Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Chapter 12 - The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Chapter 12 of Conformity and Conflict, titled “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Worlds Shaped by Worlds” by David S. Thomson, begins with a paragraph that introduces the essay. It mentions “language mirrors reality” (Thomson 113). The ending sentence uses the word “doublespeak” and that was significant in my being able to enjoy the essay. The topic had me skeptical, I did not understand the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and my prior understanding of it was negative. But, being that I just finished reading George Orwell’s 1984, I was familiar with the Newspeak reference and that opened my mind. The essay begins with the notion that a word, or small phrase, doesn’t capture the entire idea that people intend it too. The example of the accidental explosion (Thomson 114) was a great in furthering my understanding of the Hypothesis. That made me comprehend that language is limited in describing meaning. Then, there was the example regarding color (Thomson 118). Those who speak Bassa are restricted in describing the various colors they see, but they are able to comprehend that the colors are different. The Hypothesis, when first introduced to me in the Kottak book, made me feel that speakers of other languages lacked the intellectual capacity as a result of having unsophisticated language. But Thomson’s essay better explains that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis gives a possible reason for why people relate to the world differently, because the symbols in their language are not varied enough. The essay concluded with Orwell’s 1984. Newspeak, in the book, was preferred in that in limited thought. Because people had fewer words to use, they had less opportunity to commit thoughtcrime.

1 comment:

  1. This was great! I want to push your idea of "language is limited in describing meaning" a bit. What if language is limited in describing what we see. What we see does not reside in what we say because the object we call a 'tree' is called many things and means many things to different people. Tree means something different to a farmer of trees than to a city dweller. I loved your response here primarily because you almost demonstrate the hypothesis. Without the language of 1984 you couldn't understand the new idea of the hypothesis.

    ReplyDelete