Linguistic Relativity: Is Knowledge Language or Vice Versa - Essay Example

?Linguistic Relativity: Is Knowledge Language or Vice Versa? [ID It seems intuitive to argue that language is created by thought, cognition and perception. The logical thing to conclude based on one's perceptions is that one thinks, formulates words and concepts more concretely, then expresses them. But an increasing body of literature has formed against this intuitive conclusion, reasoning that language determines thought just as much as thought determines language. The relationship between language and thought and its complexities and inter-linking nature can be found in color and linguistic relativity studies, left-to-right versus right-to-left language, “invented” languages and interference while speaking. The linguistic relativity hypothesis is a relatively simple one: Differences in language across cultures can represent different Weltanschauung and contribute to different perceptions of the world (Swoyer, 2003). The linguistic relativity hypothesis is somewhat at odds with other types of linguistics: For example, Chomskyan cognitive linguistics holds that the differences between languages is fairly trivial and likely based on underlying syntatical and grammatical principles that are generated by the brain (Swoyer, 2003). Of course, these hypotheses are not strictly mutually exclusive. Clearly, different languages exist; also clearly, languages do not routinely refer to how things look like in six dimensions of space, with time flowing backwards, or in the ultraviolet spectrum, because those are things that human beings cannot easily perceive or comprehend even intellectually. The linguistic relativity hypothesis is sometimes called the Whorf-hypothesis or Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, based on the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf and (to a slightly lesser extent) Edward Sapir (Swoyer, 2003). Regrettably, while fascinating work has been done in the field of linguistic relativity, there has not been consistent, methodologically ironclad work on how the implications of this research speak about the relationship between thought and language (Lucy, 1992). About the best that can be said is that linguistic relativity research has been able to demonstrate that language has an impact upon but does not control thought or reality, and that there is a mutual feedback loop between social and lived reality, language, and thought, which plays out over time (Tohidian, 2009). Davies and Corbett (1997), carrying out work that has also been done by Borditsky (2009), found that colour-grouping varies across societies. Russians, for example, sub-divide blue differently than English speakers (Borditsky, 2009). But Davies and Corbett (1997) found only weak support for linguistic relativity: Looking at English, Russian and Setswana, they found that, while Setswana speakers who have one term for blue and green would group blue and green together, Russian speakers (even with two words for blue) did not group light and dark blue separately. And within each of the samples, consensus in grouping, groups formed and distribution varied. Moreover, the research assumes that there is a blue-green connection, a gradation between the two on the light spectrum that allows there to be reasonable linguistic variation. The research assumes, logically enough, that no language would classify red and blue together, or white and black, since they are sharply and clearly different. Davies and Corbett (1997) thus end up supporting perceptual universalism with weak linguistic relativism, which does indicate that thought has some precedence over language: Language differences do not make people see different colours, they only make them disagree as to which linguistic pigeonhole to use, and even then only in marginal cases. However, variation in color categorisation and emphasis is tremendous (Ottenheimer, 2008). Hanunoo people in the Philippines have four primary colour terms: One for black and very dark colors, one for white and very pale colors, a green color which is associated with succulence and freshness, and a red color associated with the opposite. This simple model of the world is different from the usually triadic color wheel model that Westerners use and is connected to symbolic representations. Obviously the Hanunoo, like other cultures, have many more words for colors, but these four are the primary. Ottenheimer (2008) argues that, while all human beings see the same colors (though even this might have some obvious variation on climate and on colors dominant in a region – e.g. it seems to make some sense that a language of a jungle people would emphasize different colors as primary or important than people living in a tundra), different bands of color are viewed as more and less important, and connotations of language change. It is well known that, while in many cultures black is associated with death and evil, in Chinese as well as in other Asian languages and connotational structures, white is death, the yin force (Fea, 2011). In Brazil, purple is the color of death (Fea, 2011). That having been said, research into the effect of color on the mind has also indicated that there are some objective factors, like blue causing peacefulness and red stimulating heartbeat (Fea, 2011). The left-right and right-left reading system also has impacts (Shimron and Sivan, 2006; Ziv, 2002; Shaki and Fischer, 2008). Hebrew and Chinese-derived languages, which read right-to-left, cause difference in brain focus, SNARC effects, and other factors than in left-to-right languages like English script. Shaki and Fischer (2008) found in particular that small numbers are associated with left space and large numbers with right space, but that this effect diminishes (but is not eliminated) by Hebrew readers. Reading text also has different SNARC impacts than listening to text (Shaki and Fischer, 2008). The ability to ignore irrelevant inputs is also based on the dominant direction: English readers can ignore irrelevant letters better in the left, while Hebrew readers ignore them better in the right (Eviatar, 2002). Finally, there are differences across languages in terms of effects like linguistic interference, responses to distraction while trying to think, etc. (Brainerd and Dempster, 1995; Festman et al, 2010). Bilinguals in particular have major differences in this vein. There's also the role of semantic networks in the mind, where it appears that language-like processing occurs (Sowa, 1992). In a real sense, language codifies thought, controls how thoughts are correlated, makes it so some thoughts appear more rapidly, etc. In general, then, it appears that the general intuition has to be revised. Anyone who has spoken to themselves to practice for a presentation or just to get ideas straight and coherent knows that language is a powerful ally for thought. Linguistic relativity points to a dialectical, interlinking relationship between cognition, conscious thought, subconscious thought, language, and culture and society. Works Cited Boroditsky, L. [2009]. How Does Our Language Shape the Way We Think? Edge. Brainerd, C.J. And Dempster, F.N. [1995]. Interference and Inhibition in Cognition. Academic Press: United States. Davies, I.E. And Corbett, G.G. [1997]. A cross-cultural study of colour grouping: evidence for weak linguistic relativity. British journal of psychology, 88(3), 493-517. Eviatar, Z. [1995]. Reading Direction and Attention - Effects on Lateralized Ignoring. Brain and Cognition, 29(2), 137-1350. Fea, C. [2011]. The Color of Your Joint Venture Brand: How It Influences Profits. ArticleSnatch. Available at: http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/The-Color-Of-Your- Joint-Venture-Brand--How-It-Influences-Profits/1088284 Ottenheimer, H.J. [2008]. The Anthropology of Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Cengage Learning: United States. Licy, J.A. [1992]. Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University Press: Massachusetts. Shaki, S. and Fischer, M.H. [2008]. Reading space into numbers – a cross-linguistic comparison of the SNARC effect. Cognition, 108(2), 590-599. Shimron, J. and Sivan, T. [2006]. Reading Proficiency and Orthography Evidence from Hebrew and English. Language Learning, 44(1), 5-27. Sowa, J.F. [1992]. Semantic Networks. Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence: 2nd Edition. Wiley Books: London. Swoyer, C. [2003]. Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Tohidian, I. [2009]. Examining Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis as One of the Main Views on the Relationship Between Language and Thought. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38, 65-74. Ziv, Y. [2002]. Left and right dislocations: Discourse functions and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(6), 624-645. Read More