Language, Thought, and Culture

Language, Thought, and culture
Rohmanita Riski I (201832114)

Aniqotul Chalimah (201832116)
Lina Whidatun Nisa’ (201832123)
EARLY PRECURSORS : HERDER AND VON HUMBOLDT
In part in reaction to the French political and military hegemony of the time, the German
philosopher Johann Herder (1744–1803) expressed the idea that a nation’s language
reflected the way its people thought according to the equation. One language = one folk =
one nation. Because that is often called “The Rise of
Linguistic Nationalism”
If it be true that we . . . learn to think through words, then language is what defines and
delineates the whole of human knowledge . . . In everyday life, it is clear that to think is
almost nothing else but to speak. Every nation speaks . . . according to the way it thinks
and thinks according to the way it speaks.
Around the same time, Wilhelm von Humboldt (1762–1835) expressed the link between
language and worldview (or cultural mindset) Language is the “spiritual exhalation” of the
nation, in the following manner:
. . . there resides in every language a characteristic world-view . . . By the same act where
by [man] spins language out of himself, he spins himself into it, and every language draws
about the people that possesses it a circle whence it is possible to exit only by stepping
over at once into the circle of another one. (von Humboldt, [1836] 1988, p. 60)
The Linguistic Relativity hypothesis or the Sapir
Whorf hyphothesis.
is a principle that says that, the structure of
language influence the views or thoughts of its
speakers, and thus people’s perceptions are
relative to their language.
The principle is often defined in two version of

hyphothesis, one of which is the strongest version
held by some linguist, before world war II. And the
weak version held by some modern linguist.
• The strong version says • The weak version says,
that language determines that linguistic categories
thoughts and linguistic and uses affect
categories limit and decisions and thinking.
determine cognitive
 ( can be said in the
categories.
“Modern Version”
 ( can be said in “Extreme
because language
Version”, because
language determines influences views and
views and perception) perception )
“Extreme Version” Language difference =

Our views and perception difference of thought
are determined by our
mother tounge.
Shapir Whorf Hyphothesis
Language Thought Culture
Language influneces mindset, and the collective mindset forms a

culture.
Because of the influence of direction, not reciprocity. If we look

closely, culture also influences language.
• For example :
Because Indonesian culture is collective, the kindship system stands
out. The impact said the father, mother, brother, sister, in Indonesian
is not only to refer/greet the nuclear family members, but also used
in conversation to greet the second person.
Then the hyphotesis is revised and produced.
language
Culture Thought
Language is inseparable from culture, which is a social heritage in the

form of a mixture of actions and beliefs that determine the texture of
our lives.
The statement above suggest that language on one side is means to

communicate and convey ideas and feelings objectively.
Discursive Relativity, or How Speakers of Different
Discourses (across Languages or in the Same Language) Have Different Cultural
Worldviews
I focus here on the work of three linguistic anthropologists who have

had a particularly great influence on bringing discursive relativity to the
attention of applied linguists.
 Joel Scherzer’s remark that “[discourse] is the nexus, the actual and
concrete expression of the language-culture-society relationship. It is
discourse which creates, recreates, modifies, and fine tunes both
culture and language and their intersection” (Scherzer, 1987, p. 296).
 John Gumperz has shown the importance of contextualization cues
to make sense of what is going on in conversation (Gumperz, 1992, p.
231)
 Hanks (1996) gives evidence of the way linguistic structures index
both thought processes and social alignments in speech events.
Language Relativity in Educational Practice
• The conflict is expressed in three questions that can be raised

by the principle of language relativity in educational linguistics.
1. isn’t applied linguistic theory itself subjected to the principle
of language relativity?
2. isn’t educational culture inherently inhospitable to the
principle of language relativity, since its ultimate goal is to
discriminate between educated and non-educated segments
of the population through the imposition of the same formal
norms to everyone?
3. can language relativity be taught directly or can it only be
modelled?
Instead of Language-Thought-and-Culture:
Speakers/Writers, Thinkers, and Members
of Discourse Communities
• The principle of language relativity enables us to understand

to a certain degree how speakers of other languages think and
what they value. It does not mean that it obliges us to agree
with or to condone these values. But it does commit us to
“see ourselves amongst others, as a local example of the
forms human life has locally taken, a case among cases, a
world among worlds, [a view] without which objectivity is
self-congratulation and tolerance a sham” (Geertz, 1983, p.
16).
Conclusion: The “Incorrigible Diversity” of
Applied Linguistics
In an essay titled “Culture, Mind, Brain/Brain, Mind, Culture,” Clifford

Geertz takes a cautiously optimistic view of the hybridization of psychology and
anthropology in the last 20 years :
the mental nature of culture, the cultural nature of mind, have haunted
anthropology since its inception . . . Our brains are not in a vat, but in our bodies.
Our minds are not in our bodies, but in the world. And as for the world, it is not in
our brains, our bodies, or our minds : they are, along with gods, verbs, rocks, and
politics, in it. (Geertz, 2000, pp. 204–5)
We could say in turn that the role of applied linguistics, as the study of speakers,
writers, and members of discourse communities, is less a matter of “hybridizing
disciplines, putting hyphens between them, than it is of reciprocally disequilibrating
them” (Geertz, 2000, p. 199). In this respect, we could benefit from Geertz’
encouraging words:
What seems to be needed is the development of strategies for enabling Bruner’s
“different construals of [mental] reality” to confront, discompose, energize, and
deprovincialize one another, and thus drive the enterprise erratically onward.
Everything that rises need not converge: it has only to make the most of its
incorrigible diversity. (p. 199)

CONCLUSION
Human view of the world is shaped by language,
because language are different the view of world
also different. What a person thinks (thought) has a
direct impact on what that person says (language),
and vise versa. People will draw different conclusion
and make different choices about situation based
on the language used to be describe that situation.
Thank you

Language, Thought, and Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language, Thought, and Culture

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language, Thought, and Culture

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language, Thought, and culture

Rohmanita Riski I (201832114)

The principle is often defined in two version of

“Extreme Version” Language difference =

Language influneces mindset, and the collective mindset forms a

Because of the influence of direction, not reciprocity. If we look

Language is inseparable from culture, which is a social heritage in the

The statement above suggest that language on one side is means to

I focus here on the work of three linguistic anthropologists who have

• The conflict is expressed in three questions that can be raised

• The principle of language relativity enables us to understand

In an essay titled “Culture, Mind, Brain/Brain, Mind, Culture,” Clifford

You might also like