Language and Reality, One More Time

Abstract

I shall propose a rationale for a version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. I say so-called since the ideas of Sapir and Whorf were offered more as a conceptual framework or interpretive perspective than as a scientific hypothesis. Understood in this way, these ideas remain extremely interesting and worthy of exploration. I am proposing a soft version in order to avoid the overly deterministic and rationalistic implications of the rigorous formulation sometimes known as relativity. This version still carries serious ramifications for any understanding of the relationship between language and reality. basic idea of this proposal is that the structure of our native language can and does strongly influence our perceptual and conceptual patterns, and thus contributes significantly to the make up and contour of reality as experienced. scope of this influence includes our experience of both social and physical reality. Thus it is fair to say that to a large degree the world is linguistically constituted. In what follows I shall demonstrate and document this basic theme with examples from both Hopi and other Native American languages, as well as some from the English language. focus point will be the inter-active of the relationship between speech and embodiment, First, consider perceptual patterns. In Hopi language, in addition to personal and demonstrative pronouns, there are what are called remotes, which refer to a person or thing that is not present or that is unknown to the speaker. This linguistic classification introduces and sets in motion a perceptual expectation and/or awareness quite distinct from those common to IndoEuropean languages and experience. Since it is not common to speak about persons, places, and things in Hopi without indicating whether or not they are remote, it would seem that this feature of experienced reality would be something that Hopi speakers would be more likely to notice. It would be part of the grid through which they interact with their environment on a primary level, not just a secondary one. Along the same line, in addition to the usual distinction between singular and plural, in Hopi there is dual number for both subjects and objects that have an animate nature. Interestingly enough, this classification also includes clouds, stars, and vehicles. Such things can be said to come in groups of one, two, or many. Not only would this way of speaking heighten one's awareness of the coupling phenomenon, but it might well make one more cognizant of the differences between animate and inanimate features of reality. In a sense, the language can be said to force, or at least direct, its users to experience the world in this way. In like manner, Hopi verbs not only express tense, but they also designate aspect, thereby indicating if an activity has been completed (perfective) or not (imperfective). In addition, however, according to Whorf, Hopi verbs also formalize different varieties of the contrast between point-locus and extent-locus, such that the verb inflections serve to distinguish the manner of the action rather than simply whether or not it has been completed. The phenomenon denoted by the root, shown in the punctual aspect as manifested about a point, becomes manifested as a series of repeated interconnected segments of one large phenomenon of a stretched-out segmental character (Whorf, p. 52). On the other hand, when the phenomenon focused by the verb stem is of a dynamic nature, the appropriate inflections become those that indicate whether a given line is meandering, zigzagged, serrated, or fringed, or whether a fluid makes one wave or a continuous flow of waves. In the first case, the action might be said to carry a static character, while in the latter it can be said to exhibit a vibrational quality. In both cases, however, it is the verb that designates the nature of the phenomenon, not the noun. …