Language

Course: Compiler Construction (3468)Semester: Autumn, 2012 Level: BS (CS)Total Marks: 100 ASSIGNMENT No. 1 Note: All questions carry equal marks.

Q. 1(a)Define Compiler, using a diagram describes the three phases of analysis of source program. (b)Explain all the phases of Compiler. c)Consider the following grammar. S ? > XaYb X ? > bXc | b Y ? > dYa | d Find the first sets for each non-terminal of the given grammar.

Q. 2(a)Explain the error detection and reporting mechanisms. (b)Write the intermediate representation code of the following position: = initial + rate * 60

Q. 3(a)Convert the following NFA into equivalent DFA using subset construction Algorithm. [pic] Note:Show all necessary steps that are involved in subset construction algorithm. (b) Convert the Following regular expression into NFA using Thompson’s construction. a ((b|b*c)d)* |d*a

Q. 4(a)Given the following grammar. G > E E > T + E | T T > F * T | F F > a i) Is this grammar ambiguous? Explain! ii) Draw all parse trees for sentence “a+a*a+a”. (b) Consider the following grammar. S> A A> A+A | B++ B > y Draw parse tree for the input “y+++y++”

Q. 5(a)Explain the role of the Lexical Analyzer and Parser in detail. (b)Differentiate between Top-down parsing and Bottom-up parsing. ASSIGNMENT No. 2 Total Marks: 100 Note: All questions carry equal marks.

Q. 1(a)Rewrite the following SDT: A A {a} B | A B {b} | 0 B -> B {c} A | B A {d} | 1 so that the underlying grammar becomes non-left-recursive. Here, a, 6, c, and d are actions, and 0 and 1 are terminals. b)This grammar generates binary numbers with a “decimal” point: S-* L . L | L L-+LBB B -> 0 | 1 Design an L-attributed SDD to compute S. val, the decimal-number value of an input string. For example, the translation of string 101. 101 should be the decimal number 5. 625.

Q. 2(a)Translate the following expressions using the goto-avoiding translation scheme. i)if (a==b kk c==d |I e==f) x == 1; ii)if (a==b II c==d || e==f) x == 1; iii)if (a==b && c==d kk e==f) x == 1; (b)Construct the DAG and identify the value numbers for the sub expressions of the following expressions, assuming + associates from the left. ) a + b+ (a + b). ii) a + b + a + b. iii) a + a + ((fl + a + a + (a + a + a + a )).

Q. 3(a)Explain the following i)Back Patching ii)Procedure Calls (b)Generate code for the following three-address statements, assuming all variables are stored in memory locations. i) x = 1 ii) x = a iii) x = a + 1 iv) x = a + b v) The two statements x = b * c y = a + x

Q. 4(a)The programming language C does not have a Boolean type. Show how a C compiler might translate if-statement into three-address code. (b)Construct the DAG for the basic block d = b * c e = a + b b = b * c a = e – d Q. (a)Generate code for the following three-address statements assuming a and b are arrays whose elements are 4-byte values. i)The four-statement sequence x = a [ i] y = b [ j] a [ i ] = y b [ j ] = x ii) The three-statement sequence x = a [ i] y = b [ i] z = x * y iii) The three-statement sequence x = a [ i] y = b[x] a [ i ] = y (b)Suppose a basic block is formed from the C assignment statements x = a + b + c + d + e + f; y = a + c + e; i) Give the three-address statements (only one addition per statement) for this block. ii) Use the associative and commutative laws to modify the block to use the fewest possible number of 468 Compiler ConstructionCredit Hours: 3(3, 0) Recommended Book: Compliers; Principles, Techniques, and Tools by Alfred V. Aho, Ravi Sethi, Jerrey D. Ullman Course Outlines: Unit No. 1

Introduction to Compiling

Compliers, analysis of the source program, the phases of a complier, cousins of the compiler, the grouping of phases, complier-construction tools Unit No. 2 A Simple One-pass Compiler Overview, syntax definition, syntax-directed translation, parsing, a translator for simple expressions, lexical analysis, incorporating a symbol table, abstract stack machines, putting the techniques together Unit No. Lexical and Syntax Analysis Lexical analysis (the role of the lexical analyzer, input buffering, specification of tokens, recognition of tokens, a language for specifying lexical analyzers, finite automata, from a regular expression to an NFA, design of a lexical analyzer generator, optimization of DFA-based pattern matchers), syntax analysis (the role of the parser, context-free grammars, writing a grammar, top-down parsing, bottom-up parsing, operator-precedence parsing, LR parsers, using ambiguous grammars, parser generators) Unit No. 4 Syntax-Directed Translation

Syntax-directed definitions, construction of syntax trees, bottom-up evaluation of s-attributed definitions, l-attributed definitions, top-down translation, bottom-up evaluation of inherited attributes, recursive evaluators, space for attribute values at compile time, assigning space at complier-construction time, analysis of syntax-directed definitions

Unit No. 5 Type Checking Type systems, Specification of a simple type checker, Equivalence of type expressions, Type conversions, Overloading of functions and operators, Polymorphic functions, an algorithm for unification Unit No. Intermediate Code Generation Intermediate Languages, Declarations, Assignment statements, Boolean expressions, Case statements, Back Patching, Procedure calls Unit No. 7 Code Generations Issues in the design of a code generator, The target machine, Run-time storage management, Basic blocks and flow graphs, Next-use information, A simple code generator, Register allocation and assignment, The dag representation of basic blocks, Peephole optimization, Generating code from dags, Dynamic programming code-generation algorithm, Code-generator generators Unit No. Code Optimization Introduction, The principal sources of optimization, Optimization of basic blocks, Loops in flow graphs, Introduction to global data-flow analysis, Iterative solution of data-flow equations, Code-improving transformations, Dealing with aliases, Data-flow analysis of structured flow graphs, Efficient data-flow algorithms, A tool for data-flow analysis, Estimation of types, Symbolic debugging of optimized code Unit No. Writing a Complier Planning a compiler, Approaches to compiler development, The compiler-development environment, Testing and maintenance, A Look at Some Compilers, EQN, a preprocessor for typesetting mathematics, Compilers for Pascal, The C compilers, The Fortran H compilers, The Bliss/11 compiler, Modula-2 optimizing compiler

FR 511 – Bakhtin (Day one) Summary The subject of our October 29th lecture was Mikhail Bakhtin and his text “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. ” To start the class, Dr. Wall reminded us that Laura talked about polyphony in her presentation the week before, and that that was where we would start the lecture on Bakhtin. To help the class better understand the concept of polyphony, we were shown a piece of music written by Bach: “No. 4 of 6 little preludes. ” In the piece, the right hand was singing something completely different than the left hand. There were in fact two completely different melodies happening at the same time.

We were told that, in Romantic music, there is one central melody, and the other instruments are there solely to accompany it. Their job is to reinforce the melody. But with older music, we see that it is possible to have more than one melody at a time, sometimes even four or five. You can listen to one melody at time or both at once, etc. This example of polyphony in music is basically a metaphor for the way that Bakhtin understood Dostoevsky. In classical literature, the text is dominated mainly by the voice of the narrator, and everything else simply reinforces what the narrator has to say.

With Dostoevsky, this is not the case. That is the first important point to remember in understanding Dostoevsky’s poetics. According to Bakhtin (not Amy), Dostoevsky is the author of the first polyphonic novel. At this point Dr. Wall stated that Dostoevsky is really just a foil and that other authors could be substituted (Diderot for example). Again, coming back to the first main point in understanding Dostoevsky’s poetics (or Diderot, etc. ), one has to imagine a type of literature where the narrators voice is no longer all powerful and no longer dominates the entire text.

Furthermore, Russian orthodox theology also had an influence on Bakhtin. In the same way that God created man to have free will, the author creates the literary character to have his own free will. In fact, one of the great splits in Christianity is over the doctrine of free will. Some believe that whether or not you will enter heaven after you die is not determined by you, but rather by fate or God, etc. On the other hand, there is the doctrine of free will which basically states that when God created man, he gave him the ability to be “bad” and to have his own free will, even if it destroys him.

This is the same idea as the literary character being free to disobey the author. The underground man is an example of the free will of the literary character. He contradicts everything, he says one and one makes three. From there, we talked about the importance of multiple voices in a novel. These other voices in are just as significant as the narrator, and can even at times contradict what the narrator says. This is what Bakhtin calls the Copernican revolution. Evidently, Copernicus knew that the earth revolves around the sun.

So what Bakhtin is saying is that the narrator is no longer the centre of the novel, but that there can be multiple centres. The second important point to know in order to understand Dostoevsky’s poetics is the concept of dialogism. Dialogism refers to the idea that in every utterance, there are other utterances that you may or may not hear, but that you have to learn to listen to. To illustrate this point, Dr. Wall started with the example of European languages such as German where you often use the second person to speak to yourself. An example is when Dr.

Wall says, “Great move Anthony. ” Bakhtin says that when we speak, there’s always a “tu” out there. Whether it is explicit or not, language is always a dialog. From there, we talked about how, for Bakhtin, language does not belong to anyone. The words we use to express ourselves are not our own, we are just one voice amongst the millions that language is. When we learn a language, we learn it from other people. When you express yourself, you are expressing yourself in a language that you borrowed from someone else. Naturally there will be traces of that someone else in what you say.

It is crucial to remember that in your own desire to express yourself, there are other voices inhabiting your own voice. Not just the words, but the whole idea of discourse. It is in the flow and use of language. When you hear a single utterance, you can sometimes here the other utterances that are hidden, or the traces that were there before. And when you speak, all of these voices are going on at the same time, like an orchestra. So in a polyphonic novel, underneath the words you read, you have to learn to listen to the other voices that are hidden.

So concerning this idea of dialogism, Bakhtin is interested in the interaction between voices, but not in dialog itself. For this reason, he hates theatre and lyrical poetry. He believes that they cover up what is really happening underneath. Theatre for him is too explicit because the actor is given one specific role or one single voice to play. This takes away the resonance that you have in a polyphonic novel. Another important point is that, for Bakhtin, the coexistence of multiple languages is crucial for the birth of the modern novel.

He grew up in Russia where about four languages were spoken in the same community, so he was very much interested in the phenomenon of periods of time where more than one language were spoken in the same community. After the break, we looked at specific examples from Bakhtin’s text. On page 197, he writes about the idea of hidden dialogicality. In other books he gives the example of a telephone conversation where you can only hear one half of what is being said. Even though you can only hear one person speaking, you have a pretty good chance of reconstructing what the other person is saying.

There are an incredible amount of words out there, and the actual sound prevents you from hearing the invisible sounds. The second necessity for the birth of the modern novel according to Bakhtin is silent reading. The most important characteristic of polyphonic prose is that it is meant to be read silently. For Bakhtin, when you read out loud, you are obliged to choose only one voice. Therefore, the other voices get lost. He encourages you to read a passage multiple times in order to hear all of the voices that are present. Parody is also a prime example for Bakhtin.

You think you are hearing a single voice, but there are actually at least two: the original and the parody. He says that that is what a great novel does all of the time, as opposed to theatre that he believes is more of a dialog. Of course, he was not familiar with modern theatre where actors play multiple roles. On page 187, Bakhtin writes about direct referentially oriented discourse. He explains that meaning for him (and Saussure as well) does not come from the referential relationships of what we say, but rather because other people have said it. In other words, everything we try to think about has already been said “15 times” before.

Then on page 195, we discussed the fact that when you hear a sound, it is physically not the same when you hear it alone as when you hear it with other sounds. It is the same thing with coulour. When you take it out of its context, it becomes artificial. Dr. Wall then gave the example of Obama versus Romney, and how they would twist the other person’s words to have a different perspective. The same thing is happening in the literary text and in regular discourse as well. For example, when someone says “the wall is such a beautiful shade of green” someone else might respond “beautiful shade of green!? The meaning of the utterance changes because of the question, but you hear the first statement at the same time. We concluded the lecture with this idea of the importance of the notion of the utterance. This helps us to understand that repeating utterances either adds or takes away from them. It is possible to repeat a word, but not an utterance. The repetition of madness for example, changes when you repeat it as an utterance (with the time period for example). The last thing mentioned was that, even with a machine meaning changes due to the simple fact that the utterance has been repeated. Joey Pihrag

The Dictionary defines language as a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people who are of the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition. Based on this definition wouldn’t it make sense for different generations to have differences in their language because they are apart of different cultural differences amongst one another? My generation consistently gets a bad wrap for being too vulgar, too curt, too disrespectful, and too controversial, but that’s not the way we see it. The same words that make our parents cringe are the same words that build comradery amongst our peers.

The songs that leave our grandparents in disgust make us feel empowered. Were misunderstood, is what it boils down too. The Language of my generation is a direct reflection of how we see ourselves, not how anyone else see us; we redefine, and reclaim language and modify it to reflect who we are. In today’s day and age, everyone’s looking for something to control. It has been proven that this generation faces more pressure than the generations before us. With everyone controlling every other aspect of our lives, language allows us to have something that is our own, something we can control.

This is why we speak the way we speak, because no one can tell us otherwise. This is what language means to us. It’s a way we can relate to our peers, and no one else has to understand, because they aren’t meant too. So who’s to say that the “b word” cant be used as a term of endearment? Who makes the rules on what these words we use mean? A word is just a word until you give it meaning, because after all words are just sounds, and the dictionary is just a book, written by regular people, people with bias, so why can’t I disagree with those who gave these words their original meaning?

History repeats itself; therefore there is no way that our parents generation was viewed anymore negatively then the generations before them. From the way they dressed, to the way the walked, and spoke, and the emergence of hip hop music into mainstream culture, My parents and their peers were regular rebels, at least their parents thought so. The generations before them experienced the same thing. The only problem reason my generation is misunderstood is because the generations before us so quickly forget. The reason they forget is because they can no longer relate. They can no longer relate because their lives have changed.

But there was a time when my mom used to get into arguments with her mother about the way she spoke, and acted, and dressed, no different then the ones she and I go through now. She was my age in 1988, a time notoriously known for sex, and drugs, and all things controversial, so I have a hard time believing we are all that different. It’s so easy to focus on the negative, but my generation is innovative. We are creators, philanthropists, thinkers, and inventors, and we use our language as a platform to promote ourselves. Today, more than ever before there are more kids making their dreams come true.

We use our resources to make things happen. Kids can use social networks to build a following in pursuit of their goals whether it is music or fashion, or gaining support for a philanthropic cause. The best thing about it is we can do it on our own. I know people my age who are entrepreneurs running successful businesses. Believe it or not, there are teens out there making a difference. When I was a junior in high school I hosted a series of park cleanups in my city, and the turnout was amazing. When asked by several adults how I got kids my age to come out early Saturday mornings to pick up trash, I told them “I just asked”.

I reached out to my peers in the most effective way I knew how, using our language, speaking blatantly, and of course posting it all over Twitter and Facebook. They came out because they related to me, we related because of our common language. Instead of criticizing my generation I think we should try to bridge the gap by trying to better understand one another. Society spends so much time trying to strip us of our identity, which is our language, when they should just accept as is. This is who we are, every curse, every action, every word, defines we as a people.

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN LANGUAGE SHAPE OUR BELIEFS? Language is all around us. We use it for all kinds of things like expressing our feelings, describing things, talking with our friends and family and writing literature. We may think that we know what language really means, but can we really be sure about that? More importantly, to what extent can language actually shape our beliefs? Well I think it depends on different people. With some examples I will try to show that usage of language is more complicated then many of us think. If we look how scientists express themselves. Most of them believe in some kind of facts.

They believe that everything on this planet can be explained by facts, with words that we can find in different dictionaries. And this words are not so hard to explain. So if I would be a scientist, I would probably say, that the most important theory of meaning is the definition theory. I would say that, because I would believe that I can explain anything, let’s say mathematics, with words that we found in dictionaries. And definition theory says that meanings are to be found in dictionary. So if we believe in something, that has a meaning in dictionary, can we know what we believe in?

But if we look at artists, how can they express themselves? How can they express what they believe in? Definitely, they do not support definition theory. If an actor wants to express love, he cannot look in dictionary and find its definition. He must make some kind of image in his head for which he thinks, it is the best meaning of love. In that case, image theory is the most appropriate one, because this theory says that meanings are found in our minds. He just makes an image and he can tell everybody else, what they believe that love is.

But, if we cannot find the exact meaning of word, can we believe in something that we just thought about ourselves? Can we believe in our image without thinking about ideas of other people? In my opinion, you cannot express yourself completely by definition theory or image theory. You must believe in both of them. If you find a word in a dictionary, you only know what it means and I think that is not enough. You can know its meaning, but sometimes you must make your own image in your head. But in the other hand, if you find meanings mostly in your head, you can make mistakes and change the true meaning of the word.

So mathematician shouldn’t just rely on facts, he should also express his own ideas, even if they are not proved. And an artist should know that there are some meanings, that just cannot be changed and he must leave them as they are. I think that everybody in this world is more a scientist or more an artist. We must know that there are certain facts that we must believe in like a scientist does, but there are also a lot of things, which we can give our own meaning and believe in them. Language can’t totally shape our beliefs, but it is up to us, if we stick to language as it is or if we look beyond it.

Essential link in objectives of business —–‘Accounting is dubbed “language” of business activities conducted by firms as it is used to communicate business transactions per se to all stakeholders’ According to Weygand, Kieso and Kimmel (2012, p. 4), the main purpose of accounting is consists of three basic activities, identifying, recording and communicating the business events by users. These three activities help the firm to operate the business to make decision be meaningful. Business has closely connection when doing transaction with their stakeholders by using the accounting, in order to make maximize profits.

Role of firm Firm (also known as business or enterprise) is an organization involved trade goods and services to consumers. Business use different models and plans to figure out their target and outcome, in order to achieve organizational goal and achieve sufficient profit to finance our company growth, which create value and wealth for our shareholders. There are three forms of ownership, proprietorship, partnership and corporation. Every type of business receives different targets and objectives; it is because the employer or shareholder is taking different level of risk and responsible.

Each organization’s employer sets its objectives to overcome difficulties. It relates to produce in different firms with different types products and how to satisfied their consumer, such as restaurant produce well-prepared food to hungry customers and cars factory fabrication and assembly of cars to produce in high-quality to buyers. Therefore, the method used or issued meet should be different. Each type of business system will meet different levels of target. The objective, however, is quite similar to each other. As Edmonds, McNair and Olds (2006, p. ) mentioned, in most cases, the companies aim to satisfy consumer preferences efficiently (at lowest cost) and aftermath with higher earnings. During business transaction, the main purpose for firms is to obtain maximize profits and the buyers to pay at least amount of money. Otherwise, the loss will lead firms be bankrupt and result in unemployment rate increased. Business Transactions Business transactions are recording the business’s economic events by accountant. The economic events such as transaction are passing through accounting process of organization to users.

The accountant records the transaction when the financial position (assets, liabilities or equity) of the company changed. In addition, the accounting equation must include the transactions, two or more items, which have dual effect and could be affected. There are two types of transactions which called external and internal. External transaction is record business events between the company and some outside enterprise. For example, LMS pizza shop purchases of cooking machine (equipment) from a supplier, and then sale the piazzas to customers are related to external transactions.

Different to external transaction, internal transactions are economic events that occur all within one company. The use of cooking and washing machine (supplies) are internal transactions for this company. However, the company must analyze each event to illustrate if it affects the components of the accounting equation. For example, the company ordered additional films at $1000. This event will not be record. In the reason, the company’s financial position does not change during this activity. But if there is deposit that company needs to pay.

Then the accountant should record this transaction. The accountant has ability to decide which transaction should be record. Determine the Value changing International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) companies can apply fair value to property, plant, equipment and natural resources. The companies can sell the assets to fair value at the reporting data. If revaluation is used, business needs to follow the revaluation procedures. Assets that are experiencing rapid price changes must be revalued on an annual basis. Otherwise, less frequent revaluation is acceptable.

However, most companies choose to remain the original cost they paid instead to revalue. It is faithful to represent the fair value and the negative effects on the net income. Business should evaluate the faithful representation and relevance of trades-off in any case and determine the importance that the company considered at. To illustrate asset revaluation accounting, assume that an organization called as LMS pizza shop, they purchased the used machine to making pizza for $10,000 on March 11, 2013. But at the end of May 2013, the cooking machine is increased its wealth value to $13,000.

At this time, the accountant has two decisions to record this value changed. One is to revalue the price and another one is to keep it remains the same. However, this action should consider by the company own perspective. It is because the revaluation is affecting the net income. In the short summary, if it is the case that the value falls, the company gets positive effects on the net income. Otherwise, the company obtains negative effects on the net income. Finally, the company can fetch a higher price if sold the assets at the reporting date. Essential link in objectives of business

Target as the core of growth for companies. During operation, companies have many decision-makings, like which firm is better to award of contract and which firm can bring most benefits. These decisions are related to company’s benefit (profit), which are the business objectives. This is because the business objectives are the main purpose for running business to obtain maximum profit at lowest cost. The statement is more clearly to anyone, even who outside the organization. It is benefit for everyone to use the information of financial accounting.

Especially is for investors, creditors and other external users. That is all of the fundament about financial accounting. According to IFRS, there are two measurement principles they usually use, the historical cost principle or the fair value principle. By using these two principles, company can clearly be seen in the earning profit or loss. According to Williams, financial accounting is wide range uses in the business community nowadays (Williams et. al, 2011). Any decisions that the business makes need to concern about all of three activities in accounting quation. The companies all predicate of the objectives that is bringing as much as profit to them. Summary Accounting as a major indicator for simply convenient operation and shorten the time to achieve company’s goals. It is not only a kind of business language, but also a tool for measuring the target for company. As a business tool, it help employer to narrow the distance with all stakeholders in any transactions, hence to help achievement of objective and then obtain higher rate of return in anytime. Words: 1068

Reference * Weygandt, J, Kieso, E& Kimmel, D (2012), Financial Accounting (IFRS edition). WILEY. USA * Edmonds, T, Edmonds, C, McNair, F& Olds, P, (2006), Fundamental Financial Accounting Concepts (5th edition) McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York * Williams, Haka, Bettner, and Carcello (2011), Financial Accounting: Including IFRS, Financial Accounting (Fourteenth Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. New York * International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), retrieved from http://www. iasb. org/

The article represents a part of the research about English multi-word expressions and their translation equivalents in other languages. The research was important for different tasks such as language learning, translation, automatic multilingual lexicon, etc. The article is a short review of English phrasal verbs and their translations to Russian and Finnish. English phrasal verbs are multi-word expressions consisting of a verb and an adverbial particle with a spatial or locative meaning. The meaning of this combination doesn’t depend on the individual meanings of its parts. The most frequent phrasal verb pattern is any form of lexical verb plus prepositional adverb/particle, and usually, there can be a noun phrase, any pronoun, or an adverb embedded between the verb and the adverb/particle. Neither Russian nor Finnish has phrasal verbs. English-Russian If there is an English phrasal verb with an adverb or particle, which on its own is a function word like in, on, up, etc. , it is usually translated into Russian as a verb with prefix.

If a part of an English phrasal verb may act as a content word such as forward, behind, apart, together, etc. , the Russian translation is often a verb + adverb combination. However, some verbs of this group can be also expressed in Russian by prefixation, e. g. take apart. In addition, if an English phrasal verb is highly idiomatic, the Russian translation will be either idiomatic expression or a lengthy explanation. English-Finnish Many English phrasal verbs can be translated as single Finnish verbs, e. g. ake up – heart, herattaa; move ahead – data. There are also phrases and idiomatic combinations in Finnish, which can be used as translations of English phrasal verbs, e. g. find out – Saada Melville, switch off – kytkea pois pasta.

Sometimes we can use both techniques: hideaway – piilottaa, Panna piiloon, often the single-word expression is more formal. Often Finnish equivalent expressions and English phrasal verbs are morpho-syntactically close to each other, it is a result of influence from Swedish or other languages, e. g. : write down – kirjoittaa yours. There can be also more native Finnish expression like kirjoittaa muistiin. There are also fixed combinations with objects in Finnish to express English phrasal verbs, e.g.: tie up – sitoa kengannauhat. Conclusion English phrasal verbs usually have a single-word translation equivalent in Russian and Finnish. The balance between single-word and multi-word expressions changes across languages.

Reference

1. Mudraya, O. and Piao, S. and Lofberg, L. and Rayson, P. and Archer, D. (2005).
2. English-Russian-Finnish cross-language comparison of phrasal verb translation equivalents. In: Phraseology 2005, 2005-10-132005-10-15, Lovain-la-Neuve, Belgium.

Whorf hypothesis in its tractable form is that different cultures interpret the same world differently and this has an impact on how they both think and construct meaning in language; in fact, language shapes or influences thought to some degree. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis combines linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism. Adherents of the hypothesis follow these two principles to varying degrees producing gradient interpretations from weak to strong versions of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Cognitive linguists are among the only linguists to take this “” position seriously, and most linguists of any orientation reject a strong version of the hypothesis. The linguistic determinism portion of the original hypothesis stated that language determined thought, and this is the rejected strong version. The linguistic relativity portion asserts that because language determines thought and there are different languages then the ways that those languages think will be different to some degree.

Part of the controversy surrounding the hypothesis is the lack of empirical data, or at least appropriate empirical data. This has caused a number of researchers to begin considering how the ideas of linguistic determinism may affect judgment. For instance, in 2008 Daniel Casasanto performed a series of experiments with time, quantity and distance to determine whether or not speakers of Greek and speakers of English would have their judgments affected by the type of metaphors preferred by the language.

The language did affect judgment to some degree, but it is not a causal claim about the Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis. Other empirical research has looked at linguistic relativity as a shaper of thought as opposed to a determiner of thought. This hypothesis is important to linguistics because it acknowledges the relationship between thought and language, which may partially give stability to the cognitive claim that language use reflects conceptualization and that different conceptualizations are reflected in different linguistic organizations.

This reminds me of a situation I once participated in where a rhetorical question was being translated from one language to another but the source language structure of the rhetorical question would have implied the exact opposite meaning in the target language had it been translated literally rather than in a manner that acknowledged the target language’s normal pattern of organization for rhetorical questions. Although this may be a simplified understanding of the importance of Sapir-Whorf, it at least seems to have vital implications in translation theory. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Daniel Chandler Greek Translation now available Within linguistic theory, two extreme positions concerning the relationship between language and thought are commonly referred to as ‘mould theories’ and ‘cloak theories’. Mould theories represent language as ‘a mould in terms of which thought categories are cast’ (Bruner et al. 1956, p. 11). Cloak theories represent the view that ‘language is a cloak conforming to the customary categories of thought of its speakers’ (ibid. ). The doctrine that language is the ‘dress of thought’ was fundamental in Neo-Classical literary theory (Abrams 1953, p. 90), but was rejected by the Romantics (ibid. ; Stone 1967, Ch. 5). There is also a related view (held by behaviourists, for instance) that language and thought are identical. According to this stance thinking is entirely linguistic: there is no ‘non-verbal thought’, no ‘translation’ at all from thought to language. In this sense, thought is seen as completely determined by language. The Sapir-Whorf theory, named after the American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, is a mould theory of language.

Writing in 1929, Sapir argued in a classic passage that: Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, 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 upon 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… We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 [1929], p. 69) This position was extended in the 1930s by his student Whorf, who, in another widely cited passage, declared that: We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages.

The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds – and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way – an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.

The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. (Whorf 1940, pp. 213-14; his emphasis) I will not attempt to untangle the details of the personal standpoints of Sapir and Whorf on the degree of determinism which they felt was involved, although I think that the above extracts give a fair idea of what these were. I should note that Whorf distanced himself from the behaviourist stance that thinking is entirely linguistic (Whorf 1956, p. 6). In its most extreme version ‘the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’ can be described as consisting of two associated principles. According to the first, linguistic determinism, our thinking is determined by language. According to the second, linguistic relativity, people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently. On this basis, the Whorfian perspective is that translation between one language and another is at the very least, problematic, and sometimes impossible. Some commentators also apply this to the ‘translation’ of unverbalized thought into language.

Others suggest that even within a single language any reformulation of words has implications for meaning, however subtle. George Steiner (1975) has argued that any act of human communication can be seen as involving a kind of translation, so the potential scope of Whorfianism is very broad indeed. Indeed, seeing reading as a kind of translation is a useful reminder of the reductionism of representing textual reformulation simply as a determinate ‘change of meaning’, since meaning does not reside in the text, but is generated by interpretation.

According to the Whorfian stance, ‘content’ is bound up with linguistic ‘form’, and the use of the medium contributes to shaping the meaning. In common usage, we often talk of different verbal formulations ‘meaning the same thing’. But for those of a Whorfian persuasion, such as the literary theorist Stanley Fish, ‘it is impossible to mean the same thing in two (or more) different ways’ (Fish 1980, p. 32). Reformulating something transforms the ways in which meanings may be made with it, and in this sense, form and content are inseparable. From this stance words are not merely the ‘dress’ of thought.

The importance of what is ‘lost in translation’ varies, of course. The issue is usually considered most important in literary writing. It is illuminating to note how one poet felt about the translation of his poems from the original Spanish into other European languages (Whorf himself did not in fact regard European languages as significantly different from each other). Pablo Neruda noted that the best translations of his own poems were Italian (because of its similarities to Spanish), but that English and French ‘do not correspond to Spanish – neither in vocalization, or in the placement, or the colour, or the weight of words. He continued: ‘It is not a question of interpretative equivalence: no, the sense can be right, but this correctness of translation, of meaning, can be the destruction of a poem. In many of the translations into French – I don’t say in all of them – my poetry escapes, nothing remains; one cannot protest because it says the same thing that one has written. But it is obvious that if I had been a French poet, I would not have said what I did in that poem, because the value of the words is so different. I would have written something else’ (Plimpton 1981, p. 3). With more ‘pragmatic’ or less ‘expressive’ writing, meanings are typically regarded as less dependent on the particular form of words used. In most pragmatic contexts, paraphrases or translations tend to be treated as less fundamentally problematic. However, even in such contexts, particular words or phrases which have an important function in the original language may be acknowledged to present special problems in translation. Even outside the humanities, academic texts concerned with the social sciences are a case in point.

The Whorfian perspective is in strong contrast to the extreme universalism of those who adopt the cloak theory. The Neo-Classical idea of language as simply the dress of thought is based on the assumption that the same thought can be expressed in a variety of ways. Universalists argue that we can say whatever we want to say in any language, and that whatever we say in one language can always be translated into another. This is the basis for the most common refutation of Whorfianism. The fact is,’ insists the philosopher Karl Popper, ‘that even totally different languages are not untranslatable’ (Popper 1970, p. 56). The evasive use here of ‘not untranslatable’ is ironic. Most universalists do acknowledge that translation may on occasions involve a certain amount of circumlocution. Individuals who regard writing as fundamental to their sense of personal and professional identity may experience their written style as inseparable from this identity, and insofar as writers are ‘attached to their words’, they may favour a Whorfian perspective.

And it would be hardly surprising if individual stances towards Whorfianism were not influenced by allegiances to Romanticism or Classicism, or towards either the arts or the sciences. As I have pointed out, in the context of the written word, the ‘untranslatability’ claim is generally regarded as strongest in the arts and weakest in the case of formal scientific papers (although rhetorical studies have increasingly blurred any clear distinctions).

And within the literary domain, ‘untranslatability’ was favoured by Romantic literary theorists, for whom the connotative, emotional or personal meanings of words were crucial (see Stone 1967, pp. 126-7, 132, 145). Whilst few linguists would accept the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in its ‘strong’, extreme or deterministic form, many now accept a ‘weak’, more moderate, or limited Whorfianism, namely that the ways in which we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use.

Moderate Whorfianism differs from extreme Whorfianism in these ways: * the emphasis is on the potential for thinking to be ‘influenced’ rather than unavoidably ‘determined’ by language; * it is a two-way process, so that ‘the kind of language we use’ is also influenced by ‘the way we see the world’; * any influence is ascribed not to ‘Language’ as such or to one language compared with another, but to the use within a language of one variety rather than another (typically a sociolect – the language used primarily by members of a particular social group); * emphasis is given to the social context of language use rather than to purely linguistic considerations, such as the social pressure in particular contexts to use language in one way rather than another. Of course, some polemicists still avour the notion of language as a strait-jacket or prison, but there is a broad academic consensus favouring moderate Whorfianism. Any linguistic influence is now generally considered to be related not primarily to the formal systemic structures of a language (langue to use de Saussure’s term) but to cultural conventions and individual styles of use (or parole). Meaning does not reside in a text but arises in its interpretation, and interpretation is shaped by sociocultural contexts. Conventions regarding what are considered appropriate uses of language in particular social contexts exist both in ‘everyday’ uses of language and in specialist usage. In academia, there are general conventions as well as particular ones in each disciplinary and methodological context.

In every subculture, the dominant conventions regarding appropriate usage tend to exert a conservative influence on the framing of phenomena. From the media theory perspective, the sociolects of sub-cultures and the idiolects of individuals represent a subtly selective view of the world: tending to support certain kinds of observations and interpretations and to restrictothers. And this transformative power goes largely unnoticed, retreating to transparency.=

Language provides us with many of the categories we use for expression of our thoughts, so it is therefore natural to assume that our thinking is influenced by the language which we use. The values and customs in the country we grow up in shape the way in which we think to a certain extent. Cultures hiding in languages, examines the link between Japanese language and culture. An Insight into Korean Culture through the Korean Language discusses how Korean culture influences the language. Languages spoken in Ireland, focuses on the status of the Irish language nowadays and how it has changed over time. In our big world every minute is a lesson looks at intercultural communication and examines how it can affect interactions between people from countries and backgrounds.

Does it mean that people who speak, let us say, English, see things differently than people who speak Chinese or Spanish? In other words, does language lead our way of thinking or is it the other way around? According to Benjamin Lee Whorf and his theory of linguistic relativity, language shapes the way we think, and determines what we think about. He believed that depending on the language we speak we see the world differently.

His best example was the comparison between the idea of snow of an English person and an Eskimo person. The Eskimo has many words to describe snow, while the English only has one. An Eskimo has a specific word to describe the wet snow, the snow currently falling and so on. Therefore an Eskimo perceives the snow in a different way than an English person. Another example is the Dani people, a farming group from New Guinea. They only have two words to describe the two basic colors: dark and bright. Hence a Dani person cannot differentiate colors as well as an English person is able to. Although Benjamin’s theory is not yet completely clarified, it is correct to say that a language could facilitate some ways of thinking.

True or not, this topic is an interesting one to reflect upon. Linguists and people who speak many languages have come up with the same idea. Holy Roman EmperorCharles V spoke 6 languages fluently and said the following: I speak Italian to ambassadors, French to women, German to soldiers, English to my horse and Spanish to God. What is the relationship between language and culture? Answer Language is the verbal expression of culture. Culture is the idea,custom and beliefs of a community with a distinct language containing semantics – everything a speakers can think about and every way they have of thinking about things as medium of communication.

For example, the Latin language has no word for the female friend of a man (the feminine form ofamicus is amica, which means mistress, not friend) because the Roman culture could not imagine a male and a female being equals, which they considered necessary for friendship. Another example is that Eskimos have many different terms for snow… there are nuances that make each one different. Answer Language and culture are NOT fundamentally inseparable. At the most basic level, language is a method of expressing ideas. That is, language is communication; while usually verbal, language can also be visual (via signs and symbols), or semiotics (via hand or body gestures). Culture, on the other hand, is a specific set of ideas, practices, customs and beliefs which make up a functioning society as distinct.

A culture must have at least one language, which it uses as a distinct medium of communication to conveys its defining ideas, customs, beliefs, et al. , from one member of the culture to another member. Cultures can develop multiple languages, or “borrow” languages from other cultures to use; not all such languages are co-equal in the culture. One of the major defining characteristics of a culture is which language(s) are the primary means of communication in that culture; sociologists and anthropologists draw lines between similar cultures heavily based on the prevalent language usage. Languages, on the other hand, can be developed (or evolve) apart from its originating culture.

Certain language have scope for cross-cultural adaptations and communication, and may not actually be part of any culture. Additionally, many languages are used by different cultures (that is, the same language can be used in several cultures). Language is heavily influenced by culture – as cultures come up with new ideas, they develop language components to express those ideas. The reverse is also true: the limits of a language can define what is expressible in a culture (that is, the limits of a language can prevent certain concepts from being part of a culture). Finally, languages are not solely defined by their developing culture(s) – most modern languages are amalgamations of other prior and current languages.

That is, most languages borrow words and phrases (“loan words”) from other existing languages to describe new ideas and concept. In fact, in the modern very-connected world, once one language manufactures a new word to describe something, there is a very strong tendency for other languages to “steal” that word directly, rather than manufacture a unique one itself. The English language is a stellar example of a “thief” language – by some accounts, over 60% of the English language is of foreign origin (i. e. those words were originally imported from another language). Conversely, English is currently the world’s largest “donor” language, with vast quantities of English words being imported directly into virtually all other languages.