Sapir and Whorf postulated that grammar and language are part of the mental process, thus they help to shape the way an individual interprets and views the world around them. However, the theory has always been controversial because people tend to see language as a tool created by humans instead of a mold that shapes people. By accepting this theory one must accept that humans do not have complete control over language, allowing a language to die out is as much a loss as any other extinction, and forcing people to adopt a new language forces them to change the way their mind works. If this view is accepted as fact, factors such as the environment would be seen as less important to culture than language. Creating a situation where languages are not just a superficial divide between groups but a concrete difference as much as skin color has been in the past. The result may be a new form of racism where a person is looked down upon because of his language and where the most complex languages would be seen as superior and thus the speakers superior.
Language is important to anthropology because of three things. The first is that language is not formed spontaneously and it changes very slowly, and thus it acts as a time capsule. The second is that language is a human universal; there are no groups of humans without some form of language. The third is that a language reflects the culture it was created in; the entirety of a cultures values are focused in their language. Through studying a language an anthropologist can look into the culture as a whole and how it has evolved over time.
Although as far as I’ve read, the Sapir-Whorf theory has been discredited, there was an article in one of the recent New Scientist magazines (June or July 2007) about a gene that appears to be linked to the use of tonal languages, and it seems to be newer than genes out of Northern Europe.
I have always wanted to believe in the SW theory and learned several languages hoping to broaden my mental map. I’m broadminded, now, but I doubt that it is a result of my linguistic forays.
Thank you, I’ll have to find a copy of the article.
Think language is the most valuable weath one country has. The Language is the top of its culture.
Whenever a school of thought surfaces everyone thinks that it discredits everything else. I’ve never understood, for example, why nature vs nurture isnt just a false dichotamy. Admitting that the language you learned as your brain developed has an effect on some basic perceptions you have doesnt mean that environment is LESS important. It’s all important. Everyone likes to get so dramatic.
To be clear, I’m not arguing for or against the Sapir-Whorf theory though I’d love to study it further to find out how I feel. I just think some of the speculations over the danger that accepting it presents are very knee-jerk.