On Languages and Perceptions of the World

Language is a means by which the world is described, observed, explained, and, ultimately, understood. It unites a people by providing them with a universal way to talk about the world through a consensus on what words mean, how phrases are structured, and grammatical manifestations of greater ideologies. However, this universality exists only within an individual culture, as language itself varies slightly, and sometimes, drastically from one people to the next. The course of this essay intends to ethnographically explore the relationship between language and culture through considering the impact that various languages have on the social thinking within their designated cultures. Moreover, it will evaluate how the thinkings of these cultures differ as a result of their linguistically-rooted ideologies, and how these drastically different languages result in drastically different cultural understandings of anything from time, to behaviour, to quantity, to sounds.

In order to sufficiently evaluate the extent to which perceptions of the world differ based on language, three separate studies will be considered in an effort to understand two key components that will hopefully be convincing enough of this linguistically-rooted difference in perception. The first component is the meaning of words, and the way in which that meaning can alter, if not entirely rewrite, individual understandings. The second component is grammar, and how radically different grammatical structures simultaneously explain and shape the way in which different cultures view the world. This essay will then conclude by exploring the interplay between the way in which the world is talked about through words, as well as in a fundamentally structural sense, and how cultural perceptions of the world are both explained and shaped as a result.

Words act as a way in which “things” are talked about; they explain the world, and allow speakers of the same language to mutually explain, discuss and understand the world. However, words differ greatly between languages, and even more so between those that are radically different. Language and, effectively, the words that make up that language, ‘varies as all creative effort varies—not as consciously, perhaps, but nonetheless as truly as do the religions, the beliefs, the customs, and the arts of different peoples.” (Colapinto) Therefore, a word that may exist in one language may not exist in the next, or, if it does, it may mean something entirely different, thus significantly distinguishing one culture from the next, particularly in terms of perception. Take the case of Laura Bonannan’s article, Shakespeare in the Bush, for example. When telling the story of Hamlet to a group of Tiv people, Bohannan found that their understanding of the story differed significantly from the Western interpretation due to the way in which language and culture interacted. For example, the appearance of Hamlet’s father, a ghost, raised confusion amongst the tribesmen, as the word “ghost” did not exist in their language. In turn, they came to understand the “ghost” as an omen sent by a witch. Additionally, they also understood the “ghost” as a zombie, thus implying that their concept of the supernatural is one that is embodied by either witchcraft or a physical body itself. The absence, and lack of understanding, of “ghost”, but the acceptance of “omen” or “zombie”, in the Tiv language, demonstrates a difference between their culture and the Western culture of Bohannan. It demonstrates that the purposelessly unembodied supernatural is not a recognized concept, but that their culture does accept the possibility of witchcraft in place of it.

Similarly, a word that seems to translate identically in drastically different language may actually have varying connotations behind it. Colpantino’s article, “The Interpreter: Has a remote Amazonian tribe upended our understanding of language?”, puts forth the concept of “the translation fallacy: the conviction that a word in one language is identical to a word in another, simply because, in some instances, they overlap in meaning”, and demonstrates why such a fallacy is important to recognize. The article provides an example of this in the word “bug” between English and the Pirahã language. When trying to explain applying bug spray through communicating the word “bug” through sign language, Everett explained, “You were trying to tell him something of your general state—that bugs bother you… They never talk that way, and they could never understand it. Bugs are a part of life.” The communication of the word “bug” through sign language to the Pirahã failed due to cultural understandings of bugs themselves. The anthropologist associated bugs with annoyance, and therefore depicted it as such, whereas the Pirahã greeted bugs with familiarity. Through observing the cases of the Tiv and Pirahã in relation to how words reflect cultural difference, we can see that the difference in these words produces very different gazes of the world itself.

Whorf similarly considers the way in which words can be telling of a culture’s conceptualizing of the world in “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language”, where he compares the Hopi language to Standard Average European Languages (SAE). Comparably to the way in which the Pirahã understanding of “bug” differs from the English understanding of “bug”, the Hopi consider the word “preparation” very differently from SAE. Two aspects of this preparation, inner preparation and covert participation (150), will be specifically considered in order to develop an understanding of just how different a culture may regard the world based on their understandings of words. Inner preparation pertains to prayer and meditation as a form of preparing for something. “Hopi attitudes stress the power of desire and thought… to the Hopi, one’s desires and thoughts influence not only his own actions, but all nature as well” (149) For example, in SAE culture, if we think about something, we consider it to be only a surrogate of that thing; our thoughts have no real impact on whatever we think of. The Hopi, however, believe that, by thinking of something, you are thinking and influencing that actual thing. For example, “A Hopi would naturally suppose that his thought (or he himself) traffics with the actual rosebush… that he is thinking about. If it is a good thought, one about health and growth, it is good for the plant; if it is a bad thought, the reverse.” (150) Covert participation, then, is “the mental collaboration from people who do not take part in the actual affair, be it a job of work, hunt, race, or ceremony, but direct their thought and good will toward the affair’s success.” (150) This provides a stark example of the different gazes of the world between Hopi culture and SAE culture based on understandings of the world through language. The word “thought”, in this case, means the same thing on a rudimentary basis: to quite literally think about something. However, what is then understood by the concept of having something in your thoughts changes drastically. For SAE, it quite frankly ends there. The Hopi, however, understand a sort of transitivity between thought, action, and impact on a thing. They view their influence on the world as something directly controllable in both action and thought, connecting good action with good results, and good thought with good results. This, then, creates a sort of chain reaction. Because thought is understood to provoke real-life impact, then the understanding of participation, and how one participates, changes as well. Even if an individual is uninvolved in the physical preparation of something through direct action, they can still participate through thinking good, constructive thoughts about that thing, and participate in a way that is considered as genuinely helpful.

While words explain culture in their direct meaning, as well as in their presence, or lack thereof, within a culture’s language, grammatical structure symbiotically reflects and influences a culture, and more greatly a culture’s perception of the world. The Pirahã, for example, live in their current experience, with language describing things only within that experience, or present life. For example, when someone leaves, or when a flame goes out, they go out of experience. This denotes a transitory element to their culture and perception of life, and is then translated into language. The Pirahã do not insert phrases into one another, as is done in other languages. (i.e. The man who is going to the doctor wears a wool coat and passes a group of women who are just leaving the coffee shop before work…). This series of events would be broken up into singular thoughts “because the Pirahã accept as real only what they observe” and, therefore, “their speech consists only of direct assertions”. The breaking down of a singular event made up of “abstractions”, that would remain as such in English, becomes a sequence of individual thoughts, or a sequence of individual experiences. Rather than being interrelated, each experience is its own. This grammatical difference demonstrates a radical difference in how the Pirahã culture considers action, events, experience, and even existence in comparison to how an English speaker would consider the same elements.

In his study, Whorf states, “It also became evident that even the grammar of Hopi bore a relation to Hopi culture, and the grammar of European tongues to our own “Western” or “European” culture.” (138) In the example of grammatical approaches to quantification, SAE culture groups the quantification of the physical with the quantification of the abstract similarly. For example, SAE would group 10 successive days as a collective of 10 days, in the same way that we would group 10 men. SAE linguistically represents each day as it does each man: as its own entity. The Hopi, however, distinguish between the two. The Hopi would consider a group of 10 men as 10 individual men. However, several different successive days would be considered as a day coming and going several times, as the same thing reappearing successively in the same way that one man may visit several times. (148, Whorf) This recurrence of the same day ties back into the Hopi value of “the emphasis on preparation” (148, Whorf); the way in which they prepare can be understood through their concept of successive days as the returning of the same thing. To prepare is to continually put effort into something over a period of time. Considering each day as something new would be counterintuitive to this mindset, as something could not be continually prepared if each day was something entirely different. Furthermore, the transcendence that characterizes the act of preparing across a variety of days is also recognizable in the transcendence of thought into action as previously observed in the concept of how one prepares. Thus, certain characteristics of grammar also characterize words, and, ultimately, the behavior of the Hopi people. This, in turn, represents a cultural thinking of what one should do.

In conclusion, and in consideration of the third proposed component of this essay, in both the case of the Pirahã and of the Hopi, the way in which words, grammar, and perceptions of the world interrelate can be observed, albeit relatively differently. “Language… represents the mass mind” (156, Whorf), and the mass mind, in turn, shows us how a collective culture thinks about the world. In the case of the Pirahã, the perception of things and their existences, paired with the way in which they are spoken about grammatically, influences the way in which those things, and thus the greater world, are perceived. Because events or actions done by things are seen as going in and out of existence, the Pirahã perception of the world is characterized by a sort of transience. Where an English speaker in the Western world would see someone leaving as persisting to exist, but temporarily removed from direct lines of communication, the Pirahã would see them as ceasing to exist, and then coming back into existence upon their return. In the example of the Hopi, their grammatical structure and meanings given to common words, such as “preparation” denote a reciprocity between words, grammar, culture, and the world. Contrarily to the belief system of the Pirahã examined in this essay, as well as the direct comparison to SAE, the Hopi understand the world, and existence in the world, as having a more ethereal presence. Thought extends beyond the theoretical, and beyond the here-and-now; it is believed to effect change, and to be able to do so beyond a present situation.

Therefore, radically different languages reflect radically different cultural ideologies. However, this is not to say that language directly influences culture, or the way in which a culture views the word; rather, it presents a symbiosis between language and custom that constantly build upon one another. “There are connections but not correlations or diagnostic correspondences between cultural norms and linguistic patterns.” (159, Whorf). Culture influences language, language influences culture, and the symbiosis of the two create drastically different cultural thought about and perceptions of the world.

Sources:

Bohannan, Laura (1966). Shakespeare in the Bush. Natural history (August): 28-33. (also available in Delaney, C. & Deborah Raspin (eds), Investigating culture: an Experimental Introduction to Anthropology. 2017.)

Colapinto, J., 2007. “The Interpreter: Has a remote Amazonian tribe upended our understanding of language?” The New Yorker.

Whorf, B., “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language” In: J. B. Carroll (ed.) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (Cambridge, MIT