Does_Language_Shape_the_Way_We_Think__Evaluate_Theoretical_and_Empirical_Evidence

DOES LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK' EVALUATE THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. In order to address this question this essay will be looking at whether and to what extent there exists a relationship between language and thought. Empirical and theoretical evidence will be evaluated that has explored whether language shapes the way we think. Although historically this subject has been a matter of debate for centuries (Plato), theorists writing in the 20th Century Whorf,(1956) set out what is now known as the ‘Whorfian debate’, this will be discussed in detail along with empirical research evidence and studies carried out to test the relationship between language and thought. This essay will firstly look at what is meant by the term language and the functions of language. This will be followed by a discussion of the Whorfian hypothesis and finally recent studies that have evaluated the influence of language on cognition will be discussed. Define and functions of language What is Language' Chambers Dictionary defines it as “the speech of a particular group or nation” or “any other way of communicating”. To a Psycholinguist, it has a much more profound meaning. It is a system of signs and symbols which are arbitrary, until the user assigns them a meaning. Language is used to communicate; it provides prompts to the listener, whom, with the aid of inferences will then interpret the words. These signs and symbols are not biologically inherited, but learned from birth. (Ref ) Humans are by no means unique in this ability to communicate, as animals and some plants species also communicate with one another. However, Human Language is infinitely flexible and has elements of creativity that are not shared amongst primates. There are four main aspects of language: Semantics – the study of the meaning of language. Pragmatics – the study of the use of language and the intentions behind the words. Phonology – the study of the sounds in a language. Syntax – studies the structure language and how words are put together to form coherent sentences. New symbols and meanings can also be created, for example, the word “sick” which means ill, is also used today by the younger generation to mean that something is great or fantastic. Human Language is constantly evolving. There was nothing like “high definition TV” or “microwave” 70 years ago. Language is also sparse in comparison to thought, as there lie’s an inability in humans, and to accurately and unambiguously express thoughts into words which Pinker calls “mentalese”. It is a system of words governed by syntactic rules. Whorfian The Linguistic relativity hypothesis, also known as the Whorfian hypothesis, which was named after Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf as their work brought the hypothesis to the forefront – Linguistic determinism, the stronger version of the hypothesis and Linguistic relativity – the weaker position. For numerous decades Linguists, Anthropologists and Psychologists have argued that, differences in thought and experience is largely due to the difference in the Language we speak. They embrace the view that as different Languages hold their respective world views, the speakers will also hold their own contradictory view of the world. This is of course, in favour of the Whorfian hypothesis. Although there was inadequate empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis, researchers were able to deduce two key themes from the work of both Sapir and Whorf, Linguistic determinism – the Language you speak will strongly determine your thought processes and Linguistic relativity – the language you speak will have an influence on perception. Such was the case even though the hypothesis was not formally written by either one of them, but by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Whorf then studied and developed the idea, asserting an isomorphic link between Language and thought. In support of his theory, Whorf used the example of Eskimos who have numerous words to describe snow. He theorised that due to the geographical climate and the fact that they had many different uses for snow, the Eskimos perceived it differently to someone else who lived in a different climate. The behaviourists’ theory was that everything is learned by experience or stimulus and response. An experiment conducted by John Watson saw “little Albert” an 11 month old boy, given a white rat. At the same time, behind his head an iron bar was struck with a hammer, which frightened him. Therefore, “little Albert” learned to associate fear with a white rat. This was known as Classical conditioning: learning an association between an environmental stimulus that is unrelated and a reflex behaviour. (Watson et al 1920) They believed that thought was just speech, children vocalised their thoughts. Watson (1931) argued that thought was just movements in the larynx. Jacobsen (1932) found some electrical activity in the muscles of the throat when participants were asked to think. A later study by Smith et al (1974) disproved this theory. In the study smith volunteered to be temporarily paralyzed with curare. He later reported that even though he had no motor movement, he was still able to think and problem solve. So they found that there is more to thought than simply moving the vocal apparatus. Harley (2008) Nativists’ like Chomsky on the other hand, argue that humans are biologically programmed to gain knowledge. He proposes that they have a Language Acquisition Device (LAD). This allows children to understand the rules of whatever language they are exposed to, as it consists of knowledge of grammatical rules that are common to all languages (kibbee et al 2010). Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1934/1962) proposed that speech and thought had different origins within an individual. In the pre-intellectual stage words are not symbols but properties for the objects they denote. He argued that up until the age of about 3 years, thought is only internalised and is totally independent of speech. It is only after the age of 3 that they become connected. A child’s monologue is then internalised to become inner speech as thought becomes verbalised. He posited that as children learn to construct knowledge, this leads to development which is interdependent on the social context. Therefore, language plays a pivotal role in mental development as it transmits the higher mental functions, and learning involves an external experience being transformed into an internal process through language. Daniels (2005) So, does the language we speak shape the way we think' The Whorfian hypothesis which states that differences in culture and language is responsible for the speakers differing cognitive structures and their perception of the world in general (Harley, 2008). The Hypothesis that language influences thought, began during the era of the dominant behaviourist paradigm. A conceivable basis for the hypothesis can be found when comparing how, when Turkish people are relaying a story, the syntax of their language requires them to state whether they were present at the time. Whereas, English speakers have the option as to whether or not they want to include this information. The implications being that a speaker of one language will have different mental concepts to the speaker of another language. Research has been carried out that provides some support for the hypothesis that language influences thought (Boroditsky, 2011). Boroditsky conducted a study with the ‘Kuuk Thaayorre’ tribe’s people in Australia in which participants were presented with pictures and images that included an element of temporal progression. For example, images depicted a person peeling a banana, half way through eating a banana and finishing off eating a banana- participants were asked to arrange the images in the correct order. Participants were tested in two separate sittings. When they faced the east, the cards came towards the body, when facing the south the cards went from left to right and so on. The experiment was designed to take into account that the Kuuk people have a perspective of time akin to the cardinal points on a compass. In contrast, English speakers would arrange the pictures from left to right, because they view time using horizontal metaphors for example. “The best is yet to come”. Boroditsky (2009). Boroditsky found that for the English speakers regardless of the direction they sat participants always they sorted the images that showed a progression of time from left to right. However, for the Kuuk speakers, the direction they sat influenced the order of the cards showing the progression of time (Boroditsky, 2009). Also in a study on language and cognition, conducted by Brown and Lenneberg (1954), who wanted to test the hypothesis that the accuracy of memory was related to the colour lexicon. They used a set of colour chips in order to test recognition and recall. The participants were shown some colour chips which were then taken away and after a short period, they were asked to find the same colour chips in an array of 120 Munsell chips which were mounted on a card. They found that English- speaking participants were more easily able to recognise those hues that existed in their vocabulary but argued that the ease of recall of the colour chips was subject to the accurate naming of it. The relationship between memory accuracy and codability later turned out to be unstable. Lenneberg (1961) noticed that the relationship between memory and codability when a different array of colour chips were used. D’Andrade (1995)This study was also linked to one carried out by Lennerberg and Roberts ‘Denotata of Colour Terms’ who found that the Zuni speakers had greater difficulty in recalling colours that were not distinguishable in their Language, than the English speakers. Codability was linked to this effect. Linguistic Codability refers to the effect of behaviour on naming and recognition and the simplicity by which people can actually name things. Orwell ,,ref,,,,,) A cross culture study carried out on Russian, English and Setswana speakers, these languages differ in the basic categorisation of their colour terms. They were asked to sort out 65 different colours into groups with no restrictions placed on the number of categories. Although there was a similarity in the choice of categories which was inconsistent with linguistic relativity, there were however, some note-worthy differences. English and Russian speakers were more inclined to group green and blue colours separately, while the Setswana speakers grouped blue and green together as they only have one basic colour term for these colours. Also, it was found that there was a difference in the number and distribution of the groups formed together with the level of consensus within the grouping. This data also supports universalism ( Grevill…._ Another argument against the Hypothesis is universalism. This posits a common concept in languages, and that culture being of mere reflection of how people think, is a reflection not of their language, but of their interaction with their environment and a reflection of their innateness ( ////). MacLaury argues against the idea that naming a category converts thought into unconscious habit. He maintains that Vantage theory, which is a method of data collection and explanation replicates how an individual constructs a category, and that construction, although innate is very much adaptable. Furthering his argument, he states that this provides people with a means by which they are ready able to categorize to suit individuals regardless of any internal or external factors, building on native techniques and inherent structures, thus leaving little or no chance for the grammatical and morphological categories to enforce any specific way of thought. He said these categories are an improvisation of an individual’s thought processes. (marjolijn &martin) There is still insufficient evidence to support the linguistic determinism hypothesis even in the writings of Whorf and Sapir. Frederick (1988). Bach out-rightly argues against linguistic determinism, while Lyons who has dedicated more time to the works of Whorf, equally rejects linguistic determinism but supports linguistic relativity. Empirical research Carmichael et al (1932) carried out their study based on some earlier work carried out by JJ Gibson, who concluded that the change in a reproduction depends on how it was perceived. This study was carried out to determine whether or not presenting a picture at the same times as speaking a word would affect the recall of the picture. The participants were divided into three groups; one controlled group and two experimental. Each group were shown 12 pictures and blank segments, before the end of the sequence 7 blank segments would be shown. When shown the blank segment the participant would hear “The next figure looks like…” this was followed by a word. The controlled group did not hear any verbal ques. When the participants were asked to reproduce the pictures they had seen in any order. Carmichael found that pictures reproduced by the participants that heard a word tended to look more like the word they had heard instead of the picture, while the controlled group reproduced the pictures they had seen. They concluded that the reproduction of a drawing from memory alters the way it is represented depending upon the verbal context by which it was perceived. CONCLUSION “Lenneberg and Roberts (1956) pointed out the circularity in the reasoning that because languages differ, thought patterns differ because of the differences in languages. An Independent measure of thought patterns is necessary before a casual conclusion can be drawn”. Anthropologists and psychologists have for many years speculated about the distinct human abilities of complex thought and reasoning. Over the past decade there have been numerous studies in language, thought and perception which show that there is a correlation between both, but it is a complex one.(Gelmam & Byrnes 1991) Our cognitive structure is determined by the environment and biology. It is within this structure that languages vary on what they emphasise and how they dissect the world. The differences will then affect certain aspects of cognition and perception. British Journal of Psychology Volume 88, Issue 3, Article first published online: 13 APR 2011 Carmichael L, Hogan HP & Walter AA (1932) An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15:73-86. Explorations in linguistic relativity edited by Martin Putz, Marjolijn H. Verspoor, John Benjamin Publishing Co – year 2000 Kibbee, Douglas A. (ed.), Chomskyan (R)evolutions . 2010. xii, 488 pp. (pp. 337–352) Swoyer, Chris, "Relativism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Watson, J.B. and Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. www.edge.org HOW DOES OUR LANGUAGE SHAPE THE WAY WE THINK' [6.12.09] By Lera Boroditsky www.open.edu/exploring children’s learning. Daniels, H. (2005). An introduction to Vygotsky. 2nd ed. East Sussex: Routledge.