Ask Your Question

Revision history [back]

Thanks for asking! Every linguist I know who has seen this movie has an opinion on it.

As for the process depicted in the movie--how the linguist approaches her task--it's accurate within the limits of how film works. In fact, the film was made with a linguist acting as a consultant! The linguist in the movie seems to be performing a variation of a "monolingual demonstration," a technique formalized and pioneered by linguist Kenneth Pike, which is an important first step in establishing a base vocabulary to work with when you are encountering an new language and you have no common language to act as a point of reference. She is also seen working with phonetic analysis software similar to Praat, a real program used by linguists to perform phonetic analysis. My understanding is that the filmmakers didn't have the rights to use real Praat, so they used a similar-looking fake. Her methodology in building a common vocabulary with the alien language is also perfectly accurate, at least in my experience. In fact, though every linguist has a slightly different opinion of this movie, I think it is probably the most accurate film depiction of the science and scientific process of linguistics I have ever seen. The way she answers the military's continued demands for instant results is also amusingly accurate.

This is not to say there aren't problems. In my opinion, its treatment of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is the most problematic, but, again, there are differing opinions. She states Sapir-Whorf thus: "the language you speak language DETERMINES the way you see the world." That's actually the "strong version" of Sapir-Whorf. By contrast, the "weak version" states that the language you speak INFLUENCES the way you see the world." I don't know any linguists who support the strong version, which is far too deterministic of a statement. Language, worldview, and perception are all fluid and changeable. It is possible to change one's worldview or perception without changing one's language, and vice versa--therefore the language you speak cannot have a DETERMINISTIC effect on perception/worldview. The weak version seems more probable, but isn't well attested, and hard to test or prove in a scientific way. How is the linguist to determine when they are seeing language influence perception, rather than the other way around?

So the film's dependence on the strong version of Sapir-Whorf is its weakest point, in my opinion. However, it presents a thoughtful and enjoyable exploration of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, at least, and it's certainly an interesting thought experiment.

There are other details that are troublesome, but not serious. The linguist in the film supposedly had military contacts because she translated Farsi for them once. But Farsi is a language with millions of speakers, and is considered a language of "critical interest" to the US. As such, the military certainly has plenty of Farsi translators. They don't need a linguist's help. In fact, the consulting linguist who worked on this film told them so.

It is definitely worth seeing despite the issues! Even setting aside the linguistics entirely, it's just a great, well-made, beautifully crafted film. I personally loved it, and I enjoyed the relative accuracy of the presentation of linguistics as a science, despite feeling there were some inaccuracies, even a crucial one in the form of its treatment of Sapir-Whorf.

Finally, for other movies, I honestly don't have any suggestions if what you are looking for is ACCURATE science. Movie linguistics and movie linguists are almost never accurate, and until this film, I have never liked a movie linguist.

My apologies for the long response. For more information about the linguistics in "Arrival," including some fascinating background information about how the filmmakers dealt with portraying a linguist, and more information about linguistics in the movies in general, this blog is one of my favorites:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=84