Even the most banal expressions have a slightly different sense

January 27, 2024 2:01 AM

There is quite a bit at stake in entertaining the possibility of linguistic relativity – it impinges directly on our understanding of the nature of human language. A long-held assumption in Western philosophy, classically formulated in the work of Aristotle, maintains that words are mere labels we apply to existing ideas in order to share those ideas with others. But linguistic relativity makes language an active force in shaping our thoughts. Furthermore, if we permit fundamental variation between languages and their presumably entangled worldviews, we are confronted with difficult questions about the constitution of our common humanity. Could it be that there are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between groups of people speaking different languages? from Our language, our world
posted by chavenet (16 comments total)

Could it be that there are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between groups of people speaking different languages?

is not a phrase that anyone who grew up hanging out with other kids from different cultures and who had different native languages would ever write.
posted by eviemath at 3:21 AM on January 27 [12 favorites]

Could it be that there are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between groups of people speaking different languages?

The current state of politics suggests that there are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception even between groups of people speaking putatively the same language, so I don't see why not.

But I think it's group identity that drives that, and to the extent that language does as well, that's mostly by virtue of being a proxy for group identity. I can imagine no reason for an unbridgeable gulf to persist between any two individuals as long as both are committed to making good-faith attempts to bridge it.
posted by flabdablet at 3:27 AM on January 27 [4 favorites]

Yes, beware of justifications for the idea that "we are so different we can never truly understand one another." Those justifications are always eventually used for slaughter.
posted by rikschell at 5:15 AM on January 27 [9 favorites]

Could it be that there are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between groups of people speaking different languages?

Could it be that there are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between different audiences?

Making sensational general statements while assuming that your readers are all on the same page as to what you're specifically referring to is dangerous. Is it possible that I, as a native English speaker, will never know if my perception of the world would be subtly different had I been raised speaking a different language? Probably. Does this count as an 'unbridgeable gulf'? Only if you are a linguist studying this sort of thing and trying to test it experimentally.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:05 AM on January 27 [2 favorites]

Could it be that there are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between groups of people speaking different languages?

There are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between every single human being, so yes.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:14 AM on January 27 [4 favorites]

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is an enticing one and in practice doesn't always hold true.
posted by Peach at 6:30 AM on January 27 [4 favorites]

Forgetting language for a bit, humor is notoriously specific to cultures. There are plenty of jokes that you can _explain_ to outsiders but that they will never find gut-bustingly funny because they don’t have the lived experience.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:29 AM on January 27 [1 favorite]

Sure, and that’s also true of anyone outside of my family and a couple specific family in-jokes.
posted by eviemath at 8:09 AM on January 27 [2 favorites]

There are unbridgeable gulfs in thinking and perception between every single human being, so yes.

This is my conclusion, too. Language and cultural referents aside, perfect communication of thought and perception is going to remain a pipe dream until all of humanity can be united into a hive consciousness.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:39 AM on January 27 [2 favorites]

It is striking that MetaFilter-type people are often deeply skeptical of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that language influences thinking, while being absolutely wedded to the idea that using particular words and phrases will have a significant effect on society's thinking about particular groups, and hence the life outcomes of those groups.

Surely the belief that significant social change will come about if we use "person with a disability" in place of "disabled person" is textbook Sapir-Whorf.

How to reconcile these two attitudes?
posted by Klipspringer at 9:14 AM on January 27 [4 favorites]

Because words are heard by other people? And have an effect on them? I don't see how it's related to Sapir-Whorf at all, and the above comment reads like some tired trolling that relies on not thinking too hard about why people are upset with, say, slurs.
posted by sagc at 9:36 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]

I'm not talking about members of a group being upset by what words are used about them. I'm talking about the claim that "non-members of a group will change their thought patterns about a group if they change the words or grammatical forms they use when referring to that group". Which is a commonly expressed belief and — I think? possibly?? — requires some form of Sapir-Whorf. It seems like an interesting question.
posted by Klipspringer at 9:49 AM on January 27 [1 favorite]

Making sensational general statements while assuming that your readers are all on the same page as to what you're specifically referring to is dangerous.

An unbridgeable gulf, so to speak.
posted by Greg_Ace at 11:14 AM on January 27 [1 favorite]

They're not unrelated. Whorf (1959):

We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscope flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds — and this means largely by the linguistic systems of our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way — an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language […] all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated.

But, still, Sapir-Whorf linguistic relativity is not the same thing as Lakoff's cognitive linguistics. (Or as it developed in Structuralism and post-Structuralism with Saussure, Jakobson, Sahlins, etc)
posted by snuffleupagus at 11:19 AM on January 27 [6 favorites]

I'm not talking about members of a group being upset by what words are used about them. I'm talking about the claim that "non-members of a group will change their thought patterns about a group if they change the words or grammatical forms they use when referring to that group".

But you’re not talking about two groups here. People belonging to the same culture are attempting to influence the direction of that culture. The people being addressed are fully capable of understanding the suggested way of thinking, they just choose not to act on it.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:41 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]

The article is all right as a historical overview, but it's almost entirely lacking in specifics-- examples of the alleged "unbridgeable gulfs".

It does refer briefly to geographic coordinate systems in language, which is the best evidence for the neo-Whorfian view. Here's part of a Guy Deutscher article with more on how it works.

You can find plenty more in Whorf's Language, Thought, and Reality (1956), which is well worth reading, though it tends to oversell the point (and Whorf's understanding of e.g. Hopi has been criticized). People got really excited over differences in language a hundred years ago (the time of Sapir and Boas), and it could be said that we're more jaded now, and that the differences turn out not to nicely align on a "European vs non-European" axis. E.g. it's interesting that English verbs must show tense and Mandarin is based on aspect, but it doesn't prevent communication, and besides, English has aspect too.

Or take evidentiality, which is fairly common worldwide: in languages that have it, it's a mandatory feature that requires every statement to be indicated as to reliability: do you know it by direct experience, or from hearsay, or it's just a guess? (There are often more gradations.) Does that affect the way you think? Maybe! On the other hand, it seems a little less exotic when we learn that it's found not just in Quechua or Pomo or Yukaghir, but in French.

In the 90s the flame of linguistic relativity was carried by Dan Moonhawk Alford-- you can get a sample here. His claims about noun- versus verb-oriented languages don't seem "unbridgeable" to me; after all, he's also saying that he, a white man, came to understand them just fine. But it also seems to me that it's Native Americans who can best judge claims about Native American languages.
posted by zompist at 2:00 PM on January 27 [6 favorites]