Psycholinguistics 3

Language, Thought and Culture

The Incident of the Sunday School Teacher

*Robert Meyer (American teacher) was arrested for violating a certain state law (this
law forbade the teaching of a foreign language, other than English, to children under
the age of 13 years) Meyer had been teaching Bible stories in German to a 10-year-
old boy.

*The states had passed these laws essentially with the German language as the target
(America had just finished a war with Germany and generally there was a hatred of
Germany and German military and authoritarian values, ideals, and political
institutions), (the language law reflected the widespread American belief that the
German language itself embodied all that was wrong in German culture and so to
teach such a language to young Americans would be immoral and corrupting.).

*At that time in USA (around 1920), only dead languages ( Latin, Greek) are allowed
to be taught other than English.

*The state of Nebraska argued that by teaching children the German language, Meyer
could harm American children by instilling in them the wicked German values.

*Meyer was not content with that ruling. He took his case to the highest court in the
country, the United States Supreme Court. There he won his case (The court stated as
one basis for its decision that mere knowledge of the German language cannot
reasonably be regarded as harmful’. It maintained that knowing a foreign language
would not in itself provide the values and culture of the country from which that
language is derived).

Dependence of Thought and Culture on Language Theories

*Thought is somehow dependent on language. Four principal formulations concerning

the relationship of language, thought, and culture that have been expressed over the
centuries are as follows:

-Theory 1: Speech is Essential for Thought: We must learn how to speak aloud,
otherwise we cannot develop thinking.

*Proponents of this view hold that thought is a kind of behavior that originates from
speech production (Typically, such theories are held by Behaviorists who wish to get
rid of mind and Mentalism in psychology, linguistics, and philosophy and to replace
the notion of thought or cognition with something that is potentially observable).

*They define thought as subvocal speech or behavior and not something mental, as in
the traditional view of psychology. Objections with regard to the adequacy of this
theory are the following:

1/ Children having no speech production can comprehend speech and think:

*While the ability to utter speech in appropriate situations is a good indicator of
language knowledge, the absence of the ability to produce speech may not indicate a
lack of language knowledge.

*If a person can comprehend the meaning of speech, that person must have the ability
to think, persons without the ability to speak can think.

2/ Speech comprehension, which implies thought, develops before speech production

in normal children:

*«Speech comprehension precedes speech production» is the pattern that continues

throughout the acquisition process (whether it be for first words, elaborate syntax, or
the later acquisition of idioms and figurative speech)

*The comprehension and production processes develop in a parallel mode with

production always trying to keep up with comprehension (for example, As the child
acquires an aspect of language in comprehension, the child can then try to figure out
how to use it in production, the child attempts to coordinate production with respect to
the system that has been developed for understanding).

*That children would not be able to utter words or sentences for the purpose of
communication (not simple imitation), without gaining a prior understanding of
speech, is surely to be expected.

*For normal children as well as for mute hearing children, speech comprehension is
the basis for speech production in the mind. Since the ability to comprehend speech
implies the existence of thought, it therefore must be concluded that speech
production is not necessary for thought.

3/ Telling Lies:

*Neither would be telling a lie be possible if thought is a kind of speech (The very
essence of a lie is saying one thing while thinking something quite different).

*Behaviorists wish to use one process of sentence creation for both processes (saying
and thinking) simply by distinguishing the overt (speaking aloud) sentence from the
covert (speaking to oneself or sub vocally) sentence.

*Because there is only one sentence-making system, an overt pronunciation of one

sentence and the covert pronunciation of an entirely different sentence (the covert
sentence being the Behaviorists’ idea of thought) cannot occur simultaneously.

-Theory 2: Language is Essential for Thought: We must learn language, how to

produce or understand speech, otherwise we cannot develop thinking.

*The language system, with its rules of vocabulary, is necessary for thought.

*This theory is broader than the previous theory, which held that thought was derived
from speech production. There are two objections to raise regarding this theory:
1/ Deaf Persons and Thinking:

*There are many deaf children who do not begin to acquire language until quite a late
age, often after 3 years, when they begin to attend special schools (These are typically
children who are unable to receive speech, and whose parents do not know sign
language).

*These children, when at play and when participating in activities around the home,
behave just as intelligently and rationally with respect to their environment as do
hearing children (If one holds that language is the basis for thought, one would have
to argue that these children do not think; that they were automatons, mere robots).

*A deaf man was a thinking human being even before he had acquired language. Such
a fact cannot be explained by the theory that thought comes to existence through
language.

2/ Multilinguals:

*Consider persons who are proficient in more than one language, where two or more
languages had been learned in childhood. If the language system forms thought, and if
different languages form different thought systems, then such persons would have
formed more than one system of thought. (It would not have been possible under the
theory to form a single system because, according to the theory under consideration,
opposing concepts derived from the different languages would be involved).

*If multilingual persons have more than one thought process (one for each language),
such persons would not be able to think coherently or would have separate thought
intelligences or personalities, have difficulty in using the knowledge gained through
one language when operating in the other language(s), since thought is supposed to be
language-specific and not universal.

*No evidence of such malfunctioning or any other sort of problems for multilingual
persons has ever been observed.

-Theory 3: Language Determines or Shapes our Perception of Nature: The learning of

language will determine or influence the way we perceive the physical world,
visually, auditorily, etc.

*One’s knowledge of vocabulary or syntax influences one’s perception and

understanding of nature. A number of objections are raised to the theory.

1/ Perception, Interest, Need and the Determination of Vocabulary:

*Psychologists have tried experimentally to determine what effects, if any, knowledge

of the vocabulary of language has on perception or behavior. Rather than vocabulary
determining our interest and need, researchers have found the contrary to be true. It is
our interest and need that determines our coinage of vocabulary and its use.

*Once vocabulary fails to serve a need, it falls out of use.

*Regarding interest and need as the prime motivators for the acquisition of
vocabulary, we find that most children are enchanted by dinosaurs. They can often
name 25 or more! It is not the case that they perceive the types of dinosaurs because
of their language. Rather, it was through perception that they developed their interest
in dinosaurs so that they seek the names of these objects.

2/ Color and Snow Vocabulary:

*Some languages have only a small number of color words (The Dani language of
New Guinea has only two-color words, one for light colors and one for dark colors) If
language were the basis of thought and of the perception of nature, then one would
expect speakers of this language, with such a limited repertoire of color terms, to have
perceptual difficulty in distinguishing colors they have no terms for.

*There are dramatic vocabulary differences from language to language (The Eskimos,
for example, have a large number of words involving snow. In Hawaii, there is only
one, the English word ‘snow’)

*The superficiality of the linguistic analyses of the Eskimo language has been
documented by a number of theorists. There is no reason to suppose that Eskimos
learn to perceive varieties of snow because of their language rather than through their
life experience and needs (It is because of the importance of snow in their lives that
they have created more words for snow than have Hawaiians).

*English speaking skiers in cold countries do distinguish a variety of types of snow

despite the lack of vocabulary in English. What they do to describe in language the
physical condition of snow is create phrases, e.g. ‘powder snow’, ‘wet snow’, etc. It is
this language device of creating phrases that every language has that makes up for any
vocabulary deficiency.

3/ Lack of Vocabulary and Concepts:

*It is a fallacy to believe that the vocabulary of a language represents the sum total of
the concepts that a person or culture may have.

*Experience does not always lead us to coin vocabulary items; sometimes we choose
to create phrases (For example, English speakers are quite aware of their hand, yet
although we have a vocabulary item for the underside, ‘palm’, we have no word for
the topside. Instead we use a phrase, ‘back of the hand’. Lack of a vocabulary item is
not indicative of a lack of a concept).

*Many theorists do not realize that a lack of vocabulary does not imply the lack of a
concept. New animals, plants, and other things in nature are continually being
discovered. The discoverer notes the difference, then offers a name. Not the other way
around! There would be no discoveries if we first had to know the name of what it is,
we would discover!
-Theory 4: Language Determines or Shapes our World View: The learning of
language will determine or influence the way we understand our culture and the
world.

*Some theorists believe that even if language is somewhat distinct from thought,
nevertheless, knowing a language will itself condition and influence one’s cultural,
social beliefs or views of the world.

*Language embodies the spirit and national character of a people, it powerfully

conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes.

*Sapir, Whorf, and others clearly claim that the language system does provide a view
of culture and society and an outlook on the world. Objections to the contentions of
these theorists are:

1/ Same Language and Different World Views:

*Consider, for example, the United States, where we can find native speakers of the
same English language who vary greatly in terms of their philosophical, religious, and
political ideology (variation may be observed among speakers in the same
neighborhood and even in the same family).

*For example, a monolingual English-speaking family where the mother is an atheist,

the father is Christian, the daughter is Muslim, and the son is a Buddhist. If it is true
that language influences or determines one’s world view, then we should expect
uniformity of religious outlook since only one language system is involved, English.
This is obviously false.

*The theory predicts that we should not expect differences in politics, social
organization, or metaphysical thinking among speakers of the same language because
their views must somehow be conditioned by their language.

2/ Different Languages and World Views:

*Consider that many countries having widely different languages may share similar
political, social, religious, scientific, and philosophical views. If a language system
influences or determines world view, then we would expect that people with different
languages would hold different world views. Such is not the case. (Christian doctrine,
for example, is shared by speakers of various languages around the world, but that
does not mean that the Doctrine will change when its language changes, the content is
still the same).

*For example, based on some religions, political views, cultures, etc..some books are
banned because of their themes, concepts, notions, etc not for the language is written
in.

3/ Same Language and World View:

*We may observe that a society may change its social structure and world view even
though its language remains relatively unchanged. (For example, in about 100 years,
China has changed from feudalism , to capitalism, to versions of Communism. Yet the
Chinese language has changed relatively little over that period in terms of its basic
grammar.

*These facts are something that the theory under discussion cannot explain. If the
grammar does not change, then the culture and world view should not change either.

4/ Multilinguals’ World View:

*If a person is multilingual, the theory predicts that such a person will have as many
distinct world views as language systems.

*For example, would a Chinese–English bilingual think like a Communist when

speaking Chinese but think like a capitalist exploiter when speaking English? If so,
the bilingual person would be deemed schizophrenically insane. But that is not true.
Since the implications of the theory are absurd, the theory must be regarded as false.