Module 25
Language
269
Interactionist Approaches.
To reconcile the differing views, many theorists take
an
interactionist approach to language development. The interactionist approach
suggests that language development is produced through a combination of genet-
ically determined predispositions and environmental circumstances that help
teach language.
Specifi cally, proponents of the interactionist approach suggest that the brain’s
hardwired language-acquisition device that Chomsky and geneticists point to pro-
vides the hardware for our acquisition of language, whereas the exposure to lan-
guage in our environment that learning theorists observe allows us to develop the
appropriate software. But the issue of how language is acquired remains hotly con-
tested (Pinker & Jackendoff, 2005; Hoff, 2008; Waxman, 2009).
The Infl uence of Language
on Thinking: Do Eskimos
Have More Words for Snow
than Texans Do?
Do Eskimos living in the frigid Arctic have a more expansive vocabulary for discuss-
ing snow than people living in warmer climates?
It makes sense, and arguments that the Eskimo language has many more words
than English for snow have been made since the early 1900s. At that time, linguist
Benjamin Lee Whorf contended that because snow is so relevant to Eskimos’ lives,
their language provides a particularly rich vocabulary to describe it—considerably
larger than what we fi nd in other languages, such as English (Martin & Pullum, 1991;
Pinker, 1994).
The contention that the Eskimo language is especially abundant in snow-related
terms led to the
linguistic-relativity hypothesis, the notion that language shapes
and, in fact, may determine the way people in a specifi c culture perceive and under-
stand the world. According to this view, language provides us with categories that
we use to construct our view of people and events in the world around us. Conse-
quently, language shapes and produces thought (Whorf, 1956; Casasanto, 2008; Tan
et al., 2008).
Let’s consider another possibility, however. Suppose that instead of language
being the
cause of certain ways of thinking, thought
produces language. The only
reason to expect that Eskimo language might have more words for snow than English
does is that snow is considerably more relevant to Eskimos than it is to people in
other cultures.
Which view is correct? Most recent research refutes the linguistic-relativity
hypothesis and suggests, instead, that thinking produces language. In fact, new anal-
yses of the Eskimo language suggest that Eskimos have no more words for snow
than English speakers. If one examines the English language closely, one sees that it
is hardly impoverished when it comes to describing snow (consider, for example,
sleet , slush , blizzard , dusting, and
avalanche ).
Still, the linguistic-relativity hypothesis has not been entirely discarded. A newer
version of the hypothesis suggests that speech patterns may infl uence certain aspects
of thinking. For example, in some languages, such as English, speakers distinguish
between nouns that can be counted (such as “fi ve chairs”) and nouns that require a
measurement unit to be quantifi ed (such as “a liter of water”). In some other lan-
guages, such as the Mayan language called Yucatec, however, all nouns require a
measurement unit. In such cultures, people appear to think more closely about what
things are made of than do people in cultures in which languages such as English
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: