SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS
The moderate version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that the way we perceive reality is partly determined by the language we speak. This implies that a native language has strong influence on the thought patterns of its individual speakers; and hence the collective thought patterns of the speech community contribute to the formation of culture-specific way thinking. This means that linguistic relativity boils down into cultural relativity. Theoretically, this view is only half way true, for the opposite hypothesis is actually acceptable; cultural relativity leads to linguistic relativity. In others word, linguistic relativity and cultural relativity are related to each others not in a unit-directional manner but in mutually influential way. At the surface level and by the way of illustration, the mutual relationship between linguistic relativity and cultural relativity shows up explicitly in the different ways of how Indonesians and Americans “verbalize” their mundane and more specifically their regions experience, as can be seen-referring to the latter- in their different poetic genres pertaining to the realm on divinity.
Key words : Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, linguistic relativity, cultural relativity, Indonesian and American poetry, divine poems.
Edwards Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf are the ones who invented this hypothesis. They brought attention to the relationship between language, thought and culture, neither of them formally wrote the hypothesis nor supported it with empirical evidence, but though a thorough study of theirs writings about linguistic, researchers have found two main ideas. First, a theory of linguistic determinism that states that language you speak determines the way that you will interpret the world around you. Second, a weaker theory of linguistic relativism that states that language merely influences your thoughts about the real world.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis theorizes that thought and behavior are determine (or are at least partially influenced) by language. If true in its strongest sense, the sinister possibility of culture controlled by newspeak or some others language is not just science fiction. Since its inception in the 1920s and 1930s, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has caused controversy and spawned research in a variety of disciplines including linguistics, psychology, philosophy, anthropology and education. To this day it has not been completely disputed or defended, but has continued to intrigue research around the world.
Edwards Sapir studied the research of Wilhelm von Humboldt. About one hundred years before Sapir publish linguistic theories. Humboldt wrote in Gesammelte Werke a strong version of linguistic determinism : “Man lives in the world about him principally, indeed exclusively, as language present to him, “Sapir took this idea and expanded on it. Although he died always support this hypothesis, his writings state that there is clearly a connection between language and thought.
From George Orwell’s 1984 (1984)
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expressions for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotes of Ingsoc (English Socialism), but to make all other modes of thought impossible, it was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and Old speak forgotten, a heretical thought-that is, a thought diverging from the principle of Ingsoc-should be literally unthinkable at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect method. This was done partly by the invention of new words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible all of secondary meaning whatever A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no more know that “equal” had once had the secondary meanings of “politically equal”, or that ‘Free” had once meant “intellectually free”, than, for instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings attaching to “queen” or “rook”. There would be many crimes and errors which would be beyond his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable”.
From “The Status of Linguistic as a Science” (1929)
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone or alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of particular language which has become the medium of expression in their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjust to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection : The fact of the matter is that the “real world” is to a large extend unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No two language are ever sufficient similar to be considering as representing the same social reality. The world in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached…even comparatively simple acts of perception are very much more at the mercy of the social patterns called words than we might suppose…We see and hear and otherwise experience very large as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choice of interpretation.
As the underline portions show, Sapir used firm language to describe this connection between language and thought. To Sapir, the individual is unconscious to this connection and subject to it without choice.
Benjamin Lee Whorf was Sapir’s student. Whorf devised the weaker theory of linguistic relativity “ We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity, which hold that all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe…”(1940-1956), He also supported, at times the stronger linguistic determinism. To Whorf, this connection between language and thought was also an obligation not a choice.
From “Science and Linguistics”(1940-1956).
“We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. The categories and types that we isolated from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face ; on the contrary, the world presented in kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds-and this means largely by the linguistic system in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it in this way-an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk all except by subscribing to the organizations and classification of data which the agreement decrees”.
Both Sapir and Whorf agreed that it is our culture that determines our language, which in turn determines the way that we can categories our thought about the world and our experiences in it.
For more than fifty years researchers have tried to design studies that will support or refute this hypothesis. Support for the strong version has been weak because it is virtually impossible to test one’s world view without using language. Support for the weaker version has been minimal. Yet this hypothesis continues to fascinate researchers.
Problems with the hypothesis begin when one tries to design studies that will support or refute this hypothesis begins when one tries to discern exactly what the hypothesis places in Sapir’s and Whorf writing”(1972 : 13). At some point, Sapir and Whorf appear to support the strong version of hypothesis and at others they only support the weak version, Alford (1960) also notes that neither Sapir nor Whorf actually named any of their ideas about language and cognition the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. This name only appeared after their deaths. This has lead to wide interpretation of what researchers consider to be the one and only hypothesis.
Another problem with hypothesis is that is requires a measurement of human thought. Measuring thought and one’s world view is nearly impossible without the confounding influence of language, another of the variable being studied. Researchers settle for the study of behavior as direct link to thought.
If ones believe the strong version of linguistic determinism, one also has to agree that thought is not possible without language. What about the pre-linguistic thought of babies ? how can babies acquire language without thought ? Also where did language come from ? in the linguistic determinism view, language would have to derive from a source outside the human ream because is impossible without language and before language there would have been no thought.
Supporters of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis must acknowledge that their study of language in the real-world is not without doubt if their language influences how they categorized what they seem to experience. Penn, “In short, if one believes in linguistic relativity, because of doubting one’s own ability to correctly describe reality” (1972 : 33).
Yet another problem with hypothesis is that language and linguistic concept are highly translatable. Under linguistic determinism, a concept in one language would not be understood in a different language because the speakers and their world views are bound of poetry humor and other creative communications are ides “lost in the translation:.
One final problem researchers have found with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is Whorf lack of empirical support on this linguistic insight. Whorf uses language nuances to prove vast differences in thought and behavior. Schlesinger attacks Whorf’s flimsy thesis support:…”the mere existence of such linguistic diversities is insufficient evidence for the parallelism claims of a correspondence between language on the one hand and cognition and culture, on the other, and for determinist claim of the latter being determined by the former” (1991 : 18). Schlesinger also fails to see the connection between Whorf’s linguistic evidence and any cultural or cognitive data. “whorf accasionally supplies the translations from a foreign language into English, and leaves it to the good faith of the reader to accept the conclusion that them must have been a corresponding cognitive or cultural phenomenon”(1991 : 27).
One in famous example Whorf used to support his theory was the number of words the Inuit people have for “snow”. He claimed that because snow is a crucial part of their every day lives and they have many different uses for snow that they perceive snow differently than someone who lives in a less snow-dependent environment, pullum has since dispelled this myth in his book, The Great Eskimo vocabulary Hoax (1991). He shows that while the inult use many different terms other language transmit the same ideas using phrases instead of single words.
Despite all these problems facing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there have been several studies performed that support at least the weaker linguistic relativity hypothesis. In 1954, Brown and Lederberg tested for color capability, or how speakers of one language categorize the color spectrum and how it affect their recognition of those colors. Penn writes. “Lederberg reports on a study showing how terms of colors influence the actual discrimination. English-speaking subject were better able to re-recognize those hues which are easily name in English. This finding is clearly in support of the limiting influence of linguistic categories on cognition “(1972 : 16). Schlesinger explains the path taken in this study from positive correlation to support for linguistic relativity. “…if cod ability of color affected recognizability is a function of the individual language “(1991 : 27).
Kay and Kempton’s language study (1984) found support for linguistic relativity. They found that language is a part of cognition. In their study, English speakers perceptions were distorted in blue-green area while speakers from Tarahumara-who luck a blue green distinction can be recovered.
Lucy and Shedder’s color memory test (1979) also supports the linguistic relativity hypothesis. If a language has terms for discriminating between colors then actual discrimination/ perception of those colors will be affected. Lucy and Sweder found that an influence on color recognition memory is mediated exclusively by basic color terms-a language factor. Diagram 1 of sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
Language – thought – culture
Diagram 2 of review of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Culture Thought
Table 1. Religious Phenomenon in Indonesia and America
No. | In Indonesia | In America |
1 | “Religion” written or stated in identity card | “Religion” is not written or stated in united State ID |
2 | Religion is tight to each other with the country; it is ruled by the government law “UUD 1945 pasal 29”, arranged and conducted by the minister of religious affairs. | Religion and Country are separated clearly, there is no Department of Religious affairs |
3 | Religion becomes the compulsory lesson or lecture in all level of formal education | There is no religion lesson or lecture in all level of formal education |
4 | The religious life is not only limited in ritual religious events in religious places but it also grows well as habitual action and religious institution, (such as, Islamic school and settlement of Qur’an studies for children, Young people or whoever want to get Islamic knowledge) which has strongest influence against the social and political life. | The religious life is more limited in religious ritual in religious places (especially, the church); and if it raises as the social organization (such as, the Salvation Army), it influences the social political life, but it is not significant |
5 | The religion penetrates the system of politics, and it arises as the political parties. | The religion penetration the system of politic, but it does not arise as the political party |
6 | The religion penetrate the institution formal ceremony, so that every ceremony must be started by thinking and blessing God and ended by praying God. | There is no thanking, blessing or whatever in every institution formal ceremony. |
Table 2. Religious cultural Verbal Expressing in Indonesia and America
No. | In Indonesia | In America |
1 | Ya Allah / Ya Tuhan | O my God / Jesus (Christ)! |
2 | Alhamdulillah / Puji Tuhan | Thank God, also TGIF (Thank God it’s Friday) |
3 | In Islam way, when we sneeze we can say “Alhamdulillah”, while the one listens it can reply “Yarhamukallah” (Allah blesses You), as the replying the sneezer can say “Yahdikumullah”(Allah blesses you too) | When the one sneezing the listener can response “Bless You” (derived from God Bless You) |
4 | In Islam way, the expressing of meeting and parting is “Assalamu’alaikum…”(wish you get blessing and welfare of Allah; handed ever you) | The expressing of leave taking or parting “Good Bye” derived from “God be with you” (Webster 1988 : 127) |
5 | The profession curse is always begun by stating “Demi Allah….”(=in the name of Allah…); either in the curse of witness in the court | The curse of witness in the court is started by praying to God for Hits Help, such as “I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and help me God”. |
6 | In Indonesia bill “RUPIAH” written; DENGAN RAHMAT TUHAN YANG MAHAESA, BANK INDONESIA MENGELUARKAN UANG SEBAGAI ALAT PEMBAYARAN YANG SAH DENGAN NILAI… | In “DOLLAR” bill Written : GOD WE TRUST |
Because of the curiosity of losing “GOD in modern American Poetry. So the next step of searching for “GOD” is continued in The Norton Anthology of Poetry, edited by Allison et al (1970). In this enough thin writing, enclosed and printed the English Poetry written in 14th to 20th century finally it was found the religious poet who loved in England in 16th century, namely, John Donne (1572-1631). In book writing of John Donne’s Poetry, edited by Clements (1966), it was found “Divine Poem” or “Sajak-sajak Ketuhanan”, which was divided into five themes consisting of lima 81 poem or poetries. In that poetry of Donne, we find the love or affection, longing of yearning, and submitting to God’s fate. In “A hymn to Christ”, for instance, let’s read the following verses :
Table 3. Indonesian-American Poem
No. | Indonesian | American |
1 | Jika dalam kapal retak aku berto’ak, Jadilah tanda itu tanda perahuMU; Jika ‘aut membenamku dalam gelombang pasang, Jadilah prahara itu merah-darahMU.. Gereja terbaik ‘tuj berdoa punya redup cahaya; Agar bisa memandang Tuhan, Kupejamkan mata; Dan untuk bri siang bebas dari siang yang padat, Kupilih sebuah malam yang gelapnya abadi | In what torn ship soever I embark; That ship shall be my emolem of Thy ark; What sea soever swallow me, that flood; Shall be to me an emblem of Thy blood. ….. Churches are best for prayer that have least light; To see God only, I go out of sight; And to ‘scope stormy days, I choose And everlasting night. |
2 | Kusapa dukaMu jua, yang dahulu yang meniupkan zarah ruang dan waktu yang capai menusun huruf dan terbaca; Sepi manusia, jelaga | I’m nobody ! who are you ? Are you nobody too? Then there’s a pair of us-don’t tell! They’d banish us, you know. How dreary to be somebody ! How public, like a frog To tell your name the lifelong day To an admiring bog! |
3 | Kemudian engkaupun tiba menjemput sajak yang tersisa Kemudian haripun rembang dan tanpa cuaca Siang akan jadi dingin, Tuhan dan angina telah sedia Biarpun aku hibuk dan cinta berangkat dalam rahasia | I died for beauty, but was scarce adjust in the tomb When one who died for the truth was lain In an adjoining room |
Further research and linguistic development is necessary to find out the theory of linguistic relativism. In his introduction to Whorf’s body of work, John Carrol suggest a reason why so much attention and controversy surround the theory of linguistic relativism. Carrol stated, “Perhaps it is the suggestion that all one’s life one has been tricked, all unaware, by the structure of language into a certain way of perceiving reality, with the implication that awareness of this trickery with enable one to see the world with fresh insight”(1956 : 27). The world is getting smaller with the diffusion of computers and new communications technology. Interaction between members of different cultures is becoming easier and more prevalent. On a global scale, the hypothesis could be taken as a possible rationalization why foreign nations fail to communicate successfully. Awareness of linguistic relativity, however, should lead to better understanding of cultural diversities and help to bridge intercultural communications gap.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar