The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

The Sapir Whorf HypothesisSapir argued that We see and hear and dissimilarly experience very largely as we do because the speech communication habits of our connection predispose certain choices of interpretation. (Sapir 1958 1929, p. 69). tone at the statement above, that inferred that thoughts and behavior are mostly influenced by verbiage. From this statement, first we have to look derriere the root of the language itself. Saussure (Saussure, 1966, pp. 7 9) wrote a question about how to define a language, and gave an respond to this as social product of the faculty of speech and a collection of necessary conventions that have been pick out by a social body to permit individuals to exercise that faculty. From his writing, it is clear that language is a graphic symbol of internalization of a community, and including the function itself as a communication media. So, it is clear that formulates, sentence, and eventually language effect as a link up for the interaction of the human in a community. A nonher question that renegade in this is that in which community lav we use a language. We basin say that the community is a form of interaction surrounded by language, culture, and learning ability. Language is a fundamental form of the culture, and vice versa.After tone at the definition of the language itself, we go off go back to the venture from Sapir. How far can we empathize diametrical interpretation of an object and how we communicate its definition with the world. It comes to the conclusion of the need of interpretation of communication and culture. So we have to do a reverse designateing about the definition of a culture, community, and the socio activities that human can use inside it. Take a case of the community that I belong to. A guinea pig community in Germany, that the peck inside it use a same language, which is German. How a someone can interact with the solid community that use a same language, and how a person could b lend into this community. virtually difficulties will eventually arise, because of the background from different communities that is forced to be merged into one bowl that we list an education port. unlike bulk from different cultures want to fit in this bowl, and expected to share a same vision, which is eventually to get a degree. Back to the definition of a community A community is a collection of passel (or animals) who interact together with the same environment, and it exist everywhere in the nature. From masses to penguins, monkeys to meerkats. Grouping is a touch of simplicity as a means of describing community (Bacon, 2009, p. 4).From the previous definitions, we can say that language is an important part of building a culture and community. What if the language differ in a community, would the translation of a language will become a problem, and would the different interpretation because the contrariety of language would build different interpretation and feels of a n occasion that occurred? Rumana Quazi, from Media Culture and Mind class of RWTH-Aachen, mentioned that Sapirs hypothesis is to some extent correct. She said that it would probably correct for some cases exclusively. She think that Sapirs hypothesis would be correct, but if it is implemented on the previous years when the hypothesis was created. It is not relevant if it is implemented now. I as well agree to her opinion. Thomas L. Friedman wrote about his opinion about three different term of globalization, 1.0, in which countries and governments were the main protagonists, the globalization 2.0, in which multinational companies led the course in driving global integration, and eventually globalization 3.0, the era of convergence (Friedman, 2005). If the need of communication among different cultural people is not possible as Sapir had said, which is in fact is easily enabled by the high speed data remove communication, how come the development of the world itself nowadays goe s exponentially. Nowadays, because of the introduction of Internet and personal computer, we can talk to people in different time, different language with a very small delays. We indeed can even-tempered deliver the message although the difference of the language itself. With technologies, we can even have an online dictionaries that we can easily buy in everyday. So if we have a difficulty in expressing our idea, we can use these online dictionaries. However, I also think that for some particular objects and occasion, we cannot use the translation. For instance, Sharad, also from the Media Culture and Mind class, give an example of the naming of a particular year that only exist in India. He thinks that he cannot translate it, so he has to give a direct definition for this without doing any translation of it.Sharad think that the difference of language does not give any problems to the communication as long as there is a bridge between these two languages. He mentioned an exampl e of the most popular language in the world, which is slope. If the speaker is fluent, they can still express particular things and to share the same thoughts. This is the case of Sharad, who I think also used face in his daily live in India. Nevertheless, this language bridge still give a enormous hole for me, because I come from Indonesia. The Indonesian people only use Indonesian language everyday, and English (or even German) are only popular for those who have a proper education. So for me, the language bridge is not fully build, because of the fluency level that differs between one country and another. So in my opinion, Sapir is not fully correct in observing this problem.To this extent, we can say that indeed Sapirs hypothesis can only be implemented in some things. Now for the view of realities that construct the language. So what if the problem of differences in the language can be solved by using a bridge language, like English. harmonise to Sapir-Whorf, language is a n integral part of human, and language shape a humans way of thinking (sloan.stanford.edu). I could not fully agree with this statement, because we have to realize that the way we think is not fully goaded by language, or vice-versa, but instead, it influence each other. Take an example of different interpretation of language itself, and eventually how people interpret the meaning behind the words. For instance, the Germans have different meaning for ein Freund von mir and mein Freund. If we translate this word by word to other language, such as English, both have the same meaning, which is my friend. However, this is actually different meaning. It is used in different context, one for our couple, and the other is just regular friend. In Indonesia, we use different verb to describe this condition. If we see also the context of culture itself, we would have different interpretation of sentences. For instance, once I had an experience using different language (in this case German) to get a package in side office. After thinking that I have done all procedure, I took the package on the table. However, the peeress which was in charge on me, suddenly said nicht so schnell which means in English not so fast. This is for some reason , I considered as rude because in my culture, people dont say not so fast but instead please wait for a moment. Different language make different interpretation and meaning. This is support Sapirs hypothesis, because the way that she speak, does not support the way I perceive because of the difference in language. This question also asked by Anna Wierzbicka, who found out the coincidence between emotion and culture (Wierzbicka, 1992). Emotion is a point that support by Sapirs hypothesis. Anna Wierzbicka also mentioned an example from Australian Aborigin language, Gidjingali, that does not distinguish fear and shame. Obviouslly, in different cultures and different societies, people talk with different ways. If we observe these differen ces, we can take the value which is kept inside a particular proposition community, that has different social-values. However, of course that there are some ways of expressing emotions that is cross-cultural, and we can express exactly our touching in other language. This is showing a minor flaw of Sapirs hypothesis.According to Donald Davidson, the utility of referring to meanings of an feel e that we expressed by using e1 will make an ambiguous definition. To focus on the the mind as the representation of language, we have to think whether thoughts is relevance with language. Devitt and Sterelny think that thoughts is a form of Inner representations (Devitt Sterelny, 1999). If language is a form of thought, how can we define the thoughts itself. Does that mean, that children who started to speak several words, or even some people who have difficulties in articulating the words does not have the same way of perceiving veracity? Does that mean that they do not have a normal way of expressing thoughts and also to express their inner self? I think that is true. If we look back again to the words of Devitt and Sterelny, that thoughts is a form of inner representations, it makes a innocent relationship between thoughts and perception. The reason for this is that because a person having a difficulty in expressing the words, that means that the witticism also having a difficulty to work optimally. In other word, the way these people perceive reality is not the same like the normal people. For example, some people who is diagnosed with slow learning ability, that means that for specific stage, they could not understand the definitions of words and sentences, and also eventually, perceiving reality. Still according to Devitt and Sterelny, who use the term of Mentalese, a person tends to translate Mentalese into English and they understands English by doing the reverse. So Sapir should have taken into account how the spirit works. How the brain consider of how d ifferent language would effect the meaning of an entity (object or occasion). This opinion is also proved by Aubrey L. Gilbert, Terry Regier, Paul Kay, and Richard B. Ivry, who did an experiment and conclude that Whorf hypothesis is supported in the right visual airfield but not the left. Another point that I want to share regarding the language and the brain, according to Rumana Quazi, who oppose with the basic idea of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, think that language is just a small part of mean that rebuff our thoughts. In this case, she thinks that language can be achieved by a process, and procedures. I agree with her idea, especially afterwards she gave a brilliant example for an infant who still not learned to talk. Indeed, as the time goes by, a children could learn to talk, and they do a process of thinking to achieve the goal, which is talking. Again, this is a minor flaw of Saphirs hypothesis, that a person could point out one by one.The relations between culture, language, and societies is very complicated, because these things beat one and another. So as conclusion, we can say that there is a strong connection between language, culture, and societies. These relations occurred in a long period of time, and it occurred not just two ways, but triplex ways. Saphir theorem is not fully correct for todays societies, because of the technologies and other languages that solve the communication problems, although we have to take that for some specific objects and also for some specific occations Saphirs hypothesis still occurres.4