Linguistic relativity theory - Essay Example

According to Linguistic Relativity, whether a Language has a Word for 'an entity' affects the way speakers of that language think about that entity. Discuss. Linguistic Relativity Theory. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: is it still applicable in the face of current linguistic theory What does it mean in present thinking; is it outmoded, or due for a revival Thinking-for-speaking and the Slobin idea. Do babies think before they speak, or does speaking encourage thinking The Hopi universe and the physics universe. Conception, speech and ways of describing things. The Dress of Thought, and seeing things though language. Linguistic Relativity proposes that the way in which we use language affects the way that we conceptualize the world. With this theory, the world is dictated through the viewpoint of language: 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, quoted in Whorf, 198) The essential components of the linguistic relativism theory are that different languages provide their users with different views of the world. Pablo Neruda, the great Spanish-language poet, pointed out that his poems did not translate well into other European languages, such as English and French, with a common Latin root. Much is lost in translation, and it seems to be much more than the simple meaning of each word. Other advances in linguistic relativism, such as the Thinking-for-Speaking theory, also imply that language is a necessary component in worldviews and social features. If human beings: Are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has Become the medium of expression in their society.(Sapir, quoted in Chandler) Then how can each society relate to each other, and is common understanding even possible in a world where different communities view the same entity in different ways By looking at the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, followed by Slobin and other's theories of Thinking-for-Speaking, before going on to examine one nation's view of the universe which has returned to favor through the scientific community, and then by considering whether there is any way of conceptualizing entities except through language, this essay hopes to answer the question of whether People who speak different languages perceive and think about The world quite differently (Chandler) The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is understood to describe the relationship between the language of the speaker, and the way in which that speaker understands the world, and reacts to it. While neither Sapir nor Whorf ever claimed that their ideas were a hypothesis, this is how this theory of linguistic relativism is generally known today. This may be a mixed blessing, however, as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be divided into two different theories, one 'hard SW' the other 'Mild SW'. Chandler sees the former hypothesis as that being used by Marshall McLuhan in his diatribes against the media: The technological determinism of his stance can be seen as An application of Extreme Whorfianism (Chandler) A milder reading of the SW hypothesis instead places emphasis upon the potential for society and language to be intermixed. Language is less of a cage in which the social being sits, and more of a two-way street, with language influencing society to the same extent that society influences language. Even this, however, still emphasizes the idea that society plus language equals a fixed worldview. Sapir even analyzed the different ways in which a person's speech is affected by their social surroundings (In Speech as a Personality Trait 1927). Generally, the more moderate version of the SW Hypothesis has become accepted in one form or another by most modern linguists. The most popular translation of the hypothesis is provided by the Thinking for Speaking theory coined by Slobin, which seem to suggest that speakers have to think about their language before they are able to convert that into speech. This also means that the speaker must have learned how to think in the same style as they have learned to speak: in other words, the linguistic aspect of society also affects the cognitive aspects of an individual. If this were the case, then it would be expected that speakers from completely different languages would also have different cognitive experiences when considering an entity. Recent suggestions that this theory should be examined, not through linguistic examination, but through cognitive evaluation, in order to demonstrate Divergent mental worlds for speakers of the two languages Types (Slobin, quoted in Pourcel, 3) While Pourcel seems to have demonstrated that different language speakers do not, in fact, think differently (which also brings into question Whorf's ideas concerning the Hopi and their non-noun use), her speakers are still within the European linguistic society, which as has already been noticed contains a common Latin base. This could imply that in fact her speakers are not far enough apart linguistically to make much of a difference. Further experiments in this area could prove useful, however. Infants are, of course, a favored source of linguistic information, and cognitive development in children is of vital importance if we are asking: which comes first, the thought or the speech Experiments at Harvard seemed to show that: There exists a universal core of meaningful distinctions that all Humans share, but other distinctions that people make are Shaped by the forces of language (Cromie) The paper does not attempt to explain when or how these other distinctions are acquired, though it seems clear that the first thoughts are 'universal' ideals, (ie, distinguishing light and shade, animate from non-animate), and with language learning comes a secondary layer of understanding which defines the social worldview of the person. Sapir and Wharf were among the first to place emphasis upon the idea that the Hopi Indians of the Americas had a different worldview to American settlers, sure to their lack of noun usage. Instead of saying 'it flashed', as European -language speakers would, they may only say 'flashed'. Whorf thought that this would be relevant to some physicists, as they found English a difficult language with which to express their ideas: Exploring and reporting back about the quantum world, that realm That didn't have thingy nouns (Linguist) This seems to have been a correct notion: languages which do not call for describing nouns make it easier for physicists to build their ideas of the universe upon: They finally had to admit that such languages were indeed much Better suited to exploring that realm and reporting back (Linguist). This example from the world of an ancient culture, and a scientific discipline, seems to indicate that different languages, and different worldviews, are necessary in order to examine and report back on experiences which are not within the common range. The reporting back, ie communication of results, is the most important part of the scientific communities; and this may be the case for the Hopi traditions as well. That language may shape human thought, and that this may limit a person's ability to understand a worldview beyond their language is demonstrated by a recent experiment among the Piraha tribe Whose language only contains words for the numbers one and Two (Biever, 2004) Tests developed showed that the Piraha were able to lay out rows of items so long as the piles contained one, two, or three. But for four and five and up to ten, they could only match it Approximately, deviating more from the correct number as The row got larger. (Biever) The Piraha also struggled with mimicking taps, and memory games, where the number exceeded three. This definitely seems to show, as the authors concluded, that a limit in vocabulary corresponds to a limit in cognitive function, even when it is only a small leap to the next item (Though it may not be a small step to the Piraha, of course). However, it has also been noted that, whereas English speakers use in or outside of an object, Korean speakers use tightly or loosely held. These differences affect how adults view the world. When Koreans And Americans use the same everyday itemsthey categorize them In accord with the distinctions of their language. (Cromie) Nearly seventy years after the death of Sapir, it seems clear that the hypothesis which has adopted his name still has a place in linguistic theory. Linguistic relativity is being demonstrated more and more as cultures mix, and as experimenters invent new ways to test these theories. The Hopi and the Piraha show definite signs of a different worldview, and language both enables us to communicate with other cultures, and also limits us in the understanding of that culture. A language without a word for an entity may not be able to 'see' that entity, or properly comprehend what that entity is, or how to deal with it. Bibliography Biever C Language may shape human thought New Scientist (19 August, 2004) Chandler, D. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html Cromie, W. Which comes first, language or thought Harvard Gazette (22 July, 2004) Linguist List Vol. 6- 1149. Sapir-Whorf and what to tell students these days (22 August 1995) http://www.enformy.com/dma-Is02.htm Pourcel, S. Rethinking 'Thinking for Speaking' University of Durham online research paper. Sapir, E. Speech as a Personality Trait American Journal of Sociology 32 (1927) Read More