-
-l^^adverb, ~2=verb, ~3=adjective, ~4=pronoun, ~5=position,
~6=lodio.
~7-known, ~8=past-time-tense, ~9=future-time-tense,
~0=conjunction ; r . . - J . . . / ; . ^ ' :t : ? - r - . / , : r f
1 : 1 ' ^ U ^ A.^f - . - J ^ : ' -^lO'J.h
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Benjamin Lee Whorf was by trade a fire prevention engineer for
the Hartford Fire
Insurance Company in Hartford, Connecticut. His service m this
capacity began in 1919
to aid in fire prevention inspection of properties insured by
the Hartford Insurance -1 , -
'i ^ ' - l i t , ' Company. In 1928 Whorf was appointed Special
Agent by the company. In 1940 he was
elected Assistant Secretary of his company. His promotions and
elections are a testimony
to the value his company placed in his work. Interestingly, his
technical skill as a fire
prevention engineer was not to be his greatest societal
contribution. His greatest societal
contribution was in the field of linguistics with the
establishment ofthe Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis.
This hypothesis by Whorf was bom out of what he believed to be,
".. .the
apparent discrepancy between the Biblical and the scientific
accounts of cosmogony and
evolution [which] might lie in a penetrating linguistic exegesis
ofthe Old Testament"
(Carroll, 1956 p. 7). While it seems clear that his linguistic
pursuits were founded in
religion, they were to spill over in to his professional life as
a fire prevention engineer.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was a result of his working knowledge
of linguistics and his
on the job inspection of accidental fires of insurance-policy
holders. It was in this
capacity as a self taught linguist that Benjamin Lee Whorf
establishgd him self as a
-
prominent figure in the field of linguistics with his theory
called the Sapk-Whorf
Hypothesis.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is what Whorf called the principal of
linguistic
relativity, which states, ".. .that the structure of a human
being's language influences the
manner in which he understands reality and behaves with respect
to it" (Carroll, 1956
p.23). To be more specific, Whorf s hypothesis claims that it is
the totality of linguistic
grammar that influences the manner in which an individual
understands reality and
ultimately responds, or behaves as a reflection ofthe
individual's understanding of reality
as influenced by their language.
The goal of this paper is to scientifically evaluate the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
with an increased degree of understanding ofthe structure, or
linguistic grammar inherent
in the language of an individual. In other words, the
conventional methods ernployed in
evaluating the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis are flawed. These flaws
that opcur in evaluation
(supporting evidence and refuting evidence) are a direct result
of the faulty use of
linguistic grammar, which is precisely what Benjamin Whorf s
"objective" hypothesis
attempts to address. Moreover, there is an ongoing debate as to
whether Whorf s
hypothesis is a theory of linguistic determinism or a theory of
Imguistic relativity. The
current school of academia believes that there is a fmite
difference between relativity and
determinism. In other words, it is clear that there are academic
scholars who are in
support of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and there are academics
who oppose the Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis. Moreover, I wil l parallel this writing in the
truth to articulate and
evidence the fact of my position.
-
The Sapk-Whorf hypothesis or, "principal of linguistic
relativity", is not a theory
i y - 1 ! ! i ~ -i . ( - - ' of linguistic relativism. Whorf was
actually a proponent of linguistic determinism not
linguistic relativism, although it is easy to see where the
confusion lies. For example, the
"principal of linguistic relativity" explanation by Carroll is
the focal point ofthe
confusion. Carroll uses the word "relativity" when explaining
Whorf s theory of
linguistic determinism. To complicate matters even more,
relativity is defined as, "A '-. . . . - .
state of dependence in which the existence or significance of
one entity is solely _ . ' - -
dependent on that of another" and determinism is defined as,
"The philosophical doctrine
that every event, act, and decision is the mevitable consequence
of antecedents that are
independent of the human wi l l " (The American Heritage College
Dictionary, 2000). In
attempts to clarify and avoid this peculiar wording by Carroll
and the discrepancy
between the dictionary defmitions of "relativism and
determinism", one should keep in
mind that Linguistic determinism is the school of thought which
can be viewed as that
particular ideology which claims that linguistic grammar is the
formative factor of an
individual's reality and behavior with respect to the grammar in
which the speakers are
unable to perceive the world in ways other than their language
organizes the world.
Linguistic relativism, on the other hand, is the school of
thought that allows fbrthe
possibility of an individual to view the world m ways other than
their language organizes
the word. Put simply, the difference between linguistic
dgterminism and linguistic
relativism can best be described as a continuum with "linguistic
relativism" being at one
end postulating a weaker relationship between language and
thought whereas; "linguistic
determinism" postulates a stronger relationship between language
and thought. For the
purpose of clarity, I stand by the fundamental assertion that
the linguistic grammar of an
-
individual's language mfluences the individual's perception of
the world as well as how
the individual behaves with respect to their perception, which
is in fact linguistic
determinism.
In a particular writing: Language Diversity and Thought, by John
A. Lucy,
"Whorf s principal claim was that speakers can readily reflect
on lexical meanings, but
terid to be completely oblivious to the patterned grammatical
meanings which ultimately
govern a lexical item" (Lucy, 1992 p. 38). Clarification of this
statement is served best
by detailing one of Whorf s on-the-job investigations. During
one of Whorf s fire
investigations, in which a fire had been stated by an employee,
Whorf was investigating
the events that led to the fire. The fire under investigation
had been started by the
careless behavior of cigarette smoking in close proximity to
gasoline drums marked
"empty gasoline drums".
In this particular fire investigation, Whorf believed that the
confounding factor \ ' : ^ - -i
was the individual's perception ofthe words (lexical meanmg)
"empty gasoline drums" ^ ' - , . 4 \ V _
which by Whorf s linguistic determinism perspective, influencing
the perception ofthe - . - - - ,
individual through language ultimately lead to the^re. In other
words, the inherent
linguistic grammar of "empty gasolme drums" played a role in the
perception and
subsequent behavior of an individual with respect to the
language. i t ; ^ - : i j i i.'i f
In this "empty gasoline drums" explanation of the causal factors
leading to the
fire, Whorf states further, "Yet the 'empty' drums are perhaps
the more dangerous, since
they contain explosive vapor. Physically the situation is
hazardous, but the linguistic
analysis according to regular analogy must employ the word
'empty', which is used m
two linguistic patterns: (1) as a virtual synonym for 'null and
void, negative, inert,' (2)
-
applied in the analysis of physical situations without regard
to, e.g., vapor, liquid
vestiges, or stray rubbish in the container. The situation is
named in one pattern (2) and
is then 'acted out' or 'lived up to' in another (1), this being
a general formula for the
linguistic conditioning of behavior into hazardous forms."
(Whorf 1956, as cited in
Carroll 1956 p. 135). Whorf appears to be addressmg lexical
meaning and the
conditioned behavioral manifestations of an individual with
respect to the language.
Whorf attempts to illustrate further that the impetus for the
start of this fire lies within the
meariing of the word 'empty'. However, Whorf s definition
of'empty' (lexical meaning)
as synonymous with 'null and void, negative and inert'
isjerroneous for several reasons.
Allow me to explain, 'empty' is one word, where as,
contrastively, 'null and void' are
two words. Furthermore, each of these words is laden with their
own defmitions, or
meanings pertaining to the environment in which they exist.
'Null ' means lack of
consequence. This notion of'consequence' is of particular
importance in both, Whorf s
fire investigation and reality as a whole. My point is,
regardless of whether the gasolme
drums were empty or not, they do in fact pose a consequence by
the fact that they exist.
Furthermore, it is an assumption that the word 'consequence' is
equivalent to anything . - ^ 4 ^ - 1 ' . f
other than an effect. As for the word 'void', 'void' means
containing no matter (solid,
liquid or gas). Furthermore, gasoline (the liquid) is not
flammable; rather it is the vapor
ofthe gasoline that is flammable. One cannot start an engine
with the combination of a
spark and a flooded engine. A 'flooded engine' has plenty of
gasoline, but no gasoline
4 1 :^ 1 : ' 4 4 1 f i. .-!,-
vapors. Moreover, Whorf s use ofthe words 'null ' and 'void'
caimot possibly be applied
as these words are nouns and the word 'empty' in 'empty gasoline
drums' is an adjective. ' ' ' ' t ? 7 ? - c- i
As stated previously, 1 believe Whorf s idea of lexical meaning
and the conditioned
-
behavioral manifestations of an individual are clear, but he
fails to effectively address
these lexical meanings by using words that do not apply.
At this point, it is important to note that the following
discussion on 'patterned
grammatical meaning' and lexical item' are interconnected. Due
to this fact, there is
going to be a degree of repetitiveness. However, this repetition
caimot be avoided as
'lexical item' and 'patterned grammatical meaning" must be
specifically addressed in
order top^roperly articulate both the distinctions and
interconnectedness between 'lexical
item' and 'patterned grammatical meaning'. Moreover, the
grammatical correction that
is applied to the 'lexical item' is the same pattern of
grammatical correction that is
applied to the 'patterned grammatical meaning', which may seem
redundant. However it
serves to clarify the interdependence of both the 'patterned
grammatical meaning' and the
'lexical item'.
There is an additional point that has been addressed but not
specifically. I am
alluding to Lucy's interpretation of Whorf s theory".. .speakers
are.. .oblivious to the
patterned grammatical meanings which ultimately govern the
lexical item" (Lucy, 1992
p. 8). What is Lucy's meaning of 'patterned grammatical meanmg'?
Lexical meaning
or, word meaning is derived by the 'patterned grammatical
meaning' or, grammatical
structure (word order) of a given phrase or sentence for the
particular meaning of a word
in the phrase or sentence. To reiterate, it is in fact, the
patterned grammatical meaning
that determines the lexical item. Whorf should have specifically
addressed this particular
in regards to the "empty gasoline drums" scenario.
Whorf clearly states, "That the situation is named..." (Whorf
1956, as cited in
Carroll p. 135). So, what is the patterned grammatical meaning
which governs the lexical
-
meaning of the word 'empty' in the 'empty gasoline drums'? Is
'empty' an adjective and
'gasoline drums' a noun, or is 'empty' an adjective and
'gasoline' an adjective and
'drums' a noun, which by modification of the adjective
'gasoline', 'drums' become a
pronoun; or is the entire phrase a compound noun (i.e.,
'empty-gasoline-drums')? I f it is
indeed the case that Whorf is viewing the words 'empty gasoline
drums' as nouns, then
there is an additional fmal error. 'Empty-gasoline-drums' is not
correct either as 'empty-
gasoline-drums' is a compound-pronoun due to the lack
ofthejjlacemfint of apreposition
and article in front of the word (: compound-noun:
empty-gasoline-drums). As one can
see, the patterned grammatical meaning for the word 'empty'
inthis^case is difficult to
ascertain. How does one interpret the word 'empty' in 'empty
gasoline drums'? It can't
be correctly assessed due to the fact that this phrase, 'empty
gasoline drums' lacks
formation for the correct-function of the words in the language
for the cornmiinication of
thejanguage. - '^-^ L i . " ^ h y "Ne -
As stated before, Whorf understood the importance of patterned
grammatical
meaning and even drew a sound conclusion for the cause of this
particular error,
"...people see language as a vehicle for expressing thought..
.they see language as
functional, and regard its form as irrelevant" (Whorf 1956a p.
207, as cited by Lucy,
1992 p.37). Furthermore, the aforementioned correct sequencing
or, patterned
grammatical meanings for the determination of the meaning
of'empty gasoline drums'
exemplifies the fact that people see language as functional and
the form irrelevant which
is not the case. Moreover, a language that lacks form or,
structure cannot serve its
function as a vehicle or, vessel for the conveyance ofjjanguage
due to the fact that it is"
formless. However, in this particular case (erroneously), WTiorf
believes that the word
-
'empty' is a noun and can therefore be assigned lexical meaning,
it is within the context
of word meaning that the individual derives the meaning of a
given language. One can
see that tlie word 'empty' as well as the phrase 'empty gasoline
drums' have lost
functionality by virtue of their indefmable pattern of
grammatical meaning.
In Lucy's interpretation of Whorf s theory, "...speakers are...
oblivious to the
patterned grammatical meanings which ultimately govern the
lexical item" (Whorf,
1956a p. 207 as cited by Lucy, 1992 p. 37). What is the
syntactical category of the word
'empty' in the 'empty gasoline drums'? As previously mentioned,
is 'empty' an
adjective and "gasoline drums' apoun, or is 'empty' an adjective
and 'gasoline' an
adjective and 'drums' a n9im, or is the entire phrase a compound
noun (i.e., 'empty-
gasoline-drums')? As oii'e can see, the lexical item 'empty' in
this case is difficult to
ascertain. Furthermore, as previously stated, even i f one can
come to the agreement that
the words 'empty gasoline drums' is in fact a compound noun they
would still be in error
due to the lack ofthe^acement ofthe prepositjon and article
before the 'empty-gasoline-
drums'. How does one interpret 'empty gasoline drums'? What is
the assignment of the
- ' - J lexical item 'empty'? As shown in the aforementioned
example of lexical item
A ;' ) ^ / . ? ? ^ 4 / :x determination as it pertams to
'patterned grammatical meaning', Whorf clearly had
difficulty assessing the lexical meaning of 'empty' even thoiigh
is evident he understood
the importance of patterned grammatical meaning as associated
with lexical meaning, but
nonetheless, he was unable to articulate his position
skillfully. 'Empty gasoline drums'
exemplifies Whorf s belief of, "...people see language as_.a3^
ej>jcle for expressing
thought...they see language as functional, and regard its form
as urelevanf (Whorf
1956a p. 207, as cited by Lucy, 1992 p.37). Furthermore, the
aforementioned questions
-
regarding the lexical category of 'empty' in tliephrase "empty
gasoline drums" shows
that these words have lost functionality by virtue of their
indefmable lexical categories.
Just as injhe case of'patterned grammatical meaning', 'lexical
meaning' must be
assigned. Without lexical assignment the language lacks form. As
previously stated, a
language that lacks form cannot serve its function as a vehicle
for the conveyance of a
language (it is formless). However, in this particular case,
Whorf believes that the word
"empty" is a noun and can then therefore be semantically
assigned.
One may ask, "Why does the author ofthis paper think that Whorf
believes the
word 'empty is a ^oun?" The entire 'empty gasoline drums'
incident was the result of
one principal error: The fire was a result of an individual's
misinterpretation of the
condition of the state of the gasoline containers. In other
words, the individual assumed^
empty as the condition ofthe state of the containers. As a dkect
result of assummg the
word 'empty' was a claim for the condition^fthe state .ofthe
containers or, gasoline
drums. The smoker ofthe cigarette believed that the situation
was non-hazardous.
Whorf makes the same assertion when he compares 'empty' with
'null and void' which
are both conditions of the state of the containers ('gasoline
drums'). - J j . ; - H i / ^ 5" i. i r ^ / 4
Whorf attempts to illustrate further that the impetus for the
start of this fire lies
withm the meaning ofthe word "enipty". (Lucy, 1992 p. 38). In
the 'empty gasoline
drums' incident, Whorf does outline two critical points that
support his position for
linguistic determinism. The first point he makes regarding
"empty gasoline drums" is,
"Physically the situation is hazardous..." (Carroll, 1956 p.
135). He is absolutely correct, - . 1 - 1 , - .1
but more important]y it is the linguistical assignment (second
point) ofthejMird 'empty'
-
to the physically hazardous situation that is the "...general
formula for the linguistic
conditioning of behavior into hazardous forms" (Carroll, 1956 p.
135).
In analyzing both opinions with respect to Whorf s writings in
"Language,
Thought and Reality" in conjunction with Lucy's "Language,
Diversity and Thought", I
am left with the notion that neither Lucy nor Carroll were
staunch proponents of
linguistic determinism. However, it is important to note that
neither Lucy nor Carrol
were proponents of linguistic relativism (the weaker of the two
ideologies with respect to
a "continuum"). In regards to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, Lucy'
s statement of,
"Whether or not patterns of habitual thought can or should be
summed up into an overall
notion of worldview is a difficult problem.. .the critical
question is whether there is or can
be solid empirical evidence linking distinctive language
patterns to distinctive habitual
behavior or belief at the level of the aggregable individual
social factors" is testimony to
the fact that Lucy neither dismisses nor embraces Whorf s
hypothesis (Lucy, 1992 p. 7).
Moreover, Lucy is in search of empirical evidence to either
prove or disprove Whorf s
hypothesis. Carroll echoes a similar position of 'not for or
against' with his simple yet
equally piercing words, "In truth, the validity of the
linguistic relativity principal
(linguistic determinism perspective) has thus far not been
sufficiently demonstrated;
neither has it been flatly refuted" (as cited by Carroll, 1956
p. 27, in Whorf, 1956).
While it is clear that the aforementioned authors are neither
for nor against
Whorf s hypothesis, there is a particular study that leans
toward the position of linguistic
relativism (weaker position ofthe two ideologies along the
continuum). I 'm alluding to a
study by Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips in which they studied
the masculine and
feminine assignment of gender to the article or determiner in
languages such as Spanish
-
and German. Boroditsky, Schmidt and PhilUps point out that these
particular languages
assign masculine and feminine to both animate and inanimate
objects. In regards to the
masculine and feminine assignment in these languages, the
question is: Do the users these
languages specific to the gender assignment of the determiner,
perceptually apply gender,
masculine or feminine to inanimate objects? In other words, do
these users of these
particular languages view or perceive non-gender inanimate
objects as male or female?
Studies by Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips attempted to answer
these questions.
In the journal article, "Sex, Syntax and Semantics", Boroditsky,
Schmidt and
Phillips addressed the question as to whether conceptual gender
was consistent with
grammatical gender assignment by the language. In their view,
".. .that thought and
action are entirely determmed by language has long been
abandoned in cognitive
science. However, defmitively answering less deterministic
versions of the 'Does
language shape thought?' question has proven very difficult
(Boroditsky, Schmidt and
Phillips 2002). In a 2002 study by Boroditsky, Schmidt and
Phillips designed an
experiment in which they attempted to ascertam whether
grammatical gender assignment
of a given word and the subsequent object description of the
given word would be a
reflection of the grammatical gender assigned to the particular
word in the study. The
two languages in this particular experiment were German and
Spanish, both of which are
languages that employ masculine or feminine assignment of
words.
In this particular experiment, Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips
compiled an
inventory of twenty-four object names for each language. In each
inventory, half or the
words were masculine while the other half were feminine for each
particular language.
Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips then requested a group of
native German speakers and a
-
group of native Spanish speakers to write down the first three
adjectives that entered their
minds with respect to each word on the Hst. Even though the
inventories were split into
half masculine and half feminine words with respect to each
language, the study was
conducted in English and each participant of the study was adept
at speaking English.
However, none of the participants were aware ofthe rationale of
the study which was to
determine, "...whether the grammatical gender of object names in
Spanish and German
would be reflected in the kinds of adjectives that Spanish and
German speakers
generated" (Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips 2002 p. 69).
A l l of the descriptive adjectives generated by the native
Spanish and German
speakers where then sequenced in alphabetical order and assigned
gender description (+1
= feminine, -1 = masculine) by a group of English speakers who
were also unaware ofthe
rationale of the study. Furthermore, the English speakers who
assigned the gender
description feminine or masculine (+1 and -1 respectively) were
not aware ofthe native
languages of the participants in the study. (Boroditsky, Schmidt
and Phillips 2002).
"As predicted, Spanish and German speakers generated adjectives
that were rated
more masculine for items whose names were grammatically
masculine in their native
language then for items whose names were grammatically feminine"
(Boroditsky,
Schmidt and Phillips 2002). To be more specific, an object word
such as "key" is
grammatically masculine in German; whereas in Spanish the object
word is feminine.
Moreover, with respect to the object word "key" Spanish speaking
participants generated
adjectival word descriptions such as, ''''golden, intricate,
little, lovely, shiny and tiny
(Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips 2002). In contrast, German
speakers generated
adjectival word descriptions such as, "'hard, heavy, jagged,
metal, serrated, and usefur
-
(Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips 2002). To further illustrate
this apparent grammatical
gender influence, Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips examined the
word "bridge". The
underling importance of this particular object word is the fact
that word "bridge"
functions as the polar opposite of the word "key" with respect
to grammatical gender
assignment in German and Spanish. The adjectival word
descriptions ofthe word "key"
by the native German speakers included such adjectives as,
''beautiful, elegant, fragile,
peaceful, pretty, and slender" (Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips
2002). Contrastively,
the adjectival word descriptions ofthe word "key" by the native
Spanish speakers
included such adjectives as, ""big, dangerous, long, strong,
sturdy, and towering"
(Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips 2002).
The findings by Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips' 2002
experiment successfully
target it's goal to determine whether gender assignment of
inanimate object names by
speakers of a language that assigns grammatical gender does in
fact, "indicate that
people's thinking about objects is influenced by the grammatical
gender their native
language assigns to the object names" (Boroditsky, Schmidt and
Phillips 2002) as
exemplified by the use of German and Spanish in this particular
experiment. It is
important to reiterate that Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips are
proponents of linguistic
relativism not linguistic determinism.
It is important to note that the same grammatical format
correction that was
applied to the words 'empty gasoline drums' as exemplified by
Whorf, Lucy and Carroll
can be applied. For example, when applying the adjective
'slender' to the object name
'key' the resulting combination is ' slender key'. It is aheady
understood that 'slender' is
the adjective, but it is not specifically understood how the
word 'key' functions.
-
Moreover, an adjective is an opinion not a statement of a fact
for tlie condition of tlie
state of the 'key'. Additionally, an adjective in front of the
object word 'key' creates the
word 'key' as a pronoun. This is caused by the modification of
the adjective against the
noun 'key'; modification is change and change is motion and
motion is verb. In other
words suppose we hand over the 'slender key' to a one hundred
foot tall man
(proportionate in every respect to a any other man, except for
height), the 'slender key'
would more than likely lose the adjectival assignment of
'slender key' to 'minute key'
which is still of course an opinion. This can be applied to
every adjectival description of
the object name in the Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips 2002
study. However, there is a
particular matter of importance I wish to address here. It is
known that in this study, the
group that rated the adjectives as masculine or feminine (+1 =
feminine and -1 masculine
respectively) spoke English only. This doesn't account for their
rating adjectives as
masculine or feminine. English does not assign grammatical
gender. How is it then
reasonable to assume that the English speakers can
authoritatively assign masculine or
feminine to the adjectives? I am aware that in regular usage we
as English speakers say
"beautifiil woman"; however we are just as likely to say
"beautifiil mind" or, "beautifiil
day" even, "beautiful shot" when hunting. Moreover, we as
English speakers regularly
say such things as "dangerous man" or "dangerous woman" even,
"dangerous curve
ahead". My point is, where did these English speakers learn to
assign gender to
adjectives; it's not an inherent characteristic of their native
language. I can see why these
particular experimenters lean toward linguistic relativity (the
weaker position of the two
perspectives along the continuum). It could be argued (not to
the degree of certainty) that
the adjectival description given by the native German and
Spanish speakers when
-
interpreted by the English speakers, primed the English speakers
toward a rating specific
to gender. However, I would argue against this notion for one
primary reason. Although
the English speakers were unaware of both the native language of
the participants in the
study and the particular rationale of the study, it is a mistake
to assume that they weren't
specifically instructed by the experimenters to assign masculme
and feminine to the
adjectives. This would account for the English speaker's ability
to assign gender to the
otherwise genderless grammatical structure of the English
language. This experiment by
Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips is flawed m two fiindamental
aspects. The first of
which is the language format specific to the adjective, which is
an opinion. The second
fiindamental flaw is what can be called experimenter bias. This
experiment can not have
been conducted without the bias of the experimenters. They may
not have given the
English speakers the exact rationale of the experiment, but they
did instruct them to
assign a gender rating to the adjectives generated by the native
German and Spanish
speakers. Moreover, this particular study actually leans toward
linguistic determmism.
Allow me to explam, imagme for a moment that the native Spanish
and German speakers
didn't have gender assignment in their languages. Their
perception would go unaltered
with respect to grammatical gender distinctions as evidence by
the engendered adjectival
object descripfions. They would articulate adjectival usage the
same way that any other
language that lacks grammatical gender distinctions with respect
to adjectival
descriptions; in other words, genderless. However, due to the
grammatical gender
distinctions within languages such a German and Spanish,
speakers of these languages
are as determined by the grammatical distinctions of their
language are indeed instructed
by their languages to assign gender. This is akin to the
experimental bias of grammatical
-
gender assignment of adjectival object descriptions by the
English speaking participants
who assigned gender to the adjectives as instructed by the
experimenters. The only
difference between the two with respect to formative factor was
the locus of instruction.
One formative factor exists within the language (grammatical
gender distinction) and the
other formative factor exists extrinsic to the language
(experimenter bias).
In conclusion, Whorf s objective opinion of linguistic
determinism has occupied
the minds of many. There are those such as Lucy and Carroll who
have dedicated a vast
and virtually immeasurable amounts of time attempting to prove
or disprove Whorf s
theory. Some people flatly refuse linguistic determinism at the
same time embracing
linguistic relativity (the weaker of the two along the
continuum). This would include,
Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips as the proponents of linguistic
relativism. However, it
is of extreme importance to understand that Whorf, Lucy,
Carroll, Boroditsky, Schmidt
and Phillips are all relying upon a language format that lacks
form and function for the
statement of a fact. They rely upon a grammatical structure that
is faulty which
confounds any attempt to document fmdings. More importantly,
these errors are due to
one simple yet, unavoidable fact: Linguistic-Determinism. Each
of these individuals has
been guided by the very force they set out to study. The only
individual who has shovm
true power of mind was Benjamin Lee Whorf with his objective
opmion of the linguistic
determinism perspective. Whorf s job as a fire prevention
engineer, in my opinion set the
stage for his tireless search for the proof to support his
linguistic determinism
perspective. He was in the unique position of attempting to
explain the performances of
an individual that led to damage. Furthermore, he was able to
make the cormection
between language ('empty gasoline drums'), thought and behavior
of an individual with
-
respect to the language. More importantly, Whorf attempts to
answer a universal
question in the minds of all man: What is is? Unaware of the
might of linguistic
detemiinism Whorf and others have been swept into the current of
an indefmable
grammar that mirrors nothing more than mfmite chaos of a
formless, factless void to
which anything is possible except for the facts.
:Monte-Edwin rMueller IS WITH THIS
COPYCLAIM/COPYRIGHT~9-MAY~2005 BY
THE David-Wynn : M i l l e r , :LAW-CLAIMS.
-
Works Cited:
Boroditsky, et al. 2003. Sex, Syntax and Semantics. In Center,
D, and S. Goldin-Medows (Eds.), Language and Mind. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Lucy, John A. 1992. Language, Diversity and Thought. Cambridge
University Press
:David-Wynn :MiHer, LAW-CLAIMS: COPYCLAIM: JANUARY-198 0 THROUGH
:APRIL~2005 BY THE JUDGE :David-Wynn : M i l l e r :LANGUAGE AND
COMMUNICATION-CLAIMS OF THESE UNITY-STATES OF OUR WORLD
-CORPORATION.
Whorf, B .L. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reahty. Carroll, J.B.
(Ed.). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.