Does Language Shape the Way We Think - Essay Example

? DOES LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK? EVALUATE THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE Language is a mode of communication that plays a fundamental partin our everyday lives; thus making the human species unique from other living things. Language is one of the ways that humans communicate. According to (Pinker, 2007:15) language can be learnt by any person with a healthy mind in the society and is passed down from generation to generation continually. Pinker goes on to say that thinking refers to a collection of both linguistic and non-linguistic processes. Thus, there is less of human thinking in instances where language does not play a role (p.16). This essay will attempt to explain if languages shape how we think and if so, the degree to which it does. There are more than five thousand languages globally, and some from the same family that varies, for example, British English and American English, which have the some similar words but different pronunciations or meanings (Law 1993: 38). Different people in various geographical areas speak different languages each of which diverse syllables and structure have. This could mean that people who speak different languages or people who come from different cultures may think differently due to the result of their language. To further explain this point, (Cooper & Fishman, 1991:34) gives an example of how the word “really” is used differently in the British and North American English. In the British English “really” is used to encourage someone to keep elaborating, while, in the North American, it is used to questioning the validity of what is being said. This difference in thinking is brought about by the difference in culture. The principle of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that the structure of our language outlines the structure of our thought processes. Language affects the manner we remember things and the manner in which we view the globe (Harley, 2013:90). The idea that language affects the manner we think was first brought about by two gentlemen Sapir and Whorf. This idea came to Whorf from his work in fire insurance. He noted that accidents sometimes happen because, he thought people were misled by words- as in the case of an employee who threw a cigarette butt into what he deemed to be an “empty” drum of petrol. However, the drum was full of petrol vapor, which led to an explosive outcome (p. 91). Since the 1930s, American Linguistics Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf researched on how languages differ; and proposed ways that speakers of different languages may reason differently. According to the Sapir- Whorf hypothesis, language differences produce cognitive differences. This illustrates the relationship between language and thought. The Sapir-Whorf theory lays out the linguistic determinism versus linguistic relativity. Linguistic determinism is sometimes described as strong Sapir Whorf hypothesis. It goes by the notion that a language and its structures may affect how one thinks and the knowledge possessed. This does not deter much from the Linguistic relativism theory that states that a language influences how an individual can theorize his or her world. Whorf et al., 2012: 45). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is made up of both linguistic relativism and linguistic determinism. Determinism can be divided into two; strong and weak determinism. Strong determinism directly states that what is heard is directly what is thought. For instance, language determines thought. Weak determinism agrees that language does influence the way we think and our view of the real world, but it does not fully determine or constraint it. This means that the language influences thought to some extent. When languages differ largely, thoughts also tend to be different, for example, Mandarin and English, speakers think in very different ways. In 1940’s a linguist, Benjamin Lee Whorf studied Hopi which is a Native American language spoken in northeastern Arizona. Based on his studies Hopi and other English speakers perceived the world differently because of differences in their language. He found out that the Hopi language differs from the English Language in that “it contains no words, grammatical forms, constructions or expressions that refer directly to what we call ‘time’ or to past, future, enduring or lasting” (Whorf, 1940). This is a superb example of how language differs within cultures. Thus, each language provides its own cognitive toolkit and encapsulates the knowledge and concept developed over years within a culture. From the given example of the Hopi and other English speakers, it is clear that what constitutes a language varies from one culture to the next (Whorf at al 2012: 131-143). This study has one major limitation though. The issue of causality is the a major limitation to this Whorfian study in that it is not certain that that language has affected thought or even that the thought has affected language. Another effect such as a national character could have influenced the language or the thought. In the Hopi case and their excessive preparation, it is most likely that they just learned over the years that preparation makes things easier, especially in hard living conditions (Davis, 2013:1). (Seuren, 2013:98) Distinguishes between three versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In the strong version, language determines thought. In a weak version, language affects only perception. In the weakest version, language variations affect processing on certain tasks where linguistic encoding is vital. Seuren goes on to say that, the anthropological evidence concerns the intertranslatability of languages. The question of whether the Language determines culture and our thought have been debated on for many years to date. Our ears receive all sounds from the surrounding environment. After perception of sound the first step of the neural pathway in our ears the capability to perceive sound speech with a built-in filter that stops unwanted sounds is enhanced, from this thought emerges. The relationship between languages has been studied comprehensively as it provides strict criteria and definitions. It has been proven scientifically that language affects the way we understand colors. According to (Science daily, 2008), a research done by The University of Hong Kong to show the relationship between language and color perception using neural imaging found that language does influence color perception. In the experiment, 17 participants were asked during neuro-imaging sessions to decide if two squares were of similar color. Several squares were filled with easy-to-name colors like 'red' or 'blue' and others with hard-to-name colors. The result outlines that the perception of both kinds of colors involved the same cortical regions, which have long been known to be linked with color vision. However, in comparison with the hard-to-name colors, perception of the easy-to-name colors evoked significantly stronger activation in two additional brain regions that have been found independently to be liable for word searching suggesting that with colors that have names in a language. The conclusion, therefore, was that there is a close link between language processing and color perception. This supports the theory of language determinism. For instance, the Russians recognize two different colors of blue, синий (siniy; dark blue) and голубой (goluboy; light blue), whereas the ancient Greeks did not have any words at all for blue (Weiten 1992; 327). This means that the Greeks would have a hard time in identifying that color – for semantic reasons- since it had no word equivalent. William Ewart Gladstone stated that people in Greece during the ancient times were color blind from their failure to recognize some colors since they did not have words for these colors in the Greek language. This proved that language affects how we think. The Berinmo language of Papua New Guinea classifies color with just five words as compared to the English language that groups colors into 11 words. The Benrimo cannot differentiate blue from green since their language does not do so. Therefore, the Berinmo color vision is the same as that of English speakers. If they are asked to identify only one color from a collection of colors, they will do it in the same way as English speakers. However, say you have three colors, and call two of them blue, and one green, we would see them as being more same because we call them by a similar name. Our linguistic categories affect the way we understand the world according to (Fountain, 1999:1-2) Empirical evidence that language shapes thought gives fascinating revelations into the origins of knowledge and the construction of reality. This reveals that the one’s mother tongue shapes the way one reasons concerning several aspects. This includes time, direction, space, and the way of life, gender, and relationships. In addition, speakers of different languages differ in how fast they can learn a different language since they are used to thinking based on their own language. This is based on the structures of the language. For example, it is easy for English speakers to learn a language like Spanish. This is because Spanish has a shallow orthographic depth i.e. words are written as they are pronounced. This is because easy for English speakers to learn since the English language has a deep orthography where writing and pronunciations are different. A Spanish speaker would, on the other hand, find the English language very difficult to learn because of the deep orthography. The structure of a new language can make it easier or harder for one to learn new things. This, therefore, means that culture shapes our thoughts, and how we talk. The way we think influences the manner we speak and vice versa. Although Sapir and Whorf did support their hypothesis with empirical evidence- which did fail to provide a strong causal evidence- current theories like the Linguistic determinism and the Linguistic relativism do support their claim that language affects the way we think. Supporters of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis like (Penn, 1972:33) says that their study of language in the "real world" is not without a doubt if their language affects how they categorize what they seem to experience. (Boroditsky, 2010:2-3) Demonstrates empirically that language indeed plays a causal role in influencing the way we think by says that research has shown that not only do speakers of different languages think differently, but also that changing aspects of language change how people think. For example, if you conduct an experiment in a lab by bringing in people and teaching them a new way of talking, that will change the way they think. She goes on to utter that if you take away people’s abilities to use their language that also changes their cognitive abilities. This shows that language plays an immediate online role in cognition, other than exerting long-term influences. Neo-Whorfian also states that while language is a central part of thought, there is nothing great about how language outlines thought. Languages shapes were thinking in a similar manner that attending school, and getting expertise has the ability to change what we can do. Various languages encourage different kinds of cognitive abilities in their speakers, and speakers of diverse languages end up thinking differently thus language has the ability to influence the way one thinks. (Psycholinguistics Resources, 2013) Studies on how the language we speak shape the way we think aids in the creation of knowledge and reality, enabling man to be smart and sophisticated. This, therefore, helps us to comprehend the very quintessence that makes us human and communicate with each other. (Weiten 1992: 327) Says that Although the hypothesis of Sapir and Whorf prevailed for decades, it was cut short by the 1970s; as a novel set of theories claiming; that language and thought are linked replaced it. These set of theories differ from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in that some of them claimed that a thought comes before language and others say that thought and language are coextensive, in that you cannot explain one without the other (Bunnin, 1999:97). People are able to adapt to new behaviors when new information comes up, for instance new technology, even if a previous behavior pattern had been established hence creating a loophole in the Sapir-Whorf theory (Weiten 1992; 328). Sapir and Whorf lacked complete evidence to justify their finding, since they failed to give a definite result to their finding that would prove that language really affects the way we think with a causal experiment. Whorf uses language nuances to prove vast variations between languages and then wants his reader to deduce those variations in thought and language. (Penn, 1972:11). There are other shortcomings to this hypothesis. For example, (Penn, 1972:13) states that the theory is stated "more and less strongly in different places, in Sapir's and Whorf's writings." At some points, Sapir and Whorf seem to support the strong side of the theory and at others they only support the weak side. This makes it hard to test the hypothesis. Another issue with the hypothesis is that it requires the measuring of human thought. Measuring thought and one' universal view is nearly impossible without the influence of language, another of the variables being studied. For this reason, researchers settle for the study of behavior as the main link to thought according to (Alford, 1980:1-2). Another major limitation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that language and linguistic concepts are translatable. Under linguistic determinism, an aspect in one language would not be comprehended in a diverse language because the speakers and their globe views are guided by different sets of rules. This means that some ideas are lost in translation (Schiesinger, 1991:22-23). The debate on the correctness or wrongness of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has still not been fully settled. However, Dr. James Brown has separated language from culture and created an artificial language in his quest to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis since a new language would not be tied to a particular culture (Riner. 1990:266-268). With the aid of the Internet, many individuals around the globe are learning LOGLAN. This is an artificial language created by Dr. Brown. The language is unique to other natural languages in that it is easy to learn, has few rules compared to any other natural language and has consistent grammar. Riner used this language by having participants learn it and he appears optimistic in the continuing work with LOGLAN to study the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Riner goes on to say that LOGLAN can accommodate precisely and unambiguously the native manners of saying things in any natural language. Since it is logically rigorous, LOGLAN ensures that the speaker will make the metaphysical -cultural, worldview- premises in and of the natural language show in submitting the memory into LOGLAN. Those suppositions, made explicit, become propositions that are open for critical evaluation and amendment. In this way, not only can the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis be tested, but its data can be studied with LOGLAN. However, further research and linguistic development is required to reveal if LOGLAN will defend or dispute the theory of linguistic relativism. The mentioned theories serve to show that thoughts are’ at the mercy of our languages’ which is not entirely true; since there are neutral ways of describing the universe around us, for instance through other senses, for example, the beauty of a flower using sight which would not be put across well using words. It is evident that Languages that are closely related cause very little differences in cognitive abilities (Kovecses & Koller, 2008:32) however, people in different cultures have a very diverse way of thinking, a direct influence of their language, wholly or partially. In conclusion, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis does make some useful observations on the relationship between language and the way we think despite the fact that his hypothesis has been faced with a lot of limitations. However, the hypothesis remains very relevant and I still support the hypothesis that language does affect the way we reason since language and thought cannot be separated or rather they cannot be independent. Bibliography ALFORD, D.1980. Demise of Whorf hypothesis. Retrieved from http//www.sunflower.com/dwatson/dma-dwn.htm BORODITSKY LERA. (2010). The proposer’s closing remarks. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/628 BUNNIN, NICHOLAS & E.P TSUI-JAMES. (1999). The Blackwell companion to philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp97 120-121. CARROLL, S. E. (2000). Input and evidence: the raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam [u.a.], Benjamin. D'ANDRADE, R. G. (2001). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge [u.a.], Cambridge Univ. Press. DAVIES- NEVIL PARR. (2012). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: a critique. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/njp0001.html GRODZINSKY, Y., SHAPIRO, L. P., & SWINNEY, D. (2000). Language and the brain representation and processing. San Diego, Academic Press. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=307117. GOPNIK, A., MELTZOFF, A. N., & KUHL, P. K. (2001). How babies think: the science of childhood. London, Phoenix. HARLEY, A. TREVOR. (2013). The psychology of language. Fourth edition from data to theory. Googlebooks.com 1. Bottom of Form LAW, J. D. (1993). The rhetoric of empiricism: language and perception from Locke to I.A. Richards. Ithaca, NY [u.a.], Cornell Univ. Press. "Language and Mind. Noam Chomsky (1968)." Language and Mind. Noam Chomsky (1968). N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. . "Psycholinguistics Resources."Psycholinguistics Resources. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. . PEEN,J.1972. Linguistic relativity versus innate ideas: the origins of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in German Thought Paris: Mounton PINKER, S. (2007). The language instinct how the mind creates language. New York, HarperPerennial ModernClassics. http://www.contentreserve.com/TitleInfo.asp?ID={466A734C-5BAE-425F-BDE3-E209F5B9EAC0}&Format=410. RINER, R.D. 1990. LOGLAN and the option of clarity. ETC: a view of general semantics 47 3:266 24-26 SAPIR, E., & MANDELBAUM, D. G. (1985). Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality. Berkeley, University of California Press. SCHLESINGER,I.M. 1991. The wax and wane of whortion views. In Cooper, R & B. Spolsky (Eds). Influence of language on culture and thought. New York Mounto de Gruyter SEUREN, P. A. M. (2013). From Whorf to Montague: explorations in the theory of language. Oxford, Oxford University Press. SMITH, DS., JONES, BC., FEINBERG, DR. & ALLAN, K. (2012). 'A modulatory effect of Men’s voice Pitch on long-term memory in women: evidence of adaptation for mate-choice?'. Memory & Cognition, vol 40, no. 1, pp. 135-144. "University Of Georgia." UGA.EDU. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Dec. 2013. Read More