The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is sometimes expressed as “language determines thought”. This is a fascinating concept, suggesting that speakers of another language might have a view of the world very different from our own. The artificial language Loglan (Logical Language) was originally intended to test the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. The idea was that a logical language would be so different from any natural language that differences in thought should be readily detected, if the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis were true. The science fiction novel Babel-17 imagines an artificial language that can turn its speakers into traitors. In Snow Crash, language hackers can control people’s minds by speaking to them in a special language.
Since the 1950s, when the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis became well-known, the general opinion of linguists and cognitive scientists has become highly skeptical. I was surprised to find that there is recent work in linguistics and cognitive science that supports the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (2003) is a collection of papers describing this work.
The first paper in the collection gives three more precise versions of “language determines thought”:
- Language as a lens: the language we acquire influences how we see the world.
- Language as a tool kit: the language we acquire augments our capacity for higher order representation and reasoning.
- Language as a category maker: the language we acquire influences where we make our category distinctions.
The papers are divided into three groups, based on which version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis they examine. It seems that there is relatively strong evidence supporting all three versions, but there is particularly strong evidence for language as a tool kit.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is alive and well. Watch out for language hackers.
Filed under: Philosophy of Mind, Semantics | Tagged: language, perception, Sapir-Whorf
I’m surprised this is not a well accepted fact.
There is the famous example of inuits who have 12 different words for “snow”.
There is also lots of anecdotal evidence. For example, French was a “designed” language. It was designed by the French crown so it could more easily rule the land. English emerged as the “people’s language”. Unsurprisingly, English folks are far more bottom-up (empirical) then French folks (who have a strong tendency to be rationalists).
Look at Quebec in North America. We have 40% of the workforce in unions, against, what, maybe 15% in the rest of North America? This is all anecdotal, but Quebec people have a tendency to organize themselves into top-down structures and are uneasy with empirical approaches. (A union is all about centralizing the workforce, and delegating power to a few in a hierarchical setting.)
I will claim that English took over the world, not because it is pretty language (it is just about the ugliest one around) nor causally for military or economical reasons, but because English speakers tend to be more pragmatic and pragmatism is simply, almost by definition, a more efficient way to think.
Principled and long-term thinking would be the French’s forte, but because human being are so poor at rational thinking, often being dramatically wrong at predicting the future, short-term pragmatic thinking is better.
If you cannot see why English is a more pragmatic language, just look at the grammar. The French grammar is an incredible mess of hierarchical rules. In English, there is almost no rule to follow. Whatever works, works.
The French language is also far more precise. You do not have the equivalent of the “Canadian Music Institute”. Is it an institute about canadian music, or a canadian institute about music? In French, you do not tend to have these problems.
What I find fascinating is that ISO policy to have all specs. translated prior to acceptance. Again, this is anecdotal, but I hear that translating specifications in French is a very good way to find inconsistencies and mistakes. French is a much more logical and precise language.
David Brin (sci fi author) actually suggests that we evolved from very precise and logical languages to progressively more versatile languages. When you live in a universe that does not change, ever, you need a very static language… in a world where new ideas and new trends are very common, you need a language that can very easily adapt.
French is hard to adapt. It takes longer to introduce new words, and more arguing. It often happens that, even if I have all of the right word, there are things I cannot say in French. For example, there is no good way, in French, to talk about “scalable information technology systems”. Yes, you can talk about “mise à l’échelle” which is the translation for scalable, but “scalable system” cannot be rendered in French in a short phrase. If you think about it, “scalable system” is a very “unprecise” phrase. What do you mean? In truth, what you mean depends on the context. Scalable with respect to the amount of data, features, and so on? In French, you must know precisely what you mean buffer you utter the sentence. Even if you could think it gives you an edge, I think it actually drags French folks down.
There is the famous example of inuits who have 12 different words for “snow”.
The snow example is a myth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/000405.html
Even if it were true, a difference in vocabulary does not necessarily imply a difference in thinking or perception.
The French language is also far more precise.
Any claim that one language is better than another is highly controversial:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004199.html
Daniel, isn’t cultural difference a far more obvious place to look for these differences? And language barriers could be a reason that cultures don’t cross-diffuse all that much. You could hypothesize that language affects culture but it would just be a hypothesis.
Follow up:
Language Affects Perception