He begins his own argument with a simple fire
insurance example, explaining how the term “empty” can be used to either
signify a bowl of cereal, for instance, that has been eaten as opposed to a
complete vacuum containing literally nothing. He explains how, by way of
interpreting this word with two different meanings, the use of language can be
faulted and cause a miscommunication, which in his example led to an explosion.
He expands on this idea by looking extensively into the ways that time and
objectifications are interpreted differently in the Hopi and SAE language.
My favorite idea of
his is that of how SAE “objectifies” time, whereas the Hopi “subjectify” this
concept. Whorf uses these contrasting words to label the following phenomenon:
SAE has the ability to express “ten days” as a cardinal grouping (meaning that
one can bunch together ten days with the assumption that they will all happen
as individual days within a group of days). The Hopi language expresses time as
a continual process of just “becoming later”. Hopi language expresses a group
of days as an ordinal concept (meaning that they will come in order). The Hopi
language only uses cardinal numbers to express an amount that is physically
present, unlike a number of days which is only conceptualized in our minds. This
is explained by the fact that the Hopi language is rooted in nature while SAE
is in a sense, more imaginary. This concept of Hopi language only expressing
what is naturally and physically present streams through Whorf’s entire work as
he contrasts the two languages.
Whorf conveys the idea
that language and culture have a fairly symbiotic relationship, but while
recognizing the fact that that they have evolved together, he illustrates the
idea that language has more of a limiting effect on culture. He explains at the
end of his article that language is more of a slowly changing and more
permanent entity, while culture has the ability to change more often. I do agree that in comparison with culture “language
is a system, not just an assemblage of norms” (p156) but I argue his idea that language
is “affected little and slowly” (p 156). While the underlying structure of SAE
is fairly solidified, words within language are changing constantly. Especially
with increased internet usage, new words are constantly being created, spread
across the globe, and then transmitted verbally. Just last class, we had the
phrase “#eww” written on the board, and there was a unanimous understanding of
this phrase among our classmates. My freshmen year I would have had no idea
what the pound symbol was doing in front of the word eww, whereas now I know that the hashtag symbol is a way to organize
thoughts into categories. Does this mean that this expression is encouraging
individuals to clump ideas into groups more than they would have in the past? Has
our modern need for efficiency and organization required the creation of such a
symbol? Whorf would have probably understood the symbiotic relationship that
the two have and go on to explain how the thoughts and behaviors of further
generations will be affected by this modern phenomenon, while the phrase itself
was founded on an adjustment of culture.
Amelia, I found the question you pose in the last paragraph of your response to Whorf’s article on SAE and Hopi language really intriguing. In thinking about the relationship between changes in language and cultural trends, especially with the example you use of how Twitter’s hashtags are now fairly universally identifiable, whereas several years ago they would not have been, I cannot help but refer back to another of Whorf’s questions in the same paragraph: “Which was first: the language patterns or the cultural norms?” (156) Using a very simplified analogy, this makes me think of the perpetual chicken and egg argument that we apply to many scenarios. I can see both sides of the respective arguments for language and culture. I took your point that “the underlying structure of SAE is fairly solidified” to refer to the constancy of the grammatical rules of SAE. Taken in this light, the articulation of cultural changes is governed by the principles already established by SAE’s grammatical structure. In other words, the vocabulary generated to meaningfully talk about a cultural change or innovation is constrained by the language; that is, language dictates how we represent culture.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your example turns this argument on its head by using a symbol in conjunction with a word. In the argument for language before culture, I assume that it is the vocabulary of the language which is most fluid. Making new combinations of words, or rearranging letters to form new words is radical, but these words can ultimately be classified within one of the existing parts of speech (i.e. noun, verb, adjective). Borrowing from the word list from the Oxford Dictionaries Online blog, a decade ago the combination of the letters “srsly” would have been nothing more than an unintelligible garble of sounds. However, with our knowledge and integration in the world of texting, this becomes intelligible as “seriously.” I also like the inclusion of twerk in the list, which now would absolutely require knowledge of Miley to be used entirely accurately and effortlessly. Fitting a symbol into this grammatical system, however, is tricky. You can either look at this new use of the pound symbol as an organizational tool, as you describe it, or you can consider it as an essential component of the word which it is describing. For example, in this sense “Wake Forest” and “#Wake Forest” may create two distinct ideas, with the pound symbol becoming essential to distinguishing between the two. Your example, then, to me almost lends credit to a cultural change demanding a change in, or at least the flexibility of, the existing grammatical structure of SAE. To what extent, then, may culture demand changes in language, even the structure of language?
This was a really interesting post to think about! Also, here’s the link to the blog about the new additions to oxforddictionaries.com if anyone is interested: http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/august-2013-update/
Really liked this entry, Erin. Language is evolving at the graphic level, incorporating not just new characters but different systems of representation.
DeleteI’d like to use Amelia’s excellent blog entry to segue into some additional information and thoughts from the field of psychology regarding Whorf’s discussion of “how SAE ‘objectifies’ time, whereas the Hopi ‘subjectify’” it.
ReplyDeleteWhorf discusses in his section Duration, Intensity, and Tendency how in SAE we use metaphors to describe abstract concepts like those in the section’s title. We say that we understand the thread in someone’s argument, that we are wasting time, and that when we are sad we have heavy hearts. In SAE, we commonly use terms that describe things in the physical world to express the intangible. This is the scheme of objectification that Amelia notes – describing ideas in physical terms. While this is quite natural to SAE speakers, it is by no means business as usual for speakers of all languages. Within the Hopi language, Whorf notes, there are numerous means to express abstractions without referencing the material world. For the most part, these Hopi terms have no equivalent in SAE language. Therefore human ideas of time and conceptualizations of intangible entities are not universal, but instead, Whorf argues, “they depend upon the nature of the language or languages through the use of which they have been developed.”
Ideas on the relationship between language structure and intangible concepts have been tested in the field of psychology. A 2011 study titled “Weighty Matters: Importance Literally Feels Heavy” provides evidence suggesting that the metaphors we use in SAE languages go beyond semantic associations. The study is an interesting read, but to summarize briefly, the researchers gave a book to those in the treatment group while informing them that is was important. The control group was not told the text was important, but otherwise all variables were kept equal. Members of each group were asked to estimate the text’s weight after holding it. The average for the group told the text was important far exceeded that of the control group. This research suggests a meaning beyond Whorf’s arguments. The study suggests that the idea of importance, which is often expressed using metaphors for weight such as “a weighty matter” or the conclusions drawn in the text “carry much weight,” and its relationship to weight are not simply metaphorical. The study hints at a biological reason in cognition that causes us to associate importance with weight. If this is the case, then could it potentially also be the case with our other SAE metaphors that the relationship between the metaphors we use and the intangible world are not arbitrary and caused by language, but that instead SAE language was developed because unconsciously it seemed “natural?” I certainly cannot say for sure, but it is an interesting thought that could generate some useful knowledge in future interdisciplinary work between anthropologists and psychologists. If Whorf were alive today, it would be fascinating to show him this research and see what he his thoughts would be. I think he would disagree with the findings in this research paper, but I cannot say for sure.
The cited study can be found here: http://www.academia.edu/411193/Weighty_matters_Importance_literally_feels_heavy
Fascinating! Not sure why this undermines the argument that SAE speakers are affected by (or unconsciously enact) the physicality metaphors of SAE. Weren't these subjects SAE speakers? If so, they brought to the experiment the notion that important matters are "heavy."
DeleteNice discussion of Whorf, Amelia! Note, though, that when Whorf talks about the relative constancy of language, he is primarily talking about grammar. Think about the illustrations in The Relation of Habitual . . . and you'll see that they are nearly all grammatical once you get past the fire insurance examples. Vocabulary changes more readily.
ReplyDelete