Yuliya Sesina
February 26th, 2009
Anthropology 1001 TV24A/Gaunt
David S. Thomson “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Worlds shaped by Words”
Through out our education, most of us have heard a teacher or Professor speak about the “power of language”. And it is no surprise that language is so powerful, because that is the way humans share ideas with each other. We often take for granted that when we say a certain word to a speaker of the same language, they usually understand it to mean exactly what we wanted them to. But imagine how hard it would be to tell a story to a friend, or give a speech to a room full of perspective investors if there was no system of language and meaning that allowed words to be mutually understood.
It is true that Sapir-Whorf’s theory is extremely difficult if not impossible to test scientifically. But we could see examples in every day life. Such as the German words that are discussed in the chapter. Since there is no equivalent in English for some of those words, the English speaker doesn’t have an understanding of the concept or belief described by them. He/she would only understand the three separate terms that are used to translate it into the English language. However, even with three terms some part of the meaning is bound to get lost in translation.
Looking at my own experience with a foreign language, Russian, I can see an example of a difference in perception due to language. When addressing a person who is a stranger or older than yourself you would refer to them with a word “vi” instead of “ti” (an equivalent for the English “you”). In English the closest equivalent I could think of is using the word “sir”. “Sir” is much more formal, not to mention that when using the word “vi” in Russian you are forced to change the conjugation of other words in the sentence. The practice of changing your entire way of speaking shows your respect for the person.
Bibliography
David S. Thomson. “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Worlds shaped by Words”. In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, 12 ed., ed. Spradley and McCurdy. Allyn & Bacon, 2008, 113 – 125.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you are just scratching the surface of this hypothesis. It is summed up best when Thomson writes "each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas" (like ti and vi in Russian) "but rather is itself the shaper of ideas...We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language" (p. 115) and its ways of languaging what we should expect "out there" but it really is from the language that we see the world the way we do, not the other way around, is this hypothesis.
ReplyDeleteWell written, but you haven't grasped the hypothesis fully. See Blackboard for grade.