Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a linguistic theory that was originally developed in 1929 by a linguist
named Edward Sapir. It was expanded upon by Sapir's student, Benjamin Whorf, leading to the
hypothesis's name. The simplest Sapir-Whorf hypothesis definition is a theory of language that suggests
that the language a person speaks determines or influences how they think. According to Sapir-Whorf, a
person's native language has a major impact on how they see the world. This theory is highly
controversial among linguists, and many reject it outright. Few linguists today believe that the Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis is correct in its original form, but some acknowledge that the language a person
speaks may have a minor effect on some aspects of thought. Although the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not
considered strong science, it is still an important part of the history of linguistics.

Linguistic Determinism

There are two major forms of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: linguistic determinism and linguistic
relativism. Linguistic determinism is considered the strong version of the theory and it is generally
thought to be incorrect today. Essentially, linguistic determinism states that language not only
influences but determines how a person thinks. One's native language is, therefore, something of a
psychological destiny. According to linguistic determinism, there are certain ways of thinking and certain
concepts that can only be understood by people who have a word for them in their language. One
common example of linguistic determinism is the idea that the Inuit have a much more sophisticated
understanding of snow than people from other cultures do because Inuktitut has many different words
for snow. This is incorrect for a number of reasons. First, Inuktitut has many different words to describe
snow because it is a polysynthetic language, meaning that a single word can contain many morphemes
and some sentences can be made up of a single long word. By virtue of its linguistic structure, Inuktitut
sometimes expresses in one word what might take several in English; this does not indicate a particular
understanding of snow, but rather a linguistic quirk found in languages around the world. Second, to
whatever extent Inuit people have a more sophisticated understanding of snow than members of other
cultures, that understanding can be attributed to cultural knowledge and experiences, not language. In
other words, an individual who grew up without a strong connection to Inuit culture and history, and
without living in a place with a lot of snow, but with Inuktitut as a native language, would have no
reason to understand snow better than speakers of other languages living near them.

Linguistic Relativism

While linguistic determinism is not considered a valid theory, linguistic relativity still has some
defenders. Relativism is essentially the less intense version of determinism in this case. According to
linguistic relativism, a person's native language influences, but does not determine, how they see the
world. While linguists are still debating the merits of linguistic relativism, there is some evidence that it
may be true in some cases. One example of linguistic relativism is the difference between egocentric and
geocentric languages. In egocentric languages, like English, people typically describe scenes and
directions in terms of directions like left and right; directional terms are relative to the speaker's body. In
geocentric languages, people use cardinal directions (north, south, east, and west) to describe spatial
relationships. While studies vary, there is some evidence to suggest that people who speak geocentric
languages are more aware of the cardinal direction that they are facing at any given time than speakers
of egocentric languages are. This suggests that one's native language can impact thought patterns to
some extent.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Culture

The major problem with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is culture. Culture is a broad term for the values,
norms, and beliefs of a society. A society's history, stories, social structure, religion, and languages are
all part of culture as well. The question that Sapir-Whorf attempts to answer is, how are language and
culture related? Does one impact the other, and if so, how? According to Sapir-Whorf, the answer to
these questions is as follows:

 How people look at the world is determined by their thought processes

 One's native language limits and determines one's thought processes
 Language, therefore, shapes cultural reality

This pattern of thinking applies to both linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism, though linguistic
relativism allows for more nuance. Ultimately, critics of Sapir-Whorf argue that this way of thinking is
backward. Language is instead an expression of culture, and it is culture that determines and influences
thought processes. Language only shapes reality to the extent that it is given meaning and power by a
society and a culture. Because it is extremely difficult and in many cases impossible to look at language
without the influence of culture, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is very difficult to prove.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Examples

There are a number of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis examples that have been put forward over the years.
Some linguistic determinism examples, like the myth about words for snow in Inuktitut, are easily
debunked. However, other examples may hold some weight. Some proponents of linguistic relativism
argue that sexist and racist language influence thought and behavior. Using sexist language may
contribute to a culture of disrespect and violence toward women. When people use more respectful
terms for others, the argument goes, they ultimately become less sexist or racist. Likewise, using
gender-neutral terms like ''firefighter'' instead of ''fireman'' may help to change the culture around
gendered job expectations. Detractors of this argument might point out that the cultural shift is what
drives the linguistic shift, and not the other way around.

Another example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in action is a study by Lucy and Shweder (1979) about
color. Different languages use different words to describe colors, and some languages have more color
words than others. Some languages, for instance, do not have different words for green and blue. Lucy
and Shweder found that people without words to differentiate certain colors had lower color memory
accuracy in some studies. While color memory may vary based on linguistic terms, it is essential to note
that color vision is never linguistically determined. Speakers of all languages can see the same range of
colors, but they sometimes use different words to describe them. In Russian, for instance, there are two
distinct words for what English speakers would call light blue and dark blue. Although the vocabulary is
different, Russian speakers see the same number of shades of blue with the same accuracy as English
speakers
Criticisms of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

There have been many thorough criticisms of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the decades since it was
first proposed that have been effective in debunking linguistic determinism. There are also many
criticisms of various aspects of linguistic relativism. Essentially, critics of Sapir-Whorf do not think that
the theory adequately accounts for the role of culture in people's worldviews. Similarly, critics argue
that many of the supposedly language-locked concepts that Sapir-Whorf proposes are actually
straightforward to translate. Not having a word to describe an experience does not prevent a person
from experiencing it. For instance, although English does not have a single term for the German word
schadenfreude, people who do not speak German can still feel (and express that they are feeling)
pleasure at another person's misfortune. Where experiences are difficult to translate, they are usually
difficult because of their close relationship with a complex culture.

Another major criticism of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that it can very easily perpetuate racist ideas.
For instance, when speaking in English, it is essential for speakers to mark tense in order to say when
something happens. Many other languages, like Mandarin, do not mark tense. According to the logic of
linguistic determinism, speakers of languages like Mandarin would not have a clear understanding of
linear time. This is, of course, ridiculous and false. Mandarin speakers instead use context and other
strategies to indicate when something takes place, and there is nothing wrong with their ability to
understand linear time. Supposedly untranslatable experiences and thought patterns are almost always
translatable for those willing to put in the effort to understand another language's nuances and the
nuances of the culture it is connected to. Ultimately, although there is some limited evidence for
linguistic relativism, language is a tool of culture, not the other way around. People are not beholden to
a native language as a lens through which to understand reality.

Lesson Summary

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a linguistic theory first proposed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf.
Essentially, it is a hypothesis about the connection between language and culture. Culture is a term for
the values, beliefs, and norms of a society. According to Sapir-Whorf, individuals' thought processes
determine how they see reality. Those thought processes are determined by language, meaning that
language ultimately dictates reality. The stronger version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is called
linguistic determinism; the more moderate version is linguistic relativism.

Some examples of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in action include the theory that using sexist language
contributes to sexist attitudes. Similarly, using racist language makes racism more pervasive. Using
respectful and sometimes gender-neutral language like ''firefighter'' instead of ''fireman'' can help
change cultural norms. Critics of Sapir-Whorf have pointed out that linguistic determinism does not
make sense and can actually perpetuate racist ideas when taken to its logical extremes. While there is
some evidence for some forms of linguistic relativism, critics point out the difficulty in determining
which aspects of thought processes are linguistically determined and which are culturally determined.