Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Definition

Before we get into a deeper analysis of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, let's first equip ourselves with a definition:

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is also known as the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. We will use both terms in this article.

Summary of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

In summary, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests the language a person uses determines or influences their thinking or worldview. The grammatical and lexical structures used by a person (or population speaking the same language) do have a significant impact on their cognition, according to the hypothesis.

The relationship between language and thinking can be seen in how language is influenced by cultural factors. The culture of a country or demographic is essentially the set of beliefs and values through which we experience and perceive the world. Each unique culture will have a different language or language variety. Because culture is specific to each group, each group will develop linguistic structures and different words to describe phenomena pertinent to their culture.

According to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, because different groups use different languages or use language in different ways, they will perceive the world differently. According to the hypothesis, these two phenomena are inextricably (impossible to separate) linked.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Example

It's one thing to understand what the hypothesis states. It's another thing to understand how it works. Let's look at a couple of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis examples to help illustrate what the hypothesis proposes.

Example 1:

Fig.2. The Inuit have over 40 words for different kinds of snow.

Example 2:

Example 3:

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Evaluation

Now that we know what the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is and have seen some examples of it in action, we can move on to our Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis evaluation.

There is a dichotomy (a division into two parts) that exists within the hypothesis. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is often spoken about in stronger or weaker terms. What do we mean by this?

Within the hypothesis of linguistic relativity, there are two sub-categories: linguistic determinism (stronger) and linguistic relativism (weaker).

Linguistic Determinism

This is the "stronger" way of viewing the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which states that cognition is determined by language. The assumption that can be made using this theory is that the language we use is the reason we think the way we do.

Each country and culture has its beliefs and values as a direct result of the language it uses. A country that does not have the language to describe a particular idea or concept cannot possibly understand or perceive it.

It is worth noting that linguistic determinism is generally believed to be reductionist and incorrect nowadays, as it doesn't take individual differences and subjective experience into account. We will touch on this again in the section on criticism of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Linguistic Relativism

Linguistic relativism is the "weaker" or less intense version of linguistic determinism. It states that the language a person uses influences their perception of the world but does not define it.

Linguistic relativism gives individuals a bit more credit than linguistic determinism, as it allows for the idea that people can still understand a concept even if they don't have the specific language to describe it. For example, let's look at the word hygge again. English-speaking people can still understand the concept of hygge, even though we don't have one specific word to describe it like the Danish and Norwegian people do.

Linguistic relativism is generally more widely accepted than linguistic determinism.

Criticism of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

As with all linguistic theories and hypotheses, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is not without its faults. Here are some examples of criticism of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:

• The linguistic determinism aspect of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is reductionist. It has long since been debunked that language is a direct determiner of cognition. Thought is a much more complicated process than simply being a result of a person's language. People are able to think about and understand concepts that they may not have the exact language for.

• There is an issue of causality. We cannot prove that language influences thinking. Could it be instead that thinking influences language? In the example of gendered vs. gender-neutral language, for instance, it could be assumed that the use of gender-neutral language shifted the perception and thinking of speakers to be more inclusive. However, it could also be theorized that speakers' evolving perceptions and thinking led to the introduction of more gender-neutral language. It's a classic chicken-and-egg situation.

• The hypothesis cannot be transferred or applied to all languages. There are examples we can look at for a particular language that might illustrate or suggest a basis for the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (e.g., the many words for snow used by the Inuit). However, there is no way to know for sure that other cultures don't also understand and perceive the different kinds of snow, even if they don't have the same breadth of vocabulary for it.

Fig. 3. Is it that gender-neutral language has shifted the perception of gender, or that perception of gender has led to more gender-neutral language?