All those who work in the field of linguistics or related subjects must be aware of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, language shapes our thoughts, it influences our culture and the way we see the world. This idea became very popular and led to the belief that there are as many worldviews as there are languages. However, John H. McWhorter, in his book “The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the same in any Language” has disproved the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; he posits that language reflects culture and the speaker’s worldview; it offers a cultural viewpoint of the world. McWhorter is a professor of linguistics. An attempt is made in this review to show how powerfully McWhorter argues against a widely accepted idea by giving numerous examples from languages the world over. His argument is not based on experiments carried out by him; that, he states would have been unnecessary waste of time and energy. He has picked up relevant studies carried out by researchers on several language issues and proved his point almost convincingly.
The chief tenet that the writer has addressed in the book is whether language influences thought. He has repeated the question at critical junctures throughout the argument, as if to keep the readers on the track and prevent them from losing their way in the myriad of terms and research questions that are peripheral to the main issue. Some other questions that he raises are the relation between language and culture, the complexity of languages, and the cognitive implications of cross-linguistic differences, cultural differences, racial differences and different worldviews. The book is neatly divided into six chapters dealing exhaustively with the topic supported by abundant examples. Wharfianism is an outdated twentieth-century school of thought. By arguing against the well-established views of Wharfianism, MacWhorter poses as a modern revolutionist. He not only points out empirical flaws but also the political dangers.
In the first chapter, the writer gives the example of an experiment conducted on Russians. Russians perceive sky blue and dark blue as different colours and not as two shades of the same colour. This is because they have two different words for each shade. In a controlled laboratory setting, Russian and English speakers were asked to discern colour matching cards. The Russians were able to do it faster than the English speakers. The linguist Guy Deutscher was excited with the results and declared in The New York Times that “our experience of a Chagall painting actually depends to some extent on whether our language has a word for blue.” The writer notes that the Russians did perform the task quicker than the English speakers but only by 124 milliseconds on average. As McWhorter notes, these results are certainly intriguing, but hardly amount to an earth-shattering discovery about alternative modes of human experience. He gives another example of the Amazon Piraha tribe. It was noted that they cannot count because there are no numbers in their language. Wharton refers to a host of news flashes following this declaration that caused a sensation. He equated it with saying that “Tribe without cars doesn’t drive.” I would add that American city dwellers cannot thrash corn or drive a bullock-cart. Wharton draws attention to the fact that the hunting Piraha tribals do not need to count beyond a certain number; then why should there be numbers in their language? And how does it establish that they do not have the ability to count? Does this imply that language includes only what the speakers need for communication purposes?
He gives the example of Thai language in which there are several words for ‘you’ depending on the social hierarchy and the degree of respect towards the person who is addressed. People belonging to the Guugu Yimithirr group in Australia talk about north, south east and west instead of saying in front of, behind, to the left or to the right. The writer explains that this is because they live on open grasslands. Their environment forces them to use directions, and the ‘language part is just a result.’ A tribe dwelling on the mountainside refers to past months as up and future months as down. However, not all people living on mountainsides follow the same rule. The important point is that which words are included or not included in a language has nothing to do with culture.
The writer argues that it happens by chance. Languages change over time and the changes can be prompted by any circumstances. McWhorter’s argues, “Language is not some deterministic phenomenon, but rather “a shambolically magnificent accretion of random habits” with “chance” as the strongest factor in whether or not certain linguistic elements are adopted or discarded.
At the same time, the writer cautiously states that he does not deny that culture and language intersect. . As he puts it, “cultures are lived by human beings; human beings have language; hence, language will have words and expressions for aspects of culture”. He gives the example of politeness distinctions in pronouns to express different degrees of respect to the person addressed. In some languages like English, a single pronoun is used to address others. In many other languages there are binary or multiple distinctions. In German, it is important to use the right pronoun while addressing others during a conversation, and the patterns of usage depend upon culturally specific norms. Yet cross-linguistic differences in the use of pronouns do not imply that speakers of different languages necessarily think differently about social organisation and relationships. A two-tiered pronoun system existed in English in the 17th century but was lost in due course of time.
Showing respect to the addressee necessitates prior thinking on the part of the speaker. German speakers cannot ignore this fact as English speakers can. Hence, speakers have to organize their thinking before speaking. They have to decide which linguistic expression they are going to use. This is how language influences thought and this is the intersection point of language and culture. It does not follow that different languages create different worldviews. Recently many studies have been carried out to investigate whether language influences thought to an extent that it marks the cognitive levels of speakers. The insights gained from these neo-Wharfian experiments are worthy of praise. MacWharter expresses his genuine respect for them, yet he is steadfast in his stand “that language’s effect on thought is distinctly subtle and, overall, minor”.
MacWharter’s book is primarily concerned with attaching too much importance not to what a language has to say but how the language says it. He has given numerous examples from academics that have dealt with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis but have only made it more complicated and intriguing to be understood by laymen. Wharton admits the possibility that as the neo-Wharfian experiments demonstrate, language can affect though marginally. Language also reflects culture.
The style of the writer is non-academic. There are many references to studies but not a single one is cited in a scholarly manner. One wonders whether he is really serious about what he wants to say. It appears to be convincing; the writer’s tone is cautious, knowing that he is attacking a great linguist. At the same time, he does not hesitate to make some bold statements about the American whites, their pride in their language and the over-consciousness of the status that language affords them. From beginning to end, we get a feeling that he is going to say something great at the end, that it will be firm and sais with a bang. He reiterates his intention from time to time, every time arousing the hopes of the reader. Yet, he remains elusive till the end and the book ends in a hiss. We don’t find any firm and assertive statement that we expect. The question whether language affects though remains as much a mystery as we start off with. However, the journey of evidences and examples that the writer takes us through is enlightening.
Perhaps, the style of presenting an academic topic hinders the desired effect. A serious and simple tone would have been satisfying and rewarding. The style reflects over-confidence and suggests an unsaid challenge throughout. The success of the book lies in its comprehensive view and depth of study which does not fail to impress, in spite of the style.
References
McWharter, John. The Language Hoax. USA: N.p., 2014. Print.
