Rachael-Anne Knight, 2003, University of Surrey Roehampton
Rachael-Anne Knight, 2003, University of Surrey – Roehampton
Language, Society and Power
Week 2
Language and thought
Aims:To understand the possible relationship between thought and language.
To be familiar with some of the key ideas and linguists in this area
To gain an understanding of the importance of this issue today
The Key players
Saussure (1857-1913)
Saussure is responsible for many of the distinctions we make in linguistics today. For example, he introduced the distinction between synchronic and diachronic study of language. Saussure suggested that by the time we are adults we have a complete knowledge of the systematic relationship between sound and meaning that is used in our native language. Saussure also suggested that the links between concepts (the signified) and their linguistic labels (the signifier) are difficult to separate.
Just as it is impossible to take a pair of scissors and cut one side of paper without at the same time cutting the other, so it is impossible in a language to separate sound from thought or thought from sound.
Sassure, in Harris 1988
Sapir (1884-1939)
Sapir worked on American and Canadian Indian languages. He asserted that the way in which people see the ‘real world’ was based on the language habits of the group > linguistic relativity
We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation
Sapir, in Mandelbaum 1949
Whorf (1897-1941)
Whorf worked as a fire insurance officer. He began his linguistic career when he noticed that people would smoke near to what they considered to be ‘empty’ oil drums even though these oil drums were more likely to explode than their ‘full’ counterparts. He suggested that the use of the word ‘empty’ determined people’s reactions > linguistic determinism
We dissect nature along lines laid down for us 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 organised by our minds. We cut nature up, organise it into concepts and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organise it this way – an agreement that holds throughout 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; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organisation and classification of data which the agreement decrees
Whorf, in Carroll 1956
The evidence
Vocabulary
Colour terms
English has 11 basic colour terms (black, white, red, green, orange, yellow, grey, blue, pink, brown, purple). Russian has twelve as it distinguishes between two different ‘blues’ and Hungarian distinguishes between two different ‘reds’. Hanunoo has only four (1. black, 2. white, 3. red and orange, 4. green, yellow and brown). Jale has only two, black and white.
Experiments suggest that speakers of all languages can recognise and differentiate between colours even if they do not have words for them. Other experiments, however, suggest that people find it easier to remember colours that are encoded in their language and will group colours according to the terms available in that language.
The Eskimo snow vocabulary example
It is often suggested that the Inuit tribes have many (sometimes quoted as up to 47) different words for snow whilst other languages have many fewer. This has been taken as evidence that language can determine or influence thought. However, it is clear that speakers of other languages can distinguish between many different types of snow, and snow ‘enthusiasts’ can acquire more sophisticated vocabulary in any language.
Grammar
Whorf based much of his theory on Hopi. The Hopi people seem to have a different way of thinking about time than those in Western cultures. They seem to see time as a series of durations (rather like our view of the human life cycle of baby, child, adult etc.). Thus, for the Hopi, each day is seen as the return of the same entity. Whorf also suggested that the Hopi language did not have a system of tense (such as past present and future), but instead talked about concepts in relation to durations and the perceptions of the speaker. Therefore, in Hopi, the form of verbs changes to express whether the speaker (and listener) can currently see the event or whether they anticipate or remember it.
More recent work, however, suggests that the Hopi may, in fact, make use of different tenses and time adverbials to express time (yesterday, always etc).
Ideologies
It seems unlikely that our language completely determines the way we think. Probably though, our native language does play a role is shaping the way we see the world. This means that it is difficult to get a neutral and completely unbiased view of anything. This fact can be used for certain ends and the choice of particular terms can express certain ideologies.
Nuclear weapons
A good example of the way particular ideologies can be expressed in language is the language surrounding nuclear weapons. Some of the important features of such language (taken from the 1950s and 1960s) are:
Terms that seem to be scientific or specialised (and often have positive connotations) often hide another meaning
A surgical strike – to destroy an individual target
Enhanced radiation weapon – a bomb that kills people leaving property intact
Demographic targeting – killing the civilian population
Terms may be further mystified by the use of acronyms
ERW - Enhanced radiation weapon
MAD - mutually assured destruction
Names of weapons may serve to humanise them
Fat Man (the bomb used over Hiroshima)
Little Boy (the bomb used over Nagasaki)
Honest John (a short range missile).
Names of weapons may make them sound majestic and mythical
Titan (large missile)
Vulcan (long-range nuclear bomber)
Poseidon (submarine launched missile)
Thor (medium-rang missile)
References
Carroll, J. (ed.) (1956) Language, Thought and Reality, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Harris, R. (1988) Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein, London: Routledge
Mandelbaum, D. (ed.) (1949) Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Reality, Berkeley: University of California Press