# Whorff proved right?



## Hutschi

Hi, 
*Benjamin Whorf* once said, that the language may influence our knowledge and thinking. If you use the wrong word, you would not see the danger.

As example he gave a fuel tank, which exploded. The investigations showed that it was caused by signs: "empty". Nobody felt any danger when seeing empty tanks. They smoked and it exploded. 

(This was one of the experiences that initialized thew Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis.)

Now we have a new example. Around the Berlin main station (Berliner Hauptbahnhof) the architects designed "Zierelemente" ("decoration elements", two-tonne steel girders). They were made of steel and had no carrying function. So they did not realize, that the elements themselves were heavy and dangerous and they did not fix them but only lay them into their place like in a book shelf. May be the original design was different but too expensive.

The feeling is: Decoration does not make danger.

During the last storm, some of the elements fell down, one reached the ground. Fortunately, nobody stood there at that time. They had to close the new main station for some time. 

For me it would be interesting, whether such word findings would influence the security on other places too? Did anybody have experiences?

Best regards
Bernd

See also:
Berlin’s main station closed again after new storm alert
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topi...=128784&version=1&template_id=39&parent_id=21


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Bernd,

Was Mr/Dr/Prof Whorf influenced by Miguel de Cervantes?  Don Quijote acted on his perceptions of giants, rather than windmills.  Honestly, I don't see the relationship of the girders to Whorf's theory as being enlightening about the use of words to create perceptions of reality, hence reality.  Could you explain that a little more, please?  Are you speaking of non-verbal signs as if they were words?

Thanks.


----------



## Hutschi

Hi Cuchuflete,

my question is weakly related to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis

It states that states that there is a systematic relationship between the grammatical categories of the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it.

One of the roots was, that Benjamin Whorf worked in an insurance office, and he investigated accidents in chemical plants.

He found, that accidents may be caused by wrong usage of words. "empty" did not have any relation to danger in the case of chemical tanks. The worker did not realize that "empty" in reality means "danger".

In the case of the train station, nobody notized that there is a relation between ornamental elements and danger. The elements are just for beauty and not necessary for the stability of the station. ANd so they forgot (?) to fixate them.

I speak about the verbal signs and about some non-verbal signs of words. In case of Whorf, "empty" hides the danger, in cause of the station "Schmuck, Zier" (ornamental, decoration) hides the danger.

The workers acted on words, rather than hidden danger.


----------



## Athaulf

Hutschi said:


> my question is weakly related to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis
> 
> It states that states that there is a systematic relationship between the grammatical categories of the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it.



I've never read the original writings of Saphir and Whorf, so I can't comment on most of what they themselves said and believed, but my opinion is that the "hypothesis" commonly named after them nowadays is, to put it charitably, sheer nonsense. More precisely, this "hypothesis" is stated either in the form of utterly trivial and insignificant observations or as some supposedly deep and mystical insight into the way humans think, which however has little (if any) connection with reality, to the extent that it represents a testable, rather than a metaphysical hypothesis at all. 

Generally, whenever I hear claims that people in a certain group have an incomprehensibly different grasp of reality because their language operates with utterly different grammatical and semantic categories, these claims fall apart already due to the internal inconsistencies in the presented evidence -- even before one starts questioning its factual accuracy. In fact, Whorf's attempts to find support for nonsensical claims along these lines led him to launch one of the most persistent urban myths in history. 

Of course that differences in language reflect certain differences in the way people organize information mentally; this is obvious to anyone who has ever tried to translate a single sentence from one language to another, and so trivial that it needs no spelling out. But some supposedly deep differences in the perception of reality due to differences in language are sheer fantasy. If nothing else, if such differences really existed, how would the proponents of such theories ever be able to understand these incomprehensibly different modes of thinking? Or do they consider themselves an intellectual elite capable of such mental acrobatics, unlike us miserable slaves of fixed ways of thinking, shackled by the constraints imposed by our languages? 



> As example he [Whorf] gave a fuel tank, which exploded. The investigations showed that it was caused by signs: "empty". Nobody felt any danger when seeing empty tanks. They smoked and it exploded.
> 
> (This was one of the experiences that initialized thew Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis.)
> 
> Now we have a new example. Around the Berlin main station (Berliner Hauptbahnhof) the architects designed "Zierelemente" ("decoration elements", two-tonne steel girders). They were made of steel and had no carrying function. So they did not realize, that the elements themselves were heavy and dangerous and they did not fix them but only lay them into their place like in a book shelf. May be the original design was different but too expensive.
> 
> The feeling is: Decoration does not make danger.
> 
> During the last storm, some of the elements fell down, one reached the ground. Fortunately, nobody stood there at that time. They had to close the new main station for some time.


Well, duh. People tend to be confused, prone to misunderstandings, and unable to get anything right at first attempt. What else is new?


----------



## palomnik

Hutschi, I'm not too sure whether what you're describing is what Sapir and Whorf had in mind when they came up with their hypothesis. If memory serves, what they were considering is that language shapes the form of the universe that we inhabit, and the categories into which we divide reality. Remember that Sapir's work was almost entirely on Native American languages and related anthropology, and he was keely aware about how that entire way of life was destroyed, and the consequent dislocations that it created for people who only wanted to be what they were.

Personally, I have never felt that Sapir Whorf was simply claptrap. Although I don't think that the differences between cultures present an impenetrable barrier, they can be a considerable problem; in my work as a TESL teacher here in the USA I am constantly - and poignantly - reminded of the fact that it can take a considerable psychic toll on a foreigner in a strange culture just to try to appear "normal" to the native speakers that they work with. 

Sapir and Whorf merely point out that there can be deep differences between cultural _weltanschauungen_ that frequently take on linguistic forms. However, misunderstandings about meanings of words in context don't seem to be the same thing; if the tank said "empty" in either English, German or Chinese I think that local idlers who read it might all be led to make the same mistake and light up a smoke.


----------



## maxiogee

Hutschi said:


> As example he gave a fuel tank, which exploded. The investigations showed that it was caused by signs: "empty". Nobody felt any danger when seeing empty tanks. They smoked and it exploded.



What had happened? Were the tanks wrongly signed, and they actually had fuel in them? Or, was it just vapour in otherwise empty tanks?

If there was an error in signage, I don't see any linguistic significance in the 'influence' the signs may have had.
If they exploded because of fuel-vapour I would be very surprised indeed.


----------



## Thomsen

maxiogee said:


> What had happened? Were the tanks wrongly signed, and they actually had fuel in them? Or, was it just vapour in otherwise empty tanks?
> 
> If there was an error in signage, I don't see any linguistic significance in the 'influence' the signs may have had.
> If they exploded because of fuel-vapour I would be very surprised indeed.


 
It was the vapors, as I recall learning.  I have to agree with previous comments though that the language element may be overstated.  To continue the construction theme, parts of Boston's big dig tunnel fell down last year killing a woman.  I don't think it mattered how they were labeled.  It was a case of laziness, poor planning, and ultimately negligence.  To switch back to the fuel tanks.  It sounds like those cleaning them were not properly trained.  Some people don't know you shouldn't smoke near gas tanks....


----------



## .   1

Thomsen said:


> To switch back to the fuel tanks. It sounds like those cleaning them were not properly trained. Some people don't know you shouldn't smoke near gas tanks....


It is relatively safe to smoke near a full fuel tank because liquid fuel will not burn.  In order to burn (explode) fuel must be vapourised and then mixed with oxygen in the right proportion.
It was not the sign that caused the problem.  The workers were obviously not trained.  Everybody who works with fuel should be fully informed that an 'empty' fuel tank is full of fuel vapours.

I see no correlation between the falling decorations.  The storm was simply more severe than the installers anticipated.  The installers could equally be criticised for using too many resources to secure the sculptures if they treated them as though they were load bearing girders.
Melbourne is covered with beams and posts and twisted walls for decoration and I can't see that the fact that they are considered decorations made any difference to the installers.  They anticipate storm stresses and make calculations about how to install them and if they fall over later it has nothing to do with words and everything to do with winds.

.,,


----------



## Hutschi

Thank you for the discussion. Maybe I overestimated the language aspect, as I recognize now.

For whorf the thing with the fuel tanks  was one of the initial points or starting points that lead to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. 

And may be I overestimate the language aspect. Of course the fall down has to do with the wind. What I was thinking about, was whether they had used more reserves for security, when they would not have taken it as "Zierelemente".

Thank you very much for the comments.


----------



## maxiogee

I'm getting confirmatory signals about my doubts about this explosion.

I don't believe one happened.

From this page "He was drawn to the study of language when he started to notice that ‘empty’ fuel drums were perceived as less dangerous because of the connotations of the word ‘empty’, when in fact they were just as dangerous – being filled with explosive vapour."

And from this one "I’m reminded of an example given by Benjimin Lee Whorf, from when he was an insurance investigator before becoming a linguist. He saw some airport workers smoking cigarettes near aviation fuel drums, and when he warned them of the danger and told them to stop smoking near the drums, they pointed to the signs on the drums: “Empty,” the signs read. That was true, but not true: while the aviation fuel had been emptied from them, they still contained highly explosive fumes."

Urban myth, I think.


----------



## .   1

I reckon that it is an urban myth for sure.
It would be hard to imagine a group of blokes so desperate for a durrie that they would choose to go and smoke right beside probably the only dangerous place in their work environment.  It beggers belief but it is a perfect parable to use to illustrate an esoteric opinion.

.,,


----------



## Qcumber

No doubt the Whorff-Sapir hypothesis is an important one in psycho-linguistics.

For instance it was "natural" for an English-speaking inventor to offer keypads on which you dial a code to open a door because the term "key" can both refer to a key on a keyboard or a key for a doorlock.

Another example is when a killed warrior is regarded by his friends as a martyr, but as a terrorist by his enemies .

When you say 34, 35, 36, 37, do you see items piling up in the 30's column or in the 40's column?

To me the example given at the beginning of the thread is a good one. Yes the decorative item was seen as harmless because it was called "decorative".


----------



## karuna

I think we already had a discussion that largerly disputed the Whorff's hypothesis. Of course, language influences our thinking to certain extent, but as a whole language is very flexible and it can introduce now words and concepts as the necessity arises. As for warning labels, these examples are not very convincing because if you choose the wrong words even the native speakers may misunderstood the message. 

The warning INFLAMMABLE was changed to FLAMMABLE because some might misunderstood that the prefix IN means NOT. Although those are probably non-native speakers who are most prone to make this mistake, 
it just shows that people can commit mistakes regardless of language spoken.


----------



## .   1

karuna said:


> I think we already had a discussion that largerly disputed the Whorff's hypothesis.


I thought so as well.  Even the term psycho-linguistics sounds like psycho-babble to me.



karuna said:


> it just shows that people can commit mistakes regardless of language spoken.


This must be the most significant argument to disprove the theory.
Our actions are not controlled by our language.
People the world over have faced the same problems on a daily basis and solved those problems in remarkably similar ways despite a vast difference in languages.
The African tribeswoman putting a clay plate in her lip and covering her face with coloured ochres has many sisters sitting in beauty salons the world over.
The Berber tribesman trying to dig a well has to wait for the availability of the donkey before he can start.  The donkey owner who promised that the donkey would be on time has many brother tradesmen around the world.
We are all so similar that our language could not really have any significant impact on us.
I havbe posted quite a few threads asking, for example, why English has so many words for a lie but so few for truth.  My argument was quite rightly shot down in flames because I wasn't looking at my definitions clearly and there are just as many alternate terms for truth as there are for lie.
I apparently swallowed an urban myth hook, line and sinker when I repeated incorrect story that a Japanese man is incapable of asking a non intimate female for assistance.
There appear to be many such stories about the impact of words, especially written words, have on us but it is my experience that tone and volume of the spoken word have more effect and I am not sure how much effect the written word has at all.
People who work regularly in the same area seem to stop noticing anything visually about their immediate environment unless it changes.
I think that most people don't even read warning signs.

.,,


----------



## roxcyn

http://rapidshare.com/files/13183947/Whorf_Hypothesis.ppt.html

Here is a power point that I did for this hypothesis, enjoy the reading...


----------



## roxcyn

. said:


> I thought so as well.  Even the term psycho-linguistics sounds like psycho-babble to me.
> 
> This must be the most significant argument to disprove the theory.
> Our actions are not controlled by our language.
> People the world over have faced the same problems on a daily basis and solved those problems in remarkably similar ways despite a vast difference in languages.
> The African tribeswoman putting a clay plate in her lip and covering her face with coloured ochres has many sisters sitting in beauty salons the world over.
> The Berber tribesman trying to dig a well has to wait for the availability of the donkey before he can start.  The donkey owner who promised that the donkey would be on time has many brother tradesmen around the world.
> We are all so similar that our language could not really have any significant impact on us.
> I havbe posted quite a few threads asking, for example, why English has so many words for a lie but so few for truth.  My argument was quite rightly shot down in flames because I wasn't looking at my definitions clearly and there are just as many alternate terms for truth as there are for lie.
> I apparently swallowed an urban myth hook, line and sinker when I repeated incorrect story that a Japanese man is incapable of asking a non intimate female for assistance.
> There appear to be many such stories about the impact of words, especially written words, have on us but it is my experience that tone and volume of the spoken word have more effect and I am not sure how much effect the written word has at all.
> People who work regularly in the same area seem to stop noticing anything visually about their immediate environment unless it changes.
> I think that most people don't even read warning signs.
> .,,



Individual is unconscious  to connection between language and thought, and subject to it without a choice 
Culture determines our language,which determines how we categorize our thoughts about the world to our experiences in it 




I don't see anywhere where they claim that our actions are controlled by language.  I am here to say that *I am not saying that he is wrong or right*.  I think that the hypothesis is *very broad* and *very difficult* to test in a scientific way.  Therefore, I think it is hard to say it is 100% wrong, but then again, we may not agree with everything the man thought .


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> No doubt the Whorff-Sapir hypothesis is an important one in psycho-linguistics.
> 
> For instance it was "natural" for an English-speaking inventor to offer keypads on which you dial a code to open a door because the term "key" can both refer to a key on a keyboard or a key for a doorlock.


I guess the fact that it was also a practical solution had nothing to do with it, hey?...

I agree with Athaulf above. I've seen Sapir-Whorff nonsense (or something very much like it) be used to promote pure ethnocentrism far too many times to regard it as an innocent, neutral theory.


----------



## Qcumber

Outsider said:


> I agree with Athaulf above. I've seen Sapir-Whorff nonsense (or something very much like it) be used to promote pure ethnocentrism far too many times to regard it as an innocent, neutral theory.


I thought every language was basically ethnocentric. There is no such thing as a universal language, and outside sciences, there is no universal worldview.
I am just amazed at the criticisms aimed at the Whorff-Sapir hypothesis (it's not a theory). Many people seem to leave the realm of reason to fall into that of passions and prejudice when they debate about it. Too bad.


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> I thought every language was basically ethnocentric.


No, some people (and their half-baked theories/hypotheses) are.



Qcumber said:


> Many people seem to leave the realm of reason to fall into that of passions and prejudice when they debate about it.


Indeed, starting with its supporters.


----------



## maxiogee

Qcumber said:


> I am just amazed at the criticisms aimed at the Whorff-Sapir hypothesis (it's not a theory).



What's the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

According to WordReference's entry for hypothesis…
*hypothesis*
A	noun
1 	hypothesis, possibility, theory
 		a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory​
and then I looked at the entry for theory…
*theory*
A	noun
1 	hypothesis, possibility, theory
 		a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory​
It seems that it requires some (positive results) testing to make a theory out of a hypothesis, but isn't that what is also required to make a "law"?


----------



## Qcumber

maxiogee said:


> What's the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?


 
A hypothesis is an idea that comes to your mind to account for a natural phenomenon. (You can have several hypotheses.) Then you have to collect data and analyze them to work them into a theory. Once the theory is posited, you deduce applications. If it doesn't work, your theory is wrong. If it works, it is right. If it only works for a certain number of cases, you've got to relaunch the whole process to account for the remaining cases until the formula is correct, etc.
After it has been tried again and again, and there is no more reasonable doubt about it, it becomes a law of e.g. physics.


----------



## Athaulf

Qcumber said:


> I thought every language was basically ethnocentric. There is no such thing as a universal language, and outside sciences, there is no universal worldview.



Actually, in my experience and from my indirect observations of the world, languages are remarkably non-ethnocentric. The only ethnocentric aspect you might find in any language is the fact that its vocabulary includes only words for those items that the people speaking it have so far had contact with; hence e.g. medieval European languages didn't have any words for a kangaroo. This is however easily remedied by coining or borrowing words as the need arises, and once the vocabulary has been properly expanded, all natural languages are completely identical in their expressive power. 

Thus, _every _language is universal in a very important sense, since whichever language you take, you can't find anyone anywhere on the planet expressing any thought that couldn't be also expressed in the language of your choice, requiring at most the invention or borrowing of a few words.

What would be the most ethnocentric aspect of any language that you've ever noticed?


----------



## Qcumber

Athaulf said:


> Thus, _every _language is universal in a very important sense, since whichever language you take, you can't find anyone anywhere on the planet expressing any thought that couldn't be also expressed in the language of your choice, requiring at most the invention or borrowing of a few words.


May I advise you to read the threads on "to be or not to be" and "l'être et le néant".


----------



## Kajjo

maxiogee said:


> What's the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?


A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea how to explain observations, but still waiting to be tested and compared with reality. It is tentative, not yet fully proven by experiments. There can be many valid hypotheses about an issue. 

A theory is in accordance with experimental results and is able to successfully describe a phenomenon. It is proven not to contradict reality. A theory might lead to one or several laws. A natural law usually is an exact, mathematical formula that describes the interrelation of natural phenomena. 

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> May I advise you to read the threads on "to be or not to be" and "l'être et le néant".


I remember those (in the Other Languages forum). What do you think they proved?


----------



## Athaulf

Qcumber said:


> May I advise you to read the threads on "to be or not to be" and "l'être et le néant".



It would be helpful if you provided links or, even better, a summary of the important points made there. It's pretty hard to search for information when the phrase you're looking for is "to be." As for the latter one, I've read it and actually contributed to it, and I fail to see any relevance for the topic of this discussion.

So, I'm still curious to hear some examples of ethnocentricity in languages. What are these thoughts that are expressible in one natural language, but not in another?


----------



## Qcumber

Outsider said:


> I remember those (in the Other Languages forum). What do you think they proved?


My point. That languages are basically ethnocentric, and that there are concepts from a language A that cannot be expressed in a language B.


----------



## Athaulf

Qcumber said:


> My point. That languages are basically ethnocentric, and that there are concepts from a language A that cannot be expressed in a language B.



You are however evading the answer when asked to provide some concrete examples of these concepts. If "every language [is] basically ethnocentric" as you claimed above, then it should be easy for you to provide a wealth of such examples. This is however the third time I'm asking, and you've so far failed to provide any whatsoever. You merely mentioned two past threads, one of which is impossible to locate, while the other consists of a series of translation of a book title in a number of different languages, without any relevant discussion of anything.


----------



## .   1

Qcumber said:


> My point. That languages are basically ethnocentric, and that there are concepts from a language A that cannot be expressed in a language B.


I would love to have some evidence of this.  Even a sliver would do.
How is it possible to know that a concept in one language is unknown in another language?
You would run into negative feedback when trying to define the concept if one language did not have terms for that concept but the main problem is that you would not know because, if the hypothisis is correct, there is a separation of language to the point that even the concept is not able to be explained so it would be impossible to know that there was a concept that could not be translated.
An Australian Aborigine would not have much experience with frostbite and an Innuit would have about the same knowledge of sunstroke but I am sure that if both spoke a common language they would be able to exchange information on the subjects readily.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Qcumber said:


> That languages are basically ethnocentric, and that there are concepts from a language A that cannot be expressed in a language B.


It can be argued just as well that even languages that have no verb "to be" end up finding some way to translate Shakespeare's phrase in a way that expresses what he wanted to convey. The human experience is the same everywhere.

P.S. Here are the two threads in question:
To be or not to be, that is the question
L'être et le néant


----------



## .   1

Qcumber said:


> May I advise you to read the threads on "to be or not to be" and "l'être et le néant".


Dunno about the French quote but I will bet you London to a brick that every language that has ever existed and every language that will ever exist on Earth or any other planet in the Universe will have a detailed and complete understanding of 'to be or not to be'.
It is thought that even whales commit suicide so it is possible that there is a whale song explaining the concept.

.,,


----------



## konungursvia

Hutschi said:


> Hi Cuchuflete,
> 
> my question is weakly related to the Sapir Whorf hypothesis.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-Whorf_hypothesis
> 
> It states that states that there is a systematic relationship between the grammatical categories of the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it.
> 
> One of the roots was, that Benjamin Whorf worked in an insurance office, and he investigated accidents in chemical plants.
> 
> He found, that accidents may be caused by wrong usage of words. &quot;empty&quot; did not have any relation to danger in the case of chemical tanks. The worker did not realize that &quot;empty&quot; in reality means &quot;danger&quot;.
> 
> In the case of the train station, nobody notized that there is a relation between ornamental elements and danger. The elements are just for beauty and not necessary for the stability of the station. ANd so they forgot (?) to fixate them.
> 
> I speak about the verbal signs and about some non-verbal signs of words. In case of Whorf, &quot;empty&quot; hides the danger, in cause of the station &quot;Schmuck, Zier&quot; (ornamental, decoration) hides the danger.
> 
> The workers acted on words, rather than hidden danger.



  I don't think your Berlin decorations have much to do with the theory either. Their choice of words reflects their thought that a structure was purely decorative. For the theory to be implicated, it would have to be a thought pattern, in this case over-confidence or lack of caution, which had been influenced by the very nature of their language. Yet German has plenty of words, "Achtung" for instance, that could very well have been imagined to represent mentally the possible danger. It is therefore not a linguistic phenomenon, but a case of carelessness not related to the German language.

  A more compelling case would be shown if the engineers' native language lacked a subjunctive or conditional, and lacked words for danger, possibility, probability, chance, hypotheticality, and so on, leading to their errors by influencing their thinking. Chinese, for example, lacks tenses and moods in most ordinary conversation, and lacks the ordinary use of multitudes of terms relating to "allegedly" "according to one side of the story", "by one account", "according to just one of the witnesses," "it seems to be the case that," and the like. This lack appears to be the cause of the following phenomenon (anyone who has worked in Asia for an Asian boss can confirm this): when someone lodges a complaint of any kind, however unjustified, everyone believes it unquestioningly, after having heard only one side of the story, and it is VERY difficult to get people there to change their minds and see that the other side of the story was more correct. This would do more to confirm the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.


----------



## Kajjo

First, I believe the posts about ethnocentricity should be split and put into a new thread.

Secondly, I believe that the previous posts show an extraordinary misconception of what _ethnocentric language_ is about. A language, or more specifically a specific term, is ethnocentric if it displays a single-sided perspective from the point of view of the culture the language belongs to. Such terms not only reflect but also influence how a society views certain issues. You could interpret _ethnocentricity of language_ as the counterpart to _egocentricity of individuals_.

For example, the "invasions of the barbarians" from East Europe into France and Great Britain is roughly called "migration of people" in German, Danish, Dutch and Polish (German: _Völkerwanderung_). It is easy to see that these two terms have completely opposite points of view. That is ethnocentric!

Thirdly, a given language can only express concepts which speakers have been in contact with. Whether a language can adapt to new challenges depends on the degree of _comprehension_ on the side of the speakers. Coining new terms or adopting words from other languages is not a barrier in itself. Ethnocentricity is no main issue when discussing the scope of possible expressiveness of a language. A person will be able to express  with his language every concept he actually comprehends. 

Kajjo


----------



## .   1

konungursvia said:


> This lack appears to be the cause of the following phenomenon (anyone who has worked in Asia for an Asian boss can confirm this): when someone lodges a complaint of any kind, however unjustified, everyone believes it unquestioningly, after having heard only one side of the story, and it is VERY difficult to get people there to change their minds and see that the other side of the story was more correct. This would do more to confirm the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.


This just sounds like the layer theory of learning.  It is my experience that the first layer of learning is the most difficult to overwrite.
If someone has been taught to do something the wrong way it is far harder to teach that person the correct method than it is to instruct a person with no prior knowledge.
Really bad school teachers start a lesson by giving an example and then saying "Don't use this method".
If someone gives directions and shows one route and then says "But I don't think you should go that way, I think you should use this alternate route" will only help you to get lost.
The accusation thing is common in English.  
Where there's smoke there's fire.
If you throw mud some will stick.

It is possible to destroy a person's reputation with a mere accusation even if there is utterly no evidence to back it up because people are prone to believe what they hear first.
Little kids often run to their parents to 'get their side of the story in first' knowing that the first story heard is often hard to shift.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> For example, the "invasions of the barbarians" from East Europe into France and Great Britain is roughly called "migration of people" in German, Danish, Dutch and Polish (German: _Völkerwanderung_). It is easy to see that these two terms have completely opposite points of view. That is ethnocentric!


Yes, and it's got nothing to do with language. I can say _migração dos povos_ in Portuguese, too. The reason why some people prefer one term over the other is purely nationalistic.

Germans were not _made_ to pick _Völkerwanderung_ just because they speak German. They picked it because they regard themselves as the descendants of those "migrants".


----------



## .   1

*ethnocentrism *_n_ belief in the intrinsic superiority of the nation, culture or group to which one belongs, often accompanied by feelings of dislike for other groups.



Kajjo said:


> First, I believe the posts about ethnocentricity should be split and put into a new thread.


This seem to be at the heart of the whole Whorff thingie.



Kajjo said:


> Secondly, I believe that the previous posts show an extraordinary misconception of what _ethnocentric language_ is about. A language, or more specifically a specific term, is ethnocentric if it displays a single-sided perspective from the point of view of the culture the language belongs to. Such terms not only reflect but also influence how a society views certain issues. You could interpret _ethnocentricity of language_ as the counterpart to _egocentricity of individuals_.


You could interpret the belief in ethnocentricity of language as being an implied view that one culture is superior to all others.



Kajjo said:


> For example, the "invasions of the barbarians" from East Europe into France and Great Britain is roughly called "migration of people" in German, Danish, Dutch and Polish (German: _Völkerwanderung_). It is easy to see that these two terms have completely opposite points of view. That is ethnocentric!


Alexander the Great is also called Alexander the Cursed but a view of history reveals that the same event happened in both cases.



Kajjo said:


> Thirdly, a given language can only express concepts which speakers have been in contact with. Whether a language can adapt to new challenges depends on the degree of _comprehension_ on the side of the speakers. Coining new terms or adopting words from other languages is not a barrier in itself. Ethnocentricity is no main issue when discussing the scope of possible expressiveness of a language. A person will be able to express with his language every concept he actually comprehends.


The use of the term ethnocentricity is doing nothing to clarify the issue.
I do not believe that language is ethnocentric.
I do not believe that language indicates that one culture is anything but almost identical to another culture.
I am constantly struck by the similarities between my life today and that of a person in a similar social position living 2,000 years ago.  We would, neither of us, experience significant difficulty in adapting to each other's worlds.
Language is not ethnocentric and neither are healthy people.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

konungursvia said:


> Chinese, for example, lacks tenses and moods in most ordinary conversation, and lacks the ordinary use of multitudes of terms relating to "allegedly" "according to one side of the story", "by one account", "according to just one of the witnesses," "it seems to be the case that," and the like. This lack appears to be the cause of the following phenomenon (anyone who has worked in Asia for an Asian boss can confirm this): when someone lodges a complaint of any kind, however unjustified, everyone believes it unquestioningly, after having heard only one side of the story, and it is VERY difficult to get people there to change their minds and see that the other side of the story was more correct.



I've never worked in Asia, but there are certainly many Asians here in Toronto where I work, many of whom are first-generation immigrants. Honestly, if what you write is true, I am really surprised why I don't hear complaints about these people behaving the way you describe, because such an attitude would quickly cause a lot of trouble anywhere in the West. Are you really sure that this is a general characteristic of their culture? Could it perhaps be the result of an unfriendly attitude towards foreigners, i.e. an inclination to always trust an accusation of a domestic person against a foreigner?

But even if it is true, I would say that you have the causal relationship backwards. You say that there are no _commonly used _ways to express a disclaimer in Chinese, but this implies that the language _does _include ways to express these concepts, only that people don't use them often, just like e.g. people don't use various extreme honorifics much in English nowadays ("your grace" etc.). The language itself is still as full-blown and universal as any other; it is merely the case that its speakers don't use some of these aspects often due to the particularities of their culture. Thus, the supposed rarity of disclaimers in Chinese doesn't cause the behavior you describe any more than the rarity of extreme honorifics in English nowadays causes the existing perception of social hierarchies in modern English-speaking countries. The causality runs the other way.


----------



## Athaulf

Kajjo said:


> I believe that the previous posts show an extraordinary misconception of what _ethnocentric language_ is about. A language, or more specifically a specific term, is ethnocentric if it displays a single-sided perspective from the point of view of the culture the language belongs to. Such terms not only reflect but also influence how a society views certain issues. You could interpret _ethnocentricity of language_ as the counterpart to _egocentricity of individuals_.
> 
> For example, the "invasions of the barbarians" from East Europe into France and Great Britain is roughly called "migration of people" in German, Danish, Dutch and Polish (German: _Völkerwanderung_). It is easy to see that these two terms have completely opposite points of view. That is ethnocentric!



But as Outsider has already pointed out, this can nothing to do with the language itself. You can say "die barbarischen Invasionen" in German (or would perhaps "die barbarischen Eingriffe" sound better?  -- please excuse my broken German ), and it will have the same meaning as "the barbarian invasions" in English. It is a completely trivial observation that people who have a strong attitude towards some idea, person, or event will choose different terms with different emotional colorings to describe it; this would be on the "well, duh" side of the claims of the Sapir-Whorf crowd. 

However, if the _strong_ versions of their theories were true, then we could expect to find some German and English expressions conveying thoughts that are completely impossible to convey in the other language. I've never seen any such examples. While there are words and expressions that can never be given a translation that would be accurate in every context, the important thing is that every particular though expressed in German can also be expressed in English and vice versa, and this also holds for any other pair of natural languages -- unlike what the more extreme versions of the S-W hypothesis claim.



> Thirdly, a given language can only express concepts which speakers have been in contact with. Whether a language can adapt to new challenges depends on the degree of _comprehension_ on the side of the speakers. Coining new terms or adopting words from other languages is not a barrier in itself. Ethnocentricity is no main issue when discussing the scope of possible expressiveness of a language. A person will be able to express  with his language every concept he actually comprehends.


Exactly so. But the more extreme parts of the S-W crowd claim that different languages shape human thoughts in such a way that speakers of very different languages can never grasp each other's view of the world. To quote Whorf himself, _"all observers are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their linguistic backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated."_ 

Well, in practice it turns out that any pair of natural languages can be "calibrated," whatever that's supposed to mean. I've never heard of a language in which it would be impossible to translate a physics textbook, perhaps after a few novel terms have been coined in it, or whose native speakers would be unable to comprehend modern scientific theories because their "picture of the universe" is somehow different from ours.


----------

