-1

The following paragraph is quoted from Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" and it's originally presented by Benjamin Lee Whorf in his "Language, Thought, and Reality"

“We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, BUT IT’S TERMS ARE ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.

I think I may know literally what does "The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face" mean, or maybe not.But I don't see the logic it bears. My understanding is that we isolate the categories and types because they stare every observer in the face, what does that supposed to mean?

1

This is the (in)famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

In short, Whorf is saying here that categories -- things like "animals", "vegetables", and "minerals", or even "time" -- are not part of objective reality, but rather a construction (or artifact) of human beings' attempts to communicate with one another. The implication being that language shapes our perception of the world, rather than the other way around.

The one particular clause you quote in the question title means "we don't have words for [these types of things] because they exist", and the balance of the quoted passage elaborates "rather, [these types of things] 'exist' because we have words for them" (and that this situation is inescapable and self-reinforcing).

Now, whether one should subscribe to this theory is a whole different question (one which is definitely not suitable for SE).

  • 1
    A Man's a Man, For All That. – Edwin Ashworth May 31 '14 at 11:20
1

That is a very creatively (and confusingly) worded sentence. Attempting to rewrite it in a more comprehensible manner:

We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. We isolate categories and types from the world of phenomena [= the physical, real world], but the reason we find those categories and types there [= in the real world] is not that they just stare anyone in the face. Rather, the entire world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions, and it is up to our minds (and this means largely the linguistic systems in our minds) to turn this chaotic flux into something that can be organised into categories and types.

In other words, when we create concepts based on the world around us, those concepts are not just standing there, objectively obvious to any observer. It is to a large extent the linguistic systems that we all carry around in our brains that not only affect, but actually define how we’re able to do it: which concepts will be ‘distilled’ out from the world, and which won’t.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.