|
Books,
E-Books Great Discounts
| |
WHORF-SAPIR HYPOTHESIS
'He gave man speech, and speech created thought – which is the measure of the
universe' - Shelley – Prometheus Unbound
Sociologyindex,
Sapir Whorf
Bibliography, Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Sociology
Books 2012
John Carroll suggests a reason why so much
attention and controversy surround the theory of linguistic relativism.
Carroll states, "Perhaps it is the
suggestion that all one's life one has been tricked, all unaware, by the structure of
language into a certain way of perceiving reality, with the implication that awareness of
this trickery will enable one to see the world with fresh insight"
The theory that one's perception of the world is
determined by the structure of one's native language and that the concepts and structure
of languages profoundly shape the perception and world view of speakers.
Rather than just being a means of expressing thought,
language is claimed to form thought. Thus, people of different language communities will
see and understand in different ways.
Designating the views and theories of the American
linguists:
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941); especially in Whorfian
hypothesis, the theory that one's perception of the world is determined by the structure
of one's native language.
Edward Sapir (1884-1939), German-born American
linguistics scholar and anthropologist. One of the founders of American structural
linguistics, he carried out important work on American Indian languages and linguistic
theory. His book Language (1921) presents his thesis that language should be studied
within its social and cultural context.
Sociologists regard the theory as too deterministic and
stress the dynamic way in which language responds to social and technical transformation
of society.
From George Orwell's 1984 (1948):
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for
the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc [English Socialism], but
to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been
adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought--that is, a thought
diverging from the principles of Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable, at least as far
as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and
often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to
express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them
by indirect method. This was done partly by the invention of new words and by stripping
such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary
meanings whatever...A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no more
know that ‘equal' had once had the secondary meaning of "politically
equal," or that ‘free' had once meant "intellectually free," than, for
instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings
attaching to ‘queen' or ‘rook.' There would be many crimes and errors which it
would be beyond his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore
unimaginable."
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis theorizes that thoughts and behavior are determined (or are at
least partially influenced) by language. If true in its strongest sense, the sinister
possibility of a culture controlled by Newspeak or some other language is not just science
fiction. Since its inception in the 1920s and 1930s, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has caused
controversy and spawned research in a variety of disciplines including linguistics,
psychology, philosophy, anthropology, and education.
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf brought attention to the relationship between
language, thought, and culture. Neither of them formally wrote the hypothesis nor
supported it with empirical evidence, but through a thorough study of their writings about
linguistics, researchers have found two main ideas. First, a theory of linguistic
determinism that states that the language you speak determines the way that you will
interpret the world around you. Second, a weaker theory of linguistic relativism that
states that language merely influences your thoughts about the real world.
Edward Sapir studied the research of Wilhelm von Humboldt. About one hundred years before
Sapir published his linguistic theories, Humboldt wrote in Gesammelte Werke a strong
version of linguistic determinism: "Man lives in the world about him principally,
indeed exclusively, as language presents it to him." Sapir took this idea and
expanded on it. Although he did not always support this firm hypothesis, his writings
state that there is clearly a connection between language and thought.
From "The Status of Linguistics as a Science" (1929)
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 in their society. It is quite an
illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language
and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of
communication or reflection: The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world' is to a
large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages
are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality.
The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same
world with different labels attached...Even comparatively simple acts of perception are
very much more at the mercy of the social patterns called words than we might suppose...We
see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of
our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
As the underlined portions show, Sapir used firm language to describe this connection
between language and thought. To Sapir, the individual is unconscious to this connection
and subject to it without choice.
Benjamin Lee Whorf was Sapir's student. Whorf devised the weaker theory of linguistic
relativity: "We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which holds
that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the
universe..." (1940/1956). He also supported, at times, the stronger linguistic
determinism. To Whorf, this connection between language and thought was also an obligation
not a choice.
From "Science and Linguistics" (1940/1956):
"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."
Both Sapir and Whorf agreed that it is our culture that determines our language, which in
turn determines the way that we categorize our thoughts about the world and our
experiences in it.
For more than fifty years researchers have tried to design studies that will support or
refute this hypothesis. Support for the strong version has been weak because it is
virtually impossible to test one's world view without using language. Support for the
weaker version has been minimal. Yet this hypothesis continues to fascinate researchers.
Problems with the hypothesis begin when one tries to discern exactly what the hypothesis
is stating. Penn notes that the hypothesis is stated "more and less strongly in
different places in Sapir's and Whorf's writings" (1972:13). At some points, Sapir
and Whorf appear to support the strong version of the hypothesis and at others they only
support the weak version. Alford (1980) also notes that neither Sapir nor Whorf actually
named any of their ideas about language and cognition the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. This
name only appeared after their deaths. This has lead to a wide interpretation of what
researchers consider to be the one and only hypothesis.
Another problem with the hypothesis is that it requires a measurement of human thought.
Measuring thought and one's world view is nearly impossible without the confounding
influence of language, another of the variables being studied. Researchers settle for the
study of behavior as a direct link to thought.
If one is to believe the strong version of linguistic determinism, one also has to agree
that thought is not possible without language. What about the pre-linguistic thought of
babies? How can babies acquire language without thought? Also, where did language come
from? In the linguistic determinist's view, language would have to be derived from a
source outside the human realm because thought is impossible without language and before
language there would have been no thought.
Supporters of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis must acknowledge that their study of language in
the "real world" is not without doubt if their language influences how they
categorize what they seem to experience. Penn writes, "In short, if one believes in
linguistic relativity, one finds oneself in the egocentric quandary, unable to make
assertions about reality because of doubting one's own ability to correctly describe
reality" (1972:33).
Yet another problem with the hypothesis is that languages and linguistic concepts are
highly translatable. Under linguistic determinism, a concept in one language would not be
understood in a different language because the speakers and their world views are bound by
different sets of rules. Languages are in fact translatable and only in select cases of
poetry, humor and other creative communications are ideas "lost in the
translation."
One final problem researchers have found with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is Whorf's lack
of empirical support for his linguistic insights. Whorf uses language nuances to prove
vast differences between languages and then expects his reader to infer those differences
in thought and behavior. Schlesinger attacks Whorf's flimsy thesis support: "...the
mere existence of such linguistic diversities is insufficient evidence for the parallelist
claims of a correspondence between language on the one hand and cognition and culture, on
the other, and for the determinist claim of the latter being determined by the
former" (1991:18). Schlesinger also fails to see the connection between Whorf's
linguistic evidence and any cultural or cognitive data. "Whorf occasionally supplies
the translations from a foreign language into English, and leaves it to the good faith of
the reader to accept the conclusion that here must have been a corresponding cognitive or
cultural phenomenon" (1991:27).
One infamous example Whorf used to support his theory was the number of words the Inuit
people have for ‘snow.' He claimed that because snow is a crucial part of their
everyday lives and that they have many different uses for snow that they perceive snow
differently than someone who lives in a less snow-dependent environment. Pullum has since
dispelled this myth in his book The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax (1991). He shows that
while the Inuit use many different terms for snow, other languages transmit the same ideas
using phrases instead of single words.
Despite all these problems facing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there have been several
studies performed that support at least the weaker linguistic relativity hypothesis. In
1954, Brown and Lenneberg tested for color codability, or how speakers of one language
categorize the color spectrum and how it affects their recognition of those colors. Penn
writes, "Lenneberg reports on a study showing how terms of colors influence the
actual discrimination. English-speaking subjects were better able to re-recognize those
hues which are easily named in English. This finding is clearly in support of the limiting
influence of linguistic categories on cognition" (1972:16). Schlesinger explains the
path taken in this study from positive correlation to support for linguistic relativity:
"...if codability of color affected recognizability, and if languages differed in
codability, then recognizability is a function of the individual's language"
(1991:27)
Lucy and Shweder's color memory test (1979) also supports the linguistic relativity
hypothesis. If a language has terms for discriminating between color then actual
discrimination/perception of those colors will be affected. Lucy and Shweder found that
influences on color recognition memory is mediated exclusively by basic color terms–a
language factor.
Kay and Kempton's language study (1984) found support for linguistic relativity. They
found that language is a part of cognition. In their study, English speakers' perceptions
were distorted in the blue-green area while speakers from Tarahumara–who lack a
blue-green distinction–showed no distortion. However, under certain conditions they
found that universalism of color distinction can be recovered.
Peterson and Siegal's "Sally doll" test (1995) was not intended to test the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis specifically, but their findings support linguistic relativity in a
population who at the time had not yet been considered for testing–deaf children.
Peterson and Siegal's experiment with deaf children showed a difference in the constructed
reality of deaf children with deaf parents and deaf children with hearing parents,
especially in the realm of non-concrete items such as feelings and thoughts.
Most recently, Wassman and Dasen's Balinese language test (1998) found differences in how
the Balinese people orient themselves spatially to that of Westerners. They found that the
use of an absolute reference system based on geographic points on the island in the
Balinese language correlates to the significant cultural importance of these points to the
people. They questioned how language affects the thinking of the Balinese people and found
moderate linguistic relativity results.
There are, on the other hand, several studies that dispute the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Most of these studies favor universalism over relativism in the realm of linguistic
structure and function. For example, Osgood's common meaning system study found that
"human beings the world over, no matter what their language or culture, do share a
common meaning system, do organize experience along similar symbolic dimensions"
(1963:33)
In his universalism studies, Greenberg came to the conclusion that "agreement in the
fundamentals of human behavior among speakers of radically diverse languages far outweighs
the idiosyncratic differences to be expected from a radical theory of linguistic
relativity" (1963:125).
Alford's interpretation of Whorf shows that Whorf never intended for perception of the
color spectrum to be used to defend his principle of linguistic relativity. Alford states,
"In fact, he is quite clear in stating that perception is clearly distinct from
conception and cognition, or language-related thinking" (1980).
Even Dr. Roger Brown, who was one of the first researchers to find empirical support for
the hypothesis, now argues that there is much more evidence pointing toward cognitive
universalism rather than linguistic relativity (Schlesinger 1991:26).
Berlin and Kay's color study (1969) found universal focus colors and differences only in
the boundaries of colors in the spectrum. They found that regardless of language or
culture, eleven universal color foci emerge. Underlying apparent diversity in color
vocabularies, these universal foci remain recognizable. Even in languages which do not
discriminate to eleven basic colors, speakers are nonetheless able to sort color chips
based on the eleven focus colors.
Davies' cross-cultural color sorting test (1998) found an obvious pattern in the
similarity of color sorting behavior between speakers of English which has eleven basic
colors, Russian which has twelve (they distinguish two blues), and Setswana which has only
five (grue=green-blue). Davies concluded that the data showed strong universalism.
Culture influences the structure and functions of a group's language, which in turn
influences the individual's interpretations of reality. Whorf saw language and culture as
two inseparable sides of a single coin. According to Alford, "Whorf sensed something
‘chicken-and-egg-y' about the language-culture interaction phenomenon" (1980).
Indeed, deciding which came first the language or the culture is impossible to discern.
Schlesinger notes that Whorf recognized two directions of influence–from culture to
language and vice versa. However, according to Schlesinger, Whorf argues that "since
grammar is more resistant to change than culture, the influence from language to culture
is predominant" (1991:17).
Language reinforces cultural patterns through semantics, syntax and naming. Grammar and
the forms of words show hierarchical importance of something to a culture. However, the
common color perception tests are not strongly linked to cultural experience. Schlesinger
agrees: "Whorf made far-reaching claims about the pervasive effects of language on
the mental life of a people, and all that experimental psychologists managed to come up
with were such modest results as the effect of the vocabulary of a language on the
discriminability of color chips" (1991:30).
In 1955, Dr. James Cooke Brown attempted to separate language and culture to test the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He suggested the creation of a new language–one not bound to
any particular culture--to distinguish the causes from the effects of language, culture,
and thought. He called this artificial language LOGLAN, which is short for Logical
Language. According to Riner, LOGLAN was designed as an experimental language to answer
the question: "In what ways is human thought limited and directed by the language in
which one thinks?" (1990).
Today with the help of the Internet, many people around the world are learning LOGLAN.
Riner appears positive in the continuing work with LOGLAN to test the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis:
"As far as we can yet know, LOGLAN can accommodate precisely and unambiguously the
native ways of saying things in any natural language. In fact, because it is logically
rigorous, LOGLAN forces the speaker to make the metaphysical (cultural, worldview)
premises in and of the natural language explicit in rendering the thought into
(disambiguated) LOGLAN. Those assumptions, made explicit, become propositions that are
open for critical review and amendment–so not only can the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis be
tested, but its details can be investigated with LOGLAN" (1990).
Further research and linguistic development is necessary to find out if LOGLAN will defend
or dispute the theory of linguistic relativism.
Other aspects of this hypothesis which warrant further research include another look at
Peterson and Siegal's study involving deaf children, and Lucy's suggestion of a new
theoretical account of language and thought. In Peterson and Siegal's study there are
revealed two naturally occurring groups–deaf children of hearing parents and deaf
children of deaf parents--which allow for a within culture test of linguistic relativity
(Skoyles 1999). Their results offer direct evidence that language molds thought.
Additional research in this area with specific testing of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in
mind could prove successful. Also, Lucy states that all linguistic relativity proposals
claim that language has some influence on thoughts about reality. He further suggests that
"a theoretical account needs to articulate exactly how languages interpret
experiences and how those interpretations influence thought" (1997:291).
In his introduction to Whorf's body of work, John Carroll suggests a reason why so much
attention and controversy surround the theory of linguistic relativism. Carroll states,
"Perhaps it is the suggestion that all one's life one has been tricked, all unaware,
by the structure of language into a certain way of perceiving reality, with the
implication that awareness of this trickery will enable one to see the world with fresh
insight" (1956:27). The world is getting smaller with the diffusion of computers and
new communications technology. Interaction between members of different cultures is
becoming easier and more prevalent. On a global scale, the hypothesis could be taken as a
possible rationalization why foreign nations fail to communicate successfully. Awareness
of linguistic relativity, however, should lead to a better understanding of cultural
diversities and help to bridge intercultural communication gaps.
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf
'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 and reflection.
The fact of the matter is that the "real world" is to a large extent
unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group.'
This famous passage from the American linguist and anthropologist Edward Sapir
(1884-1936)'s 'The Status Of Linguistics As A Science', written in 1929, demonstrates the
dominating thought of what has come to be called by all sorts of names including the
'Sapir-Whorf hypothesis', the 'Whorfian hypothesis' and more plainly the 'Linguistic
Relativity hypothesis'. We can see the reason for the variety of titles for the hypothesis
- as well as the influence Sapir must have had on his pupil Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941)
- if we look at the following passage from Whorf himself, which propounds much the same
viewpoint:
'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 organised by our minds - and this means largely by the
linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organise it into concepts, and ascribe
significances as we do, largely because we are parties to 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 organisation and
classification of data which the agreement decrees.'
Surprisingly, though, neither Sapir or Whorf made it very clear whether they were arguing
for strong or weak determinism. At times we are "at the mercy of" whatever
language we speak, while at others our linguistic habits simply "predispose certain
choices of interpretation".
Whorf, originally a 'fire prevention engineer' by trade, spent a lot of his time studying
the language of the Hopi Indians of Arizona, who make no distinction in their language
between past, present and future tenses; where in English it seems natural to distinguish
between 'I see the girl', 'I saw the girl' and 'I will see the girl', this is not an
option in Hopi. This apparently made quite an impression on Whorf, who imagined that the
scientists of the day and the Hopi must see the world very differently...although the
philosopher Max Black considers that 'they may be expected to have pretty much the same
concept of time that we have' in spite of this. And Whorf himself notices, 'The Hopi
language is capable of accounting for and describing correctly all observable phenomena of
the universe'. Another characteristic of the Hopi tongue is that there is just a single
word - 'masa'ytaka' - for everything that flies, including insects, aeroplanes and pilots.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as we know it today can be broken down into two basic
principles: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity.
Linguistic Determinism: A Definition
Linguistic Determinism refers to the idea that the language we use to some extent
determines the way in which we view and think about the world around us. The concept has
generally been divided into two separate groups - 'strong' determinism and 'weak'
determinism. Strong determinism is the extreme version of the theory, stating that
language actually determines thought, that language and thought are identical. Although
this version of the theory would attract few followers today - since it has strong
evidence against it, including the possibility of translation between languages - we will
see that in the past this has not always been the case. Weak determinism, however, holds
that thought is merely affected by or influenced by our language, whatever that language
may be. This version of determinism is widely accepted today.
Linguistic Relativity: A Definition
Linguistic relativity states that distinctions encoded in one language are unique
to that language alone, and that "there is no limit to the structural diversity of
languages". If one imagines the colour spectrum, it is a continuum, each colour
gradually blending into the next; there are no sharp boundaries. But we impose boundaries;
we talk of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. It takes little thought
to realise that these discriminations are arbitrary - and indeed in other languages the
boundaries are different. In neither Spanish, Italian nor Russian is there a word that
corresponds to the English meaning of 'blue', and likewise in Spanish there are two words
'esquina' and 'rincon', meaning an inside and an outside corner, which necessitate the use
of more than one word in English to convey the same concept. These examples show that the
language we use, whichever it happens to be, divides not only the colour spectrum, but
indeed our whole reality, which is a 'kaleidoscopic flux of impressions', into completely
arbitrary compartments.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Daniel Chandler, aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html
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. 290), 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)
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: A Critique
Neil Parr-Davies - aber.ac.uk/media/Students/njp0001.html
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is in effect two propositions, which in a very basic form could
perhaps be summed up as
- firstly Linguistic Determinism (language determines thought), and
- secondly Linguistic relativity (difference in language equals difference
in thought).
| |
Books,
E-Books Great Discounts
|