Analysis - Does Your Language Shape How You Think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Does Your Language Shape How You Think?

Guy Deutscher

This text titled Does Your Language Shape How You Think? by Guy Deutscher was published in The New York Times online on August 26th 2010. This online newspaper article is about how language impacts the way an individual’s mind functions. First of all, Deutscher takes a claim made by Benjamin Lee Whorf, a chemical engineer, who essentially stated that our native language constrains our mind  and we are unable to grasp concepts that are not given words to, in our language. He said that when a language does not have a particular word for a concept, the concept itself cannot be understood by the speaker. Deutscher argues that Whorf did not have any evidence to substantiate this theory and that his claim is wrong on so many levels. He gives an example that although there isn’t an English word for Schadenfreude in German, it does not mean that an English speaker is unable to comprehend the concept of pleasure in someone else’s misery. 

After stating that Whorf’s claim was not supported and incorrect, Deutscher forms his own theory which is that languages do influence the mind, “not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about” (Deutscher1). In the rest of the paper, he basically substantiates why he believes that our languages do not force or constrain us to think a certain way, rather, they influence to us to think about certain concepts that have been instilled in our minds. Examples that he has used are that in English while in conversation we are not obliged to indicate what sex we are referring to while simply stating, “I spent yesterday evening with my neighbor” (Deutscher2) whereas in German or French we are forced to give it away because of the gender of each noun. In German, French, and other languages, even objects are given genders to, and that influences their mind to associate the random object with that particular gender. For instance, la fourchette, or the fork, will always be female to the French and it becomes a subconscious habit. However, it is not as if they are forced to believe that the inanimate objects have a determined sex, it is simply what they are associated as because their mind has been influenced to, as a result of their mother tongue. 

Another aspect that plays a great role in Deutscher’s argument is the language of space. Most countries would describe directions with terms we are familiar with using everyday such as “left,” “right,” “behind,” “ahead” but in some parts of the world such as remote Aboriginal Australia or Bali, they use cardinal directions on an everyday basis, so everything we describe with terms like left, right, they substitute with east and west. They know their directions everywhere because they are accustomed to using geography to assess where north is where ever they are. “They couldn’t explain it any more than you can explain how you know where behind is” (Deutscher 3) indicating that it comes naturally due to their brought up in the language. 

There are various other aspects where language comes into play such as colours where two different colours in English would be shades of the same colour in another; there are also certain languages where what you say has to be completely empirical or otherwise stated, so one would have to say whether they directly saw an animal or saw footprints of an animal, simply to indicate that “an animal passed here” (Deutscher 4).  Deutscher concludes his article by saying that our native language does affect our logical, intuitional and emotional outlook on the world but it does not mean that it limits how much we can learn, or alter our comprehension of concepts that are not familiar in our language. 

The writer has provided many examples to substantiate his argument and has used a great deal of references to do so. One of these references is to Mark Twain who has a popular rant known as "The Awful German Language" where his frustrations are portrayed as a result of the gender complexity of objects and alluding to it as being "perverse" (Deutscher3). Another regard is made to the Aboriginal speaker Guugu Yimithir. Such referrals make his argument stronger and seem more authoritative. Additionally, Deutscher's voice is communicated through his language. He stays formal throughout but has used some humorous examples to keep the article entertaining and convey his voice. One of these examples is where he asks a Matses man about how many wives he has. Moreover, in terms of literary devices, there is one identified metaphor where he states that "our mother tongue was claimed to be a "prison house"" indicating that it was said to have restrict people from learning foreign concepts. Overall, this is an effective text type to deliver his argument and because this is published in the NYTimes, the audience being a wide range of people of all ages, it will be well received and understood.