Acknowledgements Thank you to both Melinda Reichelt and Melissa Gregory for all your help, encouragement, and time that you have given me on this thesis. I did not think that I could write a thesis (especially in one semester) before I started this class, but with the excellent assistance that I received, I was proven wrong. Thank you also to friends and family, for formatting help, proofreading, and making improvements on this paper. ii A Look at the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; How this Effect Affects Language Jana Lintz In this paper, I present the various views of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is the idea that language affects the way we think and ultimately how we see the world. Developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir, the stronger version of this hypothesis argues that language determines thought, while the weaker version suggests that language influences but does not determine our thoughts. I argue in support of the weaker version of this hypothesis, using not only Sapir and Whorf’s own work as evidence but also the differing views that scholars hold of this hypothesis. More specifically, I examine studies by Hoffman, Lau, and Johnson (1986), Prins and Ulijin (1998), and Fausey and Boroditsky (2011), as support for the weaker version of the hypothesis. Ultimately I present my own version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is that all the languages in the world may be used as a way to communicate though not necessarily in the same way. iii Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………ii Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………iii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………iv Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1, Whorf as an Amateur Linguist………………………………….…..…5 Chapter 2, Scholarly Articles and Other Texts Against the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………8 Chapter 3, Scholars and Other Texts in Favor of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis….15 Chapter 4, Future Study………………………………………………………….25 Chapter 5, Conclusion……………………………………………………………27 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………..29 iv Introduction What is envisioned when thinking about the color blue? The sky? The ocean? Nearly everybody is familiar with the color blue, and every language identifies this color. However, many people cannot see any other distinction within this color besides light blue and dark blue. Russian speakers can, though, because their language differentiates between several different shades of blue (Boroditsky, 2010). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the theory that whatever language we speak influences the way that we think about and perceive the world. After researching this subject, I will demonstrate my belief that this hypothesis holds credence by showing both the favorable and the unfavorable studies that illustrate how language influences thought. There are stronger and weaker versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The stronger version of this hypothesis, linguistic determinism, claims that language in general determines every thought, and there cannot be any new ideas. Many scholars view this as false, because people are constantly inventing and thinking up new ideas that are thought up even before there are ways to describe them. Language does, however, seem to effect the way we think about some issues. This is the weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Most of my thoughts consist of objects or ideas that I am already aware of through my language. The weaker version, linguistic relativity, claims that language influences how we view the world, but it does not determine it. 2 The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is named after Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941). The hypothesis got its name years after their deaths. These two men spent time studying the Native American cultures and their languages. Sapir (1949) noted that: 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 (as cited in Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, p. 62). According to Sapir, languages are more than simply knowing how to pronounce words. Each language is so different from one another that a speaker of one language will have different views and thought processes from someone speaking in another language. A different thought process will then lead to differing perceptions. These perceptions help shape how we see the world. Whorf (1956) continues with Sapir’s work. He explains that …The forms of a person’s thoughts are controlled by inexorable laws of pattern of which he is unconscious. These patterns are the unperceived intricate systematizations of his own language-shown readily enough by a candid comparison and contrast with other languages, especially those of a different linguistic family (as cited in Language, Thought, and Reality; Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf p. 252). 3 I think that Whorf is saying that most people are able to learn their native tongue and speak it intelligibly. The native language’s grammar patterns seem natural, but when one is learning a different language, then all the many parts of grammar tend to jump out. Then language will suddenly seem more complex. This complexity may appear more obvious when the learner’s second language has a completely different structure than his or her native language. However, grammar patterns are present in all languages. This complexity that Whorf is writing about is the sentence structure. He believes that this is more important than the words (as cited in Language, Thought, and Reality; Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf p. 253). In other words, Whorf believes that the sentence structure (syntax) causes a different thought process more than the words do. He gives the example that in Hopi (a Native American language that he studied) a verb is allowed to appear by itself. Whorf explains that this is different in English, because a verb never appears by itself; it must always be an action. Verbs in English are always assigned a subject; therefore, they do not allow us to think of a verb otherwise. Boroditsky (2010) gives a similar kind of example. She writes about a study on the Piraha tribe in the Amazon where she explains an effect that language has on thought. The Piraha tribe does not give the exact amount of anything. Their language does not have any numbers. This means that they cannot count. An English speaker may say something like I gave a speech in front of 150 people today, or I gave a speech in front of five people today. The same example in Piraha might sound something like, I gave a speech in front of many people today, or I gave a speech in front of a few people today. They seem to 4 favor these general estimates instead of giving an exact number. Can they count? The answer is no. They cannot count. Their language does not allow them to count. This does not make them stupid. If they were bilingual, then they would have a new way to think and express themselves. This is exactly what Sapir and Whorf meant when they formulated their hypothesis. Every language differs in some way to every other. As this example showed, languages tend to focus on different concepts, but the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis believes that these differences cannot be thought of when only one language is known. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis appeared after Sapir and Whorf’s deaths in the 1930’s, but the idea goes back for centuries. An emperor in Europe, Charlemagne, noticed that speaking a second language gives a life more meaning (as cited in Boroditsky, 2010, page 82). Nevertheless, the hypothesis is named after Sapir and Whorf. Many scholars are not very happy that the hypothesis was attributed to them, especially to Whorf. Sapir was respected as an educated linguist. Whorf was not. 5 Whorf as an Amateur Linguist Many scholars are against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis simply because of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Swoyer (2003) explains that this is because Whorf was more extreme in expressing his ideas than Sapir was. His writings were also more contradictory, so nobody clearly knows where he stands. Therefore, some scholars prefer to call the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis linguistic relativity, in order to separate Whorf’s views. I will use these titles interchangeably throughout this paper since they are synonymous. One of Whorf’s critics, Pullum (1991), explains that there was a misleading article about the number of Eskimo words for snow, Eskimo words for snow (as cited in Pullum, 1991, pp. 161-162). This is because the author, Laura Martin, was misled by the sloppy information that the popular Whorf presented on this subject. She has since realized her mistake, but finds that it is nearly impossible to take it back. This Eskimo misunderstanding is now taken as fact and quoted by many scholars. Whorf gathered his Eskimo information from an introduction from one of Boas’ (1911) books, exaggerated it incorrectly, and had it published. There have been sloppy research rebuttals since then - some even sloppier than Whorf’s. Pullum explains that though Whorf enjoyed language, he is called an amateur linguist because he did not have a degree in linguistics; rather he had a B.S. in chemical engineering and was a fire prevention inspector. 6 However, Subbiondo (2005), another scholar, argues that Whorf’s hypothesis and research overshadows his position as a chemical engineer. This career choice brought a valuable science to linguistic study that would otherwise probably not have entered into this field. Whorf believed that western sciences, such as psychology, anthropology, etc, should also be studied in connection to language in order to keep the planet in balance. Subbiondo (2005) writes that Whorf had an urgency to convince the human race to familiarize themselves with the hypothesis.