Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and its Implications in the Movie “Arrival”
- Introduction
“Arrival” is an American science fiction movie directed by Denis Villeneuve and published in 2016 based on the short story “The story of your life” by Ted Chiang (Poll). In the movie,12 alien spacecrafts went to 12 different nations on Earth, including the US, Russia, China, and Pakistan. Experts in various fields must decode the aliens’ presence and their language. A linguist was called upon to translate the aliens’ language and understand why they appeared in different parts of the world before launching a global war. The movie employs one of the popular linguistic theories called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is a theory that suggests that people’s thoughts are determined by the language they speak. There are two versions of this theory; the strong version or the linguistics determinism is less accepted by the linguists and it states that all human thoughts are determined by the language they speak, and the weak version or what is called linguistics relativisms implies that language shapes people’s thoughts “Ask A Linguist FAQ.”
2. Thesis
The movie portrayed the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in three different ways: the hard version which is portrayed in Louise’s physiological alteration after learning the language, the intermediate version depicted in the barriers of translation between aliens and humans and the possibility for misinterpretation due to entirely different languages, bodies, and worlds, and the soft version which is reflected in the different discourses (but in the same language) of specialists (linguists, mathematicians, military officials, etc.). Shedding light on this widely unaccepted theory has numerous implications that are mostly centered around the importance of language and communication.
3. Background information: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The “Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis” also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is defined by the American anthologist and linguist E. Sapir in his article, “The Status of Linguistics as a science’ and also elaborated upon by B.L. Whorf in his article “Science and Linguistics” (Hussein). This hypothesis stands for the fact that language plays a very significant role in people’s lives because it is not just a way to communicate, but it has an influence on people’s behavior and their way of the thinking (Hussein). In other words, people who speak differently tend to have different points of views about the world. The theory goes that the language, not only diction but also the syntax, does not just impact how people communicate with one another, but also how speakers of a language, and polyglots by extension visualize and interact with the world on a basic level. This inextricable relationship between language and worldview is the underlying concern not just of linguists, but storytellers, particularly the recent film “Arrival.” Sapir’s views on the relationship between language and culture are clearly expressed in the following passage taken from his book Language:
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the real world is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group…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 207).
Sapir and Whorf had no shared hypothesis together on language; it was until Sapir died that Whorf started studying Sapir’s ideas (Penko). Whorf’s theory originated in his study of Eskimo vocabulary for snow. He argued that because “people lived so intimately with the snow of the Arctic, they had developed far more terms to describe it than people of other cultures” (Penko). Then, Whorf wrote. “The grammar of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas” (Penko). This hypothesis was eventually dismissed by some linguistics such as Chomskey, who said that languages share something in common, and the linguist Steven Pinker who claims his 1994 book The Language Instinct that “the more you examine Whorf’s arguments, the less sense they make.” Nevertheless, some linguists reconsidered this hypothesis, and they embraced it, such as the linguist Lera Boroditsky who studied Pormpuraaw tribes and discovered that their perception of time was different not because of the language they speak, but because it “relates to cardinal directions” (Penko).
4. How is the Hypothesis portrayed in the movie?
The hard version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can be seen in Louise’s physiological alteration after she studied the alien language. The alien language in the movie does not have a beginning or an end and it is circular unlike human language which is leaner. When the linguist Louis is asked to decipher the alien language, she starts seeing the world differently; her perception of time changes. There are different scenes that show Louis perception of time alteration. One of them, when Louis was attempting to decipher the aliens’ language sitting on her desk, she was having flash forwards of her daughter. The daughter was showing her a picture of her mom and dad. Another scene shows that Louis was imagining her daughter old talking to her and asking her about the meaning of a specific word, and then she imagined herself giving birth to her baby, then she imagined herself having a daughter who had a cancer. All this is her future, but she can see it in her present. While she was trying to decipher the alien language, she started dreaming in that language and having flash wards, and that is one of the key points discussed in Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
The intermediate version is reflected in the barriers of translation between aliens and humans and the possibility for misinterpretation due to entirely different languages, bodies, and worlds. The barrier of language is clearly depicted in the movie. There is a scene that shows Louis confusion when she heard the word “weapon” used by the aliens. In the scene, when Louis went to the aliens by herself, she asked them to send a message and they said, “Louis has weapon,” while the aliens were saying that, the camera was capturing Louis facial expressions which showed clear confusion and uncertainty about the word’s meaning. Then there was a reestablishment shot that captured the alien sign for “use weapon.” Also, when Louis told the team about the alien’s use of the word ‘weapon,’ they were very worried because they thought that the word had the same meaning in English, which they thought was posing a threat on humanity. However, Louis was trying to explain to them that the word may mean something else in the alien language and she was right because at the end it turned out that the word meant “gift,” so the aliens were there to give a gift to humanity. According to Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, words may mean different things in different languages, and this should be taken into consideration because having different languages may lead to misinterpretation.
The soft version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is reflected in the different discourses of specialists who have different views about solving the issue because of their different backgrounds. When the aliens arrived, the colonel Weber called the linguist Louis and the Mathematician Ian to join other team contained of military officials. Their visions towards the alien language was different because they had different backgrounds. When Weber, Ian and Louis all were in the airplane, they talked about the different ways to understand the aliens. Weber said, “we need to know where they are from,” then Ian said that “we need to know how the aliens got here,” and while trying to say the other mathematics-related questions, Louis interrupted him by saying “how about talking to them before throwing math problem at them.” In other words, Ian, the mathematician, sees that the best way to understand the aliens is to use math and logic, while Louis, the linguist, thinks that the best way is to understand their language and have relationship with them. However, Weber thinks that the best way is to understand why they are there instead of wasting time trying to make relationship with them. This shows that clashes may exist even between people who speak the same language because of their different backgrounds.
5. The implications of using Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in the movie
Employing Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the movie “Arrival” has many implications and most of them are centered around the importance of language and communication. Eves Goddard a curator and linguist in the National Museum of Natural History’s Department of Anthropology claims that using this hypothesis in the movie is done to show the significance of language because people are oblivious of how it really works, and he also claims that “it is not about aliens, it is about us” (Penko).
Language and communication play a significant role in creating peace all over the world. The movie wants us to see language differences not as a threat, yet as something beneficial that even helps the whole world. This can be seen when the political leaders and others in the movie were unwilling to communicate with the aliens thinking that the aliens were positing a danger on the world; however, the linguist was trying to persuade them that understanding them may save humans. When they were trying to decipher the language, the word “weapon” was used by the aliens, which made the political leaders even more worried, but the linguist was attempting to explain to them that the word may mean something else in their language and she was right because at the end, it turned out that the word meant “gift.” Altogether, communication is the best way to avoid misunderstanding.
We live in such a chaotic world, innocent people are killed, political leaders were not able to solve this, and no one was able to solve it, so choosing a linguist to do this job is very telling because when we talk about a linguist, we talk about language. The idea is that peace can be achieved by trying to understand others. In the movie, the linguist was able to prevent a huge catastrophe which was a conflict between humans and aliens. Politicians, military personnel, and political leaders saw the alien language as a threat. Louis, the linguist, understood that the leaders’ reaction and analysis to the alien languages was not because of them, yet it was because of the language they spoke that made them see the alien language as ‘the other” (Poll). This created the binary opposition of ‘us’ vs ‘them,’ which made the world a place of competition and conflict (Poll). Accordingly, she tried to persuade them that communication with the aliens was very important. For example, in the movie China was planning to attack the aliens, yet because the linguist was able to see the future, she tried to reach out to the Chinese leader and asked him not to do that. The Chinese leader changed his mind and did not attack the aliens. We see him in one scene thanking Louise for stopping him from attacking the aliens. This is very significant because it explains that not everything is solved by violence, and that communication is the best way to solve problems. This was clearly stated by Louis in the preface of her book and read loudly by Ian, “language is the first weapon drawn in conflicts.”
To stop the Chinese General from launching an attack on the alien, Louis told him his wife’s words which are “In war there are no winners, only widows” (Martinilli). These words stopped the leader from attacking the aliens. If we dig deeply into the meaning of these words, it emphasizes the point I made earlier. War is not the best solution, war is going to cause many men to die, which will result in having orphans and widows. This sentence said by the general’s wife and used by Louis to stop war has many connotations. It stresses the importance of language as a uniting tool and it is the best way the solve conflicts between countries.
The same idea was discussed by Rawan Hooper in his article, “The science behind the movie ‘Arrival’.” Hooper claims that in most of sci fi movies, they send “gun-toting heroes” to combat the aliens, yet this time they send a linguist that is played by Amy Adams. Some of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis supporters “think that the cognitive benefits of language helped spur its evolution” and that what is discussed in the movie that the fate of humanity and that of the aliens depend on our understanding of the alien language (Hooper). Hooper also implies that the movie using Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is done to transmit a specific message to all people, it is to let people know the power of language in solving so many conflicts. He stated that clearly when he said “In fact, “Arrival” is far more about human understanding, memory, love and fortitude than it is about an alien invasion.”
Julian Setian in her article “Award winning arrival demonstrates the importance of language,” maintains that trying to overcome our fears and be open to learn other languages and other cultures is a very significant theme in the movie. Louis said to government officials that “we need to make sure they understand the difference between a weapon and a tool, because language is messy, and one can be both.” This is a call not to rush and to take time to figure out what they mean because one word may mean something different in other languages. The movie changes from focusing on the alien encounter to focusing on the importance of understanding the others and the importance of language in communication. Setian concludes that “the movie’s lesson is that taking time to communicate cross-culturally with openness, sympathy and humility can lead to our developing a mutual understanding with others, which can have a positive effect on the world.”
William Dass talks about language in the movie and he focuses on Amy Louis Interaction with the colonel Weber. He claims that language is not just lexicon, because a person may read a text with words that he understands, but when they are put together, he would not be able to know what they mean. That is how Weber and Louis interaction is. He maintains that they have two different backgrounds, she is there to question the aliens and understand their answer and he is there to know their intent and act accordingly for the safety of the country. Weber is not interested in learning how to talk to them. His job and his background as a colonel makes him impatient with Louis and even rushing her. They have the same language and the same concern to make the country safe, but they approach the issue differently. Here he mentions the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis, and he says that “communication is way more than just words.” His idea is that even if we speak the same language, sometimes culture and the context stand as an obstacle behind mutual understanding. At the end, he makes the connection between Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the movie and the 2016 election. He addresses how the movie helps him alleviate the frustration caused by the 2016 election results because he realizes the importance of communication. He says that this is because in this country, there is no political communication. He decides to have more communication with other people no matter how different their ideas are, which will solve the problem of bigotry in the country.
The movie is about how different people respond to a human crisis and how they all get together despite their different discourses. As the aliens appeared in 12 countries, The USA army put the best people to solve the crisis. The message is that humanity is best when humanity works together (“What Arrivals say about Humanity”). For example, Louis and Ian meet despite having different ways on how to approach the issue. Ian thinks more mathematically and more logically to solve the problem and Louis is thinking on how to connect with aliens and have a relation with them. Despite their differences, Ian joins Louis to do the job. This film was produced in 2016, a time of the election. That is a powerful message, that working together is the best way to solve a problem despite the differences (“What Arrivals say about Humanity”). It does not matter if you a Republican or a Democrat, working together is the best way to help America.
The importance of language and communication is further tackled in the movie by using symbolism (“Arrival’s Ending Explained: Language and Symbolism”). The movie stresses a different form of communication by using symbolism. Having several shots of the shape of the spacecraft, which looks like contact lenses, indicates that “you should open your eyes” to see the world clearly (“Arrival’s Ending Explained: Language and Symbolism”). In addition, there is a story said by Louis to Weber, and when she finishes, she admits to Ian that the story is not true, but it proves her point. What the whole movie is all about, its story is not true, but it conveys a significant message, which is the power of language and communication in resolving conflicts.
6. Conclusion
Overall, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is used in three different ways in the movie which can be seen, in Louis physiological alteration, language barrier, and the different discourses of the specialists. The hypothesis may be hard to accept in the real world, but there is something about it that is used in the movie to transmit a message, two take away messages; we should not rush and judge others because they are different from us, and we should always give ourselves a chance to understand people because words in one language may mean something different in other languages. The movie argues that language will always be imperfect and imperfectly transferable and expressible, but that the attempt to understand, the attempt, sincere and divorced from ulterior motives, to understand another is the only way to bring about positive changes in the world. Success is unnecessary and arguably impossible. It’s the trying that matters.
Work cited
“Arrival’s Linguistics Relativity and Time Perception are awesome.” Youtube, uploaded by Sideline Picture, 12 November 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QAujmYORLA
“Arrival’s Ending Explained: Language and Symbolism.” Youtube, uploaded by Atz Show,12 November 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-EQ9IhDRKc
“Ask A Linguist FAQ: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.” The Linguist List international linguist community online, The Linguist List, linguistlist.org/ask-ling/sapir.cfm.
Dass, William. “Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival and the Importance of Communication.” Film SchoolRejects, FSR, 14 Nov. 2016, filmschoolrejects.com/denis-villeneuves-arrival-and-the-importance-of-communication-8fcba66585f4/.
Hooper, Rowan. “The science behind the movie ‘Arrival’.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 14 Nov. 2016, www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-science-behind-the-movie-arrival/2016/11/14/5e344114-a6a7-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html?utm_term=.5e6433195cf2.
Hussein, Basel Al-Sheikh. “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Today.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 2.3 (2012): 642
Martinelli, Marissa. “All Your Questions About the Mindbending Plot of Arrival, Answered.”Slate Magazine, Slate Magazine, 18 Nov. 2016, www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2016/11/18/all_your_arrival_plot_questions_explained.html.
Panko, Ben. “Does the Linguistic Theory at the Center of the Film ‘Arrival’ Have Any Merit?”Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 2 Dec. 2016, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/does-century-old-linguistic-hypothesis-center-film-arrival-have-any-merit-180961284/.
Pinker, Steven. The Language Instinct. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1994.
Poll, Ryan. “A Linguistics Revolution: ‘Arrival’ and the Politics of Language.” PopMatters,
PopMatters, 23 Feb. 2017, www.popmatters.com/feature/a-linguistics-revolution-arrival-and-the-politics-of-language/
Sapir, Edward. Culture, Language and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958. Print
Setian, Julian M. “Award winning arrival demonstrates the importance of language.” The Hill,
The Hill, 15 Feb. 2017, thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/319773-award-winning-arrival-demonstrates-the-importance-of-language.
“What Arrivals say about Humanity.” YouTube. Uploaded by Jack’s Movie Reviews, 4 Feb 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU93Z6N8QeA
