it is what you say it is

By Ted Fordyce On August 31, 2016 · 5 Comments

Language & Thought

We all know that language is important. Without some form of verbal (such as speech), gestural (such as sign), or visual (such as writing), language, our ability to communicate our observations, beliefs, and desires would be severely limited. But is that all languages are, useful tools for describing our perspectives to others; or, as proponents of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis contend (as described/echoed in Chandler reading and Boroditsky video), do the languages we speak influence (or even determine) those perspectives. An even more fundamental question is: Is language the reason (as Benveniste contends) that we have any perspective at all?

These are the questions explored in this week’s readings. In The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Chandler (back to the virtual spiral binder) describes one of the two views that have dominated the language/perception debate for over most of the last century. The eponymous hypothesis contends that each language categorizes and structures the world differently, and as a result, speakers of different languages perceive the world differently from one another. In the strongest form of this theory, language does not describe reality, it creates it. The more moderate and more widely accepted form of this argument states that language influences rather than determines are perceptions. The Boroditsky video is an example of this moderate form. Chandler call the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis a mould theory because it portrays language as moulding our perception of reality. He contrasts this with what he calls cloak theories that see language as fitting to the perspectives of its speakers.

In opposition to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is Noam Chomsky’s argument that language is just one of a number of cognitive systems of the brain. In his view, all languages share certain characteristics (deep structures) because they are derived from these systems that are part of the makeup of the human brain. In this view, a careful study of the commonalities of languages can provide insight into the commonalities of the human race.

This week’s final reading, Emile Benvenite’s “Subjectivity in Language” suggest an even more profound connection between language and our relation to the world. Benvenitse is interested in how we, the users of language, our aware of ourselves as being entities separate from that which we perceive. This is what he means by subjectivity; how is it that I have a unique perspective on the world, and moreover, how is it that I am aware that my perspective is unique? How do I know that I am a subject? Benveniste sees subjectivity as being a function of the term I. I, he argues, is a purely linguistic concept; there is no shared experience corresponding with the term. My conception of I is unique, as is your conception of the term. An understanding of the term I entails an understanding of this separation, that your I is always different from my own. Without language, we would not have the concept of I. Our subjectivity, our individual perspectives on the world, are thus a function of language.

Readings for September 7

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis / Daniel Chandler

“Subjectivity in Language” / Emile Benveniste

Discussion Questions

Describe an experiment that you might use to test the principle of linguistic relativity.
Do you believe it is possible to translate a poem?
What are some of the implications of seeing reading as always an act of translation?
Does Saussure’s conception of the sign support what Chandler calls the mould theories, cloak theories, or neither? Why?
What are some terms that we use to describe digital media that either influence how we think about digital media, or reveal how we conceive of digital media? (Example – Web Site) Do you think these terms influence how digital media is developed and/or used?
In the video you watched, Lera Boroditsky gives examples of how different ways of talking about time and space result in different ways of conceiving time and space. What does the way that the English language describes time and space say about the way that speakers of that language of conceive of it?
How might a “cloak” theorist explain Dr. Boroditsky’s examples?
How does Benveniste distinguish discourse from language?
Next week we will explore the idea of language as a technology. Do you think Benveniste would agree with this identification? Why or why not?
How does I posit another person?
What does Benveniste mean when he states that the I does not name any lexical entity?
According to Benveniste, there is the fundamental difference between saying, “I swear it will be finished by Wednesday,” and “He swears it will be finished by Wednesday.” What is this difference?