You Are What You Speak: Analysis

Lama 1
Sandip Lama
Instructor Kennedy
Anthropology 3
12 September 2014
You are what you speak In the article “Whorf Revisited: You are what you speak,” the writer Guy Deutscher talks about Sapir - Whorf’s famous controversial hypothesis. The ethnography is written in style of realist, because the theories are looked at objectively and scientifically. The article is also written in critical style, since list of measurements, evidences are given, and it is written analytically. The range of the ethnography is very wide. It focuses from different parts of the world. However, in most of the writing, points its focuses on one person from one location specific location to make a strong point. In linguist Whorf hypothesis states that one who live in one’s language can’t possibly understand certain thoughts of another one with their own another language. Basically Sapir- Whorf’s idea is that language shapes reality, and consciousness. Therefore, our mother tongue limits our mind and doesn’t allow certain thoughts. The writer states that we now know that the hypothesis is not true due to lack of evidence. Roman Jackson the renowned linguist states that if different languages influences differently on our mind, its not genuinely because of our languages controlling and determining how we think, but the habit that makes us think about
Lama 2 certain things more than others. An example would be in English language no matter whom we talk to, we use “you” to everyone. In my language Nepali, we use different words for different person according to their age. For example, I feel respectful towards talking to someone older than me in my native language, but while I’m talk to the same person in English I’m more relaxed and laid back. The article concluded that it is the habit that’s responsible from having different experience while talking in different language. The article also talks about “the most striking evidence for the influence of language on thought has come to light is the language of space.” It states that how we describe the geography through different language determines how we view the world. The writer says there is two ways to describe the same routes. One is through egocentric coordination, and another is fixed geographic directions. The first way is used more often used by us, and it is dominate in our language because it “feels so much easier and more natural.” Australians often use the cardinal direction and the article gives a great example, Guugu Yimithirr who is capable of finding direction using language north, south, east, and west in any situation My first impression of this hypothesis is that I was in awestruck, and had my mind completely blown for a second. Previously I knew that everyone saw the world little bit differently, but I did not understand exactly how. It might have been just eyes and what people see, but it didn’t make sense. However, through hearing it’s the language, it did. I did my own little experiment. I tried to view world from two different worlds. One in American way, and another in own my culture Nepali way
Lama 3 or non-western way. A lot of Asian ways are similar even though it’s broken down into many countries. The syntax and the structure of simple sentences are similar. I learned that when I was taking Japanese language in my high school for 3 years. When I speak in my native language I feel like it doesn’t take that much effort or energy versus in English. In English commonly we say, “did you eat dinner,” and that same thing could be said in just two words in Nepali. The translation of it would be “ate rich.” They both mean the same thing plus the experience is also the same. Through my impression of this article I wondered if non-western languages requires one to be aware of their surroundings more. It’s up to the listeners to put in the more effort to understand what the speaking is trying to communicate. So technically it puts Easter languages closer to the path of communicating telepathically. I was also fascinated by how different people from different cultures uses views the concept of time differently thought their unique languages. For example, how Navajo’s perception of the time is different than ours (Americans). Their version of, “three days ago” would be something like “when the wind blew from the east.” That information stroked me hard, and gave me food for thought. It seems that Navajos’ only concern is about “now” in the present, because they only see what’s around them, and uses it to name or describe something like yesterday. We use time and numbers more than them. They probably treasures every moment since they aren’t thinking much about the past or the future. Navajos could use more of the modern measurement of the time for more efficiency. It’s also safe to say that perhaps
Lama 4
Westerns could learn from Navajos like minded people to live in the moment more often.

Works cited http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& By GUY DEUTSCHER
Published: August 26, 2010