KEY TERMS FOR LANGUAGE AND SELF

idiolect: the distinctive pattern of an individual's speech

sociolect: the style of speech shared by people in a particular region or social group

convergence: when we make our language style similar to those speakers around us

divergence: when we make our language more distinctly different from those
speakers around us

speech communities: groups of people who use the same variety of language and
have a shared understanding
of its style

linguistic prestige: the degree of respect and value given to a particular style of
language by a speech
community

linguistic determinism: the idea that the structure of a language determines the thought
processes of its speakers. Language determines the way we think. A society is confined by
its language. The words we use directly frame our thoughts.

linguistic reflectionism: the idea that language reflects the thoughts and ideas of a culture,
the opposite of linguistic determinism. The opposite of linguistic determinism is the idea
that the language which is used only reflects the thoughts of its speakers, so language
influences people's views of their world but does not determine it.

linguistic relativity: A general overall idea is linguistic relativity, which states that the
structure of a language does affect the speaker's world either very directly, as in linguistic
determinism, or as a much more indirect and weaker influence

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, is a concept in linguistics

that suggests the structure of a language affects its speakers' cognition and world view.
Named after linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, the hypothesis is built on two
main ideas:

1. Linguistic Determinism: This is the stronger version of the hypothesis, proposing that
language determines the way people think. According to this view, speakers of different
languages perceive and think about the world in fundamentally different ways due to the
differences in their languages.

2. Linguistic Relativity: This is the weaker version, suggesting that language influences thought
and decision-making processes. While it doesn't assert that language determines thought, it
posits that linguistic categories and structures shape habitual thought and cultural patterns.
 Historical Background

 Edward Sapir: An early 20th-century linguist who argued that the language habits of a
community predispose certain choices of interpretation and categorization.
 Benjamin Lee Whorf: A student of Sapir, Whorf expanded on these ideas, famously studying
the Hopi language and arguing that its speakers' concept of time differed from that of
English speakers because of linguistic differences.

Key Examples and Studies

 Color Perception: Studies have shown that speakers of languages with more distinct color
terms perceive and differentiate colors more quickly than speakers of languages with fewer
color terms.
 Time and Space: Some languages structure spatial and temporal references differently,
which influences how speakers conceptualize these domains. For instance, speakers of
languages that use cardinal directions instead of left and right are more oriented and aware
of geographic directions.
 Grammatical Gender: Languages with gendered nouns can affect how speakers perceive
objects. For example, in languages where "bridge" is feminine, it might be described with
adjectives like "beautiful," whereas in languages where "bridge" is masculine, it might be
described as "strong."

Criticisms and Support

 Criticism: The hypothesis has been criticized for being too deterministic and for the difficulty
of empirically testing the causal relationships between language and thought.
 Support: More recent research in cognitive science and linguistics supports a weaker form
of the hypothesis, showing correlations between language and cognitive patterns.

Modern Perspectives

Today, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is often discussed in terms of how language and thought
influence each other rather than a one-way deterministic relationship. Researchers
acknowledge that while language can shape habitual thought processes and cultural
practices, it does not rigidly determine them.

Conclusion

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis remains a significant theory in understanding the interplay

between language, thought, and culture. While its stronger deterministic claims are widely
debated, the idea that language influences cognition continues to inspire research and
discussion in various fields, including linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and cognitive
science.
 The Boas-Jakobson Principle is a concept in linguistic anthropology and structuralism that
builds on the work of Franz Boas and Roman Jakobson. It addresses the relationship
between language, culture, and cognition, focusing on how languages encode different
aspects of experience and reality. Here’s a detailed explanation:

Franz Boas

Franz Boas, an early 20th-century anthropologist, is considered the father of American

anthropology. He emphasized the importance of studying languages within their cultural
contexts. Boas argued that linguistic diversity reflects cultural diversity and that each
language has unique ways of categorizing and expressing experiences.

Roman Jakobson

Roman Jakobson was a prominent linguist and one of the founding figures of structuralism.
He extended and formalized Boas’s ideas by focusing on the structural aspects of language
and their cognitive implications.

The Principle

The Boas-Jakobson Principle combines insights from both scholars and can be summarized
as follows:

1. Cultural Relativity of Language: Boas emphasized that languages are shaped by and reflect
their cultural environments. He argued against the idea of linguistic superiority, highlighting
that all languages are equally complex and capable of expressing the full range of human
experience.

2. Linguistic Categories and Perception: Jakobson expanded on Boas’s ideas by examining how
linguistic structures (such as phonemes, morphemes, and syntax) influence perception and
cognition. He suggested that the particular categories and distinctions made by a language
(e.g., tense, aspect, mood) can shape the habitual thought processes of its speakers.

3. Structural Differences: According to the principle, different languages encode and highlight
different aspects of reality. These structural differences can lead to different ways of
understanding and interacting with the world. For example, languages that require speakers
to specify certain types of information (such as whether an action is completed or ongoing)
can influence how speakers of those languages perceive and recall events.

Applications and Examples

 Phonological Systems: Jakobson’s work on phonology demonstrated that the distinctive

features of sounds in a language (e.g., voicing, nasality) can affect how speakers perceive
and produce speech sounds.
 Grammatical Categories: The principle can be seen in how different languages handle
grammatical categories like gender, number, and case. For instance, languages with
elaborate case systems may lead their speakers to pay more attention to relationships
between objects and actions.
 Color Terminology: Similar to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the Boas-Jakobson Principle can
explain differences in color perception based on the specific color terms available in a
language.

Implications

The Boas-Jakobson Principle underscores the idea that languages are not just neutral tools
for communication but are integral to how people experience and understand the world. It
suggests that by studying the structural and functional aspects of different languages, we
can gain insights into the diverse ways humans think and live.

Conclusion

The Boas-Jakobson Principle highlights the interplay between language structure, cultural
context, and cognition. It builds on Boas’s cultural relativism and Jakobson’s structuralism to
propose that the unique features of each language reflect and shape the cognitive and
perceptual habits of its speakers. This principle continues to influence contemporary
linguistic and anthropological research, providing a framework for exploring the rich
diversity of human languages and cultures.

IMPORTANT
The sinister point of view that totalitarian systems might use language to restrict thought
was demonstrated by the author George Orwell in his novel 1984, written in 1948. The
fictional society described in the novel is very tightly controlled and is reinforced by the
official language of 'Newspeak'. The lexis of this language is limited. In the novel, no one can
rebel against the rulers as there are no words to express dissatisfaction. 'Bad', for example,
has been removed and replaced with 'ungood'. This is a clear case, albeit a fictional one, of
language controlling the thoughts of the speakers.

The Genderlect Theory, also known as Genderlect Styles, was

developed by linguist Deborah Tannen. This theory explores the idea that
men and women have distinct conversational styles, often leading to
miscommunication between the genders. Tannen posits that these
differences in communication are not about superiority or inferiority but
about different cultural norms and socialization processes.

Key Concepts of Genderlect Theory

1. Genderlect: A blend of "gender" and "dialect," this term refers to the
idea that men and women speak in different "genderlects," or gender-
based dialects. These differences in communication styles are rooted in
the distinct social and cultural experiences of men and women.

2. Report Talk vs. Rapport Talk:

 Report Talk: Tannen suggests that men often use language to convey
information and assert status. This style is more about giving reports,
being competitive, and establishing dominance. Men’s conversations are
often characterized by a focus on facts, problem-solving, and achieving
tangible outcomes.
 Rapport Talk: Women, on the other hand, are said to use language to
build relationships and establish connections. This style is more about
creating rapport, fostering intimacy, and nurturing relationships. Women’s
conversations often focus on sharing experiences, showing empathy, and
maintaining harmony.

3. Conversational Rituals:

 Men’s Rituals: Men might engage in banter, playful insults, and other
competitive behaviors as a way of establishing their place in the social
hierarchy. Interruptions and challenges are often seen as part of normal
conversation.
 Women’s Rituals: Women might use cooperative overlaps, indirect
requests, and more collaborative language to create and sustain
relationships. Politeness and consideration are valued, and interruptions
are often minimized.

4. Miscommunication: Tannen argues that misunderstandings between

men and women often arise because they misinterpret each other’s
conversational styles. What might be intended as a neutral or supportive
comment by one gender can be perceived as aggressive or dismissive by
the other, leading to frustration and conflict.

Examples and Applications

 Workplace Communication: In professional settings, men might

dominate conversations with direct language and assertive statements,
while women might focus on collaborative dialogue and consensus-
building. These differences can affect team dynamics, leadership
perceptions, and conflict resolution.
 Personal Relationships: In romantic relationships, a man might offer
solutions to problems as a way of being helpful (report talk), while a
woman might seek empathy and understanding (rapport talk). If these
intentions are misunderstood, it can lead to feelings of being unsupported
or unappreciated.
 Criticisms of Genderlect Theory

 Overgeneralization: Critics argue that Tannen’s theory can

overgeneralize and reinforce stereotypes about male and female
communication styles. Not all men and women fit neatly into these
categories, and individual differences can be significant.
 Cultural Variability: The theory is based largely on Western, particularly
American, cultural norms. Communication styles can vary widely across
different cultures, and the theory might not account for these variations.
 Dynamic and Contextual Nature of Communication: Communication
is dynamic and context-dependent. Factors such as power dynamics,
personality, and specific contexts (e.g., professional vs. personal settings)
can influence communication styles beyond just gender.

Conclusion

The Genderlect Theory provides a framework for understanding how

gender influences communication styles and highlights the potential for
miscommunication between men and women. While it offers valuable
insights, it is important to consider the theory as one of many lenses
through which to view communication, recognizing the complexity and
diversity of human interactions.

ACTIVITY2