Language and Culture
Sapir Whorf Hypothesis
The authors of your text book, Culture Counts, seem to discount some of the connection between
someone’s language and the way she/he thinks (Sapir Whorf Hypothesis pgs. 82-83). However, there has
been a recent upsurge in studies focusing on how language influences perception and thought processes.
The big question is how do languages represent and influence different social realities? [Watch Sapir
Whorf Hypothesis video]
Many anthropologists would agree, including me, that “language users sort out and distinguish their
experiences differently according to the categories provided by their languages. One culture could
consider a tree an inanimate object. Another culture may consider it to be a living thing, just like a human.
The grammar of each language would reflect this difference, and the idea of what a tree is to the two
groups would be physically similar, but carry different connotations and emotional responses” (Amy
Stafford, Minnesota State University). We could say, then, that diverse languages influence human
perception of the world differently.
1
We seem to have an innate predisposition or
mechanism for learning language at an early age:
•
Children exposed to
language automatically
begin to learn it.
•
Children everywhere
tend to learn language
in the same stages and
sequences.
•
Children are
surrounded by the flow
of sounds, words, and
intonations.
•
They imitate these and
take the initiative to
form their own
combinations of the
words.
•Children can imitate in consistent rules of
the language they are learning
•They can speak grammatically
We know now that we are all biologically ‘programmed’ to learn language. If a child is exposed to other
people talking around her, she will pick up the language, including its grammatical rules. If she hears
language on a regular basis, she has no choice but to learn the language. As you saw in the film The
Mind’s Big Bang, at about age seven, the biological window for learning language begins to close.
2
Even though we are all biologically
programmed to learn language, that
doesn’t mean that we all think alike
• Particular languages (as
well as personality, etc.)
affect the ways that
speakers understand the
world.
• Languages are probably
the main source of what
anthropologists call
cultural relativity.
Different languages represent different ways of categorizing and finding meaning in the world.
Anthropologist Franz boas was especially concerned with teaching his students to learn and understand a
group’s language in order to be more scientifically accurate about culture.
Boas’s arguments set the tone for U.S.
anthropology in general and language
and culture specifically
• He instituted the fourfield approach to
anthropology, which
included language.
• His writings and theories
reflected the debates at
the time, which were
centered on ‘race’.
Franz Boas 1858-1942
The history of anthropological thought in North America - about linguistic and cultural relativity originates primarily with Franz Boas, who is often called the father of American anthropology.
One biographer writes the following about Boas:
3
He earned his Ph.D. in geography in 1881, at Kiel. He planned and undertook a geographic
expedition to the arctic (1883-84). Yet once there, he became fascinated the people, with their
appearance, their language, and of course their way of life and traditions. After returning from
his journey he decided to make anthropology his life work.
Although serious work was being done in anthropology at the time, the field was heavily peopled
with untrained adventurers and armchair philosophers. Racial bias and bigotry was rampant, and
the gathering of information was sometimes haphazard and riddled with an assortment of bias. It
was common practice to use small scraps of information, or preconceived pet theories, to further
prognosticate on the "nature of man." Grand sweeping theories were devised and only after was
research done, for the purpose of proving or disproving.
What Boas brought to the field was the methodology of the natural sciences and the belief that
one could formulate theories and conclusions only after thorough and rigorous collection and
examination of hard evidence. With this approach, careful observation eventually yielded
insights, which could themselves be tested for accuracy through restudy. Above all, he taught
that theories should be treated as works in progress, until proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
The scientist, he believed, should always remain critical of his own work, alert to ways that
sloppiness or bias might have skewed the results.
Because he was so grounded the natural sciences, Boas was aware that what differentiated the
study of humankind from geography or zoology was the study of "culture." But culture to Boas
was not simply another synonym for "civilization" (i.e. art, technology, and lofty ideas). And
unlike many of his predecessors he did not see culture as predestined to some kind of linear
progression, onward and upward, until it resulted in the equivalent of civilized European society.
He also rejected the corollary prejudice that those who hadn't "arrived", or whose society
differed from civilized European society, were simply inferior members of the human species.
In fact Boas rejected all such orthogenesis. Instead he stuck to Charles Darwin's own conception
of evolution: that change occurred in response to current pressures and opportunities. And, that
the path such change took varied in a multitude of ways. There was no one "right" way. When
Darwin surveyed the Galapagos, he did not deem the one variation of a species superior to
another simply because it was larger or its markings more elaborate. Rather, he saw them all
simply as unique adaptations to their own particular circumstances. And this was precisely how
Boas viewed various societies. Each was a unique adaptation to a unique and particular set of
circumstances. When Boas applied this to anthropology he introduced the principle of "cultural
relativism". The idea that each culture was the product of a unique and particular history, and not
merely generated by race and environment, was another important contribution by Boas.
He further helped develop the basic methodology that underlies modern anthropological
research. Boas felt that one could only begin to understand a culture by taking on a complete
survey of its mythology and tribal lore, religion, social taboos, marriage customs, physical
appearance, diet, handicrafts, means of obtaining food, and so on. As the burden of the task of
studying culture grew, and other parts of anthropology became also more complex and
embellished, anthropology became divided into a four-fold profession: human evolution,
archaeology, language, and culture. The new standards as applied to cultural anthropology
required that ethnographers go on location, learn the language, and undertake an intense survey
that catalogued all the elements mentioned above as well as whatever other unique feature that
were apparent. Above all, anthropologists must follow rigorous scientific standards and put truth
and ethical behavior first.
4
• He refuted the racial science
of the time. ‘Race’ (which was
understood within notions of
superiority and inferiority) was
believed to determined culture
and language.
• Boas was contesting the
Nordic/Aryan myth…
• … that ‘civilized’ whites were
the most evolved and furthest
removed from their animal
ancestors.
Franz Boas dressed as
'Eskimo' ice fisher
Through experiencing other cultures himself, through extensive participant observation fieldwork, Boas
was able to realize that different ways of living are not indications that some groups are civilized and
other groups are primitive. Each group has its own logic and ways of surviving, and each group has its
own language forms that make sense and evolve from living in the particular kinds of circumstances,
histories and environments connected with the group. He said, “If we were to select the most intelligent,
imaginative, energetic, and emotionally stable third of mankind, all races would be present."
He taught some of the most prominent anthropologists of the 20th century and expected them to learn the
language of the groups they were working with, do participant observation fieldwork, and use scientific
tools, rather than speculation and prejudice, to describe culture.
Primarily, he insisted that in order to understand people, you need to learn their language, since it is
through language that people categorize and find order in their world.
5
Key points for Boas
• Language organizes our
experience of the world
• Language serves a classificatory
function
• Classifications vary across
languages
Boas’s psychic unity of
humanity
• The range of individuals’
abilities does not vary across
cultures.
• Different linguistic
sophistication reflects
different cultural emphases.
At the time of Boas’s work, other social scientists were working to separate people into categories that
they called races and to prove that some ‘races’ were superior to others. Some of these scientists claimed
that people of one race were born to learn the language of their group and not other languages and that
some languages (namely European languages) were superior to others. For them, different languages
reflected different biology.
6
In fact, many so-called ‘primitive’ languages are actually more complex in syntax and categorization than
European languages. Boas, because he took the time to learn people’s languages and to insist that his
students do the same, could refute claims that the complexity of European languages proves that
Europeans are more sophisticated and superior than other groups.
Example Boas used
Many languages in
New Guinea had
words for only a
few basic numbers.
This lack of numbers
was not a reflection
of cognitive
abilities.
This was proven
because people
quickly learned,
borrowed or
innovated
complex number
systems when
culture contact
made them
necessary.
Lack of numbers
reflected a lack
of need for
higher
numerical
expressions
because there
weren’t many
things to count.
In many cultures, people who had herds of
animals, for example, often knew their animals by
name rather than counting them.
7
• Boas and his students were
focused on salvaging as
many of the Native
American languages as
possible.
They recorded speakers,
wrote grammars, compiled
dictionaries, and collected
texts.
• They discovered that
Native American languages
were as systematic and as
logically rich as any
European language.
One of Boas’s students was Edward Sapir, who was a key thinker in language and culture, or linguistic
anthropology. After studying several North American Indian languages, he concluded that language has a
huge influence on people’s understanding of their world.
Sapir concluded that:
“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.”
“The ‘real world’ is to a large extent
unconsciously built up on the language
habits of the group.”
8
One of many of Sapir’s examples
‘wealth’
• What does ‘wealth’
generally mean for
Europeans or
EuroAmericans …
• Compared with the
meaning of and
words associated
with ‘wealth’ for
West Coast native
Americans ...
Native people from across the Alaska
Panhandle elevated the last Chief
Shakes to the position of Chief of the
Stikine Tribe. Included in the planning
and activities, however, were not only
Wrangell's Native residents but the
non-Natives as well.
One of Sapir’s examples concerns concepts for ‘wealth’. What do people in ‘mainstream’ U.S. culture
think about when they hear the word wealth?
-
accumulation of property and money
-
prestige for individuals and families who are wealthy
-
the more wealth one has accumulated, the more power that person wields
-
other?
For many Northwest Coast Native Americans, words associated with wealth in their languages, did not
conger up the same expectations or associations as the English word for wealth. For Northwest Coast
groups, wealth was not categorically associated with long-term accumulation for individuals. Instead,
power and prestige came from giving wealth away rather than keeping it. Wealth was about collective and
group prestige and power rather than individual power. People as part of a clan group accumulated food,
clothing, tools, copper, in order to give it away in potlatches or other gatherings. The more that the group
gave away, the more prestige they gained. If one group’s salmon stream did poorly one year and another
group had plenty, then the group with extra could gain prestige by giving it to the group in need. This
ensured that everyone ate.
So the beliefs, symbols, meanings, etc. connected with signifiers associated with ‘wealth’ are not the same
in one language compared with another. This is an example of linguistic relativity.
9
Edward Sapir’ and his student Benjamin Whorf worked on identifying, describing, and considering
linguistic differences. Their conclusions were summarized in what has come to be known as the Sapir
Whorf Hypothesis.
Whorf’s is considered the “strong” view
of linguistic relativity
1) The way one thinks is strongly
influenced or fully determined by
the language one speaks.
2) The differences among languages
must therefore be reflected in the
different worldview of their
speakers.
Sapir and others are not likely to agree with the idea that language determines thought. Rather, most
linguistic anthropologists are more likely to say that language strongly influences thought. Very few
anthropologists would say that anything determines what humans think. Rather, humans are creative
beings who make choices.
The difficulty with linguistic relativity or the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis is trying to prove that language
influences thought.
10