Paper 2 - Language And Culture

ABIAS, Leonard Paul B. AB Communication

Paper No. 2 July 27, 2009 DOG VS. CANINE, SHEEP VS. MUTTON

Language is said to point and direct its users towards different types of observations and perceptions of similar events and objects, yielding different views of the world. This, from what I understand, is the primary description of the principle of linguistic relativity. This is based upon the fact that physical representations do not lead its observers to the same perceptions and understandings of the world, not unless they have the same or similar backgrounds in terms of language. Thoughts and behaviors are determined by language. This is what the Sapir – Whorf hypothesis proposes. From their view, especially Edward Sapir’s, the understanding of a culture would be impossible if there one would not try to understand the development of that culture’s language. He sees us as prisoners of our own language. One culture seems to not think of anything outside its language. It sees the world differently compared to how other cultures see it. An individual may live a day unconscious that he is building his world upon the language and language habits of the group or culture he belongs to. He would think that he is there, just adjusting to reality, going with the flow, without considering language as a main factor to his adjustment and that language is just a mere mean of expression, solving problems in communication, misunderstandings or reflection. No two languages may ever be said similar in terms of the perception of the world and the reality. The worlds in which different cultures live, I think, are quite distinct. They are not just the same world with different attached labels. We perceive the same communication events but our language habits and of our community and culture influence certain choices of interpretation. The world is a complicated planet, and this complication is presented for our minds to understand and organize. We categorize the humanity and the world and organize it into concepts. This categorization is dictated by our community and our linguistic patterns and is translated into codes in the forms of our language. The concept of linguistic determinism makes us realize that all languages do not translate each other. One concept in this language, if translated to another, may lose its sense. No matter how many definitions one tries to construct, that concept cannot be translated in its full meaning. This makes language relative. Ultimately, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis makes sense for me. It has the potential to be used in describing many misunderstandings in life. This concept probes more into language, and passes beyond the difficulties and boundaries in dialects. But also, let us not close the issues through the hypothesis. There are things which need to be argued upon.