The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Culture refers to the values, norms, and beliefs of a society. Our culture can be thought of as a
lens through which we experience the world and develop shared meaning. It follows that the
language that we use is created in response to cultural needs. In other words, there is an obvious
relationship between the way in which we talk and how we perceive the world. One important
question that many intellectuals have asked is how the language that our society uses influences
its culture.

Anthropologist and linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf were interested in

answering this question. Together, they created the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that
how we look at the world is largely determined by our thought processes, and our language
limits our thought processes. It follows that our language shapes our reality. In other words, the
language that we use shapes the way we think and how we see the world. Since the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis theorizes that our language use shapes our perspective of the world, it follows that
people who speak different languages have different world views.

2. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis  
By Richard Nordquist
Updated on July 03, 2019
https://www.thoughtco.com/sapir-whorf-hypothesis-1691924

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the linguistic theory that the semantic structure of

a language shapes or limits the ways in which a speaker forms conceptions of the world. It came
about in 1929. The theory is named after the American anthropological linguist Edward Sapir
(1884–1939) and his student Benjamin Whorf (1897–1941). It is also known as the theory of
linguistic relativity, linguistic relativism, linguistic determinism, Whorfian hypothesis,
and Whorfianism.

History of the Theory

The idea that a person's native language determines how he or she thinks was popular among
behaviorists of the 1930s and on until cognitive psychology theories came about, beginning in
the 1950s and increasing in influence in the 1960s. (Behaviorism taught that behavior is a result
of external conditioning and doesn't take feelings, emotions, and thoughts into account as
affecting behavior. Cognitive psychology studies mental processes such as creative thinking,
problem-solving, and attention.)

Author Lera Boroditsky gave some background on ideas about the connections between
languages and thought:

1
"The question of whether languages shape the way we think goes back centuries; Charlemagne
proclaimed that 'to have a second language is to have a second soul.' But the idea went out of
favor with scientists when Noam Chomsky's theories of language gained popularity in the 1960s
and '70s. Dr. Chomsky proposed that there is a universal grammar for all human languages—
essentially, that languages don't really differ from one another in significant ways...." ("Lost in
Translation." "The Wall Street Journal," July 30, 2010)

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was taught in courses through the early 1970s and had become
widely accepted as truth, but then it fell out of favor. By the 1990s, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
was left for dead, author Steven Pinker wrote. "The cognitive revolution in psychology, which
made the study of pure thought possible, and a number of studies showing meager effects of
language on concepts, appeared to kill the concept in the 1990s... But recently it has been
resurrected, and 'neo-Whorfianism' is now an active research topic in psycholinguistics" ("The
Stuff of Thought.”Viking, 2007).

Neo-Whorfianism is essentially a weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and says that
language influences a speaker's view of the world but does not inescapably determine it.

The Theory's Flaws

One big problem with the original Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stems from the idea that if a person's
language has no word for a particular concept, then that person would not be able to understand
that concept, which is untrue. Language doesn't necessarily control humans' ability to reason or
have an emotional response to something or some idea. For example, take the German
word sturmfrei, which essentially is the feeling when you have the whole house to yourself
because your parents or roommates are away. Just because English doesn't have a single word for
the idea doesn't mean that Americans can't understand the concept.

There's also the "chicken and egg" problem with the theory. "Languages, of course, are human
creations, tools we invent and hone to suit our needs," Boroditsky continued. "Simply showing
that speakers of different languages think differently doesn't tell us whether it's language that
shapes thought or the other way around."

3. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/4-9-sapir.htm

R. S. Badhesha Spring 2002

It is often thought that the reality expressed in spoken word is the very same as the reality which
is perceived in thought.  Perception and expression are frequently understood to be synonymous

2
and it is assumed that our speech is based on our thoughts.  This idea presumes that what one
says is dependent of how it is encoded and decoded in the mind.   However, there are many that
believe the opposite: what one perceives is dependent on the spoken word.  To the followers of
this idea, thought is dependent on language.  Linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin
Lee Whorf are known for their part in the popularization of this very principle.  Their collective
theory, known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or more commonly the Theory of Linguistic
Relativity, holds great significance in the scope of all communication theory.  The theory also
fulfills the criteria, which essentially determine its workability.

The Theory of Linguistic Relativity holds that: one’s language shapes one’s view of reality.  It is
a mould theory in that it “represents language as a mould in terms of which thought categories
are cast” (Chandler, 2002, p.1).  More basically, it states that thought is cast from language-what
you see is based on what you say. 

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be divided into two basic components:

 Linguistic Determinism and

 Linguistic Relativity. 

The first part, linguistic determinism, refers to the concept that what is said, has only some effect
on how concepts are recognized by the mind.  This basic concept has been broken down even
further into “strong” and “weak” determinism (The Sapir-Whorf Hypotheses, 2002, p.1).  Strong
determinism refers to a strict view that what is said is directly responsible for what is seen by the
mind. 

 The other view on determinism, weak determinism, recognizes that there is indeed some affect
on perception of one’s language, but that this is not as clear as in strong determinism.  For
instance, in weak determinism language does not define one’s view of the world, whereas, in
strong determinism this view is defined strictly by language.

The second division of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is linguistic relativism.  This part of the
hypothesis can be defined: “distinctions encoded in one language are unique to that language
along,” and that “there is no limit to the structural diversity of languages” (The Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis, p.1).  As stated by Sapir himself:

3
 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…The fact of the matter is that the “real
world” is to a large extent unconsciously built 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. (as cited in Litteljohn, 2002, p. 177).

This view of cognition can be more simply defined as meaning: the language which one is
brought up in (socially exposed to and taught) is the language that that person will think and
perceive the world in.  

 Linguistic relativity opens the window to the realization that all languages do not translate to
each other.  One such example is of the Punjabi word “joot.”  This word in its most literal
translation to English means the “unclean,” “not pure,” or “with-germs” (as in half eaten food). 
No matter how many definitions one tries to construct—“joot” cannot be translated in its full
meaning.  This brings to mind that notion that language is relative, thus the same word can have
different meanings for different people and these subjective meanings let rise varying
cognitions.  Linguist Ferruccio Rossi Landi paraphrases “that the formal relationships of
language exert an influence on the rest of social life and on the way of thinking of the speaker of
that language”(Language As Work & Trade, 1983, p.114).

          Indeed language does have an effect on thinking and the Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis very
pragmatically presents this.  The first concept provided within the theory, linguistic
determination, makes sense when applied to reality.  In actual thought one does indeed perceive
concepts and objects in accordance to the words used to describe them.  In a personal experiment
I individually asked a group of my peers what they saw (in their “minds-eye”) when I said the
word “table.”  More than half of them saw a dining table, a few saw a coffee table, and one saw a
mathematical table.  This showed me that although all of the responses I received had specific
names (dining table, coffee table, etc.), their naming was triggered by one broad word: table. 

     After determining that this portion did indeed make good sense to me I continued my inquiry
into the second portion of the theory, linguistic relativity.  I then went and asked an elderly

4
relative of mine from India if they were aware of a word for coffee table in Punjabi (my ethnic
language) and the response was “no.”  There is no word for coffee table…so if they were asked
to visualize a coffee table when they were younger and still in their birth nation they would never
have cognitively recognized a coffee table (considering they were monolingual).  There is only
one word for table, the word “mech,” and it refers to a dining table. 

          The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis addresses the criteria that are set forth for evaluation and
meets them very well.  The first of these criteria is that of the theoretical scope.  This criterion
refers to the comprehensiveness of a theory.  When looking at what is included in the possible
factors of analysis for this theory, one can see that there are many possibilities: all of thought to
be more accurate.  Everything that is encoded and decoded and the language used by society and
cultures used all are encompassed in this theory.

          Next, the theory also has experimental scope. It can be tested with the help of experiment.
Appropriateness is also achieved by this theory.  The theory expects that the language by which
one is surrounded has an effect on how they decode and that encoding differs from language-to-
language and cannot always be translated.  In experimentation this has been tested and then
shown.  In my experiment, mentions earlier, I anticipated that the word “table” would bring to
different minds--different images, all because of the receiver’s different experiences with the
word.  This was then proven when I actually asked the question.  This experiment also supports
the experimental value of the theory. 

This validity, which was tested and found to be supported, is the next of the criteria.  From the
experiment as well as from earlier, more notable ones it can be noted that this theory holds great
value.  It also accomplishes correspondence validity because the theory is very observable and
has been observed numerous times. 

          Furthermore, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is very simple and logically sound.  It makes
complete sense that one’s atmosphere and culture will have an effect on their decoding. 
Referring back to the elderly Punjabi, they did not grow up with coffee tables; therefore, it did
not come to mind.  Likewise, in research done by the authors of the theory, many Indian tribes
do not have word for certain objects because they do not exist in their lives.    

5
       Finally, the Theory of Linguistic Relativity also achieves openness successfully.  The
theory is shown as a window through which to view the cognitive process, not as an absolute.  It
is set forth to be used in looking at a phenomenon differently than one usually would. 

Pragmatically the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis makes sense.  It has the potential to be used in
describing a great many misunderstandings in everyday life.  When one says a Pennsylvanian
says “yuns” it doesn’t make any sense to a Californian, but when examines it is just another word
for “you all.”  The Linguistic Relativity Theory addresses this and points out that it is all-
relative.  This notion of relativity, passes beyond dialect boundaries, and investigate the world of
language--from county-to-country and consequently from mind-to-mind.  Is language reality
truly a ward of thought or is it thought which occurs because of language. 

The Sapir Wharf Hypothesis very transparently presents a view of reality being expressed in
language and thus forming in thought.  The principles outlined here present a very pragmatic and
even simple view of how one perceives, but the question is still debatable: thought then language
or language then thought?