Does the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Still Shape? - Essay Sample

Introduction

Through the Language Glass is one of the latest intellectual bestsellers, equally enjoyed by the academia and the general readership. In his book, Deutscher recounts a number of intriguing dilemmas to which modern linguistics has already given more or less well-grounded answers. For almost four hundred pages, he enthusiastically retells theories and concepts of the past and consistently refutes them in order to proceed to the next ones which will also be compromised in due turn. The finite and unequivocal answer to the essential question "What is determinative: language or consciousness?" is never given, but even the search itself is extremely fascinating. Through the Language Glass is a witty and brilliantly written book which in a relaxed and easy-to-read, yet thoughtful and meticulous manner explores the way in which a language influences an individuals' worldview without ultimately limiting their perception.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The book has a simple and clear structure. It opens up with an introduction in which the author enumerates the implications coming in conjunction with the supposition that languages and nations are bound like interconnected vessels and asks the inevitable questions: "Does language reflect the culture of a society in any profound sense...?" and "... can different languages lead their speakers to different thoughts and perceptions?" (Deutscher, 2010, p. 6). Having answered both of them in the affirmative, Deutscher proceeds to substantiate his claims with evidence in the two major parts that follow, "The Language Mirror," and "The Language Lens." The two parts reflect the logic of a conversation with the great minds that have advanced "from the issue of how language reflects the character of its speakers" to "the grander question of how language influences the thought processes of its speakers" (Deutscher, 2010, p. 5). The epilogue, "Forgive Us Our Ignorances," offers an insightful overview of the book's claim that "fundamental aspects of our thought are influenced by the cultural conventions of our society, to a much greater extent than is fashionable to admit today" (Deutscher, 2010, p. 233). Deutscher underlines that there are spheres where the influence of the mother tongue is significant (such as memory, perception, and associations and practical skills such as orientation) and which are no less important than the logical reasoning. With the due respect for the triumphant paradigm of Noam Chomsky, Deutscher offers a demonstration of the new research that in the future can significantly change our understanding of how our minds work. In addition to the two main explanations of language and mental differences (social experiences and heredity), Deutscher introduces the third one - neural connections responsible for the mechanics of our thinking. He hopes that neurobiology is preparing a new breakthrough in understanding the language.

Through the Language Glass is in constant dialogue with the hypothesis of linguistic relativity and determinism, also called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism. Whorf declared that the society is bound by an agreement to ascribe significances to objects, "an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language" (Whorf, 1956, pp. 213-4). In the same line, Sapir believed human beings to be "very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society" (Sapir, 1951, p. 162). One of the surges of the theory's popularity is, apparently, taking place now: new facts are revealed and experiments carried out. Despite the global claim of this hypothesis, it seems it is based on limited material: there are several areas which all researchers address (time, space and, to a lesser extent, color, gender, the system of kinship, and some others), and a limited number of illustrative examples. Deutscher diligently follows the well-trodden path of the traditionally researched areas for which, as it happens, he had to pay the price in the controversy around his NY Times article "Does your language shape what you think" (Deutscher, 2010). He was criticized by Ms. Boroditsky, an established scholar in the field, for borrowing some of her examples without a proper reference. "The short version is that the ground is well-traveled," comments the Public Editor of the NY Times, Arthur S. Brisbane (Brisbane, 2010). The editor explains that the problem is not of an intellectual theft, but rather of the lack of properly set conventions for popular journalism dealing with scholarly subjects (Brisbane, 2010). The three important conclusions that the reader may draw from this controversy are that, first of all, Deutscher's research safely relies on a trustworthy algorithm, secondly, that one of the primary merits of the book is an attempt to define the elusive format of popular science writing, and, finally, more research is needed to support such a global claim as the one that Deutscher is making.

Conclusion

Deutscher's aim in writing the book, as it seems, is a noble one. By creating an extensive inventory of the existing theories, their triumphs, and blunders, the scholar is trying to preserve the valid results they have yielded and synthesize them into a foundation the future generations of researchers can build upon. The scholar distinguishes two key lessons that one can learn from the epic fall of Whorfianism. The first one is the necessity of thorough evidence-based approach within which "a convincing case still has to be made that it was really language that caused these differences, rather than other factors in the speakers' cultures and environments" (Deutscher, 2010, p. 148). The second lesson is the idea that the language one speaks cannot limit his cognitive potential and "we must escape from is the delusion that language is a prison-house for thought that it constrains its speakers' ability to reason logically and prevents them from understanding ideas that are used by speakers of other languages" (Deutscher, 2010, p. 149). Both of these conclusions are highly timely, as, in fact, they belong to the very basics of research which tend to be ignored in the wake of any scholarly sensation.

Reference

Brisbane, A. S. (2010, October 2). Scholarly Work, Without All the Footnotes. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03pubed.html?_r=3&scp=1&sq=scholarly work without all the footnotes&st=cse

Deutscher, G. (2010, August 26) Does Your Language Shape What You Think. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved October 20, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=1

Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan Books Henry Holt and Company.

Sapir, E. (1951). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality (Z. S. Harris & D. G. Mandelbaum, Eds.). Language, 27(3), 160-166. doi:10.2307/409757

Whorf, B. L. (1957). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (G. L. Trager & J. B. Carroll, Eds.). Language, 33(3), 207-219. doi:10.2307/411163.