论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】It has long been realized that language is of great importance to culture and that the impact of culture upon a given language is indispensible.One claim about the relationship between language and culture is that the structure of a particular language influences the habitual thought of its speakers.Today，the claim is referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis，which is composed of two versions.The strong version，also known as linguistic determinism，states that language patterns determine speaker’s thinking.The weak version，also known as linguistic relativity，implies that language do really influence thought but doesn’t determine it completely.This paper tries to give a brief introduction to the hypothesis，illustrate some experiments used to test the theory and state some arguments against the strong version of the hypothesis.Although the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis doesn’t offer the most reasonable explanation of the nature of the relationship between language，culture and thought，it is still influential in the development of linguistic science.
【Key words】language； culture and thought； Sapir-Whorf hypothesis； linguistic determinism； linguistic relativity
Introduction
The relationship between language，culture and thought has never failed to draw attention of philosophers and anthropologists.Two of them we should mention here are J.G.Herder and Wilhelm Von Humboldt.In his book Origin of Language，Herder expressed that language was the tool of reasoning .He discovered that man with different culture backgrounds had language discrepancy .Humboldt，a follower of Herder，compared different languages among nations and exposed the common development of languages to establish the general linguistics.
To what extent and in what ways does language determine thought？ This question is closely related with an influential but also extremely controversial theory，namely the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis，or simply the Whorf hypothesis，was put forward by linguists Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf.What the hypothesis suggests is like this：linguistic patterns determine the world-view of linguistic users； different language moulds different pattern of thought； languages in the world are different，so each nation has its own way of understanding the world around.
I.A General Introduction to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
In 1929，Sapir expressed his ideas in the book Language in these words：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…… We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.（Sapir 1958，p.69） Later，his student Whorf went on to extend his views.According to Whorf，the relationship between language and culture was a deterministic one .In his view，people don’t have the freedom to observe the objective world，all viewpoints of people are under the control of linguistic patterns.Different speakers experience the world differently as their linguistic structures differ greatly.
Whorf got his ideas from two kinds of experience.One was obtained when he was a fire prevention engineer in an insurance company.In analyzing the reports of how fire had started，Whorf found that language plays an important role in the fire accident.For instance，people tend to be careful when getting close to full petrol drums，but seem to be careless near the empty ones.Actually，the empty drums which were full of gas vapor were more dangerous than the full ones.The other was acquired when he went to study the American Indian Languages，which led Whorf to make his strongest claims.Whorf made a contrast between the linguistic structure of Hopi and that of Standard Average European.（In order to express his linguistic view，Whorf named the English，German，French and other familiar European languages as SAE）.He discovered that Hopi and SAE differ dramatically in their structural features.These differences led speakers of Hopi and SAE to perceive the world differently.The speakers of Hopi view the world as an ongoing process； events can’t be separated and counted，and time is not apportioned to fixed segments.For example，instead of saying “I have stayed for three days.” the Hopi speakers would say “I left on the third day.”
In this view，then，language provides a screen or filter to reality； it determines how speakers perceive and organize the world around them，both the natural world and the social world.Consequently，the language we speak helps to from our world-view.It defines our experience for us； we do not use it simply to report that experience.It is not neutral but gets in the way，imposing habits of both looking and thinking.（Ronald Wardhaugh，p.219）
II.Examples Listed to Support the Hypothesis
Whorf had cited a series of examples to prove the correctness of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism.Generally speaking，these examples can be classified into two categories：the lexical category and the grammatical category.
1.Lexical Categories.A large number of examples can be given to strengthen Whorf’s claim.In a general sense，the more important a thing is in a particular culture community，the more specific names it will take on.A case in point is the word snow in English and Eskimo.For Eskimos，snow is so crucial to their daily life that they need name its various forms，such as “falling snow”， “corn snow”，and “fine powder snow”，etc.In English，there is only the word “snow” for all these substances.In contrast，English has three separate words for “insect”，“airplane”，“pilot”，but Hopi has only one.Here，I’d like to give another common example about kinship term in Chinese and English.In Chinese，we use “舅妈，姑姑，小姨，嫂子，婶婶” to refer to elder female relatives，but in English the word “aunt” should be enough.So Chinese has a more complicated system of kinship term than English.Thus，the addressing for kinship can show the different thinking- pattern in different nations. 2.Grammatical Categories.If we take grammar into consideration，we can find more profound differences between different languages.The grammatical impact is much stronger on linguistic users than vocabulary differences.Whorf contrasted the English grammar with Hopi grammar to support his idea.In English，most words are divided into nouns and verbs：nouns usually denote events of long duration，while verbs usually denote events of relatively short duration.Therefore，English-speaking people tend to think that nature is polarized.If it were so，words like “fist”，“flame” and “wave” would be qualified as verbs.However，as we know，they are nouns in English.Contrarily，these words in Hopi are verbs because they are too brief to be classified as nouns.According to Whorf，in Nootka，a language of Vancouver，all words for native speakers of a European language are verbs.
Carroll and Casagrande counted a well-known experiment which was based on grammatical categories.In Navaho，people use different verbs to describe “pick up round object” （a ball） and “to pick up long and flexible object” （a piece of string）.The experts placed a piece of blue rope，a piece of yellow rope and a blue stick in front of the Navaho-speaking and English-speaking children and then ask them to choose one that resembles the blue rope best.Most of Navaho-speaking children chose the yellow rope according to the shape of the object； while almost all English-speaking children chose the blue stick according to the color.The experiment has shed new sight on our understanding of the Whorf hypothesis：“People tend to sort out and distinguish experience differently according to the semantic categories provided by their different codes.” （ 戴炜栋，p131 ）
III.Criticism about the Hypothesis
Since its formulation，the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has aroused a lively controversy.On the one hand，the Whorfian hypothesis has won the support of linguists like Carroll，Hoijer； on the other hand，challenges to the theory are also posed by Lennneberg，Greenberg，Firshman and R.Miller.With a further discussion，more and more problems have emerged.Nowadays，few people tend to accept the original form of this theory completely.At the same time，two versions of the hypothesis have developed a strong version and a weak version.The strong version states that thought is impossible without language.The weak version suggests that linguistic is influential in the shaping of speaker’s world-view.Today，the popular view is that the strong version of the hypothesis is too decisive to be convincing while some rational elements in the weak version should be paid more attention to. It may not be difficult to argue against the strong version.In our daily communication，we may hear such sentence “That was not what I actually mean.” every now and then.It shows that thought is not just a matter of verbal expressions.Sometimes，thought is too complex for us to be spoken out.In other words，thoughts may beyond the total control of language.Another opposition to the strong version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is about the problem of translation.As linguistic determinism states，the word in a language can only be bounded by its own language and it fails its way into anther language .If it were true，how could the translation activities go smoothly？ As we all know，translation is the converting meaning of one language into another.For instance，it is possible for us to translate Chinese literary works into other languages as many as possible.We may encounter the situation in which we are unable to find the equivalent word to that in the source language.But we can express the same ideas by using phrases.For example，although the word “katarta” in an Australian aboriginal language can’t find its counterpart in English，we can use seventeen English words to explain it.In theory，any language can find its counterpart in other languages.
As we have discussed above，Eskimos has more expressions for snow than English.However，it doesn’t mean that English-speaking people are unable to distinguish different shapes of snow.A lack of certain words doesn’t necessarily result in a lack of the related views.If language A has particular words to describe things，then it is easier for speakers of language A to talk about those things than speakers of language B who lack such words.Of course，speakers of language B are able to convey the meaning with circumlocutions.
In the later 1960s，two American scholars，Berlin and kay made a careful examination of basic color vocabulary in 98 languages.They discovered that the number of color terms were not the same in different languages while they share a universal evolutionary process of development.Unlike what Whorf has stated，the color words in different languages have a basic color system.Each language takes its basic color terms from the following 11 items：white，black，red，green，yellow，blue，brown，purple，pink，orange，and gray.If a language had only two color terms，it should be white and black.If a language had three color terms，the red was included besides white and black.If a language the fourth term，it should be green or yellow.To some degree，the examination has threatened the validity of the strong version of the hypothesis.（胡壮麟） IV.Conclusion
From what we have discussed above，we can say that language and thought are mutually interdependent and one can’t exist without the other.Language does exert great influence on the thought，but thought is by no means at the mercy of language.Language can’t get rid of the impact of thoughts.Different way of thinking in the language will lead to diverse rhetorical characteristics，syntactical structures，expressions，etc.One must take a country’s culture and way of thinking into account when learning a foreign language.Otherwise，the study of language can only be empty and abstract.Today，the argument about the Whorf hypothesis is not whether Whorf is right or wrong，but how strong the version of the hypothesis is.As McCormack （1977：4） put it，“Nowadays，the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is neither wholly accepted nor wholly rejected.” It is certain that the researches on the relationship between language，culture and thought will provide new sight for linguists to make further improvement.
Reference：
[1]Ronald Wardhaugh，An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.Peking：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[2]胡壮麟.语言学教程.北京大学出版社.
[3]戴炜栋.新编简明英语语言学教程.上海外语教育出版社.
【Key words】language； culture and thought； Sapir-Whorf hypothesis； linguistic determinism； linguistic relativity
Introduction
The relationship between language，culture and thought has never failed to draw attention of philosophers and anthropologists.Two of them we should mention here are J.G.Herder and Wilhelm Von Humboldt.In his book Origin of Language，Herder expressed that language was the tool of reasoning .He discovered that man with different culture backgrounds had language discrepancy .Humboldt，a follower of Herder，compared different languages among nations and exposed the common development of languages to establish the general linguistics.
To what extent and in what ways does language determine thought？ This question is closely related with an influential but also extremely controversial theory，namely the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis，or simply the Whorf hypothesis，was put forward by linguists Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf.What the hypothesis suggests is like this：linguistic patterns determine the world-view of linguistic users； different language moulds different pattern of thought； languages in the world are different，so each nation has its own way of understanding the world around.
I.A General Introduction to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
In 1929，Sapir expressed his ideas in the book Language in these words：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…… We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.（Sapir 1958，p.69） Later，his student Whorf went on to extend his views.According to Whorf，the relationship between language and culture was a deterministic one .In his view，people don’t have the freedom to observe the objective world，all viewpoints of people are under the control of linguistic patterns.Different speakers experience the world differently as their linguistic structures differ greatly.
Whorf got his ideas from two kinds of experience.One was obtained when he was a fire prevention engineer in an insurance company.In analyzing the reports of how fire had started，Whorf found that language plays an important role in the fire accident.For instance，people tend to be careful when getting close to full petrol drums，but seem to be careless near the empty ones.Actually，the empty drums which were full of gas vapor were more dangerous than the full ones.The other was acquired when he went to study the American Indian Languages，which led Whorf to make his strongest claims.Whorf made a contrast between the linguistic structure of Hopi and that of Standard Average European.（In order to express his linguistic view，Whorf named the English，German，French and other familiar European languages as SAE）.He discovered that Hopi and SAE differ dramatically in their structural features.These differences led speakers of Hopi and SAE to perceive the world differently.The speakers of Hopi view the world as an ongoing process； events can’t be separated and counted，and time is not apportioned to fixed segments.For example，instead of saying “I have stayed for three days.” the Hopi speakers would say “I left on the third day.”
In this view，then，language provides a screen or filter to reality； it determines how speakers perceive and organize the world around them，both the natural world and the social world.Consequently，the language we speak helps to from our world-view.It defines our experience for us； we do not use it simply to report that experience.It is not neutral but gets in the way，imposing habits of both looking and thinking.（Ronald Wardhaugh，p.219）
II.Examples Listed to Support the Hypothesis
Whorf had cited a series of examples to prove the correctness of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism.Generally speaking，these examples can be classified into two categories：the lexical category and the grammatical category.
1.Lexical Categories.A large number of examples can be given to strengthen Whorf’s claim.In a general sense，the more important a thing is in a particular culture community，the more specific names it will take on.A case in point is the word snow in English and Eskimo.For Eskimos，snow is so crucial to their daily life that they need name its various forms，such as “falling snow”， “corn snow”，and “fine powder snow”，etc.In English，there is only the word “snow” for all these substances.In contrast，English has three separate words for “insect”，“airplane”，“pilot”，but Hopi has only one.Here，I’d like to give another common example about kinship term in Chinese and English.In Chinese，we use “舅妈，姑姑，小姨，嫂子，婶婶” to refer to elder female relatives，but in English the word “aunt” should be enough.So Chinese has a more complicated system of kinship term than English.Thus，the addressing for kinship can show the different thinking- pattern in different nations. 2.Grammatical Categories.If we take grammar into consideration，we can find more profound differences between different languages.The grammatical impact is much stronger on linguistic users than vocabulary differences.Whorf contrasted the English grammar with Hopi grammar to support his idea.In English，most words are divided into nouns and verbs：nouns usually denote events of long duration，while verbs usually denote events of relatively short duration.Therefore，English-speaking people tend to think that nature is polarized.If it were so，words like “fist”，“flame” and “wave” would be qualified as verbs.However，as we know，they are nouns in English.Contrarily，these words in Hopi are verbs because they are too brief to be classified as nouns.According to Whorf，in Nootka，a language of Vancouver，all words for native speakers of a European language are verbs.
Carroll and Casagrande counted a well-known experiment which was based on grammatical categories.In Navaho，people use different verbs to describe “pick up round object” （a ball） and “to pick up long and flexible object” （a piece of string）.The experts placed a piece of blue rope，a piece of yellow rope and a blue stick in front of the Navaho-speaking and English-speaking children and then ask them to choose one that resembles the blue rope best.Most of Navaho-speaking children chose the yellow rope according to the shape of the object； while almost all English-speaking children chose the blue stick according to the color.The experiment has shed new sight on our understanding of the Whorf hypothesis：“People tend to sort out and distinguish experience differently according to the semantic categories provided by their different codes.” （ 戴炜栋，p131 ）
III.Criticism about the Hypothesis
Since its formulation，the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has aroused a lively controversy.On the one hand，the Whorfian hypothesis has won the support of linguists like Carroll，Hoijer； on the other hand，challenges to the theory are also posed by Lennneberg，Greenberg，Firshman and R.Miller.With a further discussion，more and more problems have emerged.Nowadays，few people tend to accept the original form of this theory completely.At the same time，two versions of the hypothesis have developed a strong version and a weak version.The strong version states that thought is impossible without language.The weak version suggests that linguistic is influential in the shaping of speaker’s world-view.Today，the popular view is that the strong version of the hypothesis is too decisive to be convincing while some rational elements in the weak version should be paid more attention to. It may not be difficult to argue against the strong version.In our daily communication，we may hear such sentence “That was not what I actually mean.” every now and then.It shows that thought is not just a matter of verbal expressions.Sometimes，thought is too complex for us to be spoken out.In other words，thoughts may beyond the total control of language.Another opposition to the strong version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is about the problem of translation.As linguistic determinism states，the word in a language can only be bounded by its own language and it fails its way into anther language .If it were true，how could the translation activities go smoothly？ As we all know，translation is the converting meaning of one language into another.For instance，it is possible for us to translate Chinese literary works into other languages as many as possible.We may encounter the situation in which we are unable to find the equivalent word to that in the source language.But we can express the same ideas by using phrases.For example，although the word “katarta” in an Australian aboriginal language can’t find its counterpart in English，we can use seventeen English words to explain it.In theory，any language can find its counterpart in other languages.
As we have discussed above，Eskimos has more expressions for snow than English.However，it doesn’t mean that English-speaking people are unable to distinguish different shapes of snow.A lack of certain words doesn’t necessarily result in a lack of the related views.If language A has particular words to describe things，then it is easier for speakers of language A to talk about those things than speakers of language B who lack such words.Of course，speakers of language B are able to convey the meaning with circumlocutions.
In the later 1960s，two American scholars，Berlin and kay made a careful examination of basic color vocabulary in 98 languages.They discovered that the number of color terms were not the same in different languages while they share a universal evolutionary process of development.Unlike what Whorf has stated，the color words in different languages have a basic color system.Each language takes its basic color terms from the following 11 items：white，black，red，green，yellow，blue，brown，purple，pink，orange，and gray.If a language had only two color terms，it should be white and black.If a language had three color terms，the red was included besides white and black.If a language the fourth term，it should be green or yellow.To some degree，the examination has threatened the validity of the strong version of the hypothesis.（胡壮麟） IV.Conclusion
From what we have discussed above，we can say that language and thought are mutually interdependent and one can’t exist without the other.Language does exert great influence on the thought，but thought is by no means at the mercy of language.Language can’t get rid of the impact of thoughts.Different way of thinking in the language will lead to diverse rhetorical characteristics，syntactical structures，expressions，etc.One must take a country’s culture and way of thinking into account when learning a foreign language.Otherwise，the study of language can only be empty and abstract.Today，the argument about the Whorf hypothesis is not whether Whorf is right or wrong，but how strong the version of the hypothesis is.As McCormack （1977：4） put it，“Nowadays，the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is neither wholly accepted nor wholly rejected.” It is certain that the researches on the relationship between language，culture and thought will provide new sight for linguists to make further improvement.
Reference：
[1]Ronald Wardhaugh，An Introduction to Sociolinguistics.Peking：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[2]胡壮麟.语言学教程.北京大学出版社.
[3]戴炜栋.新编简明英语语言学教程.上海外语教育出版社.