The Hopi time controversy is the academic debate about how the Hopi language grammaticizes the concept of time, and about whether the differences between the ways the English and Hopi languages describe time are an example of linguistic relativity or not. In popular discourse, the debate is often framed as a question about whether the Hopi have a concept of time. The debate originated in the 1940s when American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf argued that the Hopi conceptualized time differently from the Standard Average European speaker, and that this difference correlated with grammatical differences between the languages. Whorf argued that Hopi has "no words, grammatical forms, construction or expressions that refer directly to what we call 'time'" and concluded that the Hopi had "no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the universe proceeds at equal rate, out of a future, through the present, into a past." Whorf used the Hopi concept of time as a primary example of his concept of linguistic relativity, which posits that the way in which individual languages encode information about the world influences and correlates with the cultural world view of the speakers. Whorf's relativist views fell out of favor in linguistics and anthropology in the 1960s, but Whorf's statement lived on in the popular literature often in the form of an urban myth that "the Hopi have no concept of time." In 1983, linguist Ekkehart Malotki published a 600-page study of the grammar of time in the Hopi language, concluding that he had finally refuted Whorf's claims about the language. Malotki's treatise gave hundreds of examples of Hopi words and grammatical forms referring to temporal relations. Malotki's central claim was that the Hopi do indeed conceptualize time as structured in terms of a self-centered spatial progression from past, through present into the future. He also demonstrated that the Hopi language grammaticalizes tense using a distinction between future and non-future tenses, as opposed to the English tense system, which is usually analyzed as being based on a past/non-past distinction. Many took Malotki's work as a definitive refutation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Bernard Comrie, a linguist and specialist in the linguistic typology of tense, concluded that "Malotki's presentation and argumentation are devastating." Psychologist Steven Pinker, a well-known critic of Whorf and the concept of linguistic relativity, accepted Malotki's claims as having demonstrated Whorf's complete ineptitude as a linguist. Subsequently, the study of linguistic relativity was revived using new approaches in the 1990s, and Malotki's study came under criticism from relativist linguists and anthropologists, who did not consider the study to invalidate Whorf's claims. The main issue of contention is the interpretation of Whorf's original claims about Hopi, and what exactly it was that he was claiming made Hopi different from what Whorf called "Standard Average European" languages. Some consider that the Hopi language may be best described as a tenseless language, and that the distinction between non-future and future posited by Malotki may be better understood as a distinction between realis and irrealis moods. Regardless of exactly how the Hopi concept of time is best analyzed, most specialists agree with Malotki that all humans conceptualize time by an analogy with space, although some recent studies have also questioned this.
The Hopi language The Hopi language, spoken by some 5,000 Hopi people in the Hopi Reservation in Northeastern Arizona, is a Native American language of the Uto-Aztecan language family. In the large Hopi dictionary, there is no word exactly corresponding to the English noun "time." Hopi employs different words to refer to "a duration of time" (pàasa' "for that long"), to a point in time (pàasat "at that time"), and time as measured by a clock (pahàntawa), as an occasion to do something (hisat or qeni), a turn or the appropriate time for doing something (qeniptsi (noun)), and to have time for something (aw nánaptsiwta (verb)). Time reference can be marked on verbs using the suffix -ni
Momoyam piktota, "The women are/were making piki," Women piki-make Momoyam piktota-ni, "The women will be making piki," Women piki-make-NI The -ni suffix is also used in the word naatoniqa, which means "that which will happen yet" in reference to the future. This word is formed from the adverb naato "yet"; the -ni suffix and the clitic -qa that forms a relative clause with the meaning "that which..." The -ni suffix is also obligatory on the main verb in conditional clauses:
Kur nu' pam tuwa nu' wuuvata-ni, "if I see him I'll run away," If I him see I run-NI The suffix is also used in conditional clauses referring to a past context then often combined with the particle as that carries past tense or counterfactual meaning, or describes unachieved intent:
Pam nuy tuwáq nu' so'on as wayaani, "If he had seen me I wouldn't have run," he me see I Neg Past/Counterfact. run-NI Nu' saytini, "I will smile," I smile-NI Nu' as saytini, "I tried to smile/I should smile/I wanted to smile/I was going to smile," I Past/Counterfact. smile-NI The suffix -ngwu describes actions taking place habitually or as a general rule.
Tömö' taawa tatkyaqw yámangwu, "In the winter the sun rises in the southeast"
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
