Editing Linguistic relativity (section)

=== Boas and Sapir ===
[[File:FranzBoas.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Franz Boas]] ]]
[[File:Edward Sapir.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Edward Sapir]] ]]

The idea that some languages are superior to others and that lesser languages maintained their speakers in intellectual poverty was widespread during the early 20th century.{{sfn|Migge|Léglise|2007}} American linguist [[William Dwight Whitney]], for example, actively strove to eradicate [[Indigenous languages of the Americas|Native American languages]], arguing that their speakers were savages and would be better off learning English and adopting a "civilized" way of life.{{sfn|Seuren|1998|p=180}} The first anthropologist and linguist to challenge this opinion was [[Franz Boas]].{{sfn|Seuren|1998|p=181}} While performing geographical research in northern Canada he became fascinated with the [[Inuit]] and decided to become an [[Ethnography|ethnographer]]. Boas stressed the equal worth of all cultures and languages, that there was no such thing as a primitive language and that all languages were capable of expressing the same content, albeit by widely differing means.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Dall|first1=Wm. H.|last2=Boas|first2=Franz|date=1887|title=Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1762958|journal=Science|volume=9|issue=228|pages=587–589|doi=10.1126/science.ns-9.228.587|jstor=1762958|pmid=17779724|bibcode=1887Sci.....9..587D|s2cid=46250503 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> Boas saw language as an inseparable part of culture and he was among the first to require of ethnographers to learn the native language of the culture to be studied and to document verbal culture such as [[myth]]s and legends in the original language.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Ottenheimer|first=Harriet|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/216940204|title=The anthropology of language : an introduction to linguistic anthropology|date=2009|publisher=Wadsworth|isbn=978-0-495-50884-7|edition=2nd|location=Belmont, CA|pages=8|oclc=216940204}}</ref><ref>Boas, Franz (1911). Introduction. ''Handbook of American Indian Languages''. vol. 1, p. 1–83. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40. Washington: Government Print Office (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology). p. 73.</ref>

Boas:

{{blockquote|It does not seem likely [...] that there is any direct relation between the culture of a tribe and the language they speak, except in so far as the form of the language will be moulded by the state of the culture, but not in so far as a certain state of the culture is conditioned by the morphological traits of the language."<ref name="BOAS1911">{{cite book |url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=EnZC68mmRhQC}}|last=Boas |first=Franz|year=1911|title=Handbook of American Indian languages|volume=1|publisher=Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40. Washington: Government Print Office (Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology).}}</ref>}}

Boas' student Edward Sapir referred to the Humboldtian idea that languages were a major factor for understanding the cultural assumptions of peoples.{{sfn|Leavitt|2010|p=133}} He espoused the opinion that because of the differences in the grammatical systems of languages no two languages were similar enough to allow for perfect cross-translation. Sapir also thought because language represented reality differently, it followed that the speakers of different languages would perceive reality differently.

Sapir:

{{blockquote|No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.<ref>{{citation|last=Sapir |first=Edward|year=1929|title= The status of linguistics as a science|journal=Language|volume=5|doi=10.2307/409588|issue=4|pages=207–214|jstor=409588|hdl=11858/00-001M-0000-002C-4321-4|s2cid=147181342 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>}}

However, Sapir explicitly rejected strong linguistic determinism by stating, "It would be naïve to imagine that any analysis of experience is dependent on pattern expressed in language."<ref name="SapirSwadesh1946">{{cite book|first1=Edward |last1=Sapir|first2=Morris |last2=Swadesh |author-link1=Morris Swadesh|title=American Indian Grammatical Categories|url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=wSYJMgEACAAJ|page=100}}|year=1946 |pages=100–107}}</ref>

Sapir was explicit that the associations between language and culture were neither extensive nor particularly profound, if they existed at all:

{{blockquote|It is easy to show that language and culture are not intrinsically associated. Totally unrelated languages share in one culture; closely related languages—even a single language—belong to distinct culture spheres. There are many excellent examples in Aboriginal America. The Athabaskan languages form as clearly unified, as structurally specialized, a group as any that I know of. The speakers of these languages belong to four distinct culture areas... The cultural adaptability of the Athabaskan-speaking peoples is in the strangest contrast to the inaccessibility to foreign influences of the languages themselves.{{sfn|Sapir|1921|p=213–4}}}}

Sapir offered similar observations about speakers of so-called "world" or [[modern language|"modern" languages]], noting, "possession of a common language is still and will continue to be a smoother of the way to a mutual understanding between England and America, but it is very clear that other factors, some of them rapidly cumulative, are working powerfully to counteract this leveling influence. A common language cannot indefinitely set the seal on a common culture when the geographical, physical, and economics determinants of the culture are no longer the same throughout the area."{{sfn|Sapir|1921|p=215}}

While Sapir never made a practice of studying directly how languages affected thought, some notion of (probably "weak") linguistic relativity affected his basic understanding of language, and would be developed by Whorf.{{sfn|Leavitt|2010|p=135}}