The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Just finished dusting off and typing up this paper for English Language class.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
American linguist and anthropologist, Edward Sapir (1884-1946) said:-
“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.!”
Sapir’s pupil, Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941) shared this view on language and the relative reflection of the world around him. He studied the language of the Hopi Indians of Arizona, who have no way of distinguishing between tenses; this fascinated Whorf and led him to believe that the Hopi Indians must have seen the world very differently to those who spoke English, for instance. Another characteristic of this language -- perhaps equally as unfathomable to those accustomed to speaking the English language -- is that there exists only one word for everything that flies -- including insects, aeroplanes and pilots. This gives the impression that the native speakers of this language must lack the ability to properly distinguish between entirely different things which happen to share one common likeness.
In order to properly understand the meaning behind the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis, it can be broken down into two basic categories: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. The former refers to the concept of language and the strength of its role in determining how human beings see the world and every intricate detail within it; the suggestion that everything with which we come into contact is viewed in a particular way, because of how it is defined in our native language. This theory itself has been divided into two smaller groups -- ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ determinism. ‘Strong’ determinism is the claim that language and perception are inextricably linked; that the two are almost interchangeable and that language actually determines thought. This is an unpopular theory today, because as speakers of multiple languages are aware, translation between languages -- even within groups of Latin languages -- is often very difficult, and it is fair to say that very rarely does a term in the English language translate perfectly into another. ‘Weak’ determinism refers to the much more plausible idea that thought and perception are simply influenced by our language.
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) was the first European philosopher to make a connection between languages and perception. His hypothesis is known as the “Weltanschauung” (world-view) hypothesis. Humboldt was of the opinion that language determined thought. This way of thinking implied that thought was actually impossible without language. One of the reasons for this being an extremely unpopular system of believe in present times is the question which arose from this belief -- if thought is not possible without language, and therefore there was no thought before language, how did language come to be in the first place?
Linguistic relativity is the belief that perception and all thought in relation to language is specific and unique to individual languages across the globe -- this is much more feasible and easier to grasp, particularly given that translation between languages is not normally flawless. The system of naming colours is a good way to define the principles of linguistic relativity. In the English language, the colour spectrum is a continuum, ie. there are no block colours with easily visible separations between shades. The colour flows naturally, yet there are names for each of the stages of colour, which help to distinguish them from one another. The transition from blue, to indigo, to violet, for example, is universally accepted by all English-speaking people, and these colours are automatically linked with each other, merely through name, because thought is affected and influenced by language; by the names given by man to colours which blend together flawlessly. The writer Steven Pinker comes to the following conclusion about different languages and the links between vocabulary and meaning:
“Indeed, humans the world over (and babies and monkeys, for that matter) colour their perceptual worlds using the same palette, and this constrains the vocabularies they develop. Although languages may disagree about the wrappers in the sixty-four crayon box -- the burnt umbers, the turquoises, the fuchsias -- they agree much more on the wrappers in the eight-crayon box -- the fire engine reds, grass greens, lemon yellows. Speakers of different languages unanimously pick these shades as the best examples of their colour words, as long as the language has a colour word in that general part of the spectrum. And where languages do differ in their colour words, they differ predictably, not according to the idiosyncratic tastes of some word-coiner.”
This suggests that there are basic, instinctive and common ‘colour words’ in most languages. The writer goes on to explain that:
“Languages are organised a bit like the Crayola product line, the fancier ones adding colours to the more basic ones. If a language only has two colour words, they are for black and white (usually encompassing dark and light, respectively). If it has three, they are for black, white and red; if four, black, white, red and either yellow or green.”
Pinker is attempting here to categorise these ‘colour words’ into definite groups according to specific languages and to show that there are varying ways in which colours are actually defined, from language to language. This makes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, at least the linguistic determinism aspect, seem an unreasonable conclusion to reach about languages and their effect on thought and perception; whether or not these things are completely controlled by language or are just partially influenced by it.
It has been said that there is “no limit to the structural diversity of languages”, and true to form, there is no word, for example, which directly corresponds to “blue” in either Spanish, Russian or Italian. However, in these languages, there exist definitions with which there are multiple terms associated, and perhaps in the English language there exists only one.
The art of translating between languages is certainly possible, but it is a common understanding that precisely because of the vast difference of structure within the many languages of the world, a perfect translation is very nearly impossible. There are entire phrases in English which in other languages, can be coined in one, single word. In the Australian aboriginal language of Pinupti, the word ‘katarta’ describes the hole left by a goanna when it has broken the surface of its burrow after hibernation; whereas to convey this in English, an entire sentence of this nature would be required.
In conclusion, it would appear that there is some truth in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; because it is fairly easy to understand that language, without a doubt, does partially influence our perception of everything around us -- without the type of language we have today, we would be unable to describe objects, categorise them in terms of similarities or differences, and generally relate to what other people speak of. However, there is little to support the idea of linguistic determinism, which states that without language there could be no thought; purely for the fact that language was created, adapted and expanded by human beings who, over time, were able to build an incredible way of allowing human beings to relate to the world.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
American linguist and anthropologist, Edward Sapir (1884-1946) said:-
“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.!”
Sapir’s pupil, Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941) shared this view on language and the relative reflection of the world around him. He studied the language of the Hopi Indians of Arizona, who have no way of distinguishing between tenses; this fascinated Whorf and led him to believe that the Hopi Indians must have seen the world very differently to those who spoke English, for instance. Another characteristic of this language -- perhaps equally as unfathomable to those accustomed to speaking the English language -- is that there exists only one word for everything that flies -- including insects, aeroplanes and pilots. This gives the impression that the native speakers of this language must lack the ability to properly distinguish between entirely different things which happen to share one common likeness.
In order to properly understand the meaning behind the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis, it can be broken down into two basic categories: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. The former refers to the concept of language and the strength of its role in determining how human beings see the world and every intricate detail within it; the suggestion that everything with which we come into contact is viewed in a particular way, because of how it is defined in our native language. This theory itself has been divided into two smaller groups -- ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ determinism. ‘Strong’ determinism is the claim that language and perception are inextricably linked; that the two are almost interchangeable and that language actually determines thought. This is an unpopular theory today, because as speakers of multiple languages are aware, translation between languages -- even within groups of Latin languages -- is often very difficult, and it is fair to say that very rarely does a term in the English language translate perfectly into another. ‘Weak’ determinism refers to the much more plausible idea that thought and perception are simply influenced by our language.
Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) was the first European philosopher to make a connection between languages and perception. His hypothesis is known as the “Weltanschauung” (world-view) hypothesis. Humboldt was of the opinion that language determined thought. This way of thinking implied that thought was actually impossible without language. One of the reasons for this being an extremely unpopular system of believe in present times is the question which arose from this belief -- if thought is not possible without language, and therefore there was no thought before language, how did language come to be in the first place?
Linguistic relativity is the belief that perception and all thought in relation to language is specific and unique to individual languages across the globe -- this is much more feasible and easier to grasp, particularly given that translation between languages is not normally flawless. The system of naming colours is a good way to define the principles of linguistic relativity. In the English language, the colour spectrum is a continuum, ie. there are no block colours with easily visible separations between shades. The colour flows naturally, yet there are names for each of the stages of colour, which help to distinguish them from one another. The transition from blue, to indigo, to violet, for example, is universally accepted by all English-speaking people, and these colours are automatically linked with each other, merely through name, because thought is affected and influenced by language; by the names given by man to colours which blend together flawlessly. The writer Steven Pinker comes to the following conclusion about different languages and the links between vocabulary and meaning:
“Indeed, humans the world over (and babies and monkeys, for that matter) colour their perceptual worlds using the same palette, and this constrains the vocabularies they develop. Although languages may disagree about the wrappers in the sixty-four crayon box -- the burnt umbers, the turquoises, the fuchsias -- they agree much more on the wrappers in the eight-crayon box -- the fire engine reds, grass greens, lemon yellows. Speakers of different languages unanimously pick these shades as the best examples of their colour words, as long as the language has a colour word in that general part of the spectrum. And where languages do differ in their colour words, they differ predictably, not according to the idiosyncratic tastes of some word-coiner.”
This suggests that there are basic, instinctive and common ‘colour words’ in most languages. The writer goes on to explain that:
“Languages are organised a bit like the Crayola product line, the fancier ones adding colours to the more basic ones. If a language only has two colour words, they are for black and white (usually encompassing dark and light, respectively). If it has three, they are for black, white and red; if four, black, white, red and either yellow or green.”
Pinker is attempting here to categorise these ‘colour words’ into definite groups according to specific languages and to show that there are varying ways in which colours are actually defined, from language to language. This makes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, at least the linguistic determinism aspect, seem an unreasonable conclusion to reach about languages and their effect on thought and perception; whether or not these things are completely controlled by language or are just partially influenced by it.
It has been said that there is “no limit to the structural diversity of languages”, and true to form, there is no word, for example, which directly corresponds to “blue” in either Spanish, Russian or Italian. However, in these languages, there exist definitions with which there are multiple terms associated, and perhaps in the English language there exists only one.
The art of translating between languages is certainly possible, but it is a common understanding that precisely because of the vast difference of structure within the many languages of the world, a perfect translation is very nearly impossible. There are entire phrases in English which in other languages, can be coined in one, single word. In the Australian aboriginal language of Pinupti, the word ‘katarta’ describes the hole left by a goanna when it has broken the surface of its burrow after hibernation; whereas to convey this in English, an entire sentence of this nature would be required.
In conclusion, it would appear that there is some truth in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; because it is fairly easy to understand that language, without a doubt, does partially influence our perception of everything around us -- without the type of language we have today, we would be unable to describe objects, categorise them in terms of similarities or differences, and generally relate to what other people speak of. However, there is little to support the idea of linguistic determinism, which states that without language there could be no thought; purely for the fact that language was created, adapted and expanded by human beings who, over time, were able to build an incredible way of allowing human beings to relate to the world.