differentiating linguistic determinism from linguistic relativism
two theories intertwined
The language one is raised with effects how they conceptualizes and interacts (both outwardly and inwardly) with the world around them (Theory Reflections, n.d.). This creates a direct relationship between language and thinking. This theory has been a point of debate for the better part of the last century. Most critics favor the theory of linguistic relativity (also known as the “weak” version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) over the hard-set determinism.
Linguistic determinism states that society is in some way confined by its language, that language actually determines thought and culture (Language Files, p696). As an absolutist theory, it is often at the point of great criticism and without much effort one can think of examples where this is not the case. Linguistic determinism is, for the most part, ignored in favor of linguistic relativity which states that one's language influences one's view of the world but does NOT determine it. This is to say, the worldview of a speech community is influenced by the structure of its language (Language Files, p696). Humans are wildly varying and so are their brains. Though the brain does hold universals among all humans, such as the acquisition of language, the way humans use language to process their environment differs. For example, drawing from Diana Gainer's (Language and Thought, 2009) article on linguistic relativity, a doctor said in passing to an elderly patient to “take it easy,” synonymous with “goodbye” in his vocabulary. She took this as medical advice and refused to leave her bed for such a long time that she became unable to walk. This is an example of two speakers of the same language interpreting elements (colloquialisms) of their language in completely different ways. This is primary evidence against linguistic determinism as the same language by two native speakers was interpreted in starkly different manners.
Language helps an individual compartmentalize and rationalize the world around them. One uses the categories within their language to understand the functioning of stimulus. To transcend this view, one must learn another language that counteracts the formatting of the other languages and thus helps to expand one's mind and understanding. Recent research in linguistics, anthropology, and psychology suggest that there is an existence of human universals or shared human attributes. Examples of such include Noam Chomsky's language acquisition device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition_device).
The grammatical structure of a language also holds influence over how a person understands their existence. For example, in Turkish there are two past tenses. One is used for direct experience and the other is for things only known about through indirect means. If one were to describe the snow that fell while they were in school, they would either say “it snowed today” if they saw it directly but if they did not witness it, they would use the other past-tense that indicated they were not present to see the snow falling. (Language and Thought, 2012) Due to this, Turkish speakers rely on the use of past-tense to complete a story and to understand the perspective of those speaking. Their language influences their understanding.
While linguistic determinism is criticized, it is evident in situations where the primary means of drawing attention to an aspect of an experience is language. For example, in Spanish and French, there are two ways to address a person. The ways depend on the relationship between the two people, be it formal or informal. In this respect, the speaker is always thinking about the relationship when addressing another person and therefore unable to break out of this thought process. (Language and Thought, 2012)
However convincing these theories can be, language is inherently convoluted and so are humans. While language holds great influence over people's perception, culture, body movement, and geographic location also strongly impact a person's understanding. Language is merely one element that effects cognition and behavior. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis were true, in that language determines one's view of the world, it would be exceedingly difficult to learn a second language because the amount of cognitive-dissonance involved would be extremely radical and crushing to one's ideological framework.
Linguistic determinism states that society is in some way confined by its language, that language actually determines thought and culture (Language Files, p696). As an absolutist theory, it is often at the point of great criticism and without much effort one can think of examples where this is not the case. Linguistic determinism is, for the most part, ignored in favor of linguistic relativity which states that one's language influences one's view of the world but does NOT determine it. This is to say, the worldview of a speech community is influenced by the structure of its language (Language Files, p696). Humans are wildly varying and so are their brains. Though the brain does hold universals among all humans, such as the acquisition of language, the way humans use language to process their environment differs. For example, drawing from Diana Gainer's (Language and Thought, 2009) article on linguistic relativity, a doctor said in passing to an elderly patient to “take it easy,” synonymous with “goodbye” in his vocabulary. She took this as medical advice and refused to leave her bed for such a long time that she became unable to walk. This is an example of two speakers of the same language interpreting elements (colloquialisms) of their language in completely different ways. This is primary evidence against linguistic determinism as the same language by two native speakers was interpreted in starkly different manners.
Language helps an individual compartmentalize and rationalize the world around them. One uses the categories within their language to understand the functioning of stimulus. To transcend this view, one must learn another language that counteracts the formatting of the other languages and thus helps to expand one's mind and understanding. Recent research in linguistics, anthropology, and psychology suggest that there is an existence of human universals or shared human attributes. Examples of such include Noam Chomsky's language acquisition device (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_acquisition_device).
The grammatical structure of a language also holds influence over how a person understands their existence. For example, in Turkish there are two past tenses. One is used for direct experience and the other is for things only known about through indirect means. If one were to describe the snow that fell while they were in school, they would either say “it snowed today” if they saw it directly but if they did not witness it, they would use the other past-tense that indicated they were not present to see the snow falling. (Language and Thought, 2012) Due to this, Turkish speakers rely on the use of past-tense to complete a story and to understand the perspective of those speaking. Their language influences their understanding.
While linguistic determinism is criticized, it is evident in situations where the primary means of drawing attention to an aspect of an experience is language. For example, in Spanish and French, there are two ways to address a person. The ways depend on the relationship between the two people, be it formal or informal. In this respect, the speaker is always thinking about the relationship when addressing another person and therefore unable to break out of this thought process. (Language and Thought, 2012)
However convincing these theories can be, language is inherently convoluted and so are humans. While language holds great influence over people's perception, culture, body movement, and geographic location also strongly impact a person's understanding. Language is merely one element that effects cognition and behavior. If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis were true, in that language determines one's view of the world, it would be exceedingly difficult to learn a second language because the amount of cognitive-dissonance involved would be extremely radical and crushing to one's ideological framework.
