irvine and Gal (2000) Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation . [W:] P. Kroskrity (red.) Regimes of language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 35-84.
  9. Jędrzejko, Ewa (1994). Kobieta w przysłowiach, aforyzmach i anegdotach polskich. Konotacje i stereotypy. [W:] J. Anusiewicz i K. Handke (red.) Język a kultura T. 9 Płeć w języku i kulturze. 9-29, 159-172.
  10. Karwatowska, Małgorzata i Jolanta Szpyra-Kozłowska (2005). Lingwistyka płci. Ona i on w języku polskim. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie- Skłodowskiej.
  11. Kay, Paul (1996). Intra-speaker Relativity. [W:] J. Gumperz i S. Levinson (red.) Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97- 114.
  12. Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
  13. Lakoff, Robin (1996). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper.
  14. Łaziński, Marek (2006). O panach i paniach. Polskie rzeczowniki tytularne i ich asymetria rodzajowo-płciowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
  15. Levinson, Stephen (2003). Space in language and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Lucy, John (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition. A case study of linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Lucy, John (1996). The scope of linguistic relativity: An analysis and review of empirical research. [W:] J. Gumperz i S. Levinson (red.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37-69.
  18. Merton, Robert (1995). Thomas Theorem and The Matthew Effect. Social Forces, 74(2): 379-424.
  19. Pauwels, Anne (1998). Women changing language. London, New York: Longman.
  20. Sapir, Edward (1921). Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcout, Brace & Company.
  21. Sapir, Edward (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language 5, 201-14.
  22. Silverstein, Michael (1979). Language Sturcture and Linguistic Ideology, [W:] P. Clyne, W. Hanks, i C. Hofbauer (red.) The Elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, Chicago Linguistic Society, University of Chicago, 193-247.
  23. Silverstein, Michael (1998). The Uses and Utility of Ideology. [W:] B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, P. Kroskrity (red.) Language Ideologies. Practice and Theory. Oxford University Press, 123-148.
  24. Silverstein, Michael i Greg Ubran (1996). Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  25. Slobin, Dan (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. [W:] J. Gumperz i S. Levinson (red.) Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 70-96.
  26. Whorf, Benjamin (1956). Language, thought and reality. New York: Wiley.
  27. Woolard, Kathryn A. (1998). Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry, [W:] B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, P. Kroskrity (red.) Language Ideologies. Practice and Theory, Oxford University Press, 3-50.
  28. Znaniecki, Florian (1936). Social actions. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.