1. Relativity and Reciprocity
The concept of linguistic relativity is known for the variety of elements in languages, e.g., grammar and lexicon, which results in diversity of languages. However different languages maybe, one of the most influencing factors, so says sociolinguists as well as Chomsky1, lies in the multiplicity of societies.2
Such multiplicity, however, resides in the recognition of relativism. For example, the relativity of concepts, languages, or even values each respective society holds differs from societies.
Nevertheless, it is undeniable that, no matter what society is concerned, languages still play an indispensable part which is either the knowledge itself or as a medium of
1 “Many linguists, including Noam Chomsky, contend that language in the sense we ordinary think of it, in the sense that people in Germany speak German, is a historical or social or political notion, rather than a scientific one ” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/supplement2.html) (underlined by this paper)
2 In other words, the recognition of pluralistic society as the basic premise is necessary. In terms of values, different interpretations of values in proper are expected and tolerated, including the concept of
communicating knowledge. As a result, in order to understand how languages are in its presentations, what needs be dealt with is the essence of languages or, the definition of languages.
a. Difference in sociology of linguistics and sociolinguistics
An explicit example would be the relationships between sociology of linguistics and
sociolinguistics. On the one hand, the field of sociolinguistics would be linguistic
features of different social factors, such as gender, ages, ethnic groups. A related factor is the change of time in terms of historical linguistics. However, these topics are discussed within the borderline of society which the formation of the society is recognized as a non-arguable preliminary.
On the other hand, the field called sociology of linguistics, reversely, is a sub-discipline of sociology which conducts research by means of linguistics. For example, the translation of Japanese Constitution drafted by the GHQ during the occupation of U.S.
troops could stir up different interpretations according to different ideologies held by different people.1
1 Further reference, Inoue K, MacArthur’s Japanese Constitution: A Linguistic and Cultural Study of Its Making, 1991, University of Chicago.
b. Analogy: a reciprocity between theory and application
In terms of the connection of the above-mentioned two fields, socio-linguistics and sociology of linguistics, it is the reciprocity of theory and application of the two fields as a tool for research that makes the two different fields possible. That is to say, the detection of instrumental characteristic from other fields has been noticed; in turn, the introduction of such turned out only as methodologies of interpretations but rather as
changes of direction in the development of the whole discipline.
c. Application: sociological jurisprudence and sociology of law
Taking the reciprocity of theory and application into account, the application of the sociological method in the jurisprudence is worth mentioning.
The differentiation of sociological jurisprudence and sociology of law comes in various interpretations1, however, one of the most related one would be the one by Patterson (1953). Patterson asserts the research object of the two disciplines is different,
sociological jurisprudence being prescriptive and sociology of law being descriptive.1 While the former focuses on the regulations, the latter pays its attention to the actual facts that are being regulated.
In terms of linguistics, however, it is that descriptive character that is emphasized, both in sociolinguistics and sociology of languages. Even though there exists both rules and principles, we still tend to believe principles still are descriptive in character.
language relativism and language determinism
Benjamin Whorf proposed two hypotheses for the link between thoughts and language:
linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism.2 The former suggested that thoughts differ from languages, whereas the latter suggested the language people speak helps determine the very way they think about their physical and social world.3
2. Reciprocity after Relativity: Prioritization
1 Ibid.
2 Whorf (1956), Language, thought, and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. J. B.
Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, cited from Clark in: Gumperz & Levinson (1996/1999)
3 Clark, H.H. (1996), Communities, commonalities, and communication, in: Gumperz & Levinson (1996/1999), p324.
Two or more separate interests that are in relation could have two characteristics:
relativity and reciprocity. The former simply signifies the contrasting positions of the
two related interests, whereas the latter, namely, reciprocity, further indicates the confrontation between the two interests in terms of the relations in which they are involved.
Additionally, between the two characteristics of relativity and reciprocity, there exists a set of certain prioritization, implying a proper order of recognition. Concretely speaking, in order to understand how two related interests are in confrontation (at the
level of reciprocity), it would be essential to first of all delve into the actual contrasting positions (at the level of relativity) these conflicted interests are in.
Illustration 10 Demonstration of Relativity and Reciprocity
Relativity
( Theory of RELATIONS ) Demonstrations
III. Mitigation between rule and principle
If there exists an absolute differentiation between rules and principles, that would be the all-or-nothing character, Prioritization, in the former and a more flexible character of
Coordination in the latter. However, if the two are to be leveled together, the nexus
between the two, which contributes to how principle affects rules, mustn’t be overlooked.