THE LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY THEORY OR THE SAPIRWHORF THEORY: A SELECTIVE ANALYSIS

1. ABSTRACT

The concept of linguistic relativity has had his influence on the field of linguistics for a considerable time, even leading back to the 18th century, claiming that if speech is a thought that manifests itself, it must also be true that thought is interior and hidden speech (Antoine de Rivarol, 1784). Von Humboldt, and in particular Whorf and Sapir, would later elaborate this theory, and therefore become largely responsible for the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis (or Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). This controversial theory claims that language, reflecting our culture, has a substantial influence on the way man thinks. The hypothesis was originally a rather strong version (or at least strongly interpreted); claiming that thought and culture are inevitably connected with each other, thus implying that each language might be claimed to have associated with it a distinctive worldview (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996: 2). These ideas were discredited with the rising importance of cognitive sciences in the 1960s, often as a result of misinterpretations or superficial readings of Whorfs work. However, a new generation tries to take a more intermediate and nuanced stand in this extraordinary theory. That is what this paper will try to accomplish by examining closely Whorfs theories in particular and linking it to other research in the fields of psychology, philosophy & anthropology. By revisiting experiments conducted by followers/opponents of Whorf, and through a selfconducted investigation with the purpose of validating Whorfs theory, this work intends to reach a balanced view on Whorfs hypothesis, nuancing & modernizing the strong version of the theory, making it more appropriate & relevant to fit modern times. Therefore this work will be based mainly on the more modern interpretations of Gumperz & Levinson in Rethinking 1

linguistic relativity (1996). Crediting the findings and results, it remains important to ask oneself how literally Wittgensteins the limits of language mean the limits of my world is to be taken.

2. INTRODUCTION

This paper aims to validate the controversial Sapir-Whorf theory, which claims that language plays an influential role in the human cognition, i.e. it is assumed that there is an important connection between language and human thinking. This implies that ones classification of the real world is subject to ones linguistic input. The roots of this Linguistic Relativity Theory can be traced back to the French writer and epigrammatist Antoine De Rivarol, who claimed back in 1784 that if speech is a thought that manifests itself, it must also be true that thought is interior and hidden speech (De Rivarol, 1784: 64). This is assumed to be the impulse for later work concerning linguistic relativity by several linguists such as Von Humboldt (1820), Boas (1911) Sapir and Whorf (1956). This paper will mainly focus on the work of Benjamin Whorf, who is commonly considered to be the most important pioneer of this controversial theory. Whorf's popular articles define linguistic relativity as the following : Users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars towards different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world (Whorf, 1956: 221).

In order to reach a concrete, and -most importantly- truthful judgement about the Sapir-Whorf theory, a selective analysis of the existing theories is offered in this paper, with the focus on its relevancy to the daily life. In the first half of the century, three assumptions supported the Linguistic Relativity Theory; i.e. the empiricist epistemology, structuralism and the idea of an

unconscious mental life. Gumperz & Levinson (1996) distinguish another idea supporting the hypothesis in 'Rethinking linguistic relativity' : 'The Saussurean notion of valeur, wherein an expression picks up distinctive meaning through its opposition to other expressions, has the implication that the content of linguistic expressions depend on the system in which they are embedded, rather than in the first instance on their denotation' (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996 : 160). In addition to these three assumptions, other contributions will be acknowledged; the thinking for speaking-theory by Dan Slobin, Penny Lees critical reconstruction and John Lucys analysis. The opponents' claim will be taken in consideration as well, the general idea being that Whorf and his companions 'have mistaken methodological prescription for theory' (Gumperz & Levinson, 1996: 5).

In this paper, this theory will be illustrated by revisiting an existing experiment by Lera Boroditsky (2009), where Spanish-speaking and German-speaking people where asked to describe a common object with adjectives, without seeing any images in order to have a spontaneous flow of descriptions based on their own experiences. As the gender of a noun often differs in different languages, the German-speaking people described the concept of a bridge using adjectives which are commonly considered feminine (such as elegant, fragile), as the gender of bridge in German is feminine. The Spanish-speaking people described the concept of bridge with rather masculine adjectives (strong, tall, towering). This is a good example of what the Linguistic Relativity Theory stands for, illustrating the difference in perception between people who speak a different language. A self-conducted experiment, based on this investigation, will try and support this approach, putting the emphasis rather on the weak claim, than the discredited strong version, which is regarded as to have no scientific ground.

The idea of the existence of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is certainly appealing, but one has to be careful crediting them. The original, rather strong, version of the theory was completely discredited in the 1960s, when the cognitive sciences were most popular. This theory contradicts the whole concept of the cognitive sciences -which dominated the psycholinguistic field for the last half of the century- and therefore also opposes the idea that the mind has a priori structures as well as the existence of a universal grammar, as visualized by Chomskys Language Acquisition Device (1965). On the other hand, the weak claim is one that is definitely still worth studying. In brief, the strong claim suggests that language determines thought, whereas the weak form only suggests an influence of the language on thought. This difference in nuance has already often evoked misunderstandings and/or superficial readings of the SapirWhorf theory. In the current linguistic climate, there should be room to re-discover this extraordinary theory, as the weak form of the hypothesis could even meet the modern, cognitive sciences halfway.

3. METHODOLOGY

A) Theoretical

The actual research is not of a quantitative nature, but aims to investigate the relevance of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in current times. Fully explaining every detail of the theory would exceed the scope of this work, therefore a selective analysis is more appropriate. The first aspect consists of summarizing Whorfs Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis and its theoretical structures.

As explained earlier, the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis suggests that language determines thought, implying that a different linguistic input embodies a different perception of the world. This is a rather strong statement, which was actually discredited in the 1960s with the rise of the cognitive sciences. The weak interpretation suggests a mere influence rather than an absolute domination of language over thought. A study with the goal of providing certain theoretical structures for this hypothesis leads us to three basic assumptions supporting the theory. In addition to these three assumptions, Dan Slobins thinking for speaking-theory (1996) is discussed. These theoretical structures are briefly explained and linked with the greater picture of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.

B) Empirical

After a selective, theoretical analysis of this theory, a more empirical approach was necessary in order to move from an abstract to a more concrete picture. An investigation was conducted based on earlier empirical research by Lera Boroditsky (2009). Boroditsky conducted an experiment where Spanish and German speakers were asked to describe a bridge. In German, the concept of a bridge carries a feminine gender, whereas in Spanish the word bridge has a masculine gender. Only by looking at an image of a bridge, the German speakers would describe bridge as elegant, fragile, slender, as opposed to the Spanish speakers using adjectives such as towering, hard, strong. The choice of adjectives was based on the gender of

the word. A similar investigation, where now German and Italian speakers were asked to describe a concept with pictures as only resource, was held in this research paper. The test word was now anchor, which carries a feminine gender in Italian and a masculine gender in German. The experiment consisted of three Italian and three German speakers, due to the small scale of this research. The expected results were that the Italian speakers would describe the pictures of an anchor with rather feminine adjectives, as opposed to German speakers.

While this experiment was conducted based on earlier work, a new angle is introduced with the theme of colonisation, in particular in a novel by Ngugi Wa Thiongos (1986). This work, although at first sight having nothing to do with the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, brings forward a similar idea of language influencing thought, as shown by the following quote: Thus language and literature were taking us further and further from ourselves to other selves, from our world to other worlds. (Thiongo, 1986: 12) This experiment is essential in order to state that this hypothesis is still worth studying, as it appears though rather implicitlyin a novel like Decolonising the mind (1986).

4. RESULTS

A) Theoretical

What follows is a selective analysis of the weak interpretation, in order to grasp the basic meaning of this controversial theory. Three assumptions supporting the hypothesis were distinguished by Gumperz and Levinson (1996). These are respectively the empiricist epistemology, structuralism and the idea of an unconscious mental life. The following quotes, that can all be found in Whorfs articles (1940a-b, reprinted 1956: 207-33), represent these three assumptions. These will be discussed in this section, as opposed to the empirical research, where the actual interpretations can be found in the discussion section.

1) Epistemology The following quote represents the idea of epistemology: We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. 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 kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our mindsand this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. (Whorf, 1956: 213)

In this quote, Whorf actually states that all knowledge is acquired primarily through experience (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996: 5). All our input, the awareness of concepts is guided by the system of our minds, and according to Whorf, largely by the linguistics systems of our minds.

2) Structuralism

Here Whorf undermines the importance of denotation, and states that a concept can pick up his meaning through its form rather than its content, e.g. in a system of oppositions. The Saussurean valeur confirms this. Pattern-symbolic expressions (i.e. linguistic notation of inherent linguistic patterning) are exact, as mathematics is, but are not quantitative. They do not refer ultimately to number and dimension, as mathematics does, but to pattern and structure. (Whorf, 1956: 226)

3) Unconscious mental life

The phenomena of language are to its own speakers largely of a background character and so are outside the critical consciousness and control of the speaker (Whorf, 1956: 211)

The thought of linguistic processes beyond our awareness is introduced, which would imply that these processes are something we cant control and therefore must be more important than we realize, and thus control our perception of the world. The idea of language as a structuring organ.

The thinking for speaking-theory (Slobin, 1996) supports this theory. Slobin wishes to translate the concepts of language and thought, to the actions related to it; thinking and speaking.

Thinking for speaking involves picking those characteristics of objects and events that (a) fit some conceptualization of the event and (b) are readily encodable in the language. I propose that, in acquiring a native language, the child learns particular ways of thinking for speaking (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996: 76).

This theory relates to Whorfs idea of different languages causing different conceptualizations and/or different worldviews. Slobin chooses the example of the sentence The man is sick. Different languages imply different conceptualizations, for example in Siouan one would have to make the difference between a resting or a moving position. In Kwakiutl one would have to state whether the sick man is close or far from the speaker. This all happens in the grammar of the language. Closer to home, in Spanish it is necessary to indicate whether the sickness is temporary or chronicle. (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996: 71) Dan Slobins thinking for speakingtheory confirms the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf theory, where the structure of a language has a substantial influence on the conceptualization of the speaker.

B) Empirical

The experiment with the Italian and German speakers, turned out quite differently than the original experiment it was based on, by Boroditsky. Two of the three Italian speakers described the anchor with words such as heavy, hard, solid, whereas the third one described the anchor with more neutral words such as useful, practical. All three German speakers described the image of the anchor with adjectives suggesting masculinity, such as hard, strong and other more neutral descriptions such as old, rusty.

The next empirical research might be considered as a less clear example, but it is certainly interesting. In Decolonising the mind (1980), Ngugi Wa Thiongo takes a stand as the defender of his mother tongue:

I believe that my writing in Gikuyu language, a Kenyan language, an African language, is part and parcel of the anti-imperialist struggles of Kenyan and African peoples. In schools and

universities our Kenyan languages that is the languages the many nationalities which make up Kenya- were associated with negative qualities of backwardness, underdevelopment, humiliation and punishment. [] I do not want to see Kenyan children growing up in that imperialist-imposed contempt for the tools of communication developed by their communities and their history. I want them to transcend colonial alienation. (Thiongo, 1986: 28)

This quote demonstrates the importance of a proper own language and its dignity, and its relation with thought and culture. The theme of colonization will not be further explored, as it is not relevant to do so in this research, but it demonstrates the importance of ones personality depending on its own language.

5. DISCUSSION

10

As we interpret the findings of the empirical research, it would be acceptable to conclude that the Sapir-Whorf theory is in fact still relevant in the field of (socio-)linguistics, anthropology and other domains. As the study of Decolonising the mind shows, The Kenyan people, who were forced to associate their own languages with backwardness and underdevelopment, automatically find that also their culture and dignity was taken away from them. The fact that they now have to speak the English of the oppressor causes that they will behave like them as well, and have no respect anymore for their own habits and cultures. One might state that they have lost their own, personal worldview through the loss of the dignity of their language. The results of the research based on Boroditsky (2009) were unexpected. The gender of the concept does not seem to make any difference in the conceptualizing of the native speakers. This would be in contrast with the original, strong claim of Whorfs hypothesis, but as mentioned before, this research aims to investigate the relevancy of the weak claim, merely suggesting an influential role of language in relation with thought. Perhaps the denotation of an anchor is too clear, too unambiguous to let the language play a role in the perception. Another explanation of the unexpected results could be that the experiment was too narrow, with only three Italian speakers and three German speakers, due to limited resources.

This research paper was too small-scaled to actually prove this controversial theory either right or wrong, like so many have attempted to do, but it shows clearly the importance and relevancy of this theory to the current ideas in the field of (socio)linguistics, anthropology, and even philosophy.

6. CONCLUSION

11

This paper has offered a selective analysis of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, attempting to grasp the basic idea and, most important, investigate the relevance of this controversial theory. Although the results of the empirical research do not quite meet the expectations, still this contradiction is not a contra-argument. First, the scale of the research was perhaps too narrow to draw any valid conclusions. Secondly, as stated before, this article aims to support the rather weak version of the theory, one suggesting a mere influence of language over thought rather than an absolute domination. The results of the empirical research therefore do not oppose to this theory. The research in Thiongos Decolonizing the mind proved to be interesting as it is an example of Whorfs theory in a non-Western context. The theme of colonisation is clearly linked with the importance of language, and its dignity. Thiongos claim suggests that the Kenyan people need to return to their own, original languages in order to restore the respect for their own cultural habits and society, escaping from the dominant, Western worldview. The several theoretical articles, distinguished by Gumperz & Levinson (1996), provide a clear structural base for this theory. Earlier empirical research and the recent experiment by Boroditsky (2009) supporting the weak claim of this hypothesis have proven to be interesting and worth studying. The theoretical assumptions in combination with the empirical research confirm the relevancy of this extraordinary theory in current times. A valid conclusion would be that this hypothesis is not to be ignored or forgotten, as it is of the uttermost importance to the ongoing discussion concerning the link between language and thought.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

12

Gumperz J. J. & Levinson S.C. (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lee

P.

(1996).

The

Whorf

Theory

Complex.

Critical

Reconstruction.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lucy, J. (1992a). Language diversity and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lucy, J. (1992b). Grammatical categories and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Slobin, D. (1996). From thought and language to thinking for speaking. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 70-96. Thiongo, N. (1986). Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature Heinemann Publishing

Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does our language shape the way we think? In Brockman (Ed.) What's Next? Dispatches on the Future of Science. Vintage Press.

Boas, Franz (1911), Handbook of American Indian languages (Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40. Washington: Government Print Office (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology).)

13