DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND LITERARY STUDIES

FACULTY OF ARTS

AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA

KADUNA STATE, NIGERIA

TOPIC: LANGUAGE, THOUGHT AND REALITY

BY

NWOSU, VINCENT P15AREN8011

LECTURER:

DR. I. SAMINU

APRIL, 2016
INTRODUCTION

It is a known fact that language is not only essential to specialised disciplines such as

Linguistics, media and translation but is, in all its forms, at the core of human experience and

civilisation. It is such an integral, natural part of our cultures and social lives that all human

activities are hinged on it. The question still remains how language is related to our thought

process and interpretation of reality.

The connection between language, thought and reality has involved scholars, etymologists,

anthropologists and analysts for quite a long time. Going back to Plato and his hypothesis of

Forms, in which Plato portrayed the idea of thought and language being important as originating

from conceptual definitions or ideas called "forms" and which all the elements and

characteristics assigned subsequently can be subsumed (Gill, 1997:132). Alongside the standard

western idea, Plato eventually portrays language as being founded on reality. Correspondingly,

John Locke of a later time portrays the connection between the reality and language:

Our senses, conversant about particular sensible object, do convey into the mind several
distinct perceptions of things according to those various ways wherein those objects
affect them. And thus we come by those ideas we have of yellow, white, heat, cold, soft,
hard, bitter, sweet and all those which we call sensible qualities; which when I say the
senses convey into the mind, I mean, they from external objects convey into the mind
what produces those perceptions (Essay Concerning Human Understanding, book 2,
chapter 1).
Locke exemplifies clearly in this statement what many scholars, philosophers and psychologists

felt about how we think and how we perceive reality and how that is then reflected in our

different languages. For Locke, there is always an intimate relationship between thought and

meaning. Thought becomes communicable to other individuals by a meaningful utterance, and

the latter that are meaningful utterances exist because of our desire to communicate thoughts.
Page | 2
The main concern of Locke's enterprise was to explain how private and 'mental' thoughts are

conveyed to others. It is in the context of communication that meaning manifests its empirical

aspects. Meanings are reliably linked with observable features, and through this link, the private

conditions of organisms are made public. These links constitute the most important feature of

communication. The success of communication between individuals depends, therefore, on the

existence of connection of which one term is an utterance and other qualifies as its meaning.

Locke's theory accounts for why there are meanings and how they relate to utterances. In Locke

views, speakers make utterances (words or sentence) which stand for ideas (representation) or

thoughts (composed of such representations) that are identified as meanings (Signification).

Words are sensible marks of ideas and the ideas they stand for are their proper and immediate

signification. Words, when they are in their primary or immediate signification, stand for nothing

but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them.

In opposition to these common beliefs among philosophers concerning language, a notable

German researcher and diplomat from the eighteenth century, Wilhelm von Humboldt likened

language and thought as indistinguishable, as language totally determining thought, in a theory

known as the Weltanschauung (World View) hypothesis (Brown, 1968). Humboldt additionally

accentuated "profound semantic" contrasts between languages which lead to different "cognitive

perspectives," an idea usually known as cultural relativity (Wierzbika, 3). Albeit little

consideration was given to this outrageous view at that point, this equivalent thought attracted a

lot of intrigue and analysis in the 1930's in the rise of a hypothesis known in language studies as

the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Linguistic Relativity). This theory was established in Sapir's

investigation of Native American Languages, which later drew the specific consideration of

Sapir's understudy, Benjamin Lee Whorf. What grabbed the eye of numerous researchers and

Page | 3
non-researchers alike and has invigorated similar research among a wide range of languages was

a section that Sapir read to a gathering of anthropologists and language specialists in 1928:

Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, or 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 their society…. The fact of the
matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language
habits of the group. No two languages are ever 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 (Salzmann,
1993:153).
This particular statement and similar ones by Whorf, attempting to demonstrate that language is

the medium by which one views the world, culture, reality, and thought have aroused a deep

desire in not only scholars but also for non-scholars to validate or disprove this hypothesis. Most

language researchers and scholars today currently argue one of the following three positions in

relation to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or Linguistic Relativity: language heavily influences our

thought (strong interpretation), language does not influence our thought or language partially

influences our thought (weak interpretation).

LANGUAGE STRONGLY INFLUENCES THOUGHT

Benjamin Whorf, like Sapir, studied Native American languages. Whorf cites several examples

from the Native American language, Hopi, to support his hypothesis that thought is strongly

based on language. According to Whorf, the Hopi language does not contain any word,

grammatical construction, or expression that refers to the English concept of ‘time.’ Whorf goes

on to explain that it is possible in the Hopi language to show the world or reality in areas other

than what many languages refer to as ‘time.’ “The Hopi view of reality is specific to the

language and can only be best expressed if one is familiar with the language” (Carroll, 1956:57).

In the example above where Whorf feels language strongly influences thought, he is often

criticized with the idea of circularity because he “infers cognitive differences between two

Page | 4
speakers from an examination of their respective languages,” (Hopi and English). His proof of

cognitive differences is just “based on the reiteration of the linguistic differences” (Harre,

1990:5).

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has remained a disruptive topic for a long time in light of the fact

that numerous scholars feel that Whorf's models neglected to show a genuine connection

between language and thought while others concur with Whorf that thought is really dependent

on language. Also, scholars think that it's hard to locate a lot of factors that fit valid research and

don't go under a similar analysis as Whorf's supposed circularity. In spite of the fact that these

imperatives keep on making it hard for scientists, many keep on searching for approaches to

demonstrate or negate the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

A famous example used to illustrate linguistic relativity is the distinctive words in the Inuit

language to refer to different types of snow; for instance, while “tlapripta” refers to a type of

snow that burns your scalp and eyelids, “aqilokoq” refers to a “softly falling snow” and

“piegnartoq” to a kind of snow good for driving sled. These different words suggest that Inuit

speakers are able to perceive and name different “stages” of snow due to their repeated exposure

to and experience of it.

Another argument for the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is the perception of colour across languages.

According to the hypothesis, if a language groups colour differently than the language, then the

different groups should perceive it differently. In a study done in the 1970s, a group of

researchers studied the difference in perception of colour in English compared with a small tribe

from Papua New Guinea called Berinmo. The Berinmo were given a sample of 160 different

colours and asked to categorize them into different shades. The Berinmo not only had fewer

groups of colours, but they also did not make any difference between the English colours blue

Page | 5
and green, however, they did make a category between colours in their language nol and wor

which in English would both be understood in the category of yellow. The researchers found

that the Berinmo speakers were better at matching colours across their nol and wor groups than

across the English blue and green groups and English speakers were better at recognising colours

across blue and green than across the Berinmo nol and wor (Sawyer, 1999). According to the

researchers, by showing that the colour perception of the two languages is dependent on the

categorization in the respective language, the results support and prove the Sapir-Whorf

Hypothesis.

The issue of linguistic relativism and the enormous influence of language on the perception of

our reality is a large field and leads to the questioning of many concepts that we may have taken

for granted. The representation of gender in language and its influence on our perception of it

may be one of them. Many feminists have turned to language to reject it as the root of

inequalities, stereotypes, and sexism, and sensed the potential that changing what they perceive

as a “man-made” language, resistant to change and subject to norms, could have on mentalities,

since putting categories and labels on different individuals affect the way and manner that we

perceive them. This notably explains the attention that has been brought in those circles to the

supposedly “gender-neutral” use of masculine words in languages such as English (for instance,

the use of the word “man” or “mankind” for human beings). This is to draw further attention to

the social roles enforced on people through language and demonstrates how intertwined

language, culture/reality, and thought are.

Most of our African languages do not have native words for the animal, ‘tiger’. This is because

tigers do not inhabit any part of Africa. Tigers are only in Asia and that is why they have names

for it in their native Asian languages. Lions are mostly in Africa. They live in grasslands because

Page | 6
that is where they can hunt successfully without hindrances. This explains why our native

Languages can account for this because they can be seen around. This supports the fact that

language strongly influences thought because you cannot think of something you do not have in

your culture.

LANGUAGE DOES NOT INFLUENCE THOUGHT

There are three central matters that scientists use to question the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:

translatability contrasts between linguistic and non-linguistic events and the language universals.

Translatability is typical argument researchers use against the theory, for in spite of the fact that

language may vary extensively in the manner they express certain subtleties, it is still very

conceivable to interpret those subtleties starting with one language then onto the next (Fishman,

1976:273).

The contention made by Eric Lenneberg against the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is that "linguistic

and non-linguistic events must be independently watched and observed before they can be

connected" (Carroll, 1956:28). He contends that it's absolutely impossible to characterize

language as impacting thought when there is no differentiation between these two events and that

the proof which underpins language as influencing thought depends simply on semantic

contrasts.

The third issue that gives proof against language influencing thought is the concept of language

universals. The idea of language universals can be traced back to the Port Royale:

There are in the grammar observations that apply to all languages; these observations
constitute what one calls General Grammar. Grammar, which has for its object the
expression of thought by the help of speed, spoken or written, thus admits of two sorts of
rules. One kind are immutably true and universally followed, they apply to the form of
thought itself, they follow from the analysis of it and are only the consequence of it….
(Cowie, 1999:227).
Page | 7
The theory of Language Universals, commonly attributed to Chomsky and Transformative

Generative Grammar is the assumption that there are deep structures that are common to all

languages (Fishmann, 1976:13). In inspecting this thought in relation to linguistic relativity, all

cultures would be connected and have comparable realities which are in profound contrast from

Whorf's views that all cultures and societies see the world diversely as a result of their language.

LANGUAGE PARTIALLY INFLUENCES THOUGHT

The works of Sapir and Whorf made an immense change in the manner researchers see language

and thought. Researchers rushed to discover proof that would give the hypothesis legitimacy. In

spite of the fact that the research is anything but difficult to define, the difficulty lies in finding a

set of variables that precisely test the hypothesis. Most researchers up to this time have thought

that it was difficult to infer that language influences thought. Anyway through models from

Whorf's studies in Hopi and different observations from researchers and scholars, it is substantial

to say that language does partially influence thought. In deciding linguistic relativity, the

question isn't whether a language influences one's thoughts but to what degree does it influence it

(Wierzbicka, 1992:7).

Numerous examples are given to support a weak interpretation of linguistic relativity. One

research carried out by Linda Rogers offers proof to support a weak interpretation. Rogers read a

story to a gathering of bilingual youngsters while recording their brain-wave patterns. She

initially read the story in English while seeing that the youngsters' brains were active in the left

hemisphere and afterward read the story in Navaho and watched their brain movement in the

right hemisphere. This as indicated by Rogers offered proof to the way that English as a noun-

centred language was processed in the left half of the brain and the Navaho as a verb-centred

language was fully processed on the right side of the brain. This offered proof to the way that in

Page | 8
spite of the fact that a similar story was told to the same youngsters, they processed the story in

different ways as per which language it was told in (Gill, 1997:140.

Another clear example is a study differentiating Japanese and English passive constructions done

by Agnes Niyekawa-Howard in 1968. The study clarifies that the Japanese has two types of

passive constructions in which when one is joined with the other, the meaning changes to the

subject of the sentence was "caused" to take the action that is found in the verb. In making an

interpretation of stories from Japanese to English, this construction was not seen; in any case, in

the translation from English to Japanese, the Japanese translators added this construction.

On a similar note, when requested to interpret cartoons that involved interpersonal clash, the

Japanese "were found to attribute responsibility regarding the negative result to other people"

more than did the English. The study's motive was to show that despite the fact that not

deliberately observed by native Japanese, this construction of grammar adds to a "perceptual

propensity or societal standpoint" in the Japanese culture (Salzmann, 1993:163).

Backing for the possibility that language somewhat impacts thought can likewise be found in the

idea of codability. Codability can be viewed as the capacity to interpret a word, phrase, or idea

starting with one language then onto the next. Anybody that communicates in two languages

would concur that a few ideas are simpler said in one language over the other. Commonly in

language, there are words that clarify an idea, location, feeling, and so on that in different

languages could take up to a paragraph to depict. An Eskimo tribe in Alaska called the Dena'ina

Athabaskans has a whole lexicon that depicts various types of streams and trails. In a single

word, the Dena'ina can describe the following phrases: "a position of quick or moderate current,

secured with slush ice or flood ice, a stuffed snow trail or a path with snow floated more than, a

creature trail, or a path utilized for getting wood" (Lord, 1996). The idea of codability, the

Page | 9
capacity to code in one language a word or expression in another, epitomizes the possibility of

language partially influencing thought in light of the fact that in one language a speaker might

have the option to see a lexical classification better than another yet that not the slightest bit

restricts another language from having the option to using the same category.

Ogden & Richards were also of the view that language has an influence on thought. Englishmen

Charles Kay Ogden and Ivor Armstrong Richards wrote the book “The Meaning of Meaning: A

Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism” (1923), and

the Semiotic Triangle was the means they used in explaining that understanding comes from

within the people who use a language rather than from the words they just interpret or, as the

saying goes, words don’t mean; people mean.

The Triangle is a model that describes the relationship between thought (reference), linguistic

sign (or symbol) and a referent (the things they try to represent or refer to). Ogden and Richards

clarify the three relations in the semantic triangle between them: thought to image or word =

rightness, thought to referent = sufficiency, and image to referent =

Page | 10
The Sign or Symbol (Representation) is the actual word, term, or sign; the mental image or idea

that the person has of this representation is the Thought or Reference or Concept. If the Thought

is adequate, the hearer is able to connect it to the Referent or Object. All meaning is elicited

through various symbols, or is arrived at through different personal interpretations. The meaning

does not go with the word, it emerges by the person hearing it, thinking about it and ultimately

arriving at meaning. Look at the example below for a more practical example involving the

Semiotic Triangle.

In order to understand the workings of the Semiotic triangle and how it helps in meaning-

making, it all comes down to you. You have an idea, a thought. Yet without language, words,

how are you going to explain to anyone how brilliant you really are? So you need words, even

better, you need the right words. If you don’t have the right words, how will you explain your

brilliant idea? How will the world perceive your words? What reality will you create? To

illustrate, we can use the following example:

Page | 11
Imagine you ask somebody what they are holding. That somebody tells you he/she an orange.

Now try to get a picture in your mind of what this person is holding.

Think about it. Got the picture in your head? Now, did you picture a yellow and a round fruit? Or

at least something edible? This is how the Semiotic Triangle helps in meaning-making and the

influence of our thought.

Different words with -more or less- the same meaning, but different realities. What do we

actually mean when we say the things we say? If I tell you ‘I want a bat for my birthday’, will I

be happy if you bring me the animal instead of the wooden swinging tool?

Richards and Ogden’s semiotic triangle has been challenged for many years by other

semioticians, such as Umberto Eco, who maintain that the Triangle is overly simplistic.

According to Sue Ellen Wright (1963) “One of the major deterrents to using the triangle is its

numerous interpretations and the variable of terminology associated with the nodes of the

triangle”, but then she adds that the triangle is useful “particularly for non-linguists approaching

terminology practice for the first time”. And even in more advanced terminology work and

studies, the semiotic triangle has proven to be useful as a basis for further research.

Page | 12
Of course, this has prompted the Linguists and Anthropologists to be concerned with the Sapir-

Whorf Hypothesis and the implications that surround the claims made by Sapir in 1928 and

continues to search for ways to prove or disprove the view that language directly influences the

way reality is perceived by people. Because the perfect research situation to completely prove or

disprove this hypothesis does not exist, scholars are left to examine small samples of specific

registers in which language can be seen to change thought and reality and through research in

these registers and fields, most researchers agree with the weak interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf

Hypothesis.

CONCLUSION

From the foregoing, Language is a necessary condition for thought. It is impossible to think, to

believe, to act, or to be conscious without a language. Hegel wrote in the preface to his book,

Science of Logic: "It is in human language that the forms of thought are manifested and laid

down in the instance". Language is something which is spoken; it is an instrument by means of

which something is said, with its uses as to make propositions, ask questions, issue orders,

describe, name, express emotions, etc. This makes language different from sounds that are made

by other species, for instance, the parrot

“Language and society are so intertwined that it is impossible to understand one without the

other. There is no human society that does not depend on, is not shaped by, and does not itself

shape language” (Chaika, 1989:2). This statement suitably defines the close relationship

between language, thought and reality for a language not only shapes the way reality is perceived

by people but reality can also shape language in itself. The Whorfian Hypothesis has changed

the way many people look at language. It has influenced many scholars and opened up large

areas of study. While many like Sapir and Whorf are strongly of the opinion that language

Page | 13
strongly influences thought and others argue that language does not influence thought, the clear

evidence from so many types of research and investigations clearly indicate that language does

influence thought and perception of reality but language does not govern thought or reality. We

all agreed on one basic fact, that language has meaning. We are also convinced that meaning is

not fixed. It depends on some variables, one of which is language.

REFERENCES

Brown, R. (1968). The Psychology of Language and Communication. New York: Guilford Press.

Carroll, J (ed.) (1956). Language, Thought and Reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee

Whorf. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Chaika, E. (1989). Language, the Social Mirror. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Cowie, F. (1999). What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gill, J. (1997). If a Chimpanzee Could talk and other Reflections on Language Acquisition.

California: University of Arizona Press.

Harre, R. and Muhlhausler, P. (990). The Pronouns and People: Linguistic Construction of

Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Locke, J. (1975). Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Lord, N. (1996). Native Tongues. Georgia: Humanitarian Printing Resources.

Ogden, C.K. & Richards, I. A. (1927). Meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace &

Company.

Page | 14
Salzmann, Z. (1993). Language, Culture and Society: An Introduction to Linguistic

Anthropology. Colorado: Westview Press.

Sawyer, K. and Stein, R. (1999). The Language of Color. Washington: Washington Press Ltd.

Wierzbicka, A. (1992). Semantics, Culture, and Cognition: Human concepts in Culture-Specific

Configurations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality. New York: M.I.T. Press.

Page | 15