Correction: ISO Reading on Sapir-Whorf

[Alexander King]

I like al the pages of the Whorf's "Habitual" piece and all the pages  
of many of his other essays, including "Science and Linguistics",  
"Linguistics as an exact science," "Language, mind, and reality",  
"The punctual and segmentative aspects of verbs in Hopi," and several  
others. I would not hesitate to ask "very bright" first-year  
undergraduates to read ALL of "The relation of habitual thought and  
behavior to language." Our first-year anthropology students read it a  
Aberdeen, and it was sometimes taught in ANTH101 at UVa when I was  
there in the 1990s. I find that the bright students do understand  
Whorf and find his ideas inspiring. I provide background, some  
explanations, and common misunderstandings of Whorf in a lecture  
cribbed from Penny Lee's wonderful book, The Whorf Theory Complex  
(Benjamins), which is the most comprehensive, cogent, and sensible  
discussion of Whorf I have ever read.

I haven't seen the 5 Minute Linguist (have to get that, though,  
sounds cool), so I don't know Pullman's chapter, but from what Leila  
describes, it strikes me as a typical misunderstanding of Whorf's  
point. Of course any smart person can say anything in any language,  
that's missing the point. If Whorf were more of a pedant, he would  
have given his essay the more descriptively accurate title, "The  
relation of habitual thought and habitual behavior to habitual  
language." The wonderful (and hilarious) examples  in the  
introduction are not of people trying to communicate or solve  
problems, but rather of people quickly arriving at commonsensical  
solutions to an emergency and finding an answer "unencumbered by the  
thought process," to quote my other favorite MIT alums (Click &  
Clack). Their post-fire explanations to the insurance adjustor gave  
voice to this unreflective thought connected to some admittedly  
stupid actions.

While Whorf does occasionally present examples of vocabulary or usage  
in his argument about the interpenetration of language and culture,  
his main point and interest are the inescapable grooves of thought  
too convenient to avoid presented to us by the grammatical relations  
of our language. These larger patterns--obsession with aspect,  
evidentiality, duration, etc.--in Hopi are dramatically different  
from the unrelenting reification throughout English and other SAE  
languages. He provides some nice discussion near the end of the essay  
of connections between these different linguistic patterns and  
consequently different cultural patterns. His conclusions, however,  
are as plain as they are revolutionary and foundational:

"There are connections but not correlations or diagnostic  
correspondences between cultural norms and linguistic patterns.  
Although it would be impossible to infer the existence of Crier  
Chiefs from the lack of tenses in Hopi, or vice versa, there is a  
relation between a language the rest of the culture of the society  
which uses it. There are cases where the 'fashions of speaking' are  
closely integrated with the whole general culture, whether or not  
this be universally true, and there are connections within this  
integration, between the kind of linguistic analyses employed and  
various behavioral reactions and also the shapes taken by various  
cultural developments."

I try to allocate about 20 minutes in discussion sections unpacking  
these three sentences. I read them as the foundation of all  
linguistic anthropology, in no small part because Dell Hymes placed  
such importance on Whorf's nice phrase 'fashions of speaking' in the  
development of his own thinking and his 'way of speaking' approach.

I would recommend just assigning Whorf and work on getting students  
to understand the subtlety of his arguments. That is plenty of work  
enough, and well worth the effort. Indeed, our first year  
anthropology students read this essay in year one as part of a theme  
on language generally. Then in year two I teach a course in which I  
make them read it again, plus "Science and Linguistics." Many hadn't  
understood "Habitual thought" the first time around anyway, but most  
(even those not so bright) seem to get the general ideas the second  
time around.

I could go on (and I do, at times!), but I think both the force and  
direction of my opinions should be clear.

best,
Alex


On 11 Jul 2008, at 4:48 am, Leila Monaghan wrote:

> I like the first couple of pages of the original Whorf "Habitual"  
> piece.
>  Takes a bit of unpacking but it is nice for undergrads to read the  
> original
> and the empty gasoline cans makes sense to people.
> I have paired it with
> Pullman, Geoffrey (2006) Does our language influence the way we  
> think? in
> E.M. Rickerson & B. Hilton (eds) The 5 Minute Linguist.  London:  
> Equinox,
> pp. 70-74.
>
> Which is a short snappy very linguistic oriented piece that  
> basically argues
> that anyone can say anything in any language--an anti-Whorfian POV  
> to stir
> up some debate in the class.
>
> Like the whole 5 Minute Linguist book.  60 very short readable  
> pieces by
> linguists and a few linguistic anthropologists, and a real bargain  
> at $12 or
> so.
>
> best,
>
> Leila
>
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Liz Ronkin <liz.ronkin at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I just flouted those Gricean maxims by sending the message  
>> below
>> under an earlier heading.
>>
>>
>> Can anyone suggest a terrific reading on Sapir-Whorf (15 pages-ish)
>> suitable
>>> for very bright first-year undergraduates in Introduction to  
>>> Cultural
>>> Anthropology who have a mini-module on language and communication?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Maggie
>>>
>>

- tel:+44(1224)27 2732, fax:+44(1224)27 2552 - http://www.koryaks.net  
- http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology