IC READING 3
The Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis appears to have had its initial formulation in the
following two paragraphs, taken from an article of Sapir’s first published in 1929.
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 process. 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 up on 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.
The understanding of a simple poem, for instance, involves not merely an
understanding of the single words on their average significance, but a full
comprehension of the whole life of the community as it is mirrored in the words, or as
it is suggested by their overtones. Even comparatively simple acts of perception are
very much more at eh mercy of the social patterns called words than we might
suppose. If one draws some dozen lines, for instance, of different shapes, one
perceives them as divisible into such categories as “straight”, “crooked”, “curved”,
“zigzag” because of the classificatory suggestiveness of the linguistic terms
themselves. We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because
the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
The notion of language as a “guide to social reality” is not entirely original with
Sapir. However, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis gains especial significance by virtue of
the fact that both these scholars had a major interest in American Indian languages,
which are far removed from any language in the Indo-European family and so ideally
suited to contrastive studies. It is in the attempt properly to interpret the grammatical
categories of an American Indian language, Hopi, that Whorf best illustrates his
principle of linguistic relativity, the notion that “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 arrives at somewhat different views of the world. ” (1952)
The central idea of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that language functions, not
simply as a device for reporting experience, but also, and more significantly, as a way
of defining experience for its speakers. Sapir says (1931), for example:
Language is not merely a more or less systematic inventory of the various items
of experience which seem relevant to the individual, as is so often naively assumed,
but is also a self-contained, creative symbolic organization, which not only refers to
experience largely required without its help but actually defines experience for us by
reason of its formal completeness and because of our unconscious projection of its
implicit expectations into the field of experience. In this respect language is very
much like a mathematical system which, also, records experience in the truest sense
of the word, only in its crudest beginnings, but, as time goes on, becomes elaborated
into a self-contained conceptual system which pre-visages all possible experience in
accordance with certain accepted formal limitations….[Meanings are] not so much
discovered in experience as imposed upon it, because of the tyrannical hold that
linguistic form has upon our orientation in the world.
Whorf develops the same thesis when he says (1952)
… that the linguistic system (in other words, the grammar ) of each language is
not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of
ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity, for his analysis of
impressions, for his synthesis of his mental shock in trade. …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 on 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 through 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; w cannot talk at all except by subscribing
t the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.
It is evident from these statements, if they are valid, that language plays a large
and significant role in the totality of culture. Far from being simply a technique of
communication, it is itself a way of directing the perceptions of its speakers and it
provides for them habitual modes of analyzing experience into significant categories.
And to the extent that languages differ markedly from each other, so should we expect
to find significant and formidable barriers to cross-cultural communication and
understanding. These barriers take on even greater importance then it is realized that
“the phenomena of a language are to its own speakers largely of a background
character and so are outside the critical consciousness and control of the speaker”
(Whorf,1952)
It is, however, easy to exaggerate linguistic differences of this nature and the
consequent barriers to intercultural understanding. No culture is wholly isolated,
self-contained, and unique. There are important resemblances between all known
cultures---- resemblances that stem in part from diffusion (itself an evidence of
successful intercultural communication) and in part from the fact that all cultures are
built around biological, psychological, and social characteristics common to
perceptual and other faculties of their speakers vis-à-vis experience as they influence
and direct these faculties into prescribed channels. Intercultural communication,
however wide the difference between cultures may be, is not impossible. It is simply
more or less difficult, depending on the degree of difference between the cultures
concerned.
(Adapted from H. Hoijer: “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”)
Questions:
1. What do you think of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
2. Can you find some evidence to support or to dispute the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis?