Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.ppt

TAUCHI – Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction
RESOURCE PERSON:
Rashid Mahmood
Department of English
Okara University
SAPIR
WHORF
HYPOTHEIS

SAPIR WHORF HYPOTHEIS
• Sapir (1929) Human beings do
not live in the society alone.
Language of the society
predispose certain choices of
interpretation about how we view
the world.

• Whorf (1941) We dissect nature along
lines laid down by our native
languages. We categorise objects in
the scheme laid by the language and if
we do not subscribe to these
classification we cannot talk or
communicate.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be
divided into two basic components
• Linguistic determinism
• Linguistic relativity

• The linguistic relativity hypothesis
states that language structure affect the way
people conceptualize the world for instance in
the Eskimo language, different words are used to
denote different kinds of snow. According to
“Linguistic relativity” a speaker should thus tell
apart different kinds of snow by its physical
feature.

The linguistic relativity
• One well-known example Whorf used to
support his theory was the number of words
the Eskimo Language has for ‘snow for
example ‘apun’ snow on the ground ‘qanikca’
hard snow on the qround ‘ etc. Arabic has
many words for different kinds of camels, in
Chinese there is only one term luotuo and in
English there is camel.

• Here's an example that you might find amusing. In a
certain part of New Guinea, people live a hand-to-mouth
existence as they always have done. Consequently, they
have no wealth and no reason to count things. Their
language has a word for one and another word for two.
But, that's the extent of their counting system. Today,
because of contact with the outside world, they've had to
adapt their language. They use the word for dog to indicate
the number four (possibly because a dog has four legs). So,
here's how the system works (using English-equivalents):
One = 1 Two = 2 One and two = 3 Dog = 4 Dog and one =
5 Dog and two = 6 Dog and one and two = 7 Dog dog = 8
Dog dog and one = 9 and so on.

• The Whorfian perspective is that
translation between one language and
another is at the very least,
problematic, and sometimes
impossible.
• One such example is of the Punjabi
word “joot.”

Linguistic determinism
• Linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language
has an impact on the way that its speakers view the
world. Because we can only really think of the world
through the use of language and words, it seems to make
sense that the structure of our language would have an
impact on how we perceive the world.
• Linguistic determinism does not disagree with this
general idea. Instead, it goes beyond it. Linguistic
determinism argues that the structure of language does
not simply affect our way of looking at the world; it
actually determines how we look at the world.

• Popularly known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
or Whorfianism , the principle is often defined to
include two version
• That language determines thought and that
linguistic categories limit and determine
cognitive categories Strong version
• That language categories and usage influence
thought and certain kind of non linguistic
behavior. Weak version

Linguistic theories
• Within linguistic theory, two
extreme positions concerning the
relationship between language and
thought are commonly referred to
as 'mould theories’ and 'cloak
theories'

Linguistic theories
• Mould theories
Thoughts categories are cast
• Cloak theories
Customary categories of thoughts
of its speaker

Mould Theory
• Mould theory :The idea that language moulds
thought rather than simply expressing it.
According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
content is bound up with linguistic form, and the
use of the medium contributes to shaping the
meaning. In common usage, we often talk of
different verbal formulations ‘meaning the same
thing’, but for those of a Whorfian persuasion,
such as Fish, ‘it is impossible to mean the same
thing in two (or more) different ways’ (at least in
literary contexts).

Cloak theory
• Cloak theory :The neoclassical idea of
language as simply the dress of thought, based
on the assumption that the same thought can
be expressed in a variety of ways (linguistic
dualism). Linguistic universalists argue that
we can say whatever we want to say in any
language, and that whatever we say in one
language can always be translated into
another .

• 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 or reflection. The fact of the
matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built
upon the language habits of the group. 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...
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 1958 [1929], p. 69)

• Human beings do not live alone in the
world they need a medium to
communicate their expression of thought.
It is not possible to realities of societies or
world without use of language. A ‘real
world’ is to at large extent unconsciously
built upon the language habit of the group.
No, two languages can express the same
social realities.

• 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 to organize it in
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
organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.
(Whorf 1940, pp. 213-14; his emphasis)

• The world is organized by our mind
and this means largely by the
linguistics system in our mind.
• According to the article, Whorf
distanced himself from the
behaviorists stance that thinking is
entirely linguistic.

• Our thinking is determined by
language. People who speak
different languages perceive
and think about the world quite
differently.

• According to the strong version of the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there is no
real translation. The Whorfian
perspective is that translation between
one language and another is at the
very least problematic and sometime
impossible.

• It is impossible to learn the
language of a different culture
unless the learner abandons his or
her own mode of thinking and
acquires the thought patterns of
the native speakers of the target
language.

• Moderate Whorfianism differs from determinist in
these ways:
• Patterns of thinking can be influenced rather than
determined,
• Language influences the way we see the world and it is
influenced by that also,
• Any influence should be ascribed to the variety in a
language rather than the language itself (sociolect*),
• Influence can be seen on the social context but not in
purely linguistic form.

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.ppt

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.ppt

Similar to Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.ppt (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.ppt