Psych 17N: Language and Society
Nikola Milanovic
Do we think differently in Serbian and English?
If one were to call up their friend, in English, and ask them ‘to meet at restaurant,’ the sentence would be grammatically incorrect and informationally incomplete. However, in Serbian, this sentence would be normal. Why is that, and does it have any impact on the way speakers of the two respective languages think? The general theory of this paper is that differences can exist between languages, which cause people to think differently in those languages. The focus of the paper specifically is on the differences between Serbian and English in information pertinent to communication. The hypothesis of this essay is that, because Serbian lacks the articles ‘a’ and ‘the,’ speakers of the two languages communicate differently, which both causes and is caused by different patterns of thought. This essay will lie out a hypothetical experiment to confirm the hypothesis.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis explains a theory that accounts for why we may have different thought processes in different languages. The hypothesis states that our thinking is determined by language and that people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world differently. (The Sapir) According to linguist Edward Sapir, “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... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.” (Sapir 1958: 69)
Linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf expands on this theory, commenting that “We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. […] 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.” (Whorf 1940: 213-214)
There are many criticisms of this theory. Modern linguists generally do not accept the notion that language imprisons people into certain patterns of thought. However, the view that language has no impact on how people think is also widely rejected by linguists. (“Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis”) The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis does lend itself to the experiment laid out in this essay to test the differences in thought patterns between Serbian and English, however. Regardless of whether the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is itself correct or false, this essay seeks to demonstrate that, at least in the specific case laid out, language does play a key role in determining how people think.
The definition of ‘the’ states that the word is “used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an.” (Dictionary.com) Conversely, ‘a’ is defined as meaning “not any particular or certain one of a class or group.” (Dictionary.com)
This changes the nature of which nouns are referred to in which ways with the specific articles. Whereas little information is necessary when referring to a general object, such as ‘a house,’ specific, shared information is necessary for communication about a specific object, such as ‘the house.’ In English, when the word ‘the’ is used, such as in the phrase “I lost the game today,” certain background knowledge is necessary between the speaker and their audience in order for the idea of the sentence to be communicated effectively. In Serbian, the sentence would be rephrased as “Ja sam gubio igrati danas” (I lost game today). Though both phrases can communicate the idea of a specific game, the information presented by them is different. By using ‘the’ in the English sentence, it is normally inferred that the two speakers are both referring to one game, which implies that they a) have previous knowledge of the game and b) have previously communicated about it. It at least implies that the speaker believes that his audience knows which game is being referred to. In Serbian, the object in the sentence is less specified due to a lack of articles; the ‘game’ referred to could be any general game because there is no implication in the phrasing that the speaker and their audience a) both know of the game or b) have previously communicated about it. In translation to English, it is necessary for the Serbian speaker to incorporate the articles ‘a’ or ‘the’ in order to indicate whether they are referring to a game that they believe the audience doesn’t know about or one that both parties know about (if I were to say “I lost a game today,” the sentence would require further explanation, whereas telling someone that “I lost the game” would imply that we both know of the game referred to). Thus, when the sentence is translated from English to Serbian and then back to English (word for word), there is less information contained in the phrasing.
What does this mean for thought processes in the two languages? There are multiple possible implications for the impact of this linguistic difference on the thought processes of the languages’ speakers. Firstly, by using the word ‘the’ in English, the speaker forces the audience to bring up a recollection of information in order to establish what is being referred to by the article. Using the word ‘a’ instead would imply that there is no shared knowledge of a specific object between the speaker and their audience, and would therefore not require the audience to browse their memory for information regarding the exact object. Using the already given example, if the speaker says, “I lost the game,” the audience must remember specifically which game in question the speaker lost. By saying “I lost a game,” the speaker implies that the audience has no previous knowledge of the game, and that therefore more explanation is required on the speaker’s part in order to specify which game they are referring to. Because Serbian does not have this distinction, “Ja sam gubio igrati danas” will make the audience automatically think of what game the speaker could assume they both have knowledge of. However, even if the speaker and their audience can communicate about the same game without specifying which one it is, the lack of distinction still exists. This is one way in which the difference in articles can create different thought processes.
A test must be run in order to determine whether this linguistic difference does actually create the different thought processes outlined. The test (which will be referred to in this paper as the Cup Test) proceeds as follows:
1) The tester brings the test subject to a table with many cups (preferably ceramic or glass cups, which will make noise if dropped and broken).
2) The tester proceeds to hold a conversation with the test subject, in which they mention that one of the cups is their favorite of the many, and highlight or show that cup specifically to the test subject.
3) After the conversation, the tester asks the test subject to leave the room.
4) After a short while, the tester comes out of the room and explains that they dropped a cup. Run in English, the tester should say, “I dropped a cup” in half the tests and “I dropped the cup” in half the tests. In Serbian, the tester would say “Ja sam ispustio pehar.” (I dropped cup).
The test should be run so that the test subject is unaware of the true nature of what the test concerns and unaware that the cup has any significance to the test. The conversation should regard a topic unrelated to the cup, and the presence of the cups should be self-explanatory (eg: left over from a previous meal), so as not to arouse suspicion that the cups play a role in the experiment.
According to the hypothesis, the test subjects will have different reactions to the statement of the tester. The test subject who is told, “I dropped the cup” in English should automatically assume that the tester is referring to the specific cup they highlighted in conversation. This is because the use of the word ‘the’ implies that there is a shared knowledge between the tester and the subject regarding which cup was dropped. The test subject who is told, “I dropped a cup” in English should respond by asking which cup was dropped (and possibly whether it was the favorite cup). This response should occur because the article ‘a’ generalizes the cup in question, meaning that the tester is not referring to a specific cup. As such, the phrase lacks sufficient information to inform the test subject which cup was dropped. The test subject of the Serbian version of the test should automatically assume that the cup dropped was the favorite cup highlighted in conversation. This is because the lack of articles to specify which cup was dropped should force the test subject to consult their memory in order to determine whether they can assume a specific cup is being referred to.
It is reasonable to assume that the Serbian test subject will react as noted because Serbian conversation points to such a reaction: Serbian speakers do not always question which object someone is referring to if they can assume the reference is made to a specific object of which both parties have knowledge. If it were the case that Serbian speakers did not make links to specific objects when they were referred to generally (such as in the sentence “I lost game”), the speakers would constantly be asking clarification questions about what is being referred to. As such, the test subject in question should automatically assume that the cup dropped was the favorite, instead of asking the tester to clarify which cup was dropped.
There are, however, limitations and ambiguities present in this test. The first limitation is one of an independent variable that cannot be controlled: whether the information is pertinent enough to the test subject. Because memory functions differently for different people (as exhibited by those with or without photographic memory or by people who can remember longer and in more detail than others), the test subjects will all consider different information in their conversations with the tester to be pertinent. As such, some test subjects may remember that a reference was made to a specific cup, while other test subjects might not.
The second ambiguity is whether or not it is possible to gauge the responses of the test subjects. For instance, though some may remember the specific, highlighted cup and assume the cup in question is the highlighted one, they may not give any indication that they have this recollection. Also, though the test subjects who hear the phrase with ‘a’ instead of ‘the’ might not be able to assume that the cup dropped was the favorite one, they still may not give any indication that they do not know this, and might not question which cup was dropped.
The question to answer now is whether the different reactions of the test subjects actually do point to different underlying thought processes. On the communicative side (the side of the person speaking), the thought process is different when considering how to communicate a thought in the two languages. The English speaker has to recall a) whether they share pertinent information with their audience or b) whether they can assume they do. Based on this consideration, they decide whether or not to use ‘a’ or ‘the’ in their sentence. The Serbian speaker doesn’t have to undergo this consideration. On the receptive side, the use of the word ‘the’ in an English phrase is equitable to the phrase’s Serbian translation, in that the phrases both cause the audience to recollect the specific object of the sentence. The use of ‘a,’ however, in an English phrase creates a different thought process than the Serbian translation of the same phrase. This is because the use of ‘a’ in the sentence implies that the speaker and their audience do not share common knowledge of the sentence’s object, thus the audience doesn’t have to attempt to remember which specific object the speaker is referring to. This difference in memory searching points to the idea that the lack of articles in Serbian causes different thought processes in Serbian than exist in English, because a specific object is always assumed.
It can be argued, however, that no actual distinction exists between the English and Serbian thought processes on the receptive side. The similarity between a Serbian sentence with an object and its English counterpart with the word ‘the’ could imply that this difference in information is just a difference in whether an ‘adjective’ is given in English that allows for clarification of which object is being referred to. As such, it can be argued that the use of the word ‘a’ in English is just an example of an ‘adjectival word’ being employed to specify an object.
However, this view of the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’ as fulfilling the same purpose as adjectives in conveying information is difficult to accept. Because these articles do not exist in Serbian, without sufficient adjectives or description, Serbian speakers are always forced to consider the many possible objects that someone may be referring to, and to either select one object from the many or to question which, if any specific, object is being referred to. As such, the words ‘a’ and ‘the’ do not play the same role as adjectives in that they merely describe words by distinguishing between the specific and the general; they are linguistic tools that exist to create a lighter burden of thought for English speakers. Because of these articles, more information is given in an English sentence than in its Serbian counterpart, which allows English speakers to determine whether they should be attempting to recollect what is being referred to. Therefore, this is where the difference in thought lies: English contains information in its sentence structures that allows its speakers to determine whether they should be recalling a specific object, or whether the object in question is general, and not specific to those engaging in a conversation. Serbian, by not employing these articles, automatically bypasses this initial consideration and forces Serbian speakers to attempt to recall what is specifically being referred to in a sentence before they can determine if a) a specific object is being referred to or b) the reference is only to a general object.
Therefore, on the communicative and receptive sides, it has been shown that there is a clear difference in thought processes regarding how Serbian and English speakers process information. The experiment, for the aforementioned reasons, should confirm the hypothesis that the existence of the articles ‘a’ and ‘the’ causes English speakers to think differently from Serbian speakers.
Works Cited
Dictionary.com. 2007. Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. December 4 2007.
Specific entries: ‘a’ and ‘the’.
Sapir, Edward. Culture, Language, and Personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1958.
“Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 4 December 2007
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. 18 September 1995. Aberystwyth University Department of Media and Communications Studies. 4 December 2007.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1956.
