3.1.

Linguistic Relativity
Chapter No. 03 Context and Reference
Semantics: Frank Palmer
Why should we care?
Imagine a life without language…
How would our lives be different?
Thought  Language

Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and

written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all
men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same
speech sounds; but the mental experiences, which these
ARISTOTLE
directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those
things of which our experiences are the images.
Language  Thought

I have a notion that, when the mind is thinking, it is

simply talking to itself, asking questions and answering
them. … So I should describe thinking as a discourse,…
not aloud to someone else, but silently to oneself.

PLATO
Linguistic relativity: = Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
Palmer:
• Relating language to the external world – Difficult => the way we see the
world depends to some extent on the language we use.
• We categorize the objects of our experience with the aid of language –
thus, it may be the case that learning about the world and learning about
language are activities that cannot be separated and that therefore our
world is partly determined by our language.
Malinowski:
• Argued that primitive people have names only for those things that stand
out for them from an otherwise "undifferentiated“ world - those that are
relevant to them.
Linguistic relativity: = Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the

structure of a language affects its speakers' 
world view or cognition.

Sapir: Edward Benjamin

The world in which we live ‘is to a large extent Sapir Lee Whorf
unconsciously built up on the language habits of the Teacher - Student
group.’

• Sapir’s view was expanded & explained by Whorf.

• Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

Linguistic relativity:
• The principle is often defined to include two versions.

STRONG VERSION
• The strong version says that language determines thought, and that
linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories

WEAK VERSION
• The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage
only influence thought and decisions.
Linguistic relativity: = Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
Whorf:
• Unawareness of the background character of our language , just as we are
unaware of the presence of air until we begin to choke.

• Comparing languages leads us to realize that we "dissect nature along lines

laid down by our native languages".

• This led him to a "new principle of relativity which holds that all observers
are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the
universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar or in some way can
be calibrated." [1956:214, article "Science and linguistics"]
 Linguistic relativity:
Whorf (1956) in ‘Science and Linguistics’: Evidences of several kind for his view
i. No division in reality correspondence to English Nouns and Verbs
Why do we use Nouns for: Lightening, spark, wave, eddy, pulsation,
flame, storm, phase, cycle, spasm, noise, emotion?
ii. In Hopi language, An American Indian language, all events of brief
duration (mostly included in the English nouns above)are represented by
verbs.
iii. In another American Indian, there is no noun/ verb distinction at all; instead
of ‘there is a house’ the form is (It translation) ‘a house occurs’ or better ‘It
houses’
Linguistic relativity:
IV. Hopi – there is one word (masa'ytaka) for everything that flies except
birds – which would include insects, aeroplanes and pilots.
V. Eskimo – many words for snow:
'snow (in general)' aput 'soft deep snow' mauja
'snow (like salt)' pukak 'soft snow' massak
'snowdrift' tipvigut 'watery snow mangokpok
'snow filled with water‘ massalerauvok 'soft snow' akkilokipok

• In Urdu & Pashto – one word for ice & Snow ‘Baraf”
• ‘Tum & Aap’ vs ‘You’ & Plural forms for respect
IV. Hopi – No notion of time as it does not have tenses.
• The distinction of tenses is marked by what is subjective and objective.
• Subjective includes: Future and everything ‘mental’
• Moreover, no distinction is made between distance in time and distance
in place (NO Chronological and Spatial features).
 Linguistic relativity: Palmer’s Criticism
Palmer:
• It is not clear whether Sapir & Whorf thought that the ‘shape’ of our world was
totally determined by our language. i.e:
 Without language it has no shape at all??
• Such an extreme interpretation is untenable for the same kind of reasons as in
the Nominalist view of words as mere names of things.
• Classification of experience must be based on some language-independent
characteristic of that experience.
• Thus, in some sense there is a world that we must share irrespective of the
language we use.
• In addition, unless there is some recognizable non-linguistic world of
experience - it is difficult to perceive how we could either learn a new
language or use it with others consistently.
 Linguistic relativity: Palmer’s Criticism
• Palmer: Whorf’s argument are not wholly convincing

If we don’t have the ‘same picture of the universe’ wholly or partially – How
translation is made from one language to another??

Difficulties in translating one language into the other as there may be no

exact equivalence in them – Yet they are not totally different

Whorf’s arguments: grammatical structure of a language vs ‘Model of the

universe’- invalid

• Hopi example – invalid

• What about English then?? Only two tenses: Past & Present
 Linguistic relativity: Palmer’s Criticism
 Can we say?? - English too has no concept of time if the definition of tense is
made in the light of forms of the verbs (we’ve got present and past – all the
other tenses involve the use of auxiliary verbs) e.g.:

 I went there yesterday. (refers to an event in the past)

 If I went tomorrow, I should see him. (Showing unreality - not past)

 I wish I went there every day. (Unreality in the present)

 Joos (1964): English does not have a past tense but a remote tense to indicate
what is remote in time and remote in reality.

 Palmer’s Conclusion: grammatical structure of a language tells us little about our

way of thinking about the word.
 Linguistic relativity: Palmer’s Criticism
 Sapir-Whorf's hypothesis serves as a useful reminder – classification of the
world is related to that of the language.

 Although, it may not be true that language actually determines our world, at
least it is difficult to distinguish ‘what is in language’ and ‘what is in world’?

 Sex Distinction – thought of as a purely physical difference: Objective 

Bull/Cow, Stallion/Mare, Ewe/Ram

 Age Distinction – are far less objectively: Alongside calf, foal (a young horse or
donkey), lamb – heifer (a young cow), steer (a castrated bull), colt (a young male horse),
filly (a young female horse), teg (2 years old sheep) as well as the adult names are
found. Such distinction can hardly be said to exist in the world.