By Moazzam Ali

To download more lectures

Visit www.uogenglish.wordpress.com
'He gave man speech, and
speech created thought, Which is
the measure of the universe'

- Prometheus Unbound, Shelley

Language and Thought
Perhaps because we typically think in words, language
and thought seem completely intertwined. Indeed,
scholars in various fields -- psychology, linguistics,
anthropology -- as well as laypeople have entertained
these questions: Is thought possible without language?
Does the structure of our language shape our thinking?
Does our perception/cognition shape the structure of
language? Are our abilities to learn and use language part
of 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 a
language determines the way in which the speakers of
that language view the world. This view is called
Linguistic Determinism
 A somewhat weaker version is that the structure
doesn’t determine the view but is still extremely
influential in predisposing speakers of a language
towards adopting a particular world-view. This view is
called Linguistic Relativism
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as we know it
today can be broken down into two basic
principles: linguistic determinism and linguistic
relativity
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, Massachusetts

on April 24, 1897. Whorf began studying Linguistics at
Yale University in 1931 because he was concerned about
the conflict between science and religion. Interested in
the American Indians, he began to study the Hopi
language while at Yale University under the supervision
of Edward Sapir. He was a Lecturer in Anthropology
from 1937-1938. Benjamin Lee Whorf was a successful
business specialist employed by the Hartford Fire
Insurance Company. Whorf studied Linguistics in his
spare time as a way to create an understanding of how
language worked and unfortunately, he died before
much of his studies could be proven.
 Benjamin Lee Whorf 1897-1941 (2)

In the field of Linguistics, Whorf worked in the areas of

Linguistic Anthropology, Psychological Linguistics, Mayan
and a dictionary of Hopi languages. Whorf argued that "
language is shaped by culture and reflects the individual
actions of people daily". He felt that language shaped a
person's view and influenced thoughts. Today, many
linguists agree with Whorf's studies. His studies, though
not all were proven, helped future linguists in their studies.
Benjamin Lee Whorf 1897-1941 (3)

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: It is generally accepted by

Ethnolinguists that culture influences language but
there is far less agreement about the possibility that
language influences culture. Edward Sapir and his
student, Benjamin Whorf, suggested that language
affects how people perceive their reality, that language
coerces thought. This is known as the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis. Simply stated, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
says that the content of a language is directly related to
the content of a culture and the structure of a language
is directly related to the structure of a culture.
Sapir, 1929
 '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 and
reflection. The fact of the matter is that the "real
world" is to a large extent unconsciously built up
on the language habits of the group.'
Whorf, 1941
 '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 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.'
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 more
than 400 words for the animal. The Eskimo language
has a large number of words involving snow. For
example, apun= “snow on the ground”, qanikca= “hard
snow on the ground”, utak= “block of snow”.
Supporting Evidence
 Hopi language vs. Western Languages
 Looking closely at grammatical structures (tense)
 Western languages perceive temporal entities as objects
in 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 sky
blue
 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 the
words and structures of their language. We are not prisoners of
our linguistic systems” (Fromkin et al. 2007)
 May not have the exact word but are able to express their ideas
and thoughts using other words or word combinations
 The Dani tribe, who have only a 2 colour system, black/dark and
white/light, were successfully trained to identify and name
different shades of red
 Inuit just have a greater need for more vocabulary of types of
snow 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 our
society become less sexist or racist?
THANK YOU