Chomsky Pinker vs Whorf's model

The Pinker vs. Sapir-Whorf debate is central to the study of linguistics and related areas like psycholinguistics and cognitive science. Most linguists can at least agree that humans have a “unique language capacity,” (Levinson 25). Yet the innate capacity to learn language is where the similarities between Pinker and Whorf end. Whereas Whorf radically transformed both cognitive science and linguistics by using empirical evidence to show how language shapes thought, Pinker has also been influential with a nativist, modular, and nativist understanding of human language development.

Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis remains far more compelling, more substantiated by empirical evidence, and also more able to explain some of the complexities of language and culture. Even though children are not born speaking in full sentences, all children have the capacity for language development, the potential to learn verbal and written means of communication as well as non-verbal communication like gestures (Pinker).

Yet linguists still grapple with whether semantics exist independently of language (the Pinker point of view) or whether semantics and linguistics co-create each other (Whorf’s perspective). As linguistics has employed more quantitative and empirical methods of data collection and analysis, it becomes increasingly possible to make more cogent arguments about the efficacy of both Pinker’s or Whorf’s points of view.

Pinker’s perspective is commonly called “nativism,” not to be confused with the racist political ideology that bears the same name (Levinson 25). Nativism in linguistics refers to the innate capacity of people for language development, based on evolutionary theory. According to Levinson, Pinker’s nativism rests on two assumptions. The first assumption aligns with Chomsky’s own research, and has to do simply with the “universal and innate” nature of language syntax (26).

The second assumption in Pinker’s theory is that even semantics are innate: a so-called “language of thought” that underlies the outward expressions of language as communication (Levinson 26). Although Pinker’s theory has become prevalent in linguistics, it is not universally accepted. Pinker’s analyses like “Baby Born Talking” also seem more based on anecdotal evidence than on empiricism, which weakens the Pinker point of view. The alternative point of view held by Whorf and expressed most notably in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

In “Language and Mind,” Levinson aligns with the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, which proposes that language actually precedes thought and is co-created with culture and socialization. Language is critical for all higher-level cognitive processing, learning, and instruction, which is why the language(s) a child learns will impact that child’s problem solving preferences, communication styles, and worldviews.

Linguistic coding can be shown in experimental research to have a measurable effect on “nonlinguistic cognition,” implying that language shapes cognitive schemas, worldviews, and other large-scale patterns of thought (Levinson 41). Levinson also shows that contrary to the anecdotal evidence used to support Pinker’s position, evidence supporting the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis uses experimental methods, particularly focusing on the rendition of numbers, colors, and geographic descriptors. The Whorf position is not deterministic, though.

For instance, abstract thought can occur in non-linguistic ways, giving rise to mathematical, musical, or visual artistic “languages.” Other premises of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis are related to the nature of language itself. For example, “languages vary in their semantics just as they do in their form,” (Levinson 41-42). In other words, the same concept cannot necessarily be communicated in all languages. The language has limits, and sometimes those limits actually create cognitive limits too. For instance, language determines how a person renders both time and space.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is also useful in helping sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists understand cultural differences, to help prevent misunderstanding and mitigate conflicts. Pinker’s theory is not without merit. According to Pinker, language does not influence cognitive schemas, but only describes pre-existing cognitive schemas. As Pinker suggests, babies have both the innate capacity for language and also individual differences that impact their early language development. Pinker shows how until eighteen months, an infant has very little language development but then suddenly “language takes off,” (Pinker 267).

From eighteen months throughout adulthood, language acquisition is rapid and ongoing. If one particular language does not have a word for an emotion, a color, or something that is geographically specific, then a new word will simply be invented based on the rules of that language. Alternatively, words and phrases would be adapted from one language to another. This does occur all the time, particularly in English.

Pinker’s theories work well for explaining in general how children acquire language, but fail to encompass things like how children raised in a multilingual environment might develop their language skills differently from children in a monolingual household. Languages also evolve over time, as can easily be seen in English, French, and other languages with a long written record highlighting important shifts in grammar, syntax, and semantics. Whorf would imply that these types of changes to the language would parallel historical, social, and political changes too.

Pinker also suggests that there is universality in language, not in the sense that all languages ultimately represent the same semantic things but that all human being share the same basic cognitive constructs. Whorf disagrees, instead showing how the language heavily influences different cognitive constructs. Language offers frame of reference, and is not just about communicating with other people. Rather, language is how individuals analyze, conceptualize, strategize, and solve problems. Language impacts self-talk, and language can influence emotional states too.

In this sense, Whorf might agree with the use of affirmations and other linguistic means of self-help and self-improvement methods. Pinker prefers to segregate language from other aspects of human consciousness and cognition. Whereas Pinker’s theory lends itself better to a micro-analysis of grammar, syntax, and phonemes, the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis is more applicable to psycholinguistics, anthropology, sociology, and other macro-level theories. In general, Whorf and Levinson remain more interested on the ways language.