Language and Thought December 5, 2006 Kendra Winner

Agenda  Course Administration  Who are Sapir and Whorf?  What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Primary propositions:  Linguistic Diversity  Linguistic Influence on Thought Weak and Strong Versions Historical origins  Euphemisms  Recent Research

Course Administration  First set of take home essays and Acquiring Literacy critical response papers available from Alicia in Larsen 322  Second set of take home essays to be distributed Tuesday, December 19 th  APA Style

APA Style: References References Boas, F. (1995). Introduction to the handbook of American Indian Languages. In B. G. Blount, Language Culture and Society (pp. 9-28). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press Inc. Hymes, D. (1974). Studying the interaction of language and social life. In Foundations in Sociolinguistics (pp ). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Schieffelin, B.B. & Ochs, E. (1996). The microgenesis of competence: Methodology in language socialization. In D. I. Slobin & S. M. Ervin Tripp (Eds.), Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

APA Style: In text citations  Winner (1998) claims that the sky is blue.  Winner (2006) states, “See the sky? The sky is blue” (p. 167).  As suggested by the following quote, “the sky is blue” (Winner, 2006, p. 167).

Who are Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf?

Sapir, 1929  '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 and 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.'

Whorf, 1941  '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 in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to 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 organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.'

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis  The “Hypothesis” there is a systematic relationship between the grammatical categories of the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it.

The “Sapir-Whorf Hypotheses”  The hypothesis: Linguistic Relativity 1) Linguistic Diversity  Languages differ in important ways from one another 2) Linguistic Influence on Thought  The structure of one’s language systematically influence how one perceives and conceptualizes the world

Syntactic classifications  We understand our spatial relationship to things in the world in a certain way … and this understanding is reflected in many different kinds of grammatical categories.

In English, how are spatial relations indicated?  The stone is on a hill  The moon is over the tree

Mixtec: Western, Mexican language  Includes spatial locations in the world through metaphorical projections of body part names: The stone is on a hill Yuu wa hiyaa c i i mesa Stone the is located belly table The moon is over the tree Hiyaa yoo sini yana Is located moon head tree

“Strong” and “Weak” Versions  “Strong”  Language actually determines thought.  “Weak”  Thought is influenced by linguistic systems.

'He gave man speech, and speech created thought, Which is the measure of the universe' - Prometheus Unbound, Shelley

History: Thought and Language  “Languaging” Bhartrihar (6 th century AD)  “The World-view Hypothesis” Wilhem von Humboldt ( )

Lived Experience

Lived Experience and Language

Euphemisms  Definitions Newman (1995): an inoffensive expression that is substituted for one that may be offensive … used for deceptive purposes to cover up, distort …. Allan and Burridge (1991): an expression that seeks to avoid being offensive. Lutz (2000): used to mislead or deceive …. called doublespeak Eliason, S., “Language and the Social Construction of Reality: Spinning Social Reality with Euphemisms.

Euphemisms  Why are some specific words used in place of others?  Do all members of a society use these euphemisms similarly? Why or why not?  What are the nuances of thought and feeling evoked by a euphemism and it’s “offensive” counterpart?

Does the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis imply that people have the power to change reality by changing their symbols?

Your criticisms of Sapir-Whorf?

What does the recent research say?  Elizabeth Spelke (2004) 5-month-olds in an English-speaking environment detected a conceptual distinction (tight and loose fit) that is marked in Korean but not English. Concluded that language learning seems to develop by linking linguistic forms to universal, pre-existing representations of meaning

What does the recent research say?  Peter Gordon (2004) Tribe of Brazilian hunter-gatherers with a “one, two, many” counting system. Impaired in their ability to compare quantities of objects higher than three

Notes