‘Strong’ versus ‘Weak’ Interpretations Language is something that connects us all, yet the idea that it shapes our view of the world calls into question just how connected our thoughts and perceptions really are when there are so many different varieties of language. This idea is most famously attributed to Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf who both held then view that “one’s knowledge of vocabulary or syntax influences one’s perception and understanding” (Steinberg, Nagata and Aline, 2001). This essay will discuss the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and its interpretations, and consider linguistic evidence opposing this notion.
The idea that an individual’s perception of the world is dependent on the language they speak was first proposed by Hamann and Herder in the 18th century, and later by Humboldt in the 19th century (Penn, 1972). In 1929, Edward Sapir developed this linguistic argument further, stating that “Human beings… are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society” (Penn, 1972). Sapir strongly believed that interpretations of one’s environment are predisposed by the habits of their language (Chandler, 1995). In the 1930’s, Whorf expressed his support for what was then known as the ‘Sapir Hypothesis’ through several published articles. He described the world as a “kaleidoscope flux of impressions” which our minds must organise by the means of linguistic systems (Chandler, 1995). Following Whorf’s publications, many other linguists began appraising the theory and expressing criticisms of the ‘Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis’ (Penn, 1972). Two strands of the hypothesis have emerged since the original theory was proposed- ‘weak’ versus ‘strong’. Behaviourists, like Bruner, hold the belief associated with the ‘strong’ interpretation; thoughts are entirely determined by language. This is often expressed as linguistic determinism. (Chandler, 1995) A milder version of the hypothesis does exist, whereby the idea that language influences- rather than determines- our perception is offered. This concept is often titled ‘Linguistic Relativity’ (Chandler, 1995). The weaker strand of the hypothesis was described by Everett (2013) as recognising that variation occurs in the perception of individuals in relation to language (Teasdale, 2019). Moreover, it proposes a binary process of which the reverse is also considered- perceptions and thought processes influence our use of language (Chandler, 1995).
Rather than simply accepting that our language affects our perceptions, there has been research into the two-way aspect associated with linguistic relativity. Steinberg et al stated that “it is our interest and need that determines our coinage of vocabulary and its use” (Steinberg, Nagata and Aline, 2001: 256). One example of this would be the fact that children are fascinated by dinosaurs. They often know several dinosaur names, sometimes including obscure facts about them. However, it is not due to their language that they perceive the different dinosaurs, but rather that their perception of them sparked an interest, which resulted in the seeking out of dinosaur-related terms (Steinberg, Nagata and Aline, 2001:256). These terms are not particularly high frequency words amongst the influx of language that children are exposed to, nor are they at all associated with the everyday language of caregivers or other individuals that children would generally come into contact with. Therefore, this evidence seems to oppose the ‘strong’ interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, otherwise known as determinism.
Furthermore, the ‘strong’ interpretation provokes the question: does the lack of a word for a particular concept prevent comprehension of it (Teasdale, 2019)? Daniel Everett studied the Piraha tribe for 25 years and discovered that there was a lack of terms relating to colours (Teasdale, 2019). Instead of using individual terms to identify such concepts, the tribe express these using broader phrases. For example, the word ‘biisai’ is used similarly to that of the word ‘red’, yet is less specific in definition. ‘Biisai’ can be split into parts: ‘bii’ meaning the noun ‘blood’, and ‘ai’ expressing the infinitive ‘to be’. It makes sense for the concept of ‘red’ to be associated with blood- this being something experienced on a daily basis due to their culture revolving quite heavily around hunting and survival (Teasdale, 2019). Arguably, the concept of the colour ‘red’ itself still exists, though the expression of such involves perceiving it in relation to a frequent cultural experience. Therefore, their lack of a specific word for the colour does not seem to inhibit their ability to perceive it. Quite the opposite is found in the Scandinavian language where there exists a word used to express a concept that, in other Western cultures, can only be explained through the use of multiple words associated with that experience. “Hygge” describes the specific feeling of cosiness and warmth experienced when wrapped up in a blanket by the fire on a cold evening (Teasdale, 2019). In Denmark it is cold all year round; therefore it does not seem too strange for their language to reflect an experience that is regularly sought out.
The ‘strong’ interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis seems questionable when such evidence offers quite the alternate sense; demonstrating the influence of thought and perceptions on language. The ‘weak’ interpretation of the hypothesis, though, seems less easy to disprove, as long as behaviours influenced by some aspect of language are exhibited (Penn, 1972).
References:
Chandler, D. (1995). Chandler Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. [online] Coralgablescavaliers.org. Available at: http://www.coralgablescavaliers.org/ourpages/users/099346/IB%20Theory%20of%20Knowledge/Bastian%20Chapter%2006/Bastian%206/Chandler%20Sapir%20Whorf%20Hypothesis.pdf [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].
Penn, J. (1972). Linguistic Relativity versus Innate Ideas. [online] Google Books. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cla1BwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=sapphire+whorf+hypothesis&ots=Ymk8is9aJq&sig=6B6JbMc2ubxoIBYqCMK1HVTB8eg#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].
Steinberg, D., Nagata, H. and Aline, D. (2001). Psycholinguistics. 2nd ed. Pearson Education Limited, p.256.
Teasdale, C. (2019). Sapir-Whorf | Language Debates. [online] Languagedebates.wordpress.com. Available at: https://languagedebates.wordpress.com/tag/sapir-whorf/ [Accessed 4 Apr. 2019].
Comments