Language and Thought - Michigan State University

What is the Relationship
Between
Language and Thought
Exam Comments
• Each question worth 4 points.
• Extra point given to questions that were especially
insightful.
• Points removed for lack of clarity, repetitions and
misstatements.
• Exam given extra point for inclusiveness (bringing
language, culture, biology, …
• Exam given extra point if interaction, dialectical
relationship pointed out.
Exam Questions
• Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
• What was the advantage of the two tube
vocal tract?
• The concept of the natural syllabus –
Stephen Krashen.
What Is Linguistic Determinism?
•
•
•
•
What is determined?
What is doing the determinining?
What in language is doing the determining?
Why is this a structuralist approach?
WHORF on English versus Hopi
•
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 pattern 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.
• "Science and Linguistics (c.a. 1940).
Sapir (Whorf’s Teacher) on Linguistic Determinism
• Language is a guide to "social reality." Though language is not
ordinarily thought of as of essential interest to the students of social
science, it powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems
and processes. 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.
Sapir, Language 1929)
Boas (Sapir’s Teacher) on Linguistic Determinism
• ... it determines those aspects of experience that must be expressed... When
we say "The man killed the bull" we understand that a definite single man in
the past killed a definite single bull. We cannot express this experience in
which a way that we remain in doubt whether a definite or indefinite person or
bull, one or more persons or bulls, the present or past time are meant. We
have to choose between aspects and one or the other must be chosen. The
obligatory aspects are expressed by means of grammatical devices (1938:132).
The aspects chosen in different groups of languages vary fundamentally. To
give an example; while for us, definiteness, number and time are obligatory
aspects, we find in another location -- near the speaker or somewhere else,
source of information, whether seen, heard (i.e., known by hearsay) or inferred
-- as obligatory aspects. Instead of saying "The man killed the bull." I should
have to say, "This man (or men) kill (indefinite tense) as seen by me that bull
(or bulls)" (Boas 1938:133). "a paucity of obligatory aspects does not by any
means imply obscurity of speech. When necessary, clarity can be obtained by
adding explanatory words.
Differences
• Boas: “… it determines those aspects of
experience that must be expressed…”
• Sapir: Language is a guide to "social reality."
• Whorf: We dissect nature along lines laid down
by our native languages.
• Sometimes called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
The Whorfian Hypothesis
• What is a hypothesis?
• Whorf attempted to provide examples of
language differences and not simply made
the claim.
• Whorf actually claimed that some languages
may be superior to European languages.
– SAE
Hopi V SAE
•
•
By comparison with many American languages, the formal systematization of ideas in English,
German, French or Italian seems poor and jejune. Why, for instance, do we not, like the Hopi, use
a different way of expressing the relation of channel of sensation (seeing) to result in
consciousness, as between 'I see that it is red' and 'I see that it is new?' We fuse the two quite
different types of relationships into a vague sort of connection expressed by 'that', whereas the
Hopi indicates that in the first case seeing presents a sensation 'red', and in the second that
seeing presents unspecified evidence from which is drawn the inference of newness. If we
change the form to 'I hear that is red' or 'I hear that it is new,' we European speakers still cling to
our lame 'that', but the Hopi now uses still another relater and makes no distinction between 'red'
and 'new' since, in either case, the significant presentation to consciousness is that of a verbal
report, and neither a sensation per se nor inferential evidence. Does the Hopi language show
here a higher plane of thinking, a more rational analysis of situations, than our vaunted English?
Of course it does. In this field and in various others, English compared to Hopi is like a bludgeon
compared to a rapier. We even have to think and boggle over the question for some time, or have
it explained to us, before we can see the difference in the relationships expressed by 'that' in the
above examples, whereas the Hopi discriminates these relationships with effortless ease, for the
forms of his speech have accustomed him to do so.
Whorf, Language Thought and Reality, PP 140
Habitual Thought
• By "habitual thought" and "thought world" I mean
more than simply language, i.e., than the linguistic
patterns themselves. I include all the analogical and
suggestive value of the patterns (e.g., our "imaginary
space and its distant implications), and all the giveand-take between language and the culture as a
whole, wherein is a vast amount that is not linguistic
but yet shows the shaping influence of language. In
brief, this "thought world" is the microcosm that each
man carries about within himself, by which he
measure and understands what he can of the
macrocosm.
Whorf’s Questions
• Are our concepts of time, space and matter given in
substantially the same form by experience to all men [sic],
or are they in part conditioned by the structure of particular
languages?
• Ans: This is the Whorfian Hypothesis
• Are there traceable affinities between cultural and
behavioral norms and large scale linguistic patterns?
• Ans: “I [Whorf] would be the last to pretend that there is
anything so definite as a correlation between culture and
language and especially between ethnological rubrics such
as agricultural, hunting etc, and linguistic ones like
inflected, synthetic and isolating.
Examples of Language Difference
tl'imsm-ya
ma
boil
he-does
'is
ed
ita
eat
ers
'itl
go for
Example 1: Shawnee
S
______|______
|
|
VP
|
|
|
|
NP
|
|
|
|
|
|
__VP___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
V
N
V
Apache
• ga
'be white (clear,
uncolored)'
• no
'downward motion, enters'
• to
'water'
• goh_
'place'
• goh_ga 'clearing [goh + ga]
• no_ga to goh_ga
'a dripping
spring
What language is this?
1. singular item exists in the
present
2. indefinite quantity
3. small spheroidal quantities
4. ongoing action
5. to erupt suddenly
• IT'S A DRIPP-ING SPRING
1
2
3
5
• English
4
Objectified Time Words in SAE
• Such terms as "summer, winter, September, morning, noon,
sunset" are with us nouns, and have little formal linguistic
difference from other nouns. They can be subjects or
objects, and we say "at sunset or in winter" just as we say
"at a corner" or "in an orchard." They are pluralized and
numerated like nouns of physical objects, as we have seen.
Our thought about the referents of such words hence
becomes' objectified. Without objectification, it would be a
subjective experience of real time, i.e., of the
consciousness of "becoming later and later"-simply a
cyclic phase similar to an earlier phase in that ever-laterbecoming duration.
Non Objectified Time Temporals in Hopi
•
In Hopi, however, all phase terms, like "summer, morning," etc., are
not nouns but a kind of adverb, to use the nearest SAB analogy. They
are a formal part of speech by themselves, distinct from nouns, verbs,
and even other Hopi "adverbs." Such a word is not a case form or a
locative pattern, like "des Abends" or "in the morning." It contains no
morpheme like one of "in the house" or "at the tree." It means "when
it is morning" or "while morning-phase is occurring."
• These "temporals" are not used as subjects or objects, or at all like
nouns. One does not say ''it's a hot” or ''summer is hot''; summer is not
hot, summer is only WHEN conditions are hot, WHEN heat occurs.
One does not say "THIS summer," but "summer now" or "summer
recently." There is no objectification, as a region, an extent, a quantity,
of the subjective duration-feeling. Nothing is suggested about time
except the perpetual "getting later" of it. And so there is no basis here
for a formless item answering to our "time.
Whorf's Time Example
•
•
•
•
1. Subjective Experience (the experience of non discrete entities (time)
2. Objective (the experience of discrete entities)
a. Objectification the patterning of subjective experience along objective lines.
3. Cardinal numbers v ordinal numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4.... 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ...
4. Hopi treat time as a subjective experience as a continuum
a. Use of ordinal numbers He left after the 5th day.
b. U of time words as adverbs and not nouns.
c. SAE treat time as objective experience. He left after 3 days.
– 1. That is it has been objectified.
– 2. Note use of cardinal numbers
– 3. Note use of time words as nouns and adverbials. Monday, Tomorrow
SAE is the one that has departed from reality.
Chinese versus English
1.
Adjectives (actually stative verbs).
1.
2.
da L large
gau M high
syau LH small gau M tall
di M low
chang H long
ai LH short
dwan LH short
M LH
2. Ta ai. He is short
M LH LH
bu 'not'
3. Ta ai buai. He is short or not? i.e., How tall is he?
4. Statement 2 rarely given as statement unless in response to 3.
5. "In making de novo statements a predicate which includes a stative verb [i.e., adjective]
invariably also has modifiers - the negative modifier bu L 'not' or some indication like
hen LH 'quite, dzwei HL 'very' or jen L 'really'.
Hockett p 120
6. "We may say that a pair of Chinese adjectives establishes a scale, and specifies one
side of that scale as positive. The normal adjectival predicate then serves to locate the
subject somewhere on that scale, but always more or less relatively to others, never in
an absolute way.
L M M LH
L H
M
7. Jeijang jwodz bi
neijang chang.
this table as compared to that one long
L M M LM
LH
M
L L
8. Jeijang jwodz bi
neijang chang santswen
This table as compared to that one long three-inches
9. Now we may ask whether there is any attribute of Chinese culture with which this
habitual relativism correlates.
...the Chinese "philosophy of life" emphasizes a "doctrine of the mean": never get too
happy, or you may also become too sad; moderation in all things [including
moderation?]
Question of Direction
10. This suggestion is put foreword with great
hesitation... for if there is indeed a determinable
correlation, then it would impress the writer that
the direction of causality in the matter is in all
probability form "philosophy of life" to language,
rather than vice versa.
11. Does this example provide support for the
Whorfian Hypothesis?
Goodenough Language And Property In Truk
1. Two types of ownership marked linguistically
2. Simple Ownership
wa- ey
vehicle- my
my vehicle/canoe)
wuuf-ey
clothes-my
my clothes
uniw-ey
land- my
my land
sam-ey
father- my
my father
3. Ownership from the standpoint of the owned object
wa- ey, citosa
my car
wuuf-ey, seec
my shirt
winim-ey ni
my coconut drink
4. Types of property ownership in Truk
Full ownership versus divided ownership
e.g. provisional title and residual title; gifts as opposed to loans
5. Does this example provide support for the Whorfian Hypothesis?
Brown and Lenneberg (1958) devised a “Color-Codability”
• Different languages classify colors
differently.
• Question, does this affect peoples
perception of color?
• Codability: regardless of language,
speakers took longer to classify borderline
colors than usual colors.
• Also when speakers were asked to recall
the color, they tended to classify borderline
colors closer to the prototypic color.
Carroll and Cassagrande’s Color and Shape
Saliency Experiments
• Navajo has noun prefixes based on spacial
features:
– long and flat (paper, leaf);
– long and rigid (stick, pole);
– long and flexible (snake, rope, hose).
• Question: Since sensitivity to shape is necessary
would Navajo-speaking children be more sensitive
to shape, than say color, than English-speaking
children?N
The test.
• Persent the child with
three pictures; two
pictures would share a
common color and two
would share a common
shape.
• Ask the child which two
went together.
• The child had the choice
of choosing shape or
color.
The hypothesis is that the
Navajo speaking children
would choose shape over
color.
The results
• They found that shape was more salient in young Navaho
speakers ages 3-5 than their English-speaking counterparts,
but that by age 7 years, this difference had all but
disappeared.
• However, when this experiment was repeated in other
groups of English speakers they found that one group of
middle class children responded like the Navaho speakers
and that another group of poverty class children responded
more like the English-speaking Navahos.
Problems with the hypothesis
• The Hypothesis had a number of problems:
• Lack of empirical support
• In the strong form, how would it account for
change?
• In the strong form, how would you learn a second
language?
• Although the hypothesis never received any strong
empirical support, it was never given a stunning
defeat. Why then did it fall from favor?
Where Whorf Went Wrong
• The Events:
1. When the Whorfian hypothesis was introduced in the
early 30s, it represented a marked escalation over the
earlier position of Sapir.
2. The hypothesis was enthusiastically received up
through the 50's (after all it did suggest an explanation
for cultural variation)
3. When it gradually declined in popularity. Currently it is
still accepted in some corners.
The Answer:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
These events suggest that the Whorfian hypothesis is part of a larger picture
and that I suggest is the period of strong empiricism. This period which had
parallels in many other sciences was received in Linguistics (Bloomfield,
1933) from the Behavioristic branch of psychology (Watson).
As long as empiricism prevailed, the role of the mind as an independent
entity was considered to be virtually nonexistent. As a result, knowledge
could only result from experience, including information gained through
language. It followed logically that different incoming information
(including language) would influence knowledge and understanding
differently. Thus the Whorfian hypothesis was logically consistent with the
empiricist tradition.
Chomsky (1960's) reestablished within linguistics the validity of the
independent role of the mind in developing knowledge and understanding.
Given this position, incoming information could not be viewed as the sole
source of knowledge and consequently language differences could not
automatically be held responsible for conceptual differences.
For this reason, the Whorfian hypothesis could no longer be viewed as a
logical consequence of the more general perspective (now rationalism).
What’s going on here?
• Evidence has not been found to support the
Whorfian hypothesis.
• Does this mean that language plays no role
in determining the way we think?
• What are other possibilities?
– Hint: Whorf was looking at structure
(grammar); what about looking at discourse?
– Hint: Sapir, language is a guide to social reality.

Download Report