Language is defined as a complex system of communication, unique to human experience. Around the world today, there are approximately 6,500 different languages in active use. If the statement “people who speak radically different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently” is to be supported, then this would in turn indicate, that there are in fact, 6,500 different ways of perceiving and thinking about the world. This essay aims to discuss the nature of the debate surrounding the capacity of language and its role in constructing human cognition, as well as raising certain issues concerned in the depletion of language diversity in the modern world and its implications for future generations.
German philosophers J. G. Herder and W.V. Humboldt first developed the idea of language being able to shape the individual thought processes of its speaker. The principles of such linguistic relativity effectively laid the foundations for a later theory, derived by American linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, often referred to as ‘The Sapir- Whorf Hypothesis’. This hypothesis however, is by no means homogenous, as its name would seem to suggest. Sapir suggested that language be viewed as the architect that moulds our perception of reality, and not simply reflects it as was once thought by his predecessors. Sapir’s conclusions on linguistic relativity stand firm on the basis of empirically, verifiable data that he collected from his research into American Indian languages. Such research demonstrates Sapir’s insistence that there exists a relationship between one’s culture and their language, as he asserted that it was virtually impossible to understand and appreciate one without the other. In his book aptly entitled Language (1929), Sapir clearly expresses these views by stating that “the real world is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group…We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” (Sapir 207) Thus, Sapir’s position in the debate addressing linguistic relativity would most definitely imply that people who think in different languages must perceive the world quite differently. This is to a large extent due to the constraints culture impose upon individual experience, inevitably dictating how and what people must think in order to adapt to the lifestyle demands of their immediate surroundings.
Whorf’s hypothesis on linguistic relativity is indeed similar to Sapir’s, in that Whorf too acknowledges the effect different languages must have on the functioning of human cognition. However, unique to Whorf’s theory is his specific study of the Hopi language, an ancient tongue derived from the American Indian language. In particular, Whorf paid close attention to the grammatical structure of the Hopi language that proved problematic to interpret due to its unexplainable irregularities when compared to the conventional use of indo- European categories (Hussein 642). As a result of these detected disparities in grammar, Whorf argued that this indicated a different way of thinking. This can be explained further in terms of thought being expressed through language, as a difference in grammatical structure would in turn imply the existence of a distinct thought pattern for each structural arrangement, and therefore influence the perception of that specific individual. Psychologist John. B. Carroll quotes Whorf in his book, Language thought and Reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (1956), demonstrating the impression of Whorf’s theory being a deterministic one- “no individual is free to describe nature with absolute impartiality but is constrained to certain modes of interpretation even while he thinks himself most free” (Carroll 214). This statement can be linked to the theoretical nature of Whorf’s conclusions being derived mainly from drawing upon the dissimilarities between the Hopi language and that of ‘Standard Average European’ (SAE). Here, Whorf indicates the constraints culture places upon its inhabitants to comply with a particular “mode of interpretation” that effectively determines the way they are adapted to perceive the natural world. However, the common notion of Whorf’s findings being deterministic can perhaps be interpreted more favourably to the capabilities of the human brain, as Whorf continues to state “the person most nearly free in such respects would be a linguist familiar with many widely different linguistic systems” (Carroll 214). From this, it can be inferred that Whorf views language as a somewhat restricting factor to humanity’s ability to unlock the richness of knowledge that exists in the world, as he suggests such information is encoded through language, making itself available in its entirety to only a limited few.
The notion of linguistic diversity is an important one in enhancing our understanding of how people who speak different languages perceive and think about the real world. K. David. Harrison’s book When Languages Die (2007) explores this idea further, whilst also addressing the dire situation of “language disappearance”, a situation he describes as “an erosion or extinction of ideas, of ways of knowing, and ways of talking about the world and human experience” (Harrison 7). This statement would suggest that Harrison also views language as defining and directing people’s perception and thought processes, as he presents the idea of specific languages being able to contribute unique “ideas” and “ways of knowing”. Linguist Ken Hale adheres to Harrison’s concerns regarding the detrimental effects of losing the many sacred languages of indigenous peoples and their communities to the world’s understanding of human experience and indeed existence. He is quoted in Harrison’s book as saying: “when you lose a language, you lose a culture, intellectual wealth, a work of art. It’s like dropping a bomb on a museum, the Louvre” (Harrison 7). Here, Hale’s use of such an elaborate metaphor to compare the qualities endorsed by language to that of a “museum”, highlights the depth of intellectual and cultural capacity language holds, and the knowledge the world risks to lose as a consequence. Thus, the ejection of fear from both of these academics, at the possibility of losing some of the world’s fading languages at a dangerously rapid rate, indicates that language must in fact shape how people think, if it is to be believed that language is capable of providing such diversity in cultural experience.
Anthropologist, Wade Davis, attempts to depict the alarming rate at which languages are becoming extinct amidst an almost indifferent world society- “for every two weeks somewhere in the world, a language is lost” (Davis 8). An example of such a language facing the brink of extinction is that of Eyak, indigenous to the peoples of south – central Alaska, located near the Copper River. In Last Words (Kolbert 2005), Elizabeth Kolbert details her experience of meeting with Marie Smith Jones, “the last full-blooded member of the Eyak nation”. However, it was Kolbert’s recollections with a linguist named Michael Krauss, who also speaks Eyak that was most revealing. Krauss asserts, “Eyak doesn't give a damn about tenses. But it sure does give a damn about other things, much more than I do. Therefore it broadens your thinking, enriches your ability to understand the world–to deal with reality and experience” (Kolbert 205). Interestingly, Krauss refers to the significance of tenses in forming critical meaning to language. Certain languages such as that of French or German, compel their speakers to choose between a masculine or feminine tense, however languages such as English do not require this additional information from their speakers in order to denote a coherent form of communication. Thus, it can be inferred that different languages influence how the human mind works in that they oblige people to think in a specific way. Personification in art has also had a profound influence on humanity’s understanding of perception and works to support the notion of language constructing peoples perception of the natural world. In cases were abstract entities such as death, sin and time are depicted in human form, research gathered showed that in 85% of such paintings, the figure of male or female was correctly predicted based entirely upon the assumption of the grammatical gender of the artist’s native language (Boroditsky 2016). This statistic is significant, as it effectively supports the idea of the innate grammatical structures of an individual’s native language shaping how they perceive concepts such as time or death in terms of assigning them to masculine or feminine qualities. These findings can be related back to Krauss’ quotation concerning the importance of preserving the language of Eyak, as he affirms that in spite of not acquiring the use of grammatical tenses “it sure does give a damn about other things, much more than I do”. Here, Krauss implies the benefits of being able to speak in Eyak, in that he has gained invaluable and supplementary knowledge of what it is to be human, through his enriched understanding of what the world has to offer by acquiring another cultural and linguistic outlook on life.
There is no escaping the exceptional capacity of language in its ability to bring communities of people together, who may otherwise have nothing else in common other than their ability to perceive and think about the world around them, through a unique and subjective lens, specific to their cultural being. An in depth discussion concerning the question statement “people who speak radically different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently” has revealed that there can perhaps be no argument objecting to the influence language has on shaping how people think; however the question still remains as to whether or not language is the sole factor involved in forming meaning. Perhaps other factors such as one’s culture and the constraints imposed upon the individual as a result may also, if not more so, dictate human perception and thought. An example of this can be found in research conducted into a remote Australian aboriginal language known as Guugu Yimithirr, derived from north Queensland. Of particular interest to anthropologists is the Guugu Yimithirr people’s perception of space and direction. Anthropologist John Haviland, and later linguist Stephen Levinson, demonstrated in their respective research projects concerning these indigenous people, how they depend on cardinal directions in preference to the more predominant use of the egocentric system in the modern world (Deutscher 2010). The egocentric system would make use of instructions such as “behind”, “in front of” or “move to the left” to direct someone. However, the cardinal system endorsed by this particular aboriginal group concerns itself with direction such as “move west” and “continue northward”. This peculiar form of direction giving can perhaps be seen as a result of the aboriginal culture relying far more on a system of language that emphasises geographical and spatial awareness in order to aid survival, due to the harsh nature of the environment inhabited by the aborigine in comparison to Western civilisation. Thus, perhaps the culture of an individual must equally be considered as a determining factor to the thought and perception patterns of the human mind. Though, this by no means deters from the immense contribution language retains in shaping how human beings think. In conclusion, it is perhaps fitting to acknowledge the implications of humanity’s unique ability to acquire more than one language in that it allows people to view the world from a whole new perspective, by challenging their previous sense of reality through a slight change in cognition, and thus can arguably be regarded as mankind’s greatest disposable entity.