Sapir-Whorf

[burciuol]

Thanks to Mark for weighing in on Hoijer coining the term based on a few
selected quotes.  He remembers correctly.  I have Hoijer's 1954 paper in
front of me, which starts out "The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis appears to have
had its initial formulation in the following two paragraphs, taken from an
article of Sapir's, first published in 1929."  The actual Sapir and Whorf
(and a little Boas) material cited by Hoijer consists of about 3 paragraphs
from Sapir, 4 paragraphs plus a couple of quotes from Whorf, a paragraph
from Boas, spread throughout the paper (one of the Sapir citations is from
"Conceptual Categories in Primitive Languages," the rest are simply listed
as Mandelbaum (SWES) pp. 162 and 10-11 if anyone wants to know; the Whorf
is simply listed as from Collected Papers on Metalinguistics, 1952, pp.4-5,
27, 44, 33, 36; with specific reference to "the Hopi studies."  The Boas is
of course from the Handbook.)  At no point in these cited bits do Sapir or
Whorf (or Boas for that matter) use the term "hypothesis."  So where did it
come from?  Hymes told me one time (I think I'm remembering this right--
Dell, if you're reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong) that Hoijer
was trying to bring Sapir (and Whorf along with him, but especially Sapir)
back into prominence in language and culture, and this was the way he did
it, through the conference and in print.  The idea of weaving these threads
into a "hypothesis" seems to have been a gesture of respect.  Perhaps
calling it a "hypothesis" was also about connecting with what must have
been the prestige discourse of that era,postwar and early 50's, as the
it's-all-about-science mentality was starting to grip US institutions,
academic and otherwise.  So as a discursive strategy, coining this term and
developing it as the theme of a conference must have made a lot of sense to
Hoijer and his colleagues.  And maybe there is something Sapir-Whorfian
about all that, eh?  Because look what the sedimentation of the term has
invoked in terms of "habitual thought" -- notions of lab-like
reproducibility, all that baggage that people have spent years trying to
"prove" or "disprove."
--Bonnie


At 04:37 PM 12/16/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Dear Richard,
>
>I have to weigh in with Bonnie and the others who cite Harry Hoijer.  Some
>years ago I did a grad paper for Victor Golla entitled "Whatever Happened
>to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?"  In those pre-computer days (remeber
>those?) I and a series of harassed Library of Congress reference
>librarians came to the conclusion that Hoijer coined the term and used it
>as the basis of an all-star linguistics panel, subsequently published as
>AAA memoir #79.
>
>I can't find the paper (I suspect it's in storage in the US) but as I
>recall Hoijer seemed to base the whole "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" on three
>quotations from Sapir and Whorf.  Neither Sapir nor Whorf ever stated it
>in hypothesis form and their own wording is tentative and subject to many
>interpretations.  I am particularly interested in Whorf's emphasis on
>links between language categories and habitual (as opposed to conscious
>strategic) action.  It not only makes clear that Whorf wasn't suggesting a
>"strong" hypothesis but reminds me both of Bourdieu's habitus and Peirce's
>writings on habit.
>
>Best,
>
>Mark
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:burciuol at hamilton.edu>burciuol
>>To: <mailto:linganth at cc.rochester.edu>linganth at cc.rochester.edu
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 10:59 PM
>>Subject: Sapir-Whorf
>>
>>For one useful starting point, see Language in Culture: Proceedings of a
>>Conference on the Interrelations of Language and Other Aspects of
>>Culture.  Ed, Harry Hoijer.  published by the American Anthropological
>>Association, vol.56, #6, part 2, memoir #79, December 1954.  In the
>>preface (on p.vii), Hoijer lists what he and Robert Redfield saw as the
>>objectives of the conference, starting with this point:
>>"1. To define, as clearly as possible, the problems raised by the attempt
>>to interrelate language and other aspects of culture, particularly in
>>reference to the hypothesis suggested in Benjamin L. Whorf's Collected
>>Papers on Metalinguistics, (Washington DC 1952)."
>>
>>This conference, with an all-star participant list, was held in Chicago
>>in March 1953, and the papers and discussion published in the
>>above-described volume.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20011217/6d2c7139/attachment.htm>