Some Observations about Whorf's "Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language"

---

Overview

Whorf wrote this paper for a book on Sapir. The view espoused (depending upon one's interpretation of how strongly we should read Whorf's claim) has sometimes been called "linguistic constructivism." This is something like the view that much of what we take to be objective features of the "external" world is actually a product of our language.

Whorf's paper has a straightforward structure:

1. Review of some illustrative personal anecdotes
2. Statement of primary hypotheses:

   (1) Are our own concepts of "time," "space," and "matter" given in substantially the same form by experience to all men, or are they in part conditioned by the structure of particular languages? (2) Are there traceable affinities between (a) cultural and behavioral norms and (b) large-scale linguistic patterns?

3. Comparative cases as evidence for (some parts of) the hypotheses

Some Anecdotes

Whorf reviews a number of personal anecdotes from his experience as an inspector for an insurance company. They are so straight-forward we do no need to review them here. However, the key and challenging question is: do these examples tell us about people's theories of the world, or about their language? Whorf is raising the possibility that the theoriest, the false beliefs, that these individual had, were shaped by their language. The degree to which this is the case is the degree to which we should accept something like linguistic construcitivism.

The Hypotheses

Whorf raises the possibility that he can use Hopi, and compare it to "SAE" (standard average European) to test the idea that:

(1) Are our own concepts of "time," "space," and "matter" given in substantially the same form by experience to all men, or are they in part conditioned by the structure of particular languages? (2) Are there traceable affinities between (a) cultural and behavioral norms and (b) large-scale linguistic patterns?

Please not that there are in fact there are at least five hypotheses here (after all, maybe language shapes our view of matter but not time, or etc.).

The Cases: Hopi vs SAE

Whorf considers and compares features of Hopi with SAE. The idea is that Hopi is very different from the relatively similar European languages. He hopes to show systematic patterns of difference.

I cannot evaluate his claims about Hopi. I will here just state them.

• Plurality. SAE applies number to real and imaginary things. We say, for example, "Ten days" when of course there are never present at once as a group ten days. In Hopi, plurals are reserved for things that can form a present group. For example, regarding time, you have to say, "On the tenth day." Whorf suggest this means that Hopi have a different sense of time: they see time primarily as "becoming later," instead of like SAE native speakers as a object.
• Quantity. SAE has individual and mass nouns. Hopi lacks vague mass nouns: things like water come always in some form (a cup, etc.). This means they are not inclined like SAE speakers to imagine a difference between matter and form.
• Phases and Cycles. We treat cycles just like other objects, with undistinguished nouns. Hopi treats phases with constructions like adverbs. We say, "in the morning," as if morning were like a space; he claims Hopi say something like "while the morning phase is occuring." The result is that, Whorf claims, the Hopi have no reason to think of time as a thing.
• Temporal forms of Verbs. Our three tenses in SAE leads us to see time "in a row." He claims Hopi lacks tense but has in place a complex set of relations to the speaker (she reports the present or past, she expects the future). Again, Whorf says this leads us to seem time as an object, and not so the Hopi.
• Duration. We express duration with metaphors, most of them sptaial. This encourages our objectification of time. Hopi lacks these spatial metaphors for time; again, suggesting they see time as a flow, a getting later, but not as a kind of space-like stuff.

In terms of "habitual thought," then, Whorf suggest SAE native speakers build their vocabulary foremost on terms for things, and we objectify time. Hopi native speakers see time mostly as growth, cyclicity, and creativity. This is shown in social relations and relations to the natural world; as would be, he claims, our conception of time shown in our relations.

Language and Society: Historical Relation

It is natural to ask whether culture shapes language, or langauge shapes culture. Of course, the answer could be that both are true. But, in either case, it seems that for an individual person her language shapes her world view, and that language is of course mostly just acquired from her culture.

In sum, Whorf thinks that he has shown that our concepts of time and matter are shaped by language: "Concepts of "time" and "matter" are not given in substantially the same form by experience to all men but depend upon the nature of the language or languages through the use of which they have been developed."

About space, he cannot say, but only because Hopi and SAE mostly agree on space (so lack of contrast could mean either that we all perceive space the same, or just that by chance Hopi and SAE are similar in terms of their constructions regarding space).

Some Thoughts

Whorf has mustered some evidence for linguistic constructivism. his hypotheses remain controversial, however. Much more work would be required to establish that SAE native speakers really systematically show differences from Hopi speakers of the relevant kind. Also very challenging is the question of interpretiation: we hardly agree in one language how to understtand time and space; it is not easy to say, "Hopi think x and y about time and space" and not be open to significant challenges and controversy.