Introduction

Language usage is cardinal to the creative activity and look of societal individuality and difference. and the interlingual rendition of civilizations has ever depended on understanding the complexnesss of linguistic communication usage in other societal universes. Such apprehension is important even in the work of anthropologists who would non depict themselves as ‘linguists’ : the analysis of affinity systems. for illustration. depends on a sophisticated apprehension of the manner that footings of mention and reference both classify societal relationships and pattern societal interaction.

Contemporary ethnographic linguists are driven by functional inquiries sing the function of lingual interaction in showing societal individuality and determining value. Research into the pragmatics of linguistic communication usage suggests that people non merely talk about the universe ‘out there’ ; they besides create a good trade of their societal world in the really act of speech production ( Silverstein 1979 ) . Thus the acquisition of a linguistic communication is non merely the internalisation of a lingual codification. but besides entails the acquisition of position and function. of appropriate societal affect. and ( finally ) of a worldview. Language provides both the foundation of a shared cultural individuality and the agencies for the reproduction of societal difference.

Languages in their variableness and diverseness are deeply societal. Sapir ( 1949 ) emphasized this fact when he defined linguistic communication as ‘a strictly human and non-instinctive method of pass oning thoughts. emotions. and desires by agencies of a system of voluntarily produced symbols’ and as ‘the most monolithic and inclusive art we know. a cragged and anon. work of unconscious coevalss. Since. finally. each linguistic communication is both an abstraction from and a categorization of experience. each gives ‘predetermined form’ to the symbolic look of its talkers.

Sapir ( 1949 ) and Whorf ( 1964 ) were among those who developed a lingual relativism based on the premises that linguistic communication shaped worldview. while rejecting the premise that the linguistic communications used by members of technologically less advanced and non-literate societies were inferior vehicles for construct.

With economic multinationalism as the driving force indicating to convergence in an intercultural context and the turning pattern of enterprise-based preparation in global projects. a instance has to be made out for a typical European instruction which does non presume the outgrowth of a European super-state. Indeed. since the dismantlement of member states’ national systems of instruction is improbable. a European dimension with planetary positions may hold to be placed beside each national and regional instruction system. enabling it to presume the supra-national characteristics necessary for more efficient joint economic and political activity and as a mark of international apprehension in the multilingual. European and planetary world.Since Language Awareness is an intercultural course of study dimension sensitising scholars to linguistic communication maps. its constructions and assortments. it has a function to play in the intercultural considerations of a European instruction in a multilingual Europe. promoting tolerance and an engagement in the acquisition of linguistic communication and a willing credence of linguistic communication users.

Background

Although the manner in which linguistic communication evolved may be ill-defined. it is clear that linguistic communication has changed since its first visual aspect. Many linguistic communications are related to each other. This relation is evident in the similarity of many of the words of some linguistic communications ( e. g. “mother” in English is “Mutter” in German. “moeder” in Dutch. “mere” in French. “maht” in Russian. and “mata” in Sanskrit ) . More elaborate analyses like this have shown that most of the linguistic communications of Europe. and parts of west Asia. derive from a common beginning called protoEuropean. All the linguistic communications that are derived from this common beginning are hence called IndoEuropean. Indo-European has a figure of chief subdivisions: the Romance ( such as Gallic. Italian. and Spanish ) . the Germanic ( such as German. English. and Dutch ) . and the Indian linguistic communications. ( There are some linguistic communications that are European but that are non portion of the Indo-germanic household. Finnish and Magyar are portion of the Finno-Ugric household. which is related to Nipponese. Basque is unrelated to any other language. )

Languages change over comparatively short clip spans. Clearly Chaucerian and Elizabethan English are well different from modern English. and even Victorian talkers would sound unquestionably antediluvian to us today. We coin new words or new utilizations of old words when necessary. Whole words bead out of use ( “thee” and “thou” ) . and we lose the significances of some words. sometimes over short clip spans-I can’t retrieve the last clip I had to give a measuring in rods or ironss. We borrow words from other linguistic communications ( “cafe” from French. “potato” from Haiti. and “shampoo” from India ) . Sounds alteration in words ( “sweetard” becomes “sweetheart” ) . Wordss are sometimes even created about by mistake: “pea” was back-formed from “pease” as people started to believe ( falsely ) that “pease” was plural.

Differences between linguistic communications should non be glossed over. Although they have arisen over a comparatively short clip compared with the development of worlds. we can non presume that there are no treating differences between talkers of different linguistic communications. Whereas it is likely that the majority of the mechanisms involved is the same. there might be some differences. This is most evident in the processing of written or printed words. Writing is a recent development compared with address. and while ocular word processing might be derived from object acknowledgment. there might besides be of import differences. There are of import differences in the manner that different written languages map written symbols into sounds. However. there is an of import nucleus of psychological mechanisms that appears to be common to the processing of all linguistic communications.

Language and World View

The first coevals of American ethnographic linguists asserted strong links between linguistic communication and worldview. They suggested non merely that linguistic communication channels perceptual experience. but besides that it contains the ‘genius’ of the people who use it as their agencies of verbal look. The position that linguistic communication was indispensable to the continuance of the alone individuality and fate of a group was cardinal to the German Romanticism of the late eighteenth and early 19th centuries. Divorced from its evolutionist and nationalist matrix. this position influenced the formation of Boasian anthropology. with its accent on the command of American Indian linguistic communications ( ironically. in a period of widespread linguistic communication extinction ) . In peculiar. the statement that a linguistic communication shapes its talkers more than its talkers shape linguistic communication ( that ‘language speaks man’ in Heidegger’s felicitous look ) is one that recurs repeatedly in surveies of linguistic communication and worldview. The accent given to linguistic communication by Boas and his pupils led to the constitution of ‘linguistic anthropology’ in North American universities as one of the four basic subfields of the subject. together with cultural anthropology. archeology. and physical anthropology.

In a relativistic inversion of earlier evolutionist statements. Sapir ( 1949a ) and Whorf ( 1964 ) promoted an grasp of the formal elegance of non-Western linguistic communications as vehicles for idea. and Whorf reversed evolutionist strategies when he praised Hopi representations of clip as truer analyses of temporal experience than the objectifications of ‘Standard Average European’ .

As Sapir observed. ‘the universe of our experiences must be tremendously simplified and generalized before it is possible to do a symbolic stock list of all our experiences of things and dealingss and this stock list is imperative before we can convey ideas’ . A community of talkers must hold tacitly to a categorization of experience if they are to pass on. and this categorization forms a foundation for their worldview.

Not surprisingly. anthropologists frequently analyze society and civilization through the prism of linguistic communication. Much work in the field of symbolic anthropology in fact entails analysis of the lingual metaphors that inform categorization. ritual pattern. and constructs of the individual.

The combination of cultural integrity with lingual diverseness in other countries has been commented on by anthropologists notably in the United States. The California instance was cited by Sapir ( 1921: 214 ) as exemplifying his point that “language and civilization are non per se related. ” He noted that talkers of the clearly incorporate Athabascan linguistic communication household adapted themselves. obviously with considerable velocity. to four really different civilization countries of North America.

Human existences do non populate in the nonsubjective universe entirely. nor entirely in the universe of societal activity as normally understood. but are really much at the clemency of the peculiar linguistic communication which has become the medium of look for their society. It is rather an semblance to conceive of that one adjusts to reality basically without the usage of linguistic communication and that linguistic communication is simply an incidental agencies of work outing specific jobs of communicating or contemplation. The fact of the affair is that the ‘real world’ is to a big extent unconsciously built upon the linguistic communication wonts of the group. No two linguistic communications are of all time sufficiently similar to be considered as stand foring the same societal world. The universes in which different societies live are distinguishable universes. non simply the same universe with different labels attached. ( Sapir 1958 [ 1929 ] . p. 69 )

The footing of the Sapir-Whorf or Whorfian hypothesis. is compared to the old citation. a certain disagreement is rather apparent. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is maintained. so the Yurok. for illustration. are seen as being “at the clemency of” their Algonkian-like lingual heritage ; the Smith River. This is sensible in footings of Whorf’s specific acknowledgment ( 1941: 91 ) that lingual constructions and other cultural forms “have grown up together. invariably act uponing each other. ” The common assimilation of linguistic communications under the influence of a broader cultural integrity is. of class. discernible in

Although the cultural patriots are non a homogenous group. the largest and most influential cultural-nationalist inclination argues that the infliction of European linguistic communications was indispensable in the colonisation of the African head and that mental decolonisation must affect the retrieval of autochthonal African linguistic communications and their usage in the most of import facets of African civil life. This construct has two beginnings. one theoretical and the other historical. The first beginning is what can be called the “relativist construct of linguistic communication. ” which was associated with both Edward Sapir. a pioneer American linguist. and his pupil. Benjamin Lee Whorf. a fire insurance agent who in the 1930s became a major theoretician of the relation between linguistic communication and civilization ( Sapir. 1949 ; Whorf. 1987 ) .

Linguistic relativity is the position that linguistic communication is a reservoir of civilization. which means that the signifier and construction of one’s linguistic communication affects our perceptual experience and action in a culturally specific mode. Most disturbingly. it implies that there is a culturally bound “tyranny of linguistic communication. ” for the grammatical and semantic construction of one’s language–which most talkers get and utilize unconsciously–determines and bounds one’s ability to believe or move. Edward Sapir argued that human existences are really much at the clemency of their society’s lingual medium of communicating and that the societal universe is built on the linguistic communication wonts of the group. In his position. no two linguistic communications are sufficiently similar to be able to stand for the same societal world.

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis and European Identity

Although Edward Sapir was rather interested in the relation between linguistic communication. civilization. and knowledge. it was his pupil. Benjamin Lee Whorf. who was the strongest advocate of lingual relativity. Whorf based his position on his perceptual experience of cardinal semantic and grammatical differences between European linguistic communications and Native American linguistic communications. He observed that European linguistic communications tend to exteriorize and reify emotions. abstractions. and psychological provinces. But in Hopi. the autochthonal American linguistic communication he studied most intensively. Whorf claimed. one can non exteriorize abstract religious procedures ( Whorf. 1987: 134-59 ) .

Whorf besides claimed that European linguistic communications are based on a additive construct of clip which dissects temporalty into separate segments–“the Past. ” “the Present. ” and “the Future. ” He noted that clip itself is objectified or “spatialized” in European linguistic communications. An English talker says that people “lose time” as they lose money. “gain time” as they gain strength. and “waste time” as they waste a saloon of soap in rinsing. But in the Hopi linguistic communication. Whorf claimed. clip had a round character: 1 does non “lose” a Friday. if nil was done on Friday. because Friday will return. These contrasting positions of clip. Whorf argued. had a major impact on the behaviour of European linguistic communication talkers and Native Americans which is clearly seen in their contrasting attitudes to work and be aftering ( Whorf. 1987: 134-59 ) . Whorf’s followings extended

his attempts by look intoing these lingual differences in other linguistic communications and civilizations besides those of the Native Americans.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis had an influence on African cultural patriots. who sought a cause-and-effect relationship between European linguistic communications and mental colonisation and. conversely. between African linguistic communications and decolonisation. One of the most outstanding advocators of lingual relativity is Ngugi Washington Thiong’o. a distinguisted originative author and a political militant. In Decolonizing the Mind ( 1986 ) . Ngugi wa Thiong’o argues that the domination of a people’s linguistic communication by the linguistic communication of the colonising state is cardinal to the domination of the mental existence of the colonized. His claim can be seen as an application of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. although Sapir and Whorf and other lingual relativists were interested in how different languages status the worldviews of their several native talkers. African cultural patriots such as Ngugi Washington Thiong’o made a cross-cultural spring by proposing that the worldview built-in in any peculiar linguistic communication can be transposed to talkers of other unrelated linguistic communications. It is purportedly in this manner that the European worldview came to exert its domination over the corporate head of the African people.

This cultural nationalist current might be the strongest in footings of disciples. but it is the weakest in footings of its theoretical statement. The SapirWhorf hypothesis or. equivalently. the theory of linguisitic relativity. which is presupposed by these cultural patriots. has been invalidated by lingual research. In modern American linguistics. there has been a hunt for linguistic communication universals ( i. e. . common traits of all linguistic communications ) . spurred by the work of Noam Chomsky. This pursuit has led to research of legion linguistic communications throughout the universe. As a consequence. a big sum of information has been accumulated that inquiries the impression of a one-to-one correlativity between linguistic communication and cultural perceptual experience. For illustration. some of the characteristics that Whorf thought were curious to Native American linguistic communications and explained both their perceptual experience of the universe and their behaviour. have been found to be in European linguistic communications.

In general. the overpowering grounds presented so far in support of linguistic-cultural relativity has been at the lexical degree. The general push of grounds has been of a incompatible nature between linguistic communications. and it has taken the undermentioned signifier. Language Ten has three footings. while linguistic communication Y has merely one or no tantamount term for phenomenon Z. But in virtually all such instances. it is non hard to associate the lingual contrasts to environmental differences. There are good grounds why. in footings of semantic niceties. Somalis should be more interested in camels and Maasai in cattles than English talkers would be. Certainly. for those Somalis and Maasai who continue to populate as pastoralists. such semantic niceties are of important cultural value. But the consequence that such lexical constructions would hold on a widely distributed Somali or Maasai is non easy to find. It is sensible to presume. nevertheless. that it would non be the same as the consequence it would hold on their more traditional compatriots despite the lingual commonalty.

Advocates of the Whorfian hypothesis. nevertheless. associate lingual relativity non merely with lexical differences between linguistic communications. but besides with structural or grammatical facets. In its crudest signifier. the statement at this degree proposes a relationship between the construction of linguistic communication and the construction of cultural behaviour. Linguists sympathetic to the Whorfian hypothesis have so far found it an acclivitous undertaking. nevertheless. to insulate the grammatical characteristics that might be said to hold specific cultural and. hence. behavioural correlatives. It is the empirical vacuousness of the Whorfian hypothesis that led Wallace Lambert to reason. after some 30 old ages of research on the societal importance of linguistic communication. “I have come to oppugn the really normally held impression that civilization and/or linguistic communication truly affects personality. I am inclined instead to the place that civilization and linguistic communication may impact manners of look. but likely non basic personality kineticss. Similarly. I am non persuaded by the grounds available that linguistic communication or civilization have any existent impact on thought” ( Lambert. 1979: 186-87 ) .

Therefore. it is still non clear in what sense our autochthonal linguistic communications. even if they are idealistically inactive plenty to keep the pureness of “traditional” civilizations in their look. are supposed to save us the onslaught of imperialist civilization in psychosocial and material footings. The majority of bing grounds would look to show that. in its look. linguistic communication is mostly influenced by stuff conditions. which forge specific perceptual experiences of the universe around us. Language might hold some influence on perceptual experience. but languageengineering attempts in several parts of the universe have shown that language’s influence on perceptual experience can be counteracted. As material conditions change. and with them our perceptual experience of the universe. so does linguistic communication at its symbolic degree. Therefore. to anticipate that any African linguistic communication. simply by virtuousness of its Africanness. can command societal alteration and perceptual experience in a liberative sense. in the aftermath of rapid economic transmutations. is to anticipate of it a function that is good beyond its possible.

Intercultural instruction and European teaching method

It will most likely ever be possible to separate teachers’ different nationalities by their general national ‘mannerisms’ every bit good as their professional penchant for pupil-centred or teacher-dominated instruction attacks. The category teachers’ function in a multi-ethnic state of affairs must be that of an adept intercultural practician who can move for the whole multicultural group. necessitating both a systematic theoretical and a practical readying.

Interdependence. a bipartisan traffic from group to group and group to teacher in a schoolroom of students with an equal claim to clip and resources. is the key to intercultural teaching method. Personal experience acquired through engagement in exchanges enables intercultural expertness to develop.

The curricular elements suggested in the European dimension defined earlier must be practised by the instructors themselves. They will be expected to hold a planetary mentality and to learn across European boundary lines. At least an familiarity with some European linguistic communications or lingual facts and a linguistic communication consciousness. are indispensable.

The acquisition of a multicultural and multilingual position of Europe is an built-in portion of factual cognition of the continent. which includes one’s ain member province. Intercultural instruction is concerted learning free of prejudice and bias. giving pupils the chance to analyze cultural stuffs and to larn about the civilizations around them 40 and to get indispensable European travel accomplishments.

The European Association of Teachers ( AEDE ) . the Association for Teacher Education in Europe ( ATEE ) and the European Secondary Heads Association have taken enterprises to develop practical attacks to intercultural instruction. The European accomplishments suggested above are portion of a European teaching method to be used by the turning Numberss of what will be cultural instructors learning in multi-ethnic schoolrooms. So far. research conducted on European subjects has non included an expressed European teaching method.

‘The rule of subordinateness will go a pedagogic medium’ appropriates the socio-economic precedences of the Community for making a new individuality for Europe. non in the sense of one state stronger than the others but ‘as an economic and political infinite casting traditionalist national traditions and biass in which distinct. original enterprises can be developed by Europeans for the benefit of the European Union as a whole’ . with the aid of available European Union installations.

The new teaching method assumes get downing with the suppliers and receivers of instruction and preparation. There are dangers of a European super-state which would destruct the equilibrium between cardinal and peripheral duty ; this may originate despite limitations placed on inordinate Community engagement.

Unifying European super-values subsumes those of single member provinces. the new constituent being the acceptance of an independent. overarching supra-national place which supplants the outdated. national signifiers of thought and making.

Recognition given to the ‘regions’ is a characteristic of the European Union. The Committee of the Regions efforts to convey Europe closer to Europeans by puting determination devising in affairs of political relations. economic system. employment and ecology. wellness and instruction at the Centre of local activity. promoting a ‘bottom-up’ coaction in affairs which affect their mundane lives and unfastened to innovatory pattern in the part. with regional statute law O.K.ing and financing socially and economically valuable undertakings for regional development.

Sapir Whorf hypothesis and George Orwell’s

Orwell’s Newspeak defies the regulations of existent linguistic communication development: even protagonists of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis would waver to asseverate that an unreal linguistic communication of limited ( and worsening ) expressive power could really be legislated into common usage. allow alone supplant organic linguistic communications. Burgess’s Nadsat is non genuinely a linguistic communication. simply a little vocabulary of distorted Russian words fitted into the constructions of English. On the other manus. Elgin’s Laadan is absolutely constructed as a feasible language–but it makes merely a few nominal visual aspects in Native Tongue and The Judas Rose. Its importance lies in its being among the adult females of the Lines. instead than its signifier.

Walter Meyers. in his survey. Foreigners and Linguists: Language Study and Science Fiction ( 1980 ) . advances some grounds for this apparent deficiency. Science fiction writers may safely presume a certain sum of scientific instruction on the portion of their readers. but they can non anticipate even a minor grade of lingual preparation in more than a little fraction of their possible readership.

Most readers are improbable to possess sufficient lingual cognition to separate between accurate and erroneous linguistic communication extrapolation. Given the important grade of convergence between scientific discipline fiction and dystopian fiction. it seems sensible to spread out Meyers’s averment to include dystopia every bit good as scientific discipline fiction. Furthermore. Meyers’s plausibleness theory–under which the visual aspect of plausibleness is more of import than attachment to facts–holds as strongly for lingual cognition as for any other empirical scholarship. While there are a few scientific discipline fiction and dystopian authors who take strivings to adhere dependably to modern-day lingual apprehension in their fictions. such authors represent the exclusion instead than the regulation. How do we accommodate the important importance of linguistic communication in dystopian fiction with the marginalisation of existent lingual cognition and pattern? If the thought of linguistic communication is so of import in dystopian fiction. why do a representative group of such fictions reveal so small attending to existent linguistic communications and lingual constructions?

In George Orwell’s fresh Nineteen Eighty-Four. linguistic communication restricted the manner in which people thought. The swayers of the province intentionally used “Newspeak” . the official linguistic communication of Oceania. so that the people thought what they were required to believe. “This statement…could non hold been sustained by sound statement. because the necessary words were non available” ( Orwell. 1949 ) .

The cardinal thought of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that the signifier of our linguistic communication determines the construction of our idea processes. Language affects the manner we remember things and the manner in which we perceive the universe. It was originally proposed by a linguist. Edward Sapir. and a fire insurance applied scientist and recreational linguist. Benjamin Lee Whorf. Although Whorf is most closely associated with anthropological grounds based on the survey of American Indian linguistic communications. the thought came to him from his work in fire insurance. He noted that accidents sometimes happened because. he thought. people were misled by words-as in the instance of a worker who threw a cigarette terminal into what he considered to be an “empty” membranophone of gasoline. Far from being empty. the membranophone was full of gasoline vapor. with explosive consequences.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis comprises two related thoughts. First. lingual determinism is the thought that the signifier and features of our linguistic communication find the manner in which we think. retrieve. and perceive. Second. lingual relativism is the thought that as different linguistic communications map onto the universe in different ways. different linguistic communications will bring forth different cognitive constructions.

Evaluation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

In recent old ages. in fact. the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has enjoyed something of a revival. There is now a considerable sum of grounds proposing that lingual factors can impact cognitive procedures. Even color perceptual experience and memory. one time thought to be wholly biologically determined. demo some influence of linguistic communication. Furthermore. recent research on perceptual experience and classification has shown that high-ranking cognitive procedures can act upon the creative activity of low-level ocular characteristics early in ocular processing ( Schyns. Goldstone. & A ; Thibaut. 1998 ) . This is wholly consistent with the thought that in at least some fortunes. linguistic communication might be able to act upon perceptual experience.

Indeed. it is barely surprising that if a idea expressible in one linguistic communication can non be expressed so easy in another. so that difference will hold effects for the easiness with which cognitive procedures can be acquired and carried out. Having one word for a construct alternatively of holding to utilize a whole sentence might cut down memory burden. The differences in figure systems between linguistic communications form one illustration of how lingual differences can take to little differences in cognitive manner.

The extent to which people find the SapirWhorf hypothesis plausible depends on the extent to which they view linguistic communication as an evolutionarily late mechanism that simply translates our ideas into a format suited for communicating. instead than a rich symbolic system that underlies most of knowledge. It is besides more plausible in a cognitive system with extended feedback from later to earlier degrees of processing.

Decision

In the academic argument over the influence of the EU. these findings suggest that the establishment has been surprisingly successful in its attempts to set up an individuality that competes with time-honoured national 1s. This. nevertheless. does non needfully intend that a “Chinese box” of ready-formed individualities are winning the twenty-four hours with Europeans. that the new Europe will in any manner be defined narrowly by spiritual. lingual or cultural association. These surveies alternatively amply show that individuality alteration at the micro-level is non orderly but gloriously mussy. There was small understanding among these participants about what a European individuality is.

This is non to claim that in other states people have non adopted this philosophy. or that there are non many in Europe who do adhere to it but were non discovered in these surveies. After all. as pointed out frequently in this volume. Q methodological analysis does non claim to state anything about per centums of the general population that follow the factors of sentiment uncovered in a survey.

It does however propose that by and big Europeans express a assortment of sentiments about their fond regards. and that is important. This is. after all. a continent whose image suggests strong national individualities as cardinal for its citizens. If the instance is non strong for so many Europeans in these surveies. that could project uncertainty on impressions that national individuality is the dominant individuality for all people everyplace. We may necessitate to rethink the construct of patriotism and. in peculiar. our construct of the laterality of national individuality in the modern-day universe. At the really least. this undertaking suggests that more directed analytical work demands to be done on the issue.

Questions could intelligibly be raised at this point. Can people truly alter? Can they ( rhenium ) construct their individualities? This enters an sphere of expansive philosophical inquiries that call for more attending than this undertaking can give. but the findings here could lend to a turning literature on the capacity of people to change their political relations and their egos ( Ludwig 1997 ) . As Ludwig argues. it is possible to “write your ain story” as opposed to being obliged to populate out the lives others have created for you – in this instance. low obeisance to the state province.

The possibility of rewriting one’s topographic point in the civil order suggests that what is go oning in Europe is portion of a procedure of “social learning” ( Deutsch 1966 ) . Key to his construct of political alteration. societal acquisition for Deutsch was an evolutionary procedure which in some cases produces fully-formed societies and communities. True the majority of Deutsch’s work was on the outgrowth of modern states. but by extension the procedure could use to international integrating. We see this in his description of the procedure of community edifice through societal acquisition. which sounds similar to that outlined at assorted topographic points in this survey for the European Union. One begins with the proposition that both society and community are developed by societal acquisition. and that a community consists of people who have learned to pass on with each other and to understand each other good beyond the mere interchange of goods and services … Experience and complementarity may … go on to reproduce each other. like the proverbial poulet and the egg. in a syndrome of cultural acquisition. that is. a historical procedure of societal acquisition in which persons. normally over several coevalss. learn to go a people.

Mentions

Atkinson. M. 1982. Explanations in the survey of child linguistic communication development.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Au. T. K. ( 1983 ) . Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited. Cognition. 15. 155-187.

Bakker. S. . Benoit-Dusausoy. A. . Bousset. H. . Clerq de. M. and Fontaine. G. 1994. Nieuwe literatuurgeschiedenis: Overzicht van de Europese letteren van Homerus tot heden. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff/Icarus.

Brill. P. and Roelofs. A. 1995. “Nederland op zoek naar zijn plaats in Europa. ” in P. Brill and A. Roelofs ( explosive detection systems ) . Wij en Europa: Nederland op zoek naar zijn identiteit. Amsterdam: De Volkskrant.

Breakwell. Glynis M. and Lyons. Evanthia ( explosive detection systems ) . 1996. Changing European Identities. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Brown. Steven. 1986. “Q Technique and Method: Principles and Procedures. ” in William D. Brouwer. M. and Binnendijk. N. 2000. “Selecting the Politician of the Year. ” in C. de Landtsheer ( ed. ) . Politics. Groups and the Individual: Particular Issue on Women. Politics. and Communication. Norderstedt: APP.

Crombach. C. 1989. “Een taal dice niet kan sterven. ” in J. Wester. G. Krol and C. Crombach ( explosive detection systems ) . Gaat heated Nederlands teloor? Houten: De Haan.

Berry and Michael S. Lewis-Beckn ( explosive detection systems ) . New Tools for Social Scientists. London: Sage.

Dawkins. Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Deutsch. Karl. 1966. Patriotism and Social Communication. Cambridge. Ma: MIT Press.

De Landtsheer. C. 1998. “The Political Rhetoric of a Unified Europe. ” in O. Feldman and C. De Landtsheer ( explosive detection systems ) . Politically Talking: A Worldwide Examination of Language Used in the Public Sphere. Westport. Connecticut: Praeger.

De Landtsheer. C. and Van Oortmerssen. L. 2000. “A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the European Union’s Political Discourse Sing the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ( 1980-1995 ) . ” in C. De Landtsheer and O. Feldman ( explosive detection systems ) . Beyond Public Speech and Symbols: Explorations in the Rhetoric of Politicians and the Media. Westport. Connecticut: Praeger.

Dekker. H. and D. Malowa. D. ( 1995 ) . “Nationalism and its accounts. ” Paper presented to the Annual Scientific Conference of the International Society of Political Psychology. July 1995. Washington.

Eppink. D. 1996. “Stille en luide reflexen in de Lage Landen. ” Ons Erfdeel. 39 ( 3 ) . pp. 323-31.

Eurobarometer. 1998. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Gans. Herbert J. 1979. Deciding What’s New. New York: Pantheon Books.

Orwell G. 1949. Nineteen Eighty-four. Reprint. New York-London: Chelsea House. 1987

Sapir. E. 1949a Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Sapir. E. 1929: ‘The Status of Linguistics as a Science’ . In E. Sapir ( 1958 ) : Culture. Language and Personality ( erectile dysfunction. D. G. Mandelbaum ) . Berkeley. Calcium: University of California Press

Whorf. B. L. 1940: ‘Science and Linguistics’ . Technology Review 42 ( 6 ) : 229-31. 247-8. Besides in B. L. Whorf ( 1956 ) : Language. Thought and Reality ( erectile dysfunction. J. B. Carroll ) . Cambridge. Ma: MIT Press

Whorf. B. L. 1964 Language. Thought. and Reality. erectile dysfunction. J. Carroll. Cambridge. Mass. : MIT Press.