 |
| Figure 1: Language and color distinctions as demonstration of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Kay & Kempton, 1984) |
Anthropological linguistics focuses on the relationship
between culture and language. One of the
primary concepts that students of anthropological linguistics learn is the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. This hypothesis
has since been dismissed and largely no longer supported, but it is still worth
exploring because it has some merit and has led to a great understanding of
language and perception. Today’s blog post
will explore the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and discuss what merits it does and
does not have.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was established by Edward Sapir
and Benjamin Whorf in 1929 but did not become the center of anthropological
attention until the 1950s. Edward Sapir
was a linguistic anthropologist who focused his research on structural
linguistics, and Benjamin Whorf was Sapir’s student. They put forward their hypothesis that
claimed two things: first, language influences of our perceptions of the world,
and 2) languages are so unique that it is difficult to translate thoughts and
products of language from one into another.
Sapir and Whorf claimed that the Hopi concept of time and the Inuit
focal language associated with snow supported their hypothesis. The Hopi identified different aspects of time
that they claimed was radically different from Western conceptualization of
time, and the Inuit’s numerous words for snow provided them a greater
understanding of environmental conditions compared to languages that lacked
those same lingual distinctions. Another
line of evidence to support the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis comes from color
terminology among various languages.
Some languages only identify a small number of colors (e.g. the primary
colors), whereas others (e.g. English) have several different terms and
therefore speakers can recognize more colors than other language speakers (Figure 1). This means that what English speakers
recognize as pink may be identified as red by another language speaker.
Unfortunately for Sapir and Whorf their hypothesis did have
several flaws. First, after much
scrutiny it was determined that neither Whorf nor Sapir actually interviewed
any Hopi individuals. This was a huge
flaw with their hypothesis, which was made worse when further study demonstrated
that the Hopi concept of time was not very different from that of
Westerners. Another criticism with the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis related to their idea that languages cannot be
translated into others. While there is
some truth to this (as there are some sayings and concepts that cannot be 100%
translated) the basic ideas can be translated and the overall message will not
be lost. Taken together, the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis has largely been dismissed.
In conclusion, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, while no longer
accepted, has some merits and has provided anthropological linguists more
insights into language and culture.
Through the study of this hypothesis a greater understanding of cultural
understandings of the world has been reached.
Also, a greater understanding of linguistic diversity has also been
accomplished. Just because a concept is
wrong does not mean it cannot be useful, such as is the case for the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis.
For students wanting to learn more about the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis please watch this video.
References
Badhesha, R.S. (2002).
“Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.”
Retrieved from http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/4-9-sapir.htm
Kay, P. and Kempton, W.
(1984). “What is the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis?” PowerPoint
Presentation. NT Rusiyanadi.
No Author. No
Date. “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” Ask a
Linguist FAQ. The Linguist
List. Retrieved from http://linguistlist.org/ask-ling/sapir.cfm
6 comments:
I was never much interested in Linguistic Anthropology, but the idea that language differs so much in so many ways has led me to ponder whether or not there's a way to make up these differences and avoid misunderstanding.
Although they were wrong in there point, I personally feel the same about certain languages. All perception of thought and language is not the same when in all cultures. If they had took more time to involve other people from different countries and backgrounds. The hypothesis may have stood a chance today.
I never really took an interest in the Linguistic anthropology only because I never hear a lot a controversy on it . But as stated above me things could have went a better way if they had gotten different cultures involved. - Mykia Chaney
My name is Aleisha watts, I Don't think they should have been dismissed but they should have put forth more effort in their research. people have different viewpoints about language and colors being that it can be very difficult to understand coming from different people. Certain kind of language is difficult to translate to others being that they don't use the same alphabetical translation and sound. Language is still growing today which gives off a lot of controversy about it.
I believe the sapir-whorf hypothesis greatly expanded the world of anthropology by claiming that language influenced our perception of the world.
Elaine christopher
The post explains the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in a simple way so that people who are not familiar with anthropological linguistics may understand it. It demonstrates how language may affect cultural perceptions using examples from the Hopi way of thinking about time and the Inuit language connected to snow. It also places the idea in its historical perspective by noting that Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf proposed the hypothesis in. This expands the conversation and draws attention to these researchers' groundbreaking contributions to the study of linguistics.
Post a Comment