By Moazzam Ali

To download more lecturesVisit www.uogenglish.wordpress.com

'He gave man speech, and speech created thought, Which is the measure of the universe'

- Prometheus Unbound, Shelley

Language and ThoughtPerhaps because we typically think in words, languageand thought seem completely intertwined. Indeed,scholars in various fields -- psychology, linguistics,anthropology -- as well as laypeople have entertainedthese questions: Is thought possible without language?Does the structure of our language shape our thinking?Does our perception/cognition shape the structure oflanguage? Are our abilities to learn and use language partof our general intelligence?

Language and Thought Classical theorists like Plato and Aristotle argued that the categories of

thought determine the categories of language. To them, language is only

the outward form or expression of thought.

Another view was expressed by the behaviorist J. B. Watson, an American

psychologist and the founder of Behaviorism. According to him, thought

is language. He believed hat thought is sub-vocal speech, that is , when we

“think aloud,” it is called speech; when we “speak covertly,” it is called

thinking.

A less radical position is that language determines thought. According to

this view, the categories of thought are determined by linguistic categories.

Theorists within this group are divided between those who think that

language completely determines cognitive categories and those who

merely say that language strongly influences cognitive categories.

Language and Thought A long-standing claim concerning the relationship

between language and culture is that the structure of alanguage determines the way in which the speakers ofthat language view the world. This view is calledLinguistic Determinism

A somewhat weaker version is that the structuredoesn’t determine the view but is still extremelyinfluential in predisposing speakers of a languagetowards adopting a particular world-view. This view iscalled Linguistic Relativism

Sapir-Whorf HypothesisThe Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as we know ittoday can be broken down into two basicprinciples: linguistic determinism and linguisticrelativity

Linguistic Determinism Language determines thought Different languages impose different conceptions of reality

Linguistic Relativity Language influences thinking Linguistic differences between cultures are associated with

cultural differences in thinking

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Edward Sapir (1884-1939) was a leading figure in twentieth-century linguistics and anthropology. Educated at Columbia University (B.A. 1904, Ph.D. 1909) and initially a student of Germanic philology, he became attracted to the anthropology program then newly formed by Franz BOAS. Boas's project of studying the languages and cultures of North American Indians in their own right, rather than as evolutionary precursors or deficient versions of Europeans (as in some other approaches then current), became Sapir's own. Yet, his work grew to include linguistic topics worldwide, and his contributions in theory and analysis are among the foundations of modern linguistics.

Benjamin Lee Whorf 1897-1941

Benjamin Whorf was born in Winthrop, Massachusettson April 24, 1897. Whorf began studying Linguistics atYale University in 1931 because he was concerned aboutthe conflict between science and religion. Interested inthe American Indians, he began to study the Hopilanguage while at Yale University under the supervisionof Edward Sapir. He was a Lecturer in Anthropologyfrom 1937-1938. Benjamin Lee Whorf was a successfulbusiness specialist employed by the Hartford FireInsurance Company. Whorf studied Linguistics in hisspare time as a way to create an understanding of howlanguage worked and unfortunately, he died beforemuch of his studies could be proven.

Benjamin Lee Whorf 1897-1941 (2)

In the field of Linguistics, Whorf worked in the areas ofLinguistic Anthropology, Psychological Linguistics, Mayanand a dictionary of Hopi languages. Whorf argued that "language is shaped by culture and reflects the individualactions of people daily". He felt that language shaped aperson's view and influenced thoughts. Today, manylinguists agree with Whorf's studies. His studies, thoughnot all were proven, helped future linguists in their studies.

Benjamin Lee Whorf 1897-1941 (3)

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: It is generally accepted byEthnolinguists that culture influences language butthere is far less agreement about the possibility thatlanguage influences culture. Edward Sapir and hisstudent, Benjamin Whorf, suggested that languageaffects how people perceive their reality, that languagecoerces thought. This is known as the Sapir-WhorfHypothesis. Simply stated, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesissays that the content of a language is directly related tothe content of a culture and the structure of a languageis directly related to the structure of a culture.

Sapir, 1929 'Human beings do not live in the objective worldalone, nor alone in the world of social activity asordinarily understood, but are very much at themercy of the particular language which has becomethe medium of expression for their society. It isquite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts toreality essentially without the use of language andthat language is merely an incidental means ofsolving specific problems of communication andreflection. The fact of the matter is that the "realworld" is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group.'

Whorf, 1941 'We dissect nature along lines laid down by our nativelanguages. The categories and types that we isolate from theworld of phenomena we do not find there because they stareevery observer in the face; on the contrary, the world ispresented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which hasto be organized by our minds - and this means largely by thelinguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organizeit into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largelybecause we are parties to an agreement that holdsthroughout our speech community and is codified in thepatterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, animplicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutelyobligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to theorganization and classification of data which the agreementdecrees.'

9.5.1 language determines thought In Chinese, there is only a single term luotuo, in

English there is camel. But in Arabic, there are morethan 400 words for the animal. The Eskimo languagehas a large number of words involving snow. Forexample, apun= “snow on the ground”, qanikca= “hardsnow on the ground”, utak= “blockof snow”.

Supporting Evidence Hopi language vs. Western Languages

Looking closely at grammatical structures (tense)

Western languages perceive temporal entities as objectsin space

Four days similar to four people/four oranges

Hopi perceive temporal entities as ongoing processes

Days in Hopi are cyclical

“They stayed four days” cannot be said in Hopi

Must be “They left after four days”

Also tense system is very different for future, present, time

Supporting Evidence Inuit (Eskimo) People have many more words to

describe snow that other peoples

Pirahã Tribe, from Brazil, only have counting words“one”, “two” and “many”

Navaho only have one word for blue and green

Russian has two separate words for dark blue and skyblue

Italians ride “in” a bicycle and “in” a country

Criticism on Linguistic Determinism Linguistic Determinism is far too strong a claim and thus false.

“Peoples’ thoughts and perceptions are not determined by thewords and structures of their language. We are not prisoners ofour linguistic systems” (Fromkin et al. 2007)

May not have the exact word but are able to express their ideasand thoughts using other words or word combinations

The Dani tribe, who have only a 2 colour system, black/dark andwhite/light, were successfully trained to identify and namedifferent shades of red

Inuit just have a greater need for more vocabulary of types ofsnow that us – it is arguable whether their perception is affected

Evidence for Linguistic Relativism More evidence to suggest that Linguistic Relativism is valid

and has influence on thought and perception

Language differences

Politically Correct Vocabulary

“Friendly fire” – the accidental killing of ones own soldiers

“Mentally challenged” – as opposed to “mentally retarded”

Putting positive meaning on negative ideas/concepts

If there were no words that were sexist or racist, would oursociety become less sexist or racist?

THANK YOU