Group 14
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Intercultural verbal
communication styles
1.
2.
3.
4.
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Hồng
Vương Thu Hương
Nguyễn Thị Thanh Tú
Souphaphone
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
1. Development of the Hypothesis
1.1. Vocabulary level
1.2. Grammar and Syntax level
2. The two principles of the SWH
2.1. Linguistic determinism
2.2. Linguistic relativism
3………………………….
4. ……………………….
Presented by :
Nguyễn Thị Ngọc Hồng
Vương Thu Hương
Rice ?
The Sapir- Whorf hypothesis
I.
Development of the Hypothesis.
Benjamin L. Whorf (1897–1941), a successful fire
prevention engineer at the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, came
into contact with the noted linguistic anthropologist Edward Sapir
(1884–1939) through a course that Sapir (1921) was teaching at
Yale. Largely self-taught, Whorf had studied ancient Hebraic,
Aztec, and Mayan cultures, and in the 1930s he went to the U.S.
Southwest to study the Hopi's Uto-Aztecan language.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
Among Whorf's observations were that the Hopi do not .
- pluralize nouns referring to time
- have no words, grammatical forms, constructions, or
expressions that refer to time.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
• I. Development of the Hypothesis.
Each of us lives not in the midst of the whole world but
only in that part of the world that our language permits us to
know. Thus, the world as each of us knows it is predetermined by
the language of our culture. And the differences between
languages represent basic differences in the worldview of diverse
cultures.
Whorf’s paper (1930)
1.1. Vocabulary.
One level of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is vocabulary. If a
language has a particularly rich vocabulary for a thing or activity
in comparison to other languages, that thing or activity is
important in that culture. The most commonly used example is
Eskimo.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
1.2. Grammar and Syntax
The second level of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is grammar and
syntax. Whorf felt that grammar had an even greater influence
than vocabulary. For example, it has been observed that in the
Eskimo language, there is a consistent use of the word if rather
than when in reference to the future. Think of the difference
between “When I graduate from college …” and “If I graduate
from college .…” In this example, when seems to indicate more
certainty than if. Linguists have associated the more common use
of if in the Eskimo language with the harsh environment that
Eskimos live in, where life is fragile and there is little control
over nature (Chance, 1966).
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
2. The two principles of the SWH.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis revolves around the idea that language has
power and can control how you see the world. Language is a guide to your
reality, structuring your thoughts. It provides the framework through which
you make sense of the world.
Edward Sapir (1929)
Human beings do not live in the society alone. Language of the society
alone. Language of the society predispose certain choices of interpretation
about how we view the world.
Benjamin Lee Whorf (1930s)
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. We
categorize objects in the scheme laid by the language and if we do not
subscribe to these classification we cannot talk or communicate.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
2. The two components of the SWH.
2.1. Linguistic determinism.
Structure of language determines how we think
Floyd, 2009
Linguistic determinism is the idea that language and its
structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as
well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and
perception. The term implies that people who speak different
languages as their mother tongues have different thought
processes.
en.wikipedia.org
Linguistic Determinism suggests that one's language determines
the ways one's mind constructs categories.
Ting-Toomey and Korzenny 1988
Coconut in Salomon Island
East of Papua New Guinea one can find the
exotic Solomon Islands, this small landmass
collective happens to be a near perfect for
the growing of coconuts.
These days the coconuts are still vital, both
as an export as well as the many services
that are afforded by the useful trees So
important are they in fact that there
are nine words dedicated purely to
describing the different stages of growth
that the coconut goes through.
Stranger still, their language has no actual
word for the coconut itself. Leaving
coconuts well described but unnamed by
the Pijin language. Yet another example of
how truly different cultures can be.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
According to this principle 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 sometimes impossible.
▪ It is impossible to learn the language of a different culture
unless the learner abandons hos or her own mode of thinking and
acquires the thought patterns of the native speakers of the target
language.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
• 2.2. Linguistic relativism .
The view that every language is a unique system of relations and, more
radically, that the phonological, grammatical and semantic distinctions
in different languages are completely arbitrary. Thus, on the semantic
level, reality is divided up into arbitrary categories by every language
and different languages have different in-built ontologies. Concepts
may not be translatable. Linguistic relativism emphasizes the
contingency of signifieds. It is closely associated with epistemological
relativism and is a fundamental assumption involved in the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis. An opposing viewpoint is that of linguistic universalism.
(https://www.oxfordreference.com)
It can be defined as:
- “ distinctions encoded in one language are unique to that language
along”, and that “ there is no limit to the structural diversity of
languages”
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
- Or : people who speak different languages see the world
differently.
E.g. In mandarin culture, there is a word in their society called
“ lao” = respect for the elderly
In English, They have the word “ respect” and they have the
“ elderly”
So, English people have the concept that : “ we should respect
our elders”. But Mandarin people have the whole word for it.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
Very few today accept the extreme position of the Sapir-Whorf
linguistic determinism that our thoughts and actions are
determined by the language we speak; many more accept the
view that language only somehow shapes our thinking and
behavior. In this interpretation, linguistic characteristics and
cultural norms influence each other.
Steinfatt (1989)
Steinfatt (1989), in an extensive review of the literature, argues
that the basis of linguistic relativism is that the difference
between languages is not what can be said but what is relatively
easy to say.
The Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis
- The linguistic relativism demonstrated a relationship between culture
and grammar. It is the culture that effects language development.
- Human languages are flexible and extensible, so most things that can
be said in one can be approximated in another; if nothing else, words
and phrases can be borrowed .But what is easy to say in one language
may be harder to say in a second, and this may make it easier or more
natural or more common for speakers of the first language to think in
a certain way than for speakers of the second language to do so. A
concept or category may be more available in some linguistic
communities than in others (e.g., Brown, 1956, pp. 307ff).
- In short, the linguistic relativity hypothesis comes in stronger and
weaker forms, depending on the hypothesized forms and the
hypothesized strength of the hypothesized influence.
INTERCULTURAL VERBAL COMMUNICATION STYLES
Low-context and High-context Communication
• Hall (1976) claims that human interactions, on
the broad level, can be divided into low-context
and high-context communication systems.
• Low-context communication: emphasizes how
intention or meaning is best expressed through
explicit verbal messages.
• High-context communication: emphasizes how
intention or meaning can best be conveyed
through the context.
Revisit High-context and Low-context
The low-context communication (LCC) and High-context
communication (HCC) frameworks:
LCC characteristics
HCC characteristics
Individualistic values
Self-face concern
Linear logic
Direct style
Person-oriented style
Self-enhancement style
Speaker-oriented style
Verbal-based
understanding
Group-oriented values
Mutual-face concern
Spiral logic
Indirect style
Status-oriented style
Self-effacement style
Listener-oriented style
Context-based
understanding
• Low-context
communication
refers
to
communication patterns of direct verbal modestraight talk, non-verbal immediacy, and senderoriented values. Thus, the speaker is expected to
be responsible for constructing a clear, persuasive
message that the listener can decode easily.
• High-context
communication
refers
to
communication patters of indirect-verbal modeself-effacing talk, nonverbal subtleties, and
interpreter values. Thus, the listerner/ interpreter
of the message is expected to infer the implicit
intent of the verbal message accompanied by
nonverbal nuances and subtleties.
Consider : What are the differences between the strategies that the
communicators used to approach conflicts in the dialogues?
• Jane (knocks on her neighbor’s open window): Excuse me, it is 11
o’clock already, and your high-pitched opera singing is really
disturbing my sleep. Please stop your gargling noises immediately! I
have an important job interview tomorrow morning, and I want to get
a good night’s sleep. I really need this job to pay my rent!
• Diane (resentfully): Well, this is the only time I can rehearse my
opera! I’ve an important audition coming up tomorrow. You’re not
the only one that is starving, you know. I also need to pay my rent.
Stop being so self-centered!
• Jane (frustrated): I really think you’re being unreasonable. If you
don’t stop your singing right now I’m going to file a complaint with
the apartment manager and he could evict you...
• Diane (sarcastically): OK, be my guest...Do whatever you want. I’m
going to sing as I please.
• Mrs. A: Your daughter has started taking piano lessons,
hasn’t she? I envy you, because you can be proud of her
talent. You must be looking forward to her future as a
pianist. I’m really impressed by her enthusiasm-everyday,
she practices so hard, for hours and hours, until late at
night.
• Mrs. B: Oh, no, not at all. She is just a beginner. We don’t
know her future yet. We hadn’t realized that you could
heard her playing. I’m so sorry you have been disturbed
by her noise.
• In Dialogue A, Jane and Diane spell out
everything that is on their minds without holding
back. Their interaction exchange is direct,
straight to the point and full of face-threat verbal
messages. In Dialogue B, Mrs. A uses indirect
hints and nonverbal signals to get her point
across so that she could preserve face and
relationship with Mrs. B. Mrs. B correctly read
between the lines and effectively handle the
conflict.
• In high-context conflict situations, every
minor disagreement is perceived as a major
face-threat situation if the “face” of the
contending parties is not upheld.
Consider: The Chen
Guangcheng Crisis
• The Obama administration’s powers of diplomacy were put to
the test in the spring of 2012 when Chinese dissident Chen
Guangcheng made a dramatic escape from house arrest to the
American Embassy in Beijing on the eve of the United States
and China’s annual negotiations on strategic and economic
issues.
• Negotiations between U.S. and Chinese officials involving
Chen’s fate were conducted under top secrecy, at the Chinese
government’s insistence. Only after Chen decided he wanted to
leave China for the United States did Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton, one of the most famous negotiators of 2012,
broach the topic of his fate with her Chinese counterparts, and
even then she did so indirectly. Within hours,
the Times reports, the Chinese announced that Chen had been
granted permission to study in New York.
Stylistic modes of verbal interaction
• Stylistic mode of verbal interaction
(Katriel: 1986) refers to “tonal coloring
given to spoken performance, [the] feeling
tone”. The tone of voice, the speaker’s
intention, and the verbal content reflect our
way of speaking, our verbal style, which in
turn reflects out cultural and personal
values and sentiments.
4 pairs of stylistic modes of verbal interaction
• Direct versus Indirect verbal interaction
style.
• Person-oriented versus Status-oriented
verbal interaction style.
• Self-enhancement versus Self-effacement
verbal interaction style.
• Talk versus Silence.
1, Direct versus Indirect verbal interaction
style
• According to Toomey (1998), the direct-indirect stylistic
pair can be thought of as straddling a continuum.
Individuals in all cultures use the gradations of all these
verbal styles, depending on role identities, interaction
goals, and situations. Particularly:
• In individualistic cultures, people tend to encounter
situations that emphasize the preferential use of direct
talk, person-oriented verbal interaction, verbal selfenhancement and talkativeness.
• In collectivistic cultures, people tend to encounter
situations that emphasize the preferential use of indirect
talk, status-oriented verbal interaction, verbal selfeffacement, and silence.
Difference between direct and indirect verbal
communication styles
Direct style
Context
Low-context
Type of
Common in
culture
individualistic
culture
Straightforw Clearly reveal the
ardness of
speaker’s intention
the message
Tone of voice More fortright
Principle
“Say what you
mean”, “get to the
point”, “don’t beat
around the bush”
Indirect style
High-context
Common in
collectivistic
culture
Camouflage the
speaker’s intention
More nuanced
Avoid negative
response, talk in a
roundabout way,
“don’t interfere, let
him/ her speak!”
Example: Job interview
• Scene 1:
• Interviewer : What are your biggest weaknesses?
• Candidate: My biggest weakness is getting so
absorbed in my work that I lose all track of time.
Every day I look up and realize everyone has
gone home! I know I should be more aware of
the clock, but when I love what I'm doing I just
can't think of anything else.
• Interviewer: How much is your expected salary?
• Candidate: I expect jobs in the $30K range.
• Scene 2:
• Interviewer: What are your biggest weaknesses?
• Candidate: I know that I’m still lack in
experience, however, I’m eager to learn new
things and I won’t let it badly affects my work.
• Interviewer: How much should we pay you?
• Candidate: My main purpose is to have a position
in this company with the ideal working
environment so that I can learn a lot from work.
The company can monitor, evaluate my work and
pay me according to the evaluation result.
Conflict in intercultural communication- Why?
• Misunderstanding can become highly probable
when people from collectivistic cultures
communicate with ones form individualistic
cultures:
• They adhere to their habitual verbal styles and
carry out scripts in a relatively mindless fashion.
• They rely on their own cultural scripts to inform
them of what to expect in the interaction.
=> Result in the failure to infer the intention of the
message.
2, Person-oriented versus Status-oriented
verbal interaction style
• The person-oriented verbal style is
individual-centered verbal mode that
emphasizes the importance of informality
and role suspension
=> Symmetrical interaction.
• The status-oriented verbal style is a rolecentered verbal mode that emphasizes
formality and large power distance
=> Asymmetrical interaction.
Example: Dialogue between a department chief and a
staff in his department:
• Dialogue 1:
• Staff: Hello Frank, how are you doing? How was the
vacation with your wife?
• Chief: Hey Richard, I’m fine, thanks. The vacation was
okay, the weather was not great but at least I got to eat
some tasty seafood. Anyway, you got any problem with
the new project proposal?
• Staff: Ah yes... I need you to look it over a bit, I need
your comments for improvement.
• Chief: Sure, send it to me by tomorrow morning.
• Staff: Thanks a lot. I will send you by 7:30.
• Dialogue 2:
• Nhân viên: Em chào sếp ạ. Lâu lắm rồi mới gặp sếp, sếp có
khỏe không ạ? Thế sếp đi nghỉ mát với gia đình vui chứ ạ?
• Trưởng phòng: Chào cậu. Tôi khỏe. Cậu và gia đình vẫn khỏe
mạnh chứ? Ôi dời, đi với bà vợ tôi thì cậu biết đấy, cằn nhằn
đủ thứ. Cũng bình thường thôi mà. À, vậy đề xuất cho dự án
kia của cậu tới đâu rồi?
• Nhân viên (hơi lúng túng): Dạ...Về bản đề xuất của em, sếp có
thể nhìn qua giúp em một chút được không ạ? Nếu sếp có thể
góp ý cho em về phần đề xuất chi tiết với khách hàng thì quý
hóa quá ạ.
• Trưởng phòng: Được thôi. Cậu mail cho tôi trước giờ làm việc
ngày mai nhé.
• Nhân viên (mừng rỡ): Vâng, em cảm ơn sếp ạ. Em sẽ gửi đúng
7 giờ mai ạ.
Characteristic of Person-oriented and Statusoriented verbal communication
Person-oriented
Status-oriented
Respecting: Uniqueness,
personal identities, personal
interaction.
Low-context
Honoring prescribed powerbased membership identities.
-Use first name basis.
-Direct address.
-Equalize language style
between the sexes.
-Uphold proper roles with
proper words in appropriate
contexts.
-Have special vocabularies for
each sex, different degrees of
social status and intimacy, for
different levels of formality.
High-context
3, Self-enhancement versus Self-effacement
verbal interaction style
• The self-enhancement verbal style emphasizes
the importance of boasting about one’s
accomplishment and abilities.
• The self-effacement verbal style emphasizes the
importance of humbling oneself via verbal
restraints, hesitations, modest talk, and the use of
self-deprecation concerning one’s effort or
performance.
Consider the examples:
• Scene 1:
• Mrs. A: I heard that your daughter is just accepted into
Princeton. Congratulations!
• Mrs. B: Thank you! She has always been a hard-working and
smart girl.
• Scene 2:
• Bà C: Chị Dương ơi, chúc mừng chị! Tôi mới nghe được là
con chị đỗ Y Hà Nội, cả nhà chắc tự hào về con bé lắm. Vào
được đấy là danh giá lắm đấy. Con bé giỏi quá.
• Bà D: Cảm ơn bác. Không có gì đâu ạ, cháu nó cũng gặp may
ấy mà. Làm sao bằng con trai bác được ạ, nghe nói cậu cả mới
lên trưởng phòng hành chính, tiền đồ xán lạn lắm, con bé kia
thì không biết về sau xin việc ở đâu đây, thời buổi khó khăn.
• Bà C: Chị cứ nói thế. Con chị chăm chỉ giỏi giang lại còn xinh
xắn thế kia thì sao phải lo chỗ nào không nhận.
• In individualistic, low-context communication
cultures, socialization emphasizes the use of
encouragement to promote individuals’ selfesteem and self-efficacy. Individuals directly
express their desires and promote their selfimages. They are open and direct about their
abilities and accomplishments.
• In collectivistic cultures, such as Japan and China,
much of socialization emphasizes the use of selfcriticism. Individuals use restraints, hesitations,
modest talk, and self-deprecation when discussing
their own abilities and accomplishments, as well as
when responding to others’ praises. Self-effacement
helps maintain group harmony because modesty may
allow an individual to avoid offense. By playing
down one’s individual performance and stressing the
contribution of others, no one can be threatened or
offended. The listener is expected to detect and
appreciate the speaker’s modesty and intention to
give more credit to others through self-effacement.
• In many Asian cultures, self-effacement talk is expected to
signal modesty or humility. When one offers something to
another person such as a gift or a meal, verbal self-deprecation
is expected, for instance: “it’s nothing special”, “it’s not very
tasty but...”. Then the guest should protest such disclaimers
and reemphasize his/ her gratitude. People in these cultures do
not like to “stand out or be single out”.
=> High-context, observer-sensitive value.
• In the U.S culture, self-enhancement is encouraged for people
to “sell and boast about themselves”. For example, candidates
merchandize themselves in job interview for the interviewers
to notice their abilities and accomplishment. They like to
“stand out and be in the spotlight”.
=> Low-context, sender-responsible value.
4, Talk and Silence
• While silence occurs in interaction
contexts in cultures around the world, how
silence is interpreted and evaluated differs
across cultures and between persons.
• In high-context cultures, Silence can be the
essence of the language of superiority and
inferiority. It holds strong, contextual meanings:
“quiet is demanded by others and by those who
must themselves by quiet. Being quiet-effecting a
self-imposed silence-is often valued in some
social environments. Being quiet is often a sign
of respect for the wisdom and expertise of
others” (Ishii & Bruneau, 1991). It can also be
considered as a conversational social strategy.
• European American perceives Talk as more
enjoyable and as a means of social control. In
Apache culture in the US, Silence is deemed
appropriate in contexts where social relations
between individuals are unpredictable and
involve high levels of ambiguity. Silence is also
preferred when role expectations are unclear.
Many Europeans uses Talk as a means of
“breaking the ice” with strangers and reserves
Silence for their most intimate relationships.
Consider:
• Ting-Toomey’s (1980, 1981) ethnographic
studies of Chinese immigrant families in the US
indicate that traditional Chinese parents tend to
use Talk to elicit obedience and conformity from
their children and Silence to indicate displeasure
and disapproval. Modern Chinese parents, on the
other hand, use Talk to create closeness and
intimacy and Silence to signal attentive listening
and understanding.
Recommendations for intercultural verbal
communication
• Intercultural clashes may arise when we
use our own culture-bound evaluation in
judging another group’s verbal or nonverbal output. In order to solve these social
conflicts, mindfulness is required to
recognize and respect differences in styles.
In order to be mindfulness, it is necessary to:
• Understand the functions and interpretations that are attached
to different modes of talk. It is essential to be sensitive to
cultural beliefs and values that underlie the different modes of
verbal expressions
• Have a basic grasp of the features of the “languaculture” that
we will be encountering.
• Develop verbal empathy and patience for non-native speakers
in our culture.
• Practice mindful listening skills when communicating with
non-native speakers.
• Practice culture paraphrasing skills.
• Understand the fundamental differences of low-context and
high context communication patterns and the ethnocentric
tendencies that we assign to evaluating the opposing
characteristics.
Consider:
• “I want you to recognize me as the
same as you, but at the same I
want you to recognize how
different I am from you”.
References
• Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: OUP.
• https://blog.oup.com/2017/04/intercultural-communication-styles/
• https://www.eki.ee/teemad/kultuur/context/intro.html#_Toc44597
1603
• https://letthewordsflow.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/high-contextversus-low-context-the-communication-style-of-your-story/
• https://online.seu.edu/articles/high-and-low-context-cu
• https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/famousnegotiators-feature-in-top-negotiations-of-2012/
• Stellar Ting-Toomey. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New
York, London: The Guilford Press. P 85-110.
• Ting-Toomey, S, Leeva C. Chung. (2005). Understanding intercultural
communication. New York and London: OUP.