Derek Stavarski's List: does language determine how we think?

• Many linguists, including Noam Chomsky, contend that language in the sense we  ordinary think of it, in the sense that people in Germany speak German, is a  historical or social or political notion, rather than a scientific one. For  example, German and Dutch are much closer to one another than various dialects  of Chinese are. But the rough, commonsense divisions between languages will  suffice for our purposes.

• Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in  the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the  mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for  their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality  essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an  incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection  (1929, p. 209).

• Even comparatively simple acts of perception are very much more at  the mercy of the social patterns called words than we might suppose. …We see and  hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits  of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation  (p. 210).

• The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent  unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two languages are  ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social  reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not  merely the same worlds with different labels attached  (p. 209).

• Whorf presents a moving target, with most of his claims coming in both  extreme and in more cautious forms. Debate continues about his considered views,  but there is little doubt that his bolder claims, unimpeded by caveats or  qualifications, were better suited to captivate his readers than more timid  claims would have been.

• We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The  categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find  there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world  is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by  our minds--and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds  (p. 213).

4 more annotations...

• In an experiment done by two Australian scientists, Peterson and Siegal, this  view of determinism is shown to be supported.  In the experiment, deaf  children view a doll, which is placed a marble in a box.  The children then  see the marble removed and placed in a basket after the doll is taken  away.  They are later asked where they believe the doll will look for the  marble upon returning.  Overwhelmingly, the deaf children with deaf parents  answer correctly (that the doll will look in the box).  The deaf children  with non-deaf parents answer mostly incorrectly. 
• The experiment showed clearly the relationship between deaf children whose  parents have communicated with them through complex sign language and their  being able to get the correct answer.  The children, having grown up in an  environment with complex language (American Sign Language) recognized that the  doll would probably look to where she had placed the marble.  The other  children, who had not grown up in a stable linguistic environment (their parents  not being hearing impaired and thus not being fluent in ASL) were not able to  see the relationship.
•   The other view on determinism, weak  determinism, recognizes that there is indeed some affect on perception of one’s  language, but that this is not as clear as in strong determinism.  For  instance, in weak determinism language does not define one’s view of the world,  whereas, in strong determinism this view is defined strictly by language.
• Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world  of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of  the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their  society…The fact of the matter is that the “real world” is to a large extent  unconsciously built 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
•   Linguistic relativity opens the window to the realization that all  languages do not translate to each other.  One such example is of the  Punjabi word “joot.”  This word in its most literal translation to English  means the “unclean,” “not pure,” or “with-germs” (as in half eaten food).   No matter how many definitions one tries to construct—“joot” cannot be  translated in its full meaning.  This brings to mind that notion that  language is relative, thus the same word can have different meanings for  different people and these subjective meanings let rise varying  cognitions. 
• In actual thought one does indeed perceive concepts and objects in accordance  to the words used to describe them.  In a personal experiment I  individually asked a group of my peers what they saw (in their “minds-eye”) when  I said the word “table.”  More than half of them saw a dinning table, a few  saw a coffee table, and one saw a mathematical table.  This showed me that  although all of the responses I received had specific names (dining table,  coffee table, etc.), their naming was triggered by one broad word: table. 
• It makes complete sense that one’s  atmosphere and culture will have an affect on their decoding.  Referring  back to the elderly Punjabi, they did not grow up with coffee tables; therefore,  it did not come to mind.  Likewise, in research done by the authors of the  theory, many Indian tribes do not have word for certain objects because they do  not exist in their lives.  The logical plainness of this idea of relativism  clearly provides parsimony. 

5 more annotations...

• But there is some evidence on the positive side for linguistic  relativity. That is a less dramatic hypothesis which states that, to the  extent that languages differ in the way they describe the real world, speakers  of those languages will differ in how they think about the world. Or, in  other words, language can influence the way we think, but it doesn’t  necessarily do so in every case. There are other factors involved as  well. 
•  A doctor saw an elderly patient and, at the end of the visit, told her in  parting, “Take it easy.” He meant it as an informal way of saying goodbye,  nothing more. But this poor lady took it as medical advice, promptly took  to her bed, and refused to get out for the next two weeks, until the doctor  returned from what turned out to be an ill-timed vacation. By that time the  little lady was so weak from her self-imposed inactivity that she was  unable to walk.
• Sometimes language influences thought.  Sometimes other things influence  both thought and language.  Real world experience is one of the more potent  variables or factors having such an influence, a fact that is rarely recognized  in linguistics, but ought to be pointed out more often.  And sometimes  talkative folks like me just rattle on and on, saying whatever thoughts come  into their heads, but the relationship between speech and thought isn't  altogether clear even to the speaker.

1 more annotation...

• In 1820, Wilhelm von Humboldt connected the study of language to the national  romanticist program by proposing the view that language is the very fabric of  thought. That is, thoughts are produced as a kind of inner dialog using the same  grammar as the thinker’s native language. This view was part of a larger picture  in which the world view of an ethnic nation, their ‘Weltanschauung,’ was seen as  being faithfully reflected in the grammar of their language.
• Von Humboldt argued that languages with an inflectional morphological type, such  as German, English and the other Indo-European languages were the most perfect  languages and that accordingly this explained the dominance of their speakers  over the speakers of less perfect languages. Wilhelm von Humboldt declared in  1820: ‘The diversity of languages is not a diversity of signs and sounds but a  diversity of views of the world.’
• The idea that some languages were naturally superior to others and that the use  of primitive languages maintained their speakers in intellectual poverty was  widespread in the early 20th century. The American linguist William Dwight  Whitney, for example, actively strove to eradicate the Native American languages  arguing that their speakers were savages and would be better off abandoning  their languages and learning English and adopting a civilized way of life.

1 more annotation...