15.5 Theory 4: Language determines or shapes our cultural world view
15.5 Theory 4: Language determines or shapes our cultural world view
15.5.1Proponents of the theory
Some theorists believe that even if language is somewhat distinct from thought, nevertheless, knowing a language will itself condition and influ- ence one’s cultural, social beliefs or views of the world. For example, in the early part of the nineteenth century, Wilhelm von Humboldt held that lan- guage embodies the spirit and national character of a people. The views of the following theorists are of a more recent vintage, and would include Whorf (quoted in the previous section) and others.
Language is a guide to ‘social reality.’ Though language is not ordinarily thought of as of essential interest to the students of social science, it powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problems and processes. Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for society . . . No two languages are sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached . . .
(Edward Sapir, 1929, p. 209; emphasis ours)
. . . a language, any language, has at its bottom certain metaphysics which ascribe, consciously or unconsciously, some sort of structure to this world.
(Alfred Korzybski, 1933, p. 89)
. . . the aristotelian type of education (through language and its subject- predicate form of representation) leads to the humanly harmful, gross, macro- scopic, brutalizing, biological, animalistic types of orientations which are shown today to be humanly inadequate. These breed such ‘führers’ as different Hitlers, Mussolinis, Stalins, etc., whether in political, financial, industrial, sci- entific, medical, educational, or even publishing, etc., fields, fancying that they represent ‘all’ of the human world.
(Alfred Korzybski, 1933, p. xxi)
Exactly how we are ‘at the mercy of the particular language which has be- come the medium of expression for society’ Sapir doesn’t tell us. In any case
Sapir, Whorf, Korzybski, and others clearly claim that the language system
does provide a view of culture and society and an outlook on the world.
15.5.1Inadequacy of the theory
If these theorists are correct, we would expect to find differences and sim- ilarities in such essentials as philosophy, religion, politics, or societal struc- ture to be a function of language. In this regard, we would like to provide objections to these contentions. These are: (1) Same language yet different world views; (2) Different languages yet similar world views; (3) Same lan- guage but world view changes over time; (4) Multilinguals have a unitary world view.
15.5.1.1 Same language yet 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 philosoph- ical, religious, and political ideology. Variation may be observed among speakers in the same neighbourhood and even in the same family. Con- sider, for example, a monolingual English-speaking family where the mother is an atheist, the father a Christian, the daughter a Moslem, and the son a Zen 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 lan- guage. Not only the existence of various religions but of various political parties (from Fascism to democracy to Communism) and cult doctrines shows that monolingual speakers of English are not at all restricted by their ‘subject-predicate’ grammar.
15.5.1.2 Different languages yet similar 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 lan- guages around the world. The same can be said for Communist doctrine. In China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba, Communism is shared by speakers of widely different languages. Obviously it was not the language but other cultural and historical events that brought those countries to adopt Com- munism. It should be remembered that the origin of Communist doctrine came from the writings of a German speaker, Karl Marx. As far as differences
go, the grammars of Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese are as remote from the German language as any language can be.
Then, too, if it were really believed by the Chinese Communists that know- ledge of a foreign grammar, like English, would itself be a danger to the government, the country would not allow its teaching. However, the Chinese government does promote the teaching of English. The government is not afraid of the grammar of English. They simply have students learn English grammar with sentences having the content that they consider appropriate. For example, the wife of the first author, who was born and raised in Beijing, was a Red Guard and then a member of the Communist Youth League at the time that she began studying English as a second language in high school. It is interesting to note some of the sentences included in her lessons: ‘Long live Chairman Mao!’ ‘Keep fit, study hard, work well!’ (Mao’s instruction to children), ‘We love our Motherland; we love the Communist Party; we love the people’, ‘We study Marxism, Leninism and Mao Zedong thoughts’, ‘We love our great Socialist country’, ‘We learn from the People’s Liberation Army’. Change ‘Mao’ to ‘Lenin’, and you will get the same sentences that were learned by the second author in Russia at school English lessons. The same can be said for the Roman Catholic Church in the advocacy of its doctrines. The Catholic Church is not wary of languages but it is wary of books in those languages that can spread ideas that are opposed to the teach- ing of the Church. The Church bans books but it does not ban languages! The grammar of a language is not a threat – the potential threat lies in the sentences that the speaker of a language may produce with that grammar. Thus, we may conclude, along with the Chinese and former Russian Communist Government, and the Catholic Church, that it is the use of the grammar of the language that is important and that the characteristics of the
grammar itself are not relevant.
15.5.1.3 Same language but world view changes over time
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 under the Qing (Manchu) dynasty, to capitalism (under Chiang Kai Shek) to versions of Communism (under Mao and subsequent leaders). Yet the Chinese language has changed relatively little over that period in terms of its basic grammar. Similar changes may be noted in the history of many countries, such as Russia. 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.
15.5.1.4 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. Thus, a multilingual
would have to hold competing views as being true, which would surely confuse a person’s functioning. For example, would a Chinese–English bilingual think like a Communist (assuming, for the sake of argument only, that the Chinese language has Communist doctrine inherent in it) when speaking Chinese but think like a capitalist exploiter (assuming, for the sake of argument only, that the English language has capitalist doctrine inherent in it) 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.