Could someone out there who is a professional linguist or just up-to-date give me a sense of how the Sapir-Whorf theory is currently regarded in the field? I’m proposing to use the following in a paper “… is linked to the now-discredited Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.” Is that fair?
Obviously there are whorfians out there; I took Linguistics under one. But there are Communists in Poly Sci departments, too, and my Dad wears polyester slacks; is Whorf equally out of fashion? And what’s in – are we post-Chomsky yet?
The paper is due Tuesday and I don’t have the time to read a bunch of journals to get the mood. Thanks ever so much.
Taking bets on how many Star-Trek people wander into this thread and make jokes.
My philological background dates to before Tolkien died, and my anthropology knowledge is nearly 10 years out of date, so don’t set great store on this. But here’s a start:
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis attempts, like many great ideas, to explain too much. In addition to the truism that to have a concept, you must be able to verbalize it, and therefore have terms that can express it, it goes beyond that to presume things about cultures based on the language use. Sometimes these conclusions may be valid, but sometimes not.
For example, the idea of Navajo failure to conceptualize time as we do is quite invalid. A Navajo is fully as able to identify when something happened as is, e.g., a Frenchman. However, his language’s structure does not require that he identify a time framework, as do most others. (Note that everything in this statement is in a present tense that does not express anything about the time in which my statements are valid; they would be equally true in the pluperfect, and in Russian I would have been required to place them in imperfective or perfective aspect.) Likewise the fact that Spanish uses “ser” with terms of living but “estar” with muerto does not in and of itself validate the Christian concept of the transitoriness of death that might be read into it.
Hopefully matt, jois or somebody else with some solid learning in the field will be along to improve on what I have had to say.
Poly – thanks a lot, and I agree with you 100%. But my question is not about Sapir-Whorf’s veracity (I would have put that in GD; where this may end up anyway), but simply it’s popularity.
I think that last word on Whorf’s abuse of Indian languages (was it Navajo or Hopi?) came in a marvelous book, Aristotle in China, dealing with the issues raised in translating Philosophy. The author referenced a book entitled The Hopi Concept of Time, and said the the length of that book (700+ pgs.) said all that needed to be said about Whorf’s scholarship.
BTW, and again because I’m too lazy to research, what in heaven’s name do you do for a living, Poly? You seem well-read on just about everything…
I am no matt or andygirl (and I hope they or someone else will correct me if anything I say is wrong), but everything I have studied that relates to linguistics refers to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis with phrases like your “the now-discredited Sapir-Whorf hypothesis”. I don’t think you’ll get much argument if you call it that.
Oh, and I believe Chomsky could be considered anti-Whorfian. You don’t get much more influential than that.
All I can tell you is that at Dartmouth College, an Ivy League university, I have taken several linguistics courses (Introductory, sociolinguistics, and Native American languages) and never had that theory presented to me as anything but generally accepted.
I should explain further. I’m talking the soft theory, not the hard one. And to further clarify, much of what we discussed was historical background of the theories. In short, just because I don’t remember learning about it being discredited doesn’t mean that it didn’t occur- I do, however, remember being presented with the information as a basic sociolinguistic theory.
I’m racking my brain for what I remember from Socio, but I could honestly be misrepresenting a part of what I learned about it. I’ll check with my profs for further clarification. My deepest apologies for any misinformation I may have presented.
I dunno, Lamia. I’m not sure if my language contains the proper understanding of what it means to arm-wrestle with you and your damn Universal Grammar Theory.
Let’s see…we talked about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in cognitive psychology on Monday. Basically, the hard version is thought to be discredited, but there’s some argument that at least some of the tests used might not have been the best. My professor suggested that one’s native tongue may not make certain thoughts impossible, but it does slow them down.
I was a little bit surprised to read furt’s idea that the sapir-whorf hypothesis might be considered “now-discredited”—afaik it’s not even particularly controversial in its weak form. Even in its strong form, I don’t know that it’s discredited, but there at least you have some strong arguments against…
(For those following at home: the strong sapir-whorf hypothesis is that language determines thought, or even that language and thought are the same; the weaker version is simply that the language(s) we speak influence the way we think.)
No I’m not a linguist, but I know a little bit, at least.
On the other hand, I think the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, while not totally incorrect per se, misses the point: language is a part of culture, not indepedndant of it. Its like the old question: “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Is it the language that has forced peoples mind’s into certain patterns, or the pre-existing patterns which create the vocabulary and grammer in the language?