Argumentation

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 475–494

Whorf and Wittgenstein. Language, world view and argumentation

  • M. Kienpointner
Article

Abstract

Whorf and Wittgenstein are perhaps the most famous names in linguistics and philosophy associated with the assumption that language plays a decisive role in shaping our view of reality. After a critical discussion of Whorf's linguistic relativity principle I conclude that it is not language as a system, but the use of language according to the rules of language games which connects language thought and world view, especially if some particular usage becomes the commonly accepted norm. This traditional norm also enters argumentative discourse in the form of background assumptions occuring in the premises of arguments. Thus, traditional points of view and prevailing ideologies in a society, even if challenged in discussions, can become reinforced and stabilized. This is illustrated with a critical analysis of the role and function of tautological utterances in argumentative discourse, which only apparently are compelling means of argumentation.

Key words

Ideology language game linguistic relativity principle norm system tautological argument tautology use of language Wittgenstein Whorf world view 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Chatterjee, R.: 1985, ‘Reading Whorf Through Wittgenstein. A Solution to the Linguistic Relativity Problem’, Lingua 67, 37–63.Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N.: 1988, Language and Problems of Knowledge. The Managua Lectures, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  3. Colwell, G.: 1994, ‘Freedom, Determinism and Circular Reasoning’, Argumentation 8(3), 251–263.Google Scholar
  4. Coseriu, E.: 1964, ‘Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale’, Travaux de linguistique et littérature II(1), Strasbourg, 139–186.Google Scholar
  5. Coseriu, E. and H. Geckeler: 1981, Trends in Structural Semantics, Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  6. Dijk, T. A. van: 1993, Elite Discourse and Racism, Sage, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  7. Dressler, W. U.: 1991, ‘Vielfalt in Sprache und Gesellschaft’, in P. Gstettner/ V. Wakounig (Hg.), Mut zur Vielfalt. Strategien gegen das Verschwinden ethnischer Minderheiten, Drava, Klagenfurt and Celovec, pp. 23–31.Google Scholar
  8. Eemeren, F. H. Van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Eemeren, F. H. Van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  10. Farghal, M.: 1992, ‘Colloquial Jordanian Arabic Tautologies’, Journal of Pragmatics 17(3), 223–240.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B.: 1988, ‘Motor-oil is Motor-oil. An Account of British Nominal Tautologies’, Journal of Pragmatics 12(2), 215–220.Google Scholar
  12. Gipper, H.: 1972, Gibt es ein sprachliches Relativitätsprinzip? Überlegungen zur Sapir-Whorf-Hypothese, Fischer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  13. Grewendorf, G.: 1995, Sprache als Organ. Sprache als Lebensform, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt M.Google Scholar
  14. Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘The Logic of Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
  15. Häberlin, S., R. Schmid and E. L. Wyss: 1992, Übung macht die Meisterin, Verlag Frauenoffensive, München.Google Scholar
  16. Helbig, G.: 1975, Geschichte der neueren Sprachwissenschaft, Rowohlt, Reinbek.Google Scholar
  17. Hoijer, H.: 1954, ‘The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’, in H. Hoijer (ed.), Language in Culture, Chicago Univ. Press, Chicago, pp. 92–105.Google Scholar
  18. Humboldt, W. v.: 1963, Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaus und ihren Einfluß auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts, in Werke. Bd 3. Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie, Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, pp. 368–756.Google Scholar
  19. Katz, J. J.: 1972, Semantic Theory, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Katz, J. J.: 1988, ‘The Refutation of Indeterminacy’, The Journal of Philosophy 85(5), 227–252.Google Scholar
  21. Keller, R.: 1977, ‘Kollokutionäre Akte’, Germanistische Linguistik 1, 3–50.Google Scholar
  22. Khosroshahi, F.: 1989, ‘Penguin's Don't Care, but Women Do: A Social Identity Analysis of a Whorfian Problem’, Language in Society 18(4), 505–525.Google Scholar
  23. Kienpointner, M.: 1983, Argumentationsanalyse, Verlag des Institus für Sprachwissenschaft, Innsbruck.Google Scholar
  24. Kienpointner, M.: 1992, Allagslogik, Frommann und Holzboog, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  25. Kienpointner, M.: 1996, Vernünftig argumentieren, Rowohlt, Reinbek.Google Scholar
  26. Lakoff, G.: 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, Univ. Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson: 1980, Metaphors we Live by, Univ. Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  28. Lakoff, R.: 1975, Language and Woman's Place, Herper & Row, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Levinson, S.: 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Lucy, J. A.: 1992, Language Diversity and Thought, Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Malotki, E.: 1979, Hopi-Raum, Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  32. Malotki, E.: 1983, Hopi Time, Mouton, Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Mackenzie, J.: 1994, ‘Contexts of Begging the Question’, Argumentation 8(3), 227–240.Google Scholar
  34. Okamoto, S.: 1993, ‘Nominal Repetitive Constructions in Japanese: The ‘Tautology’ Controversy Revisited’, Journal of Pragmatics 20(5), 433–466.Google Scholar
  35. Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1983, Traité de l'argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique, Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  36. Piaget, J. and B. Inhelder: 1979, Die Psychologie des Kindes, Fischer, Frankfurt, M.Google Scholar
  37. Pusch, L.: 1984, Das Deutsche als Männersprache, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, M.Google Scholar
  38. Pusch, L.: 1990, Alle Menschen werden Schwestern, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, M.Google Scholar
  39. Quine, W. V. O.: 1960, Word and Object, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  40. Samel, I.: 1995, Einführung in die feministische Sprachwissenschaft, Schmidt, Berlin.Google Scholar
  41. Sapir, E.: 1968, Selected Writings. Ed. by D. G. Mandelbaum, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  42. Schaff, A.: 1964, Sprache und Erkenntnis, Europa Verlag, Wien.Google Scholar
  43. Slobin, D.: 1991, ‘Learning to Think for Speaking: Native Language, Cognition, and Rhetorical Style’, Pragmatics 1(1), 7–25.Google Scholar
  44. Stahlschmidt, A.: 1983, Das Verbalsystem des Hopi, Seminar für Allgemeine und Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, Kiel.Google Scholar
  45. Touratier, Chr.: 1993a, Que penser de l' hypothèse Sapir-Whorf? In: Langues et cultures. Cercle Linguistique d' Aix-en-Provence, Travaux 11. Publications de l'Univ. de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 65–74.Google Scholar
  46. Touratier, Chr.: 1993b, Langue, culture et pensée. In: Langues et cultures. Cercle Linguistique d' Aix-en-Provence, Travaux 11. Publications de l'Univ. de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 9–15.Google Scholar
  47. Walton, D.: 1994, ‘Begging the Question as a Pragmatic Fallacy’, Synthese 100, 95–131.Google Scholar
  48. Walton, D.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Erlbaum, Mahwah, N.J.Google Scholar
  49. Ward, G. L. and J. Hirschberg: 1991, ‘A Pragmatic Analysis of Tautological Utterances’, Journal of Pragmatics 15(6), 507–520.Google Scholar
  50. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. Merriam, Springfield, Mass, 1971.Google Scholar
  51. Wierzbicka, A.: 1987, ‘Boy will be Boys: ‘Radical Semantics’ vs ‘Radical Pragmatics’, Language 63, 95–114.Google Scholar
  52. Wierzbicka, A.: 1988, ‘Boys will be Boys. A Rejoinder to Bruce Fraser’, Journal of Pragmatics 12(2), 221–224.Google Scholar
  53. Wodak, R. et al.: 1987, Sprachliche Gleichbehandlung von Frau und Mann. Linguistische Empfehlungen zur sprachlichen Gleichbehandlung von Frau und Mann im öffentlichen Bereich. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, Wien.Google Scholar
  54. Wodak, R. et al.: 1990, ‘Wir sind alle unschuldige Täter!’: diskurshistorische Studien zum Nachkriegsantisemitismus, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, M.Google Scholar
  55. Whorf, B. L.: 1946, ‘The Hopi Language, Toreva Dialect’, in H. Hoijer et al. (ed.), Linguistics Structures of Native America, Viking Fund, New York, pp. 158–183.Google Scholar
  56. Whorf, B. L.: 1956, Language, Thought, and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. by J.B. Carroll, MIT-Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  57. Wittgenstein, L.: 1975, Philosophische Untersuchungen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, M.Google Scholar
  58. Wittgenstein, L.: 1978, Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, M.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Kienpointner
    • 1
  1. 1.Inst. für Klasische PhilogieUniversität InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations