mines thought. That is, how much do the different forms of expression that
are available in different languages to articulate concepts like time,
duration and completion determine the possibility of thinking in a particu-
lar way? This hypothesis originated in the observations of Whorf, whose
work with certain Amerindian languages, most notably Hopi, suggested
that the Hopi’s grammatical categories resulted in a radically different
means of conceptualisation from that of those who speak European
languages.
From this observation, he made the following generalisation:
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. 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 a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has
been organized in our minds – and this means largely by the linguistic
systems in our minds. (Whorf, 1956: 213)
Although the more extreme of Whorf’s views have been discredited, modified
and weakened versions are still influential, and he is still quoted as an
authority in the introductory essays to a recent series of ‘cultural lesson plans’
for ELT teachers (Fantini, 1997). However, as we have seen, some American
theorists are dismissive of such views. For example, Pinker argues that
language is fundamentally the expression of a universal ‘mentalese’ (1994: 82):
People do not think in English or Chinese or Apache; they think in a
language of thought. This language of thought probably looks a bit like
all these languages; presumably it has symbols for concepts, and
arrangements of symbols that correspond to who did what to whom.
In other words, it is ridiculous to argue that thought is determined by the
language (or languages) that any individual speaks. The language of
thought goes beyond the boundaries of any spoken language, and it is that
which determines our cognitive limits.
This position seems sensible, and accounts for the observation that
translation between even quite different languages is possible, even if at
times explanatory circumlocution and paraphrase are necessary. A modified
version of the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis would therefore be that languages
provide maps of
cultural priorities
, not
cognitive possibilities
. Speech commu-
nities transform mentalese into languages which serve their cultural needs,
and these languages can be verbal, or visual. Analyses of languages are
ways of investigating the structures of other cultures, other ways of looking
at a shared world. This position, in fact, marks a return to that of Boas, who,
in 1911, discussed with speakers of Kwakiutl on Vancouver Island modifi-
cations they would need to make to their language in order to express
generalisations – every statement in Kwakiutl had to be tied down gram-
8
Intercultural Approaches to ELT
C:\Documents and Settings\Stephen Cracknell\My Documents\corbett\corbett.vp
13 August 2003 16:38:58
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen
matically to a specific person, animal or thing, through the mandatory use
of the possessive pronoun. Boas concluded that by omitting the possessive
pronoun, Kwakiutl could express generalisations quite adequately, and its
speakers could understand what was meant – they just found such abstract
thought
unnecessary, and therefore unidiomatic. Boas concluded:
It does not seem likely, therefore, that there is any direct relation
between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so
far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the
culture, but not in so far as a certain state of culture is conditioned by
morphological traits of the language. (Boas [1911], reprinted in Valdes,
1986: 7)
Linguistic anthropology has traditionally been a discipline in which North
American linguists with an interest in culture can discuss many topics that
are also relevant to an intercultural approach. Learners of a second
language clearly have a need to be able to discover how, for example,
language is used to establish and maintain status in a social group in the
target culture. Linguistic anthropology also bridges the disciplines of
formal linguistics and anthropology. Until recently, as we have seen, ELT
has been largely influenced by developments in linguistics and psychol-
ogy. The intercultural approach has applied anthropological techniques,
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
