Module 12: Does Language Shape Perception?

Many different people over the years have argued that the language we speak determines our perception of the world around us. Known as linguistic relativism, proponents of this viewpoint argue that speakers of different languages view the environment through the lens of their language. For example in color perception, linguistic relativists argue a speaker of a language with only a limited number of color words may not see color the same way as a speaker of a language with numerous color words. 




Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf collectively came up with a hypothesis supporting linguistic relativism known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Since this hypothesis has been proposed, it has come under harsh scrutiny by the scientific community. One of the most highly contested issues concerned the Hopi language. It was proposed that since the Hopi language did not have immediately obvious words to describe time, speakers of this language did not have the same conception of time as speakers of English or other European languages. 

Ekkehart Malotki criticized this viewpoint of the Hopi language in his book Hopi Time. He was able to show that although the Hopi language did not have exactly the same words for time as the English language, it did have other words and word forms that expressed a concept of past, present and future. Other studies have similarly confirmed his result and thus refuted relativism. 

Due to the presence of significant scientific evidence, it is my personal belief that language does not dictate perception. Our innate cognitive mechanisms contribute to our perception, and these are not determined by the language environment in which we are raised. Language may influence how we communicate our thoughts, but it does not change our ability to think.  



References 

Linguistic Society of America. 2016. "Language and Thought." http://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/language-and-thought (accessed November 14th, 2016)

Malotki, Ekkehart. 1983. Hopi time: A linguistic analysis of the temporal concepts in the Hopi language. Vol. 20. Walter de Gruyte. 

Module 11: Is Language Learning Innate?

The argument regarding complicated cognitive process being describes as the result of "nature" or of "nurture" has been ongoing for decades. This debate has extended into linguistics. Some linguists argue that language and language development is the result of innate and highly specialized mechanisms. Others argue that language is no different from any other general cognitive process and is the result of statistical inference.

Those who choose to see language as the result of general processes often use statistical models to make their claim. They attempt to show that language is purely a mathematical operation; humans learn how and what to say on the basis of probability and generalizations. They have been likened to other neural network models which strengthen the connection between a stimulus and a response based on the frequency of occurrence. These mathematical models have been criticized because they generally only use simple sentences in the English language as validation of their viewpoint. When these models expand to sentences with more complex syntactical structures, they do not as accurately depict human language. Therefore some argue the view that language is acquired on the basis of probability is not truly able to capture the intricacies of human language. 

The other approach stems from biology as opposed to mathematics. As opposed to viewing language as a general and learned process, language is viewed as an innate and highly specialized process. This viewpoint was first proposed by Noam Chomsky and since has been endorsed by many other linguists. Proponents of this viewpoint argue that language is unique to humans and at birth we have all of the mechanisms necessary to become fluent in a language. This model has been criticized as being too simplistic and underestimating the effect of environmental cues on language acquisition. 

It is likely that both models have relevance to the account of language learning. It is wise not to discredit either as being unrealistic. As more research is conducted, a fuller picture of the language acquisition process can be painted.