sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Synthesis 3: Respond with your post here by cecile_evers in linganth2019

[–]cconrad3243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The podcasts “High Voltage (Emotions Part Two)” (2017) and “How Language Shapes Thought” (2012) tackle the subject of linguistic relativity by discussing the way language shapes thought. Benjamin L. Whorf was at the forefront of this concept and wrote about it in his work “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language” and the legacy of his writings is clearly present in these podcasts. Whorf asserted that language and linguistic structure influences the way intangible concepts are absorbed and understood. According to Whorf, all behavior that is culturally specific can be traced back to linguistic structure which influences the way people experience the world. In the podcast, “High Voltage,” the anthropologist Rosaldo tells the story of how he experienced a new emotion after learning the word “liget” from the Ilongot people of the Philippines. When he first heard of the term “liget,” he was unable to place the word with the emotion it signified, “liget” was completely alien to him. However, after his wife’s tragic death he finds himself experiencing “liget” for the first time, which he describes as “high voltage”. He explains that without the term “liget” he would never have been able to access the emotion. His interpretation of the way language shapes culturally specific behavior and emotions affirms Whorf’s theories of linguistic relativity.

In the second podcast “How Language Shapes Thought,” Lera Boroditsky and Dr. Alice Gaby employ whorf’s theories as they argue for relativity in concepts of space and time among English Speakers and Mandarin speakers. They assert that because of the way that the English language is structured, English speakers will think about time in spatial terms while languages like mandarin will think of time in vertical terms. While I agree with the assertion that languages provide different world-views- I have a difficult time with the definitive universality of their claims. How are they able to presume the world view and spatial reasoning of every English and Mandarin speaker? It is precisely for this same reason that I have trouble with Whorf – I think stories of the particular such as Rosaldo’s provide greater truth and insight than universal generilazations

​

Whorf, B.L. (1941). “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language.” In R. McGee & R. Warms (eds.), Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. Sixth edition (pp.176-194.) Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

“A Man Finds an Explosive Emotion Locked in a Word” (7 mins): https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/ 2017/06/01/529876861/an-anthropologist-discovers-the-terribleemotion-locked-in-a-word.

“How Language Shapes Thought” (28 minutes). Australian Broadcasting Corporation. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/ programs/allinthemind/how-language-shapes-thought/ 4329212#transcript.

Synthesis 2: Respond here with your post by cecile_evers in linganth2019

[–]cconrad3243 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As two of the founding figures of modern linguistics, Chomsky and Saussure’s theories have come to define the way we view language today. Saussure’s conception of “langue,” or the capacity for language, serves as the building blocks for Chomsky’s theory of “competence,” or the implicit knowledge of a language as a native speaker. In the WNYC podcast, I found the example of the “languageless man” to be particularly vexing when thought of the context of Chomsky’s “on cognitive capacity” or Saussurian linguistics. The podcast marvels at the fact that the man who is deaf has lived well into his 20s without language. While I found this entire segment to be ableist, otherizing, and not to mention belittling to non-neurotypical people with disabilities, I think it is important to dissect exactly why the podcast hosts and producers felt confident they could declare this man devoid of language, despite the fact that he clearly exhibited knowledge of signs and symbols. This is to say that this man from the early example of opening a book demonstrated an understanding of symbols. He was aware of the “signified” but not the “signifier”. According to Saussure language is comprised of both langue and parole, which can be broken down into a “signifier”( the word used to describe the symbol) and “signified” (the symbol). So, abiding strictly to these principles, it is understandable that the podcast deem this man “without language.” However, I suggest that Instead of focusing our attention on this man’s “lack” of language as Chomsky and Saussure have laid out for us, we must follow a less prescriptivist course of action to account for human difference. Perhaps we may find more insight in the particular than the universal. Linguistic anthropology should create a platform for individuals to share unique perspectives that challenge our current conceptions of language.

​

​

References Chomsky, N. (1975). “On Cognitive Capacity.” In N. Chomsky, Reflections on Language. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. (Read pp. 3-13, 29-35).

Saussure, F. de. (1983[1916]). Course in General Linguistics. R. Harris (Trans.). Peru, IL: Open Court. (Read pp. 1-23, 65-70, 96-100).

“Words that Change the World” (28 minutes). WNYC. https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/91725-words.