Linguistic Relativity Homework
docx
School
Tulane University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
3810
Subject
Linguistics
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by DukeMaskAlpaca22
Linguistic Relativity
In her article titled
Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis,
Mia Belle Frothingham introduces
and examines the theory of linguistic relativity. This article discusses how Sapir and
Whorf synthesized the theory, and further explains how it has remained a hot topic
among linguists for so long. Frothingham reviews some examples/studies that Sapir and
Whorf used to initially create their theory, then discusses more recent findings regarding
this theory’s claims, and assesses its relevancy today analyzing how language relates
to society, culture, and cognition. Investigating the validity of this theory as the world
sees it today, Frothingham mentions that while the linguistic community does not widely
accept this theory, there still may be some correlation between language and our view
of the world around us, meaning that even though the theory is not entirely, accurate, it
can still be described as relevant.
A particular supporting study is mentioned in which German and Spanish
speakers are assessed on the basis of object gender. These languages frequently
assign masculinity and femininity to inanimate objects and do so oppositely in some
cases. The study found that German speakers commonly labeled linguistically feminine
objects as “elegant” and “beautiful” while the same items which are linguistically
masculine in Spanish were described as “strong” and “long,” by Spanish speakers.
These findings imply that speakers have developed preconceived notions regarding
items’ femininity or masculinity, due to how they are categorized in their native
language, not their actual physical appearances. This evidence supports the fact that
language will influence how we perceive and interpret the world, which defies Dr.
McWhorter’s findings. Frothingham does however include pieces of evidence which
refute linguistic relativity. One of these examples being the fact that the German
language possesses a term which essentially means to take pleasure in another
person’s unhappiness. While English does not have an equivalent term for this
occurrence, English speakers can obviously still understand and comprehend this
emotion, which does not support Sapir and Whorf’s theory.
She points out that while there is obviously hard evidence that does not support
linguistic relativity, there are still plenty of pieces of evidence which support linguistic
relativity. This theory is evidently relative and may not apply in every situation, however
it manages to hold true in several circumstances, and definitely opens many doors and
windows for further research. Dialectical differences support this theory, given that many
English dialects will have specific words that are not comprehensible by speakers of
other dialects. This distinction can be seen in our everyday lives, especially in a
community such as New Orleans, a hub for dialectical differences. Frothingham argues
that culture and location will also impact language and processing, given that many
Native American languages often do not have words for things which do not naturally
occur in the world around them or the areas in which they live, such as modern
technology like phones or computers, as there is no need to reference these things. She
also elaborates on the Hopi tribe and how their language and lifestyle have impacted
their perception of the world. It was found that members who grew up in the Hopi tribe
who later assimilated into modern societies (typically Western civilizations) often report
troubles with being on time to work and performing other tasks which involve hard
deadlines or specific timings. It was concluded that the fact that their native language
does not divide time in the ways that the majority of languages and cultures do, resulted
in such timing tendencies later in life when trying to defy their original mindset. In order
to validate that this effect, one must accept the fact that this is due to the linguistic
differences in the Hopi language, and not a result of another assimilatory change. This
implies that culture and lifestyle impact language, which may in turn impact how we
perceive the world meaning that there is more to linguistic relativity than Sapir and
Whorf originally inferred.
Frothingham aligns with Dr. McWhorter’s stance that the theory of linguistic
relativity is not entirely valid, however she expands on this idea and explains that it is
still useful and will remain prominent among linguistic studies. She concludes the article
by arguing that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis will always remain relevant, regardless of
the fact that it is not entirely accurate. It will continue to work its way in linguistic
discussions, as it forces individuals to think about and analyze the way that language
operates in regards to perception and cognition and how it shapes our existence. The
theory accts as inspiration for many studies which provide insight into other areas within
linguistics such as bilingualism, language differences, language acquisition,
sociolinguistics, language in the brain, etc. I personally agree with Frothingham’s stance
on this theory, even though it does not entirely align with the beliefs expressed in Dr.
McWorter’s speech. While there is plenty of evidence to refute linguistic relativity, there
have been many studies claiming the opposite, so the theory must carry some validity,
and therefore is justified in its recurring appearance in linguistic discussions.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help