Critical Evaluation of The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language by John H. McWhorter - Book Report/Review Example

 Book review Introduction McWhorter is one of the most controversial writers in the world today. He is a professor of linguistics, American studies and contemporary civilization. Most of his writings are on language since he studied languages in his linguistics classes and enjoys it. In this book, his arguments are based on his thoughts on other linguistics schools of thoughts. He thinks other popular schools of linguistics have stereotyped their assumptions in defining language in connection to peoples thought. In “The Language Hoax,” he tackles several issues that create controversy due to his criticism of the other linguistics thoughts(McWhorter, 7). The stereotyping issue of assuming that people, whose language does not have tenses, do not think of the future and the assumption that language determines the way people view the world. These are the main issues addressed in this book. John tries to prove that people view the world in a similar way and that language does not determine the way an individual is thinking. This book has four major arguments to justify his reasoning on why the world looks the same in any language. These arguments are based on human ways to process life, sociopolitical analysis issues and perspective of languages and dangers of language as a lens to view the world(McWhorter, 15). The author uses few examples to justify the four issues and the essence of generalizing all the languages in the world has brought various criticisms for his work. This essay is a review of his work to try to note the strengths and weaknesses of his work while identifying issues that are beneficial to the current society. The essay will thus tackle the assumptions giving a conclusion that will help the reader to identify if the criticism is justified or not. Lastly, in the conclusion, it will give some recommendations on the weaknesses of the author in his work to justify his assumptions. Pros or strengths of the book are based on the key arguments of the book Human’s way to process life regardless of their language McWhorter has discredited popular linguistics argued by the school of thoughtsthat languages that do not mark tenses do not think of the future. He states that there are different words that the language uses to indicate the future. He justifies this by giving an example of politeness. He states that in English language, there is a pronoun or single word that shows politeness but it is different in German, which uses several words or phrases for politeness(McWhorter, 24). He argues that the notion of having a specific way in showing different tenses is wrong since languages are based on cultures. McWhorter’s defiance of the tenses is against earlier linguistics thoughts that concluded that the Hopi cultural language did not think of the future due to their language. He claims that although not in a single word, the Hopi had different markers to mark the future and thus their lifetime was not in cycles as illustrated by other schools on language and linguistics(Deutscher, 32). Dangers of using language as a lens to view the world He uses the example of the blue colour as illustrated. He illustrates his point with “…the frequently cited 2007 experiment on colour discrimination by cognitive scientist Jonathan Winawer and colleagues” (McWhorter, 37).This proves that the Russians do not have a single colour called blue but they have light blue and dark blue. In an exercise to show much colour, they took minimal time to identify blue but longer time to group other colours. The difference in time is too slight to prove the difference that language can bring to someone’s thinking. It proves that there is no much difference caused in thinking due to someone’s language. He condemns the thought of linguistics schools of thought claiming that language determines how people view the world. He states that the world is viewed in a similar way in any language since language is not a determinant(McWhorter,38). He claims that this notion is not acceptable since it creates inequality. Inequality is seen where a first world nation overlooks a third world nation by claiming that they view the world differently due to their language.These claims prove that the earlier linguistics tries to stereotype other languages. This is to prove their superiority thus tarnishing their language that they claim shapes their thinking. Sociopolitical analysis issues and language perspective The author in one of his interviews stated that in his linguistics studies, he was led to believing that English, German and French were the distinct languages that enable people to think better. He also claimed that he almost believed that other languages were primitive dialect affecting the thinking of individuals (Deutscher, 48). These issues led to the author taking an initiative to learn more languages. Moreover, he states that this notion was stereotyping. He goes on to note that the differences in language are due to the culture. Language differences do not affect anyone’s thinking but makes languages interesting. He defies the notion that language is like a computer program that defines our thinking as illustrated by Chomskyism and other Whorfianisms(Deutscher, 34). He uses the example of the tribesperson in New Guinea whose language is much different to the first world languages. Even though the language is different, the tribesperson’s activities illustrate he has a similar view of the world as those in the first world. He notes that Whorfianism school of thought promotes inequality and racism due to their assumption on language. McWhorter being a black understands the notion of inequality noting that he is the fifth in the Whorter lineage and the first Whorter was a slave. He is thus determined to change the perception of the minority languages being respected and not stereotyped in the way it has by earlier scholars. These scholars demonstrate variation of thinking ability on the bases of language. He claims that there are slight variations of people due to their norms and culture but that does not affect their thinking, thussimilarities in the view of the world. Cons or weaknesses of the book The author has used several examples to prove his assumptions are right. Some of the examples do not provide a concrete prove of the credibility of his assumptions and claims. It is clear to note that people will view the world differently due to their surroundings and their life experiences. The author has been criticized for his notion claiming that everyone views the world similarly. On the other hand, he does not include other determinants that ensure viewing the world. This proves that he generalized the world to have similar conditions and other external features. Earlier Whorfianisms claimed that the Eskimos were better adapted to ice than the Arabs are(Pullum, 57). This is true since most of the Arabs have never experienced ice situations but Whorter has discredited this notion. His main aim is to investigate thinking in connection with language. He claims that the Arabs who are educated and understand English should be able to adapt in ice more than the Eskimos, if language is a major determinant of thinking. This contradicting issue proves that language does not shape thinking. On the other hand, this assumption illustrates that Whorter ignores other issues of adaptation to prove his point about language. The world “manifesto,” in the title indicates that the book is a revolution but after reading the book, it does not suite the title. The key issues in the book portray total denial of earlier Whorfianism but it does not provide the bases a revolution can be based on. This proves the author’s weakness in the title of the book. The book has few political issues and societal issues that would make people fight for their language recognition but it has some importance to the readers. Importance of the book to the readers The main importance of the book is to ensure equality and end stereotyping of people who use different languages other than those in the first world. The reader is educated and is able to note that language does not shape the thinking and an individual’s perspective of the world. No individual should be discriminated because of the language he/she uses(Deutscher, 78). The author is able to ensure that the minorities’ self-esteem is restored. It is clear that their language does not determine their thinking and they are equal to the first world people. The book is not aimed to a specific group of people thus in the current world it will fight for equality. Students will relate better since the issue of stereotyping and language differences will stop. Additionally, the lecturers are advised to end lessons that portray differences of thinking capacity due to language differences. The world will learn to appreciate the different languages and value their cultures that shape their language. It will make the world a better place for everyone including the minorities. Conclusion Whorter has succeeded in ensuring that he erases the stereotyping that has been in place for a very long time. This stereotyping that has shaped the world to believe that people who use different languages apart from English, German and French have a lower thinking capacity is wrong. He has used various examples that have helped him get his arguments and assumptions better and realistic. These examples have ensured that he has succeeded to change the earlier Whorfianism assumptions that were biased. Also, the examples were made to create strong evidence of superiority for the main first world language users. The author has failed to ensure that his title lives up to his arguments and by his choice to generalize all the languages in the world instead of tackling one at a time. Whorter should ensure that he covers several languages separately. This is to make sure that his assumptions are on the same way with individuals who use different languages and how they view the world. He should also involve other issues that affect the judgment and thinking of a human, for instance, external environment. The author’s work is great and I would advise everybody to read it since it will bring equality. Works Cited Deutscher, Guy. Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. London: Arrow, 2011. Print. McWhorter, John H. The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print. Pullum, Geoffrey K. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Print. Read More