sarah@rdin.UUCP (sarah) (08/23/83)
cFb:*? The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has fallen from favor in scientific circles, but it did raise some important issues. Basically, the hypothesis says that language determines thought. In other words, the words you use to describe your environment determine how you actually perceive your environment. Later, of course, it was shown that this hypothesis is not correct. The fact that Eskimos have dozens of words for sub-categories of snow does not mean that only speakers of that Eskimo language can distinguish between the various sub-categories. However, it does mean that Eskimos have a much more finely developed tool for describing snow in their environment. Going one step further, it can be argued that because they have these different words for describing snow, they are more likely to learn to distinguish between different types of snow. This is not to say that it is impossible for other non-Eskimos to learn to distinguish between the categories, simply that it probably does not occur as readily to a non-Eskimo to sub-divide snow into its many categories. In other words, while it is highly unlikely that the structure of a language will completely determine what a speaker of that language perceives, it can strongly influence the way in which that speaker approaches the world. Always using masculine terms as the default, and using words such as chairman, fireman, policeman, etc., can influence speakers of the English language to assume that the person to whom such words are attached is male. This is not to say that everyone always assumes this, simply that such language is an influence towards such an assumption. There have been many people who have said "Don't tamper with the language! Change people's attitudes!". However, this overlooks the fact that language is a tool which evolves according to the needs of the speakers. As social attitudes have changed, there has arisen the need for less sexist language. Also, as less sexist language is used, social attitudes are influenced. It is foolish, if not impossible, to separate language use from the social attitudes which it reflects. The very fact that people are agitating for non-sexist language indicates that there is a need. Those who insist on keeping the language with its masculine overtones are denying a social reality and are not allowing themselves to make use of a better way of describing the world around them. They are also hampering the change in attitudes which is necessary for society to continue towards non-sexism. Further discussion welcomed. Sarah Groves New York philabs!rdin!sarah