Does language determine thought, does thought determine language, or Essay

Does language determine thought, does thought determine language, or is the relationship more complicated than this Discuss wit - Essay Example The linguistic relativity hypothesis is a relatively simple one: Differences in language across cultures can represent different Weltanschauung and contribute to different perceptions of the world (Swoyer, 2003). The linguistic relativity hypothesis is somewhat at odds with other types of linguistics: For example, Chomskyan cognitive linguistics holds that the differences between languages is fairly trivial and likely based on underlying syntatical and grammatical principles that are generated by the brain (Swoyer, 2003). Of course, these hypotheses are not strictly mutually exclusive. Clearly, different languages exist; also clearly, languages do not routinely refer to how things look like in six dimensions of space, with time flowing backwards, or in the ultraviolet spectrum, because those are things that human beings cannot easily perceive or comprehend even intellectually. The linguistic relativity hypothesis is sometimes called the Whorf-hypothesis or Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, bas ed on the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf and (to a slightly lesser extent) Edward Sapir (Swoyer, 2003). Regrettably, while fascinating work has been done in the field of linguistic relativity, there has not been consistent, methodologically ironclad work on how the implications of this research speak about the relationship between thought and language (Lucy, 1992). About the best that can be said is that linguistic relativity research has been able to demonstrate that language has an impact upon but does not control thought or reality, and that there is a mutual feedback loop between social and lived reality, language, and thought, which plays out over time (Tohidian, 2009). Davies and Corbett (1997), carrying out work that has also been done by Borditsky (2009), found that colour-grouping varies across societies. Russians, for example, sub-divide blue differently than English speakers (Borditsky, 2009). But Davies and Corbett (1997) found only weak support for linguistic relativity: Lo oking at English, Russian and Setswana, they found that, while Setswana speakers who have one term for blue and green would group blue and green together, Russian speakers (even with two words for blue) did not group light and dark blue separately. And within each of the samples, consensus in grouping, groups formed and distribution varied. Moreover, the research assumes that there is a blue-green connection, a gradation between the two on the light spectrum that allows there to be reasonable linguistic variation. The research assumes, logically enough, that no language would classify red and blue together, or white and black, since they are sharply and clearly different. Davies and Corbett (1997) thus end up supporting perceptual universalism with weak linguistic relativism, which does indicate that thought has some precedence over language: Language differences do not make people see different colours, they only make them disagree as to which linguistic pigeonhole to use, and even then only in marginal cases. However, variation in color categorisation and emphasis is tremendous (Ottenheimer, 2008). Hanunoo people in the Philippines have four primary colour terms: One for black and very dark colors, one for white and very pale colors, a green color which is associated with succulence and freshness, and a red color associated