Scan barcode
A review by onesime
Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages by Guy Deutscher
4.0
This book offers a history of the often (and rightly) maligned Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and details how the notion that language shapes people's perception of the world became an *idea non grata*. Deutscher takes the reader from William Gladstone's 19th century analysis of Homer to state-of-the-art neurolinguistics research in order to not only show how language affects perception, but also to show that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is mostly just a high-flying fantasy. To summarize it in a sentence, Deutscher argues that culture, i.e. language, has a stronger effect on our thinking than we are comfortable to admit, but that the impact of language on thought is very different from what it was believed to be in the past.
Specifically, he argues that there is no evidence that our mother tongue constrains our cognitive capacity or that it imposes limits on what we can understand. In other words, he says the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is bunk. Instead, he argues that "the real effects of the mother tongue are rather the habits that develop through the frequent use of certain ways of expression. The concepts we are trained to treat as distinct, the information our mother tongue continuously forces us to specify, the details it requires us to be attentive to, and the repeated associations it imposes on us - all these habits of speech can create habits of mind that affect more than merely the knowledge of language itself". He summarizes this idea in what he calls the Boas-Jakobson principle: Languages differ essentially in what they must convey, not in what they may convey.
By surveying not only current research, but also methodologies and findings from the past 200 years, Deutscher makes a very plausible claim for the Boas-Jakobson principle and for his rejection of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the linguistic dogma that language does not fundamentally affect the way we think.
Although there is no dearth of substance in this book, Deutscher shines more brightly when it comes to style. He has a knack for explaining the history of ideas (particularly when it comes to the history of color and perception) and dropping quirky anecdotes at the right moment (i.e. almost all the time). In short, this is an engaging read that offers a rather nuanced take on one of the thorniest linguistic questions. As such, definitely worth the few hours it takes to read.
Specifically, he argues that there is no evidence that our mother tongue constrains our cognitive capacity or that it imposes limits on what we can understand. In other words, he says the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is bunk. Instead, he argues that "the real effects of the mother tongue are rather the habits that develop through the frequent use of certain ways of expression. The concepts we are trained to treat as distinct, the information our mother tongue continuously forces us to specify, the details it requires us to be attentive to, and the repeated associations it imposes on us - all these habits of speech can create habits of mind that affect more than merely the knowledge of language itself". He summarizes this idea in what he calls the Boas-Jakobson principle: Languages differ essentially in what they must convey, not in what they may convey.
By surveying not only current research, but also methodologies and findings from the past 200 years, Deutscher makes a very plausible claim for the Boas-Jakobson principle and for his rejection of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the linguistic dogma that language does not fundamentally affect the way we think.
Although there is no dearth of substance in this book, Deutscher shines more brightly when it comes to style. He has a knack for explaining the history of ideas (particularly when it comes to the history of color and perception) and dropping quirky anecdotes at the right moment (i.e. almost all the time). In short, this is an engaging read that offers a rather nuanced take on one of the thorniest linguistic questions. As such, definitely worth the few hours it takes to read.