Introduction1. Are Languages 'Essentially the Same' or 'Essentially Di translation - Introduction1. Are Languages 'Essentially the Same' or 'Essentially Di Indonesian how to say

Introduction1. Are Languages 'Essen

Introduction






1. Are Languages 'Essentially the Same' or 'Essentially Different'?
Universalism and Cultural Relativism

Language is a tool for expressing meaning. We think, we feel, we perceive-and we want to express our thoughts, our feelings, our perceptions. Usually we want to express them because we want to share them with other people, but this is not always the case. I We also need language to record our thoughts and to organise them. We write diaries, we write notes to ourselves, we make entries in our desk calendars, and so on. We also swear and exclaim-sometimes even when there is no one to hear us. The common denominator of all these different uses of language is not communication but meaning."
But if language is a tool for expressing meaning, then meaning, at least to some
extent, must be independent of language and transferable from one language to another. Yet this essential separateness-and separability-of meaning from lan­ guage has sometimes been denied. For example, the eighteenth-century German thinker Johann Gottfried Herder maintained that thinking is essentially identical with speaking and therefore differs from language to language and from nation to nation. "The human spirit thinks with words", he maintained (1877-1913, v.21:19). "What is thinking? Inward language [T]alking is thinking aloud" (v.2l:88). Consequently, "every nation speaks according to the way it thinks and thinks according to the way it speaks". Thoughts cannot be transferred from one language to another because every thought depends on the language in which it has been formulated.
Profound semantic differences between languages were also emphasised by Wilhelm von Humboldt, who saw different languages as bearers of different cogni­ tive perspectives, different worldviews. He wrote:

[E]ach language ... contains a characteristic worldview. As individual sound me­ diates between object and person, so the whole of language mediates between human beings and the internal and external nature that affects them. . . . The same act which enables him [man] to spin language out of himself enables him to spin himself into language, and each language draws a circle around the people to whom it adheres which it is possible for the individual to escape only by stepping into a different one. (1903-36, v.7:60)

3

Similar ideas were forcefully put forward by Edward Sapir, who wrote in a famous passage:

Language is a guide to 'social reality'. Though language is not ordinarily thought of as of essential interest to the students of social science, it powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily under­ stood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached. (1949: 162)

0/5000
From: -
To: -
Results (Indonesian) 1: [Copy]
Copied!
Introduction1. Are Languages 'Essentially the Same' or 'Essentially Different'?Universalism and Cultural RelativismLanguage is a tool for expressing meaning. We think, we feel, we perceive-and we want to express our thoughts, our feelings, our perceptions. Usually we want to express them because we want to share them with other people, but this is not always the case. I We also need language to record our thoughts and to organise them. We write diaries, we write notes to ourselves, we make entries in our desk calendars, and so on. We also swear and exclaim-sometimes even when there is no one to hear us. The common denominator of all these different uses of language is not communication but meaning."But if language is a tool for expressing meaning, then meaning, at least to someextent, must be independent of language and transferable from one language to another. Yet this essential separateness-and separability-of meaning from lan­ guage has sometimes been denied. For example, the eighteenth-century German thinker Johann Gottfried Herder maintained that thinking is essentially identical with speaking and therefore differs from language to language and from nation to nation. "The human spirit thinks with words", he maintained (1877-1913, v.21:19). "What is thinking? Inward language [T]alking is thinking aloud" (v.2l:88). Consequently, "every nation speaks according to the way it thinks and thinks according to the way it speaks". Thoughts cannot be transferred from one language to another because every thought depends on the language in which it has been formulated.Profound semantic differences between languages were also emphasised by Wilhelm von Humboldt, who saw different languages as bearers of different cogni­ tive perspectives, different worldviews. He wrote:[E]ach language ... contains a characteristic worldview. As individual sound me­ diates between object and person, so the whole of language mediates between human beings and the internal and external nature that affects them. . . . The same act which enables him [man] to spin language out of himself enables him to spin himself into language, and each language draws a circle around the people to whom it adheres which it is possible for the individual to escape only by stepping into a different one. (1903-36, v.7:60)3 Similar ideas were forcefully put forward by Edward Sapir, who wrote in a famous passage:Language is a guide to 'social reality'. Though language is not ordinarily thought of as of essential interest to the students of social science, it powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily under­ stood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached. (1949: 162)
Being translated, please wait..
Results (Indonesian) 2:[Copy]
Copied!
Pendahuluan






1. Apakah Bahasa 'Pada dasarnya sama' atau 'dasarnya berbeda'?
Universalisme dan Relativisme Kultural

Bahasa adalah alat untuk mengekspresikan makna. Kami pikir, kami merasa, kami melihat-dan kami ingin mengekspresikan pikiran kita, perasaan kita, persepsi kita. Biasanya kita ingin mengungkapkannya karena kami ingin berbagi dengan orang lain, tapi ini tidak selalu terjadi. Saya Kita juga perlu bahasa untuk merekam pikiran kita dan untuk mengatur mereka. Kami menulis buku harian, kita menulis catatan untuk diri kita sendiri, kita membuat entri di kalender meja kami, dan sebagainya. Kami juga bersumpah dan berseru-kadang bahkan ketika tidak ada yang mendengar kita. Denominator umum dari semua penggunaan yang berbeda dari bahasa tidak komunikasi tetapi makna. "
Tapi kalau bahasa adalah alat untuk mengekspresikan makna, maka berarti, setidaknya untuk beberapa
batas, harus independen dari bahasa dan dipindahtangankan dari satu bahasa ke bahasa lain. Namun ini penting keterpisahan-dan keterpisahan-makna dari lan pengukur kadang-kadang ditolak. misalnya, pada abad kedelapan belas pemikir Jerman Johann Gottfried Herder dipertahankan berpikir bahwa pada dasarnya identik dengan berbicara dan karena itu berbeda dari bahasa ke bahasa dan dari satu negara ke negara. "roh manusia berpikir dengan kata-kata", tegasnya (1877-1913, ayat 21: 19). "Apa yang berpikir? Inward bahasa [T] alking berpikir keras "(v.2l: 88). Akibatnya,". Setiap bangsa berbicara bahasa sesuai dengan cara berpikir dan berpikir sesuai dengan cara berbicara "Pikiran tidak dapat ditransfer dari satu bahasa ke bahasa lain karena setiap pikiran tergantung pada bahasa yang telah dirumuskan.
perbedaan semantik mendalam antara bahasa juga ditekankan oleh Wilhelm von Humboldt, yang melihat bahasa yang berbeda sebagai pembawa perspektif tive Cogni yang berbeda, pandangan dunia yang berbeda Dia menulis:.

[E] bahasa ach. .. berisi pandangan dunia yang khas. Sebagai individu terdengar saya diates antara objek dan orang, sehingga seluruh bahasa menengahi antara manusia dan alam internal dan eksternal yang mempengaruhi mereka.... tindakan yang sama yang memungkinkan dia [manusia] untuk berputar bahasa dari dirinya memungkinkan dia untuk berputar sendiri ke dalam bahasa, dan setiap bahasa membuat lingkaran di sekitar orang-orang kepada siapa itu mematuhi mana dimungkinkan bagi individu untuk melarikan diri hanya dengan melangkah ke satu yang berbeda. (1903-1936, ayat 7: 60)

3 ide serupa paksa dikemukakan oleh Edward Sapir, yang menulis dalam sebuah bagian yang terkenal: Bahasa adalah panduan untuk 'realitas sosial'. Meskipun bahasa tidak biasanya dianggap sebagai tujuan penting untuk mahasiswa ilmu sosial, itu kuat kondisi semua pemikiran kita tentang masalah sosial dan proses. Manusia tidak hidup di dunia objektif saja, atau sendirian di dunia kegiatan sosial sebagai biasanya di bawah berdiri, namun sangat banyak pada belas kasihan dari bahasa tertentu yang telah menjadi media ekspresi bagi masyarakat mereka. Hal ini sangat ilusi untuk membayangkan bahwa satu menyesuaikan dengan realitas dasarnya tanpa menggunakan bahasa dan bahasa yang hanya sarana insidental untuk memecahkan masalah-masalah tertentu komunikasi atau refleksi. Fakta dari masalah ini adalah bahwa 'dunia nyata' adalah untuk sebagian besar tidak sadar dibangun pada kebiasaan bahasa kelompok. Tidak ada dua bahasa yang pernah cukup mirip dianggap sebagai mewakili realitas sosial yang sama. Dunia di mana masyarakat yang berbeda hidup adalah dunia yang berbeda, bukan hanya dunia yang sama dengan label yang berbeda terpasang. (1949: 162)





Being translated, please wait..
 
Other languages
The translation tool support: Afrikaans, Albanian, Amharic, Arabic, Armenian, Azerbaijani, Basque, Belarusian, Bengali, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Cebuano, Chichewa, Chinese, Chinese Traditional, Corsican, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Detect language, Dutch, English, Esperanto, Estonian, Filipino, Finnish, French, Frisian, Galician, Georgian, German, Greek, Gujarati, Haitian Creole, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hebrew, Hindi, Hmong, Hungarian, Icelandic, Igbo, Indonesian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Javanese, Kannada, Kazakh, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Klingon, Korean, Kurdish (Kurmanji), Kyrgyz, Lao, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian, Luxembourgish, Macedonian, Malagasy, Malay, Malayalam, Maltese, Maori, Marathi, Mongolian, Myanmar (Burmese), Nepali, Norwegian, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Romanian, Russian, Samoan, Scots Gaelic, Serbian, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Spanish, Sundanese, Swahili, Swedish, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turkish, Turkmen, Ukrainian, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Welsh, Xhosa, Yiddish, Yoruba, Zulu, Language translation.

Copyright ©2025 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: