Fundamentally, we can understand th

Fundamentally, we can understand the way in
hich language represents the world to us, in terms of two opposing positions. According to one view, human
beings generally (whatever their culture or language)
are endowed with a common stock of basic concepts —.
"conceptual primes" as ther are sometimes known.
Language, according to this view, is merely a vehicle
for expressing the conceptual system which exists
independently of it. And, because all the conceptual
systems share a common basis, all languages turn out
to be fundamentally similar. According to this position,
thought determines language. We might characterize this
view as the "universalist" position.
The alternative position maintains that thought is
difficult to separate from language; each is woven
inextricably into the other. Concepts can only take shape
if and when we have words and structures in which to
express them. Thinking depends crucially upon language.
Because the vocabularies and structures of separate
languages can vary so widely, it makes no sense to posit
conceptual primes of a universal nature. Habitual users
of one language will experience and understand the world
in ways peculiar to that language and different from
those of habitual users of another language. The latter
viewpoint might be termed the "relativist" position.

Результаты (английский) 1:

Fundamentally, we can understand the way inlanguage hich represents the world to us, in terms of two opposing positions. According to one view, humanbased beings (whatever their culture or language)are endowed with a common stock of basic concepts."conceptual primes" as ther are sometimes known.Language, according to this view, is merely a vehiclefor expressing the conceptual system which existsindependently of it. And, because all the conceptualsystems share a common basis, all languages turned outto be fundamentally similar. According to this position,the language determines thought. We might characterize thisview as the "universalist" position.The alternative position maintains that thought isdifficult to separate from the language; each is woveninextricably into the other. Concepts can only take shapeIf and when we have words and structures in which toexpress them. Thinking depends crucially upon language.Because the vocabularies and structures of separatelanguages can vary so widely, it makes no sense to positconceptual primes of a universal nature. Habitual usersof one language will experience and understand the worldin ways peculiar to that language and different fromthose of the habitual users of another language. The latterviewpoint might be termed the "relativist" position.

Результаты (английский) 2:

Fundamentally, we can understand the way in
hich language represents the world to us, in terms of two opposing positions. According to one view, human
beings generally (whatever their culture or language)
are endowed with a common stock of basic concepts -.
"Conceptual primes" as ther are sometimes known.
Language, according to this view, is merely a vehicle
for expressing the system which exists conceptual
independently of it. And, because all the conceptual
systems this content share a common basis, all languages ​​turn out
to be fundamentally similar. To this position According,
thought determines language. Might characterize this We
view as the "universalist" position.
The alternative position maintains that thought is
difficult to separate from language; is woven each
inextricably into the other. We can only take Concepts shape
if and when we have words and structures in which to
express them. Depends crucially upon Thinking language.
Because the vocabularies and structures of separate
languages ​​can vary so widely, it makes no sense to posit
conceptual primes of a universal nature. Users Habitual
of one language will understand and experience the world
in ways peculiar to that language and different from
those of habitual users of another language. Latter The
viewpoint might be termed the "relativist" position.

Результаты (английский) 3:

Fundamentally, we can understand the way in
hich language represents the world to us, in terms of two opposing positions. according to one view, human beings as
(whatever their culture or language)
are endowed with a common stock of basic concepts -.
"conceptual primes" as other are sometimes known.
language, according to this view, is merely a vehicle.for expressing the conceptual system which exists
independently of it. and, because all the conceptual
systems share a common basis, all languages turn out
to be fundamentally similar. according to this position,
thought determines language. we might characterize this
view as the "universalist" position.
the alternative position maintains that thought is
difficult to separate from language.each is woven
inextricably into the other. concepts can only take shape
if and when we have words and structures in which to
express them. thinking depends crucially upon language.
because the vocabularies and structures of separate
languages can vary so widely, it makes no sense to posit
conceptual primes of a dynamic nature. Habitual users.of one language to experience and understand the world in ways peculiar

to that language and different from those of habitual users of another language. the latter
viewpoint might be the number relativist "position.