Abstract This paper begins by explaining that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is one of the most interesting and influential theories in the field of linguistics and anthropology. The idea that language actually forced people to think in different ways is both fascinating and controversial. The paper shows the ways that this hypothesis opens our understanding of the link between culture and knowledge. The paper includes direct quotes from the hypothesis which it then explains and expands upon.
From the Paper "The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis "postulated that language not only provided a means of communication but also shaped peoples" perceptions of the world? (McGee and Warms 2000: 370). The hypothesis drew heavily from the ideas and techniques used by linguists, with the methodological concepts developed by the Prague School of Linguistics in the 1920's providing valuable insights into the importance of understanding the conceptual frameworks formed by, and expressed through, the native language (McGee and Warms 2000: 369). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was the most influential anthropological adaptation of these linguistic principles, the hypothesis having an enormous impact on anthropology providing a methodological framework emphasising cultural and linguistic relativity, and influencing several schools of anthropological thought."
Abstract The paper shows how generalizations about the features of culture will always have traces of ethnocentrism or prejudice. The paper discusses how culture is ultimately subjective and inter-subjective. The paper explains that culture and definitions of culture are ultimately created by individuals that will have some form of prejudice influencing their arguments.
From the Paper "Culture is one of the most commonly used terms in anthropology and sociology. However, there is a great deal of disagreement about the nature of culture. Researchers even have difficulty in defining culture effectively. For example, in "Theories of Culture" Roger M Keesing argues, that the concept of culture currently has no meaning because definitions used to describe it are either too narrow or too broad (Keesing 1974: 73)."
