Sapir_whorf hypothesis

A second important development in linguistics is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Sapir and Whorf were two linguists who believed that different languages produce different ways of thinking. They argued that languages lead their speakers to think about things in particular ways.

The central idea of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that language functions, not simply as a device for reporting experience, but also as a way of defining experience for its speakers.

For example:

1. In English we use pronouns that distinguish gender: he, she, him, her, his, hers.

In the Paluang language of Burma, Gender is not distinguished in pronouns.

In the romance languages nearly every word has a gender.

WHAT ABOUT RUSSIAN?

Seeing this, it seems clear that people who speak romance languages probably pay more attention to gender difference than the people of Paluang—this is true.

Another example:

2. English divides time into past, present, and future.

Hopi, a Native American language, does not. Hopi distinguishes between events that exist or have existed. (aspectual)

WHAT ABOUT RUSSIAN? (Russian is somewhere between these two)

So, it would appear that the Hopi are less concerned with time and English speaking peoples slightly obsessed with it—this is true.

Another example:

3. Eskimos have several distinct types of words for snow.

English has one.

WHAT ABOUT RUSSIAN?

Eskimos therefore should, and do indeed, think a great deal more about snow that English speakers.

4. The ччччч people are a tribal people who live in Africa. Their whole world is constructed around cattle. Since cattle is so important to their livelihood, they have dozens of words to describe it.

English speakers do not use but a few words for cattle.

WHAT ABOUT RUSSIAN?

Cattle might therefore be more important to the Nuer than to the English world—this is true.

5. Similarly, in Europe and the U.S. we have a wide variety of words to describe different colors.

In Papua New Guinea they use only two basic terms: black and white or dark and light.

Differentiating color is probably then, a great deal more important to Europeans and Americans—this is true.

Now, that being said: Certainly English speakers can DEVELOP more words for snow and cattle. Skiers in the U.S. for example have created more words for snow than are normally used in English, and cattle ranchers in Texas have a wider variety of words for this animal. This is one way, when further specialization is required, that variation can occur in a language—we will discuss this later. But suffice it to say, the ways in which people divide up the world—the contrasts they perceive as meaningful or significant—reflect their experiences. And in turn, the limited set of words in ones language used for describing things limits ones ability to perceive certain things as different.

*PLEASE LOOK AT THE HAND OUT:

As Sapir himself says,

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)

And Whorf,

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 un-stated 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)

Now what happens if you speak more than one language? This is the part I find most fascinating. If what these people say is true about language influencing our thought and perception of the world, then knowing more than one language only makes you better able to perceive and understand what happens in the world—you are that much smarter and more aware than someone who can only see the world with a single language. At it’s most basic, if the people of the world have limited vision those who know only one language have only one pair of glasses. They can see okay, but not everything. People who know more than one language have more than one pair of glasses. They can see a great deal more and understand a great deal more.

What a gift! What an ability!