What caught my attention the most was actually the correlation Culler made between language and thought. Specifically, the “extreme view” that comes from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that states what we think is governed by what language we speak. When he mentions, “Whorf argued that the Hopi Indians have a conception of time that can’t be grasped in English”(pg60), I was baffled. How hard could it be to translate seconds, days, and years?

Just after that, Culler says that the French have no corresponding word to English’s “pets”. Does this mean that French people lack animal companions, furry and otherwise? Of course not! (I know, I’ve seen it.) Fun fact: the closest translation you can get in French would be “animal de compagnie”. Which when literally translated into English becomes “animal of company”; I personally find this a far more fitting description of, say, a dog. And there it is! To some, the term “pet” may seem demeaning – just some thing you own. In this context, it might appear odd to view “man’s best friend” as something you just happen to buy at the local pet store; like buying a t.v. from Best Buy. “Animal of company”, now there is a term that commands respect and shows appreciation. I’m beginning to understand exactly why translators often say “there’s no word for it in English”, or, “the closest it comes to is/ a rough translation is”. Language is heavily influenced by the speaker’s view of the world. I’m reminded of my frustration with Spanish, and its insistence of assigning genders to inanimate objects. Is a bicycle called a “bicicleta” (“a” being female) because it looks feminine?

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.