Researched FRQ: Does Language Affect the Way We Think? (with cited sources)

Cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky with Pormpuraaw children 

When asked to point north, a five-year old girl from an aboriginal community in Australia does so precisely and without hesitation. When the same question is posed upon several distinguished scholars, many refuse, if not struggle, to perform the same task. How is it that notable scientists fail to do what is considered a simple task for a little girl? The answer in this immense difference in cognitive ability lies in language. While English speakers may not make use of cardinal directions on a daily basis, the Pormpuraawan tribe’s superior knowledge of spatial orientation stems from the spatial reference found in their local languages (Boroditsky and Gaby 1638). While the idea that different languages convey different cognitive skills in western culture goes back at least several hundred years to the work of Vico and von Humboldt, it was more recently expressed through the work of linguistic anthropologists Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and Benjamin Lee Whorf, among others (Koerner 174). One particular theory that was advanced in the 20th century by the two American linguists–the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, otherwise known as linguistic relativity–contends that experiences gained by individuals are based on the structure of the language they speak. However, there are two versions to this hypothesis. Specifically, the interpretation by Whorf of the hypothesis is termed “linguistic determinism” and is referred to as the “strong” form of linguistic relativity, arguing that language determines human cognition. By contrast, the “weak” interpretation of this hypothesis states that language only influences thought and other non-linguistic behavior. While the question of whether linguistic relativity exists or not has been debated by linguists for years, the universalist theory of language rising in the later 20th century claiming linguistic structures to be innate and cognitive processes being universal in human beings caused linguistic relativity to be heavily ignored. Nevertheless, the belief that language affects the way we think, or the weaker form of linguistic relativity, should be accepted due to new studies in the recent decades that have revived this concept.

             Linguistic determinism, the stronger form of linguistic relativity, claims that the structure of language determines how people think, and more extremely, the language we speak constrains us to certain thoughts. Whorf, as a main proponent of this principle, tested the hypothesis with his pioneering work comparing Hopi and English speakers in the 1930s. With this experiment, Whorf argued that the Hopi Native American tribe speaker conceptualized time differently from the Standard Average European speaker due to grammatical differences between the languages (“Hopi Time Controversy”). After analyzing his observations, Whorf concluded that in Hopi perspective, “time disappears and space is altered, so that no longer the homogeneous and instantaneous timeless space of our supposed intuition or of classical Newtonian mechanics” (28). As opposed to the way English speakers divide time into past, present, and future tenses, the Hopi lack this vocabulary, thus making it impossible for them to think of time. While the Whorfian view was largely criticized in the following years by linguists and anthropologists, it lived on as an urban myth that “the Hopi have no concept of time”.

            In the dystopian novel 1984, author George Orwell incorporates the theme of linguistic determinism as a tool for totalitarian rule (Blackmore 7). With the intent of eradicating concepts of political or intellectual freedom, the government in 1984 replaces “Oldspeak,” the English that exists in our world, with “Newspeak,” a modified version of English with a much smaller vocabulary (Deol).  As “Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought,” the Party’s ideology of limiting a person’s ability to think serves both as a fictional interpretation and a warning to the implications of linguistic determinism (Orwell 1). While the theory of linguistic determinism supports the idea that a totalitarian government can hold power over our ability to think of certain concepts, this became unlikely as another theory, claiming universal language-related processes, gained popularity and debunked the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

The ignorance given to linguistic relativity in the second half of the twentieth century is largely credited to Noam Chomsky’s idea of universal grammatical systems. Chomsky’s theory imposed that in order to learn any language, children forming grammatical sentences at an early age have to have an inborn set of underlying rules. In developing his theory, Chomsky combined the computational approach to language with human biology, promising new discoveries in the foundations of all the world’s human languages. Chomsky’s idea that children held an innate “Language Acquisition Device” gained an immediate appeal to scientists (Malone 2). However, this concept of having “brains hardwired with a mental template for learning grammar” had its flaws, as certain grammatical elements or the lack thereof pertaining to several non-European languages challenged the idea of universal grammar and was recently abandoned by cognitive scientists and linguists due to new research in various languages as well as the way children learn to speak the languages of their societies (Ibbotson and Tomasello).

After a brief hiatus in the acceptance of linguistic relativity in the sixties and seventies, new research has advocated the weaker form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. As Boroditsky claims, empirical evidence showing how languages shape thinking is finally being recognized, overturning the idea about universality (63). Language shapes the most essential dimensions of human experience—space, time, causality and relationships to others. The work of psycholinguists Stephen C. Levinson and John B. Haviland demonstrates that people who speak languages that involve the use of directions are good at keeping track of their location, even in unfamiliar regions. In addition, research conducted by Boroditsky herself and Alice Gaby where they gave Kuuk Thaayorre speakers picture cards to organize in correct temporal order revealed that those who think differently about space may probably think differently about time, as the Kuuk Thaayorre arranged the cards from east to west, instead of from left to right like English speakers or from right to left like Hebrew speakers, implying that writing direction in a language also influences how we organize time (64).

In addition, Danziger and Ward advocate the “numerous findings showing an influence of language structure on cognition” (799). In their experiment, Danziger and Ward tested whether Arab Israelis’ attitudes towards Arabs and Jews differed depending on if the associations were instigated in Hebrew or Arabic (there is a tension in the multilingual and multicultural community of Israel). The results showed that language use “can selectively influence the accessibility of socially relevant associations,” as well as proving the statements of language and culture being intricately linked and bilingual people thinking about their social circumstance in a different way depending on their current language context (800). By using bilingual subjects, this demonstrates a valid direct correlation in culture and language to cognition. Thus, while linguistic determinism and universal grammar structures are eliminated, the weaker form of linguistic relativity is especially prevalent.  

While the reality of a totalitarian government coming to power one day and controlling our thoughts is unlikely, the weaker form of linguistic relativity can be seen in our everyday lives through our unconscious use of language. Similarly, the idea of innate universal language structure may excite some that are looking for a scientific explanation to humans’ language evolution over time; however, the notion of language, thought, and culture being tied together opens new doors in the disciplines of psychology and linguistics. Hence, if our perception is influenced by the language we speak, would a person that learned to speak multiple languages have a wider understanding of the world? The implementation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in language acquisition practices can help transform the attitudes of our world, collectively. When language is looked upon from this perspective, it can be seen as reflection of the values and thoughts that people in a culture share based on the words they chose to create, and that is beautiful. 

  

Works Cited

Blackmore, Ashley. “Revitalising Linguistic Relativity.” 2012, www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:531920/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

Boroditsky, Lera, and Alice Gaby. “Remembrances of Times East: Absolute Spatial Representations of Time in an Australian Aboriginal Community.” Psychological Science, vol. 21, no. 11, 2010, pp. 1635–1639. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41062425.

Boroditsky, Lera. “How Language Shapes Thought.” Scientific American, vol. 304, no. 2, 2011, pp. 62–65. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26002395.

Danziger, Shai, and Robert Ward. “Language Changes Implicit Associations Between Ethnic Groups and Evaluation in Bilinguals.” Psychological Science, vol. 21, no. 6, 2010, pp. 799–800. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41062292.

Deol, Justin. “Can You Think Complex Thoughts Without Language? | 1984 - George Orwell.” Freedom in Thought, March 2018, www.freedominthought.com/archive/can-you-think-complex-thoughts-without-language-1984-george-orwell.

“Hopi Time Controversy Explained.” Explained.Today, everything.explained.today/Hopi_time_controversy/.

Ibbotson, Paul, and Michael Tomasello. “Evidence Rebuts Chomsky’s Theory of Language Learning.” Scientific American, November 2016, www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/.

Koerner, E. F. Konrad. “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: A Preliminary History and a Bibliographical Essay.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, vol. 2, no. 2, 1992, pp. 173–198. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43102168.

Malone, Dennis L. “Theories and Research of Second Language Acquisition.” SIL International, 2012, www.sil.org/sites/default/files/files/theories_and_research_of_second_language_acquisition.pdf.

Orwell, George. 1984. Penguin Books, 2008.

WHORF, BENJAMIN LEE. “AN AMERICAN INDIAN MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, vol. 8, no. 1, 1950, pp. 27–33. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/42581334.