Chapter 12 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Worlds Shaped by words

Prior to reading this piece written by David S Thomson, i had struggled to understand the notion of how the way we speak influences the way we act. Thompson opens this piece with a powerful phrase that draws me into the piece, "Language Mirrors Reality." He continues by saying that members of different societies may not share cultural categories, because words from one language often cannot be translated directly into another (113). David's piece introduces Benjamin Lee Whorf who takes the concept of "words label reality" a little further.
The story of the man who saw the sign of empty barrels that were previously filled with gasoline, helped me understand the man's action of throwing the match into the barrel that resulted in an explosion. Benjamin Lee Whorf often cited this example to illustrate the theory he had about language. Whorf claimed that language may be shaped by the world, but it in turn shapes the world. Whorf theory said that people can only express those things that their language permits them to. Whorf claimed that the reason the worker would put a match into the empty barrel (which was not really empty), was because there is no word in the English to describe the barrel as being "empty but not quite"(114). This made me understand the mis- perception of things in our everyday lives, which come from the mis-interpretation of words in our given language.
Whorf did a study of the Hopi language and discovered that it was drastically different from languages of the Indo-European family ( English and French). He claimed the major difference was that Indo- European's base their language with respect to time, that is past, present and future, whereas the Hopi's do not. For example when members from the Indo- European culture had a job to do (building a house), we always set a time frame to it, and that is because our language influences this behavior. If the Hopi's have a to make a mat, they do not consider a time-frame rather they say "it will reach that state when nature so ordains". Thus the Hopi's language is based on influences of nature rather than time.
Lee also gave reference to the 1964 essay " Politics and the English Language" written by George Orwell. Orwell's claims is that language is often times distorted(123), he gave examples to many words used in political contexts that in reality foster negative meanings, however are perceived by that culture as acceptable. This suggest that the lack of words has forced us to give words double meanings.

Eating Christmas in the Kalahari

This ethnography written by Richard Borshay Lee was very intersting. It tells us of what happens when an anthropologist living among the !Kung of Africa decides to be generous and share a large animal with everyone at Christmas time (11). Lee who had spent close to three years in Kalahari, who named /ontah (meaning "whitey") by the !Kung Bushmen(12).
During Lee's stay, he had developed a relationship with the Bushmen, and at Christmas time they usually celebrated by slaughtering a large cow. So Lee bought the largest cow that money could buy, which happen to be a black ox(12). News about the cow spread quickly among the !Kung bushmen and though Lee thought the cow was enough to feed an enormous number of people, he was surprisingly shocked when the villages claimed his ox to be a lean, bag of bones. One of the Mothers Ben!a said to him " The Cattle is big yes,but old. And thin. Everybody knows there's no meat on that old ox. What did you expect us to eat off it, the horns?"(13).
Lee could not understand why the villagers kept referring to what he thought was a perfectly good cow as and " old, bag of bones". He confided in his wife , who too was confused. Lee was still an outsider looking into the lifestyle of the !Kung bushmen and was about to find out the shock of his life.
The day they slaughtered the cow, Lee saw layers of fat and yelled "That ox is loaded with fat. What's this about the ox being too thin to bother eating? Are you out of your mind?" The Bushmen all laughed at him and he thought that they played a joke on him. This was more than just a mere joke. It was the cultural habitats of the Bushmen. Lee was probably expecting to be praise for such a large cattle, however this was exactly what the !Kung Bushmen abhorred.
He went to /gaugo who told him " We insult men after they make a kill because of Arogance. Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as inferior or servants. We can't accept this. We refuse one who boats, for someday his pride will make him kill somebody. So we always speak of his meat as worthless. This way we cool his heart and make him gentle." (17)
What a clash of culture. These Bushmen wanted to maintain humility in there culture and that is there purpose of insulting one's kill, Lee would have never understood this practice if he did not get involved and been a "victim" himself.

Biblography:
Mc curdy David W., Spardley James: Conformity and Conflict
Refer to pages 11-18

Invitation

Welcome to my blog hope you have great time reading and responding to my post!