SAPIRWHORF HYPOTHEIS

• 1. Submitted by

2. Sapir (1929) Human beings do not live in the soceity alone. Language of the society predispose certain choices of interpretation about how we view the world. 3. Whorf (1941) We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. We categorise objects in the scheme laid by the language and if we do not subscribe to these classification we cannot talk or communicate. 4. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be divided into two basic components Linguistic determinism Linguistic relativity 5. The linguistic relativity hypothesis states that language structure affect the way people conceptualize the world for instance in the Eskimo language, different words are used to denote different kinds of snow. According to Linguistic relativity a speaker should thus tell apart different kinds of snow by its physical feature. 6. One well-known example Whorf used to support his theory was the number of words the Eskimo Language has for snow for example apun snow on the ground qanikca hard snow on the qround etc. Arabic has many words for different kinds of camels, in Chinese there is only one term luotuo and in English there is camel. 7. Here's an example that you might find amusing. In a certain part of New Guinea, people live a hand-to-mouth existence as they always have done. Consequently, they have no wealth and no reason to count things. Their language has a word for one and another word for two. But, that's the extent of their counting system. Today, because of contact with the outside world, they've had to adapt their language. They use the word for dog to indicate the number four (possibly because a dog has four legs). So, here's how the system works (using English-equivalents): One = 1 Two = 2 One and two = 3 Dog = 4 Dog and one = 5 Dog and two = 6 Dog and one and two = 7 Dog dog = 8 Dog dog and one = 9 and so on. 8. The Whorfian perspective is that translation between one language and another is at the very least, problematic, and sometimes impossible. . One such example is of the Punjabi word joot. 9. Linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language has an impact on the way that its speakers view the world. Because we can only really think of the world through the use of language and words, it seems to make sense that the structure of our language would have an impact on how we perceive the world. Linguistic determinism does not disagree with this general idea. Instead, it goes beyond it. Linguistic determinism argues that the structure of language does not simply affect our way of looking at the world; it actually determines how we look at the world. 10. Popularly known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or Whorfianism , the principle is often defined to include two version That language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories Strong version That language categories and usage influence thought and certain kind of non linguistic behavior. Weak version 11. Within linguistic theory, two extreme positions concerning the relationship between language and thought are commonly referred to as 'mould theories and 'cloak theories' 12. Mould theories Thoughts categories are cast Cloak theories Customary categories of thoughts of its speaker 13. Mould theory :The idea that language moulds thought rather than simply expressing it. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, content is bound up with linguistic form, and the use of the medium contributes to shaping the meaning. In common usage, we often talk of different verbal formulations meaning the same thing, but for those of a Whorfian persuasion, such as Fish, it is impossible to mean the same thing in two (or more) different ways (at least in literary contexts). 14. Cloak theory :The neoclassical idea of language as simply the dress of thought, based on the assumption that the same thought can be expressed in a variety of ways (linguistic dualism). Linguistic universalists argue that we can say whatever we want to say in any language, and that whatever we say in one language can always be translated into another . 15. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 [1929], p. 69) 16. Human beings do not live alone in the world they need a medium to communicate their expression of thought. It is not possible to realities of societies or world without use of language. A real world is to at large extent unconsciously built upon the language habit of the group. No, two languages can express the same social realities. 17. We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. (Whorf 1940, pp. 213-14; his emphasis) 18. The world is organized by our mind and this means largely by the linguistics system in our mind. According to the article, Whorf distanced himself from the behaviorists stance that thinking is entirely linguistic. 19. Our thinking is determined by language. People who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently. 20. According to the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there is no real translation. The Whorfian perspective is that translation between one language and another is at the very least problematic and sometime impossible. 21. and it is impossible to learn the language of a different culture unless the learner abandons his or her own mode of thinking and acquires the thought patterns of the native speakers of the target language. 22. Rethinking linguistic relativity Chinese and English counterfactuals: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited [BOOK] Universalism versus relativism in language and thought: proceedings of a colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf hypotheses Language and emotions: emotional SapirWhorf hypothesis 23. Moderate Whorfianism differs from determinist Whorfianism in these ways: Patterns of thinking can be influenced rather than determined, Language influences the way we see the world and it is influenced by that also, Any influence should be ascribed to the variety in a language rather than the language itself (sociolect*), Influence can be seen on the social context but not in purely linguistic form. 24. There are many studies on Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis but a majority of these studies focus on these main problems: Perception of time continuity in languages Dividing time periodically (i.e. English) Not dividing (i.e. Indonesian) Dividing time by source of knowledge (i.e. Turkish) Perception of snow Eskimo languages vs English Perception of colours Universal colours vs local colours Counting systems 25. Astudy (Berlin & Kay) on color perception which claimed that a regular, universal system of color categorization existed across the world's languages: while the number of names of discrete colours varies across languages, these are based on a set of focal colours. Furthermore, research done on a stone-age cultural group in Indonesia, the Dani, by Rosch Heider (1972) suggested that members of the group, despite only having two color categories, perceived colours in much the same way as English speakers. Of course not all languages follow the predetermined order and too little is known about a great number of the worlds languages to be able to formulate universally valid hypotheses 26. An initial step in investigating linguistic relativity is hence to identify an area of linguistic divergence, which is pervasive and salient enough in both languages so as to generate potential cognitive implications for their respective speakers. The study therefore needs to narrow its focus of investigation to a particular linguistic aspect present in both languages, yet differing in the way it is manifested 27. Slobin (2000) Slobin (2000) elaborates further on his dynamic approach to linguistic relativity by looking at linguistic data drawn from picture- elicited oral narratives, creative fiction, translation, spontaneous conversation, parent-child discourse, text-elicited imagery recollections, and gestures accompanying speech. 28. In his comparative examination of motion events in satellite- versus verb-framed languages, he concludes (2000: 133) that the considerable range of evidence examined here is at least suggestive of rather divergent mental worlds of speakers of the two language types (emphasis added). 29. John Lucy has identified three main strands of research into linguistic relativity. First: The first is what he calls the "structure centered" approach. This approach starts with observing a structural peculiarity in a language and goes on to examine its possible ramifications for thought and behavior. The first example of this kind of research is Whorf's observation of discrepancies between the grammar of time expressions in Hopi and English. More recent research in this vein is the research made by John Lucy describing how usage of the categories of grammatical number and of numeral classifiers in the Mayan language Yucatec result in Mayan speakers classifying objects according to material rather than to shape as preferred by speakers of English 30. Second: The second strand of research is the "domain centered" approach, in which a semantic domain is chosen and compared across linguistic and cultural groups for correlations between linguistic encoding and behavior. The main strand of domain centered research has been the research on color terminology, although this domain according to Lucy and admitted by color terminology researchers such as Paul Kay is not optimal for studying linguistic relativity, because color perception, unlike other semantic domains, is known to be hard wired into the neural system and as such subject to more universal restrictions than other semantic domains. Since the tradition of research on color terminology is by far the largest area of research into linguistic relativity it is described below in its own section 31. Third: The third strand of research is the "behavior centered" approach which starts by observing different behavior between linguistic groups and then proceeds to search for possible causes for that behavior in the linguistic system. This kind of approach was used by Whorf when he attributed the occurrence of fires at a chemical plant to the workers' use of the word 'empty' to describe the barrels containing only explosive vapors. One study in this line of research has been conducted by Bloom who noticed that speakers of Chinese had unexpected difficulties answering counter-factual questions posed to them in a questionnaire. After a study, he concluded that this was related to the way in which counter- factuality is marked grammatically in the Chinese language. 32. with relevance to linguistic relativity is Daniel Everett's work on the Pirah language of the Brazilian Amazon.[64] Everett observed several peculiarities in Pirah culture that he interpreted as corresponding to linguistically rare features, such as a lack of numbers and color terms in the way those are normally defined, and a lack of certain types of clauses. Everett's conclusions about the exceptional status of the Pirah have been met with skepticism from other linguists, and some scholars reanalyzing his materials have argued that they don't support his conclusions.[65] That is, these critics argue, the lack of need for numbers and color discrimination explains both the lack of counting ability and the lack of color vocabulary 33. The tradition of using the semantic domain of color names as an object for investigation of linguistic relativity began with Lenneberg and Roberts' 1953 study of Zuni color terms and color memory, and Brown and Lenneberg's 1954 study of English color terms and color memory. The studies showed a correlation between the availability of color terms for specific colors and the ease with which those colors were remembered in both speakers of Zuni and English. Researchers concluded that this had to do with properties of the focal colors having higher codability than less focal colors, and not with linguistic relativity effects. Berlin and Kay's 1969 study of color terms across languages concluded that there are universal typological principles of color naming that are determined by biological factors with little or no room for relativity related effects.[69] This study sparked a long tradition of studies into the typological universals of color terminology. Some researchers such as John A Lucy,[70] Barbara Saunders[71] and Stephen C Levinson[72] have argued that Berlin and Kay's study does not in fact show that linguistic relativity in color naming is impossible, because of a number of basic unsupported assumptions in their study (such as whether all cultures in fact have a category of "color" that can be unproblematically defined and equated with the one found in Indo-European languages) and because of problems with their data stemming from those basic assumptions. Other researchers such as Robert E. Maclaury have continued investigation into the evolution of color names in specific languages, refining the possibilities of basic color term inventories. Like Berlin and Kay, Maclaury found no significant room for linguistic relativity in this domain, but rather concluded as did Berlin and Kay that the domain is governed mostly by physical-biological universals of human color perception. 34. Kenneth E. Iverson, the originator of the APL programming language, believed that the SapirWhorf hypothesis applied to computer languages (without actually mentioning the hypothesis by name). His Turing award lecture, "Notation as a tool of thought", was devoted to this theme, arguing that more powerful notations aided thinking about computer algorithms