Sapir Whorf hypothesis in action or thereabouts

Sapir Whorf hypothesis is a theory developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf that states that the structure of a language determines or greatly influences the modes of thought and behavior characteristic of the culture in which it is spoken. I believe it follows that if the structure is ‘deficient’ in some sense,  the thought and behaviour is also correspondingly ‘deficient’.  Since Language is a great differentiator along cultural as well as linguistic lines, one can also safely extrapolate that the cultures that are deficient, sufficient or rich in language may also be respectively and accordingly so.
I believe it should be explained that, the experiences common to a cultural group are the foundations on which their shared values, beliefs and assumptions (in short, culture) are built, generates appropriate sounds, inflections, phonemes, morphemes, semantics, syntax and all the other units that are used to describe language and that is why language and culture as so inseparable and is a more complete argument. Language does not originate from a vacuum as is implied by the Sapir Whorf hypothesis as stated above.


It follows therefore that by analysing the language and perhaps arriving at the unique expressions of a linguistic group one may reverse trace the original experiences of that group. Since we cannot usually go back in time, it may remain a matter of conjecture and a plausible one, nevertheless is a good intellectual pursuit if one is inclined so.  So did my argument of ‘barabar’ for ‘right?’ or ‘okay?’ of the Gujaratis, while the original in Hindi means ‘equal’. Ok for equal I argued is an expression of the underlying industrial, commercial instinct of the Gujarati of something of equal value given in return and therefore a fair transaction and therefore ok. This is more in line with discourse analysis with some extrapolations.

I witnessed two expressions of Mallus which indicated the thought process in Hindi which happened to be the local language from childhood, but when forced to speak to listeners who were predominantly Mallu it gave away the structure of the original Hindi though in Malayalam it made less sense or grammatically no sense. The expression was ‘varaan koduthilla’ which is no expression in Malayalam but a translation of ‘aane nahi diya’ in which made perfect sense in Hindi and meant ‘did not allow entry’.

Similar was another boy’s expression ‘patti kadichu karega’ in Malayalam and Hindi mix which was a translation of the Hindi ‘kutha kaatta karega’ which means ‘the dog will bite’ or more specifically ‘the dog will do the bite’ in Hindi but no such expression existed in Malayalam or English. Can we extrapolate therefore that in spite of being born to Malayali parents, because of the upbringing  in the North, these children are more likely North Indian culturally?

Of debates and its corruption: Burning issue

Dear Arnabji,

I am fully aware of the ‘argumentative Indian’ epithet given to us Indians by none other than the Nobel laureate and apart from the book though, always wondered whether it is more compliment or a sarcasm.

I do believe with aging I have come to conclude that the term argumentative is less of a compliment, generally though of course to argue as in a court of law is not a negative term, but is in the sense of presenting one’s case forcefully and convincingly and with logic.

Like many things in India which are on top of the other for instance the traffic where one lane is on top of the other, judging the way people drive, the cyclist, the two wheeler, the three wheeler, the four wheeler, six wheeler or any wheeler chooses himself to be in any of the lanes they sweetly prefer to be which make me wonder one lane is on top of the other. Not to mention the pedestrian and cattle preferring a perpendicular lane and now a days the new gen bikers with  a definitive preference for a ‘crass – cross’ lane amidst the other lanes. Some foreigner even took it to the extreme of commenting that the Indian road chaos is nothing but a way of max optimising the road usage with any little empty space at any given time, used irrespective of the rightful lane though with scant regard  for crossing the lane ‘left, right and centre’ which happens to be the name of a similar programme on another channel. His argument was that the number of accidents, given the chaos, was too little as to be ignored while the system worked nonetheless with a certain efficiency.

I am reminded of the same argument while trying to listen to watching your programme ‘Burning issue’ with the ominous flames on the screen. Every speaker speaks away at his own sweet convenience irrespective of and disrespective of whether someone else is speaking or not. True other channels also show similar tendencies, but your channel has taken it to an artful din a la ‘artful dodger’ of Oliver Twist fame.  I wonder at the role of the journo at such a juncture. Is your job to provoke further din by poking them adding more argumentative fuel to the melting idiot cauldron. I am not convinced ‘the nation has a right to know’ when what is being said to be known is barely decipherable in the cacophony.

In fact I always thought may be wrongly, the job of the journo is to be a moderator a la debate in such circumstances for the benefit of the decorum and the listener and for the process and for the outcome which is a truth, a perspective or more clarity and conclusion on the matter at discussion.

The argumentative Indian or the debater on the idiot box speaks away a priori argumentative axiomatic truth with nary a budge from the original position. Where is the debate then? Shouldn’t there be a withholding of a priori posturing and an openness to the views, a respect for the opposition and above all a respect for the opposite party’s right to disagree, a cornerstone of liberal democracy itself?  Shouldn’t debate be dynamically adaptive to the views of the other debaters and to the insightful comments of the moderator?

Instead ‘we the nation’ has to listen to the debater and the moderator ‘one on top of the other’ in the evening time a la chaotic traffic of the daytime. When the one who is supposed to be the moderator of the burning passion is the one hogging the most time in which case it might as well be a speech or a lecture, why do you need a debate to display the debating skills of the moderator. Isn’t it like the traffic warden joining the chaotic traffic down from his pedestal?

I am not surprised at the admirers of the show who all belong to  the class ‘argumentative Indian’ now that we cannot escape the epithet, but I wonder what they admire other than the chaos. Even the rashest driver in the country wishes secretly for the day when our traffic is streamlined and less congested and orderly a la the developed countries. Isn’t moving towards more sobriety, especially in the public space, a sign of maturing and isn’t moving the society towards more maturity a journalistic endeavour too?

Or is there a primeval instinct in us to enjoy chaos on the box and on the streets? I was reminded of the large retail store that did research and found that the Indian consumer actually wanted and preferred the store to be chaotic a la local kirana  store and hence the artificial chaos adopted in some of the new gen stores.

Have you also done your homework and found that the Indian listener would rather listen to many voices at the same time and speak at the same time with two hoots to the other speakers? If so then what is being debated, what is the conclusion or  synthesis when  the one who is supposed to be the synthesiser also joining the din with apparently legitimate journalistic right? We the listener has a right to know…. Alas…