THEORY OF LINGUISTIC RELATIONSHIP OF SEPIR-UORF

The belief that people see the world differently - through the prism of their
native language, is the basis of the theory of "linguistic relativity" by Edward Sepir
and Benjamin Wharf. They sought to prove that the differences between "Central
European" (Western) culture and other cultural worlds (particularly the culture of
the North American Indians) were due to differences in language.
E. SEPIR AND B.L. WHARF. THE EMERGENCE OF THE THEORY
OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY.
Sepir-Whorf hypothesis (hypothesis of linguistic relativity) - developed in the
30's of the twentieth century. the concept that the structure of language determines
thinking and the way of knowing reality. It originated in US ethnolinguistics under
the influence of the works of E. Sepir and BL Wharf.

Edward Sapir (1884-1939) was an American

linguist and anthropologist. Born in Germany. He
graduated in 1904. Columbia University, later
engaged in research. From 1927 to 1931 he was a
professor at the University of Chicago and from
1931 at the University of Yale. Member of the
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1930),
president of the American Linguistic (1933) and
Anthropological (1938) unions.
The formation of Sepir's views as a scholar was
significantly influenced by the traditions of American
cultural anthropology of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which
engaged in descriptive studies of traditional societies on the American continent.
Much of Sepir's work is devoted to the analysis of Indian cultures. Ethnographic
material interested him as a linguist.

1
 Sepir was a supporter of structural linguistics, which was formed in that period,
one of the founders is considered to be his. The pathos of this trend was the desire
to move in the analysis of language from historical and descriptive constructions to
the use of methods of exact sciences, to give a systematic description of language,
similar to mathematical. De Saussure's semiological theories were of particular
importance to Sepir.
The results of the application of structural methods to the analysis of Indian
languages led him to the general theory of language, where the study of social
functioning of language, understanding the importance of language in human
socialization, as a result of E. Sepir hypothesized the crucial role of language in
deterministic understanding of the phenomena of reality. The names of objects that
exist in language, phenomena, events - are "sound patterns", stereotypical forms of
perception, which, while maintaining stability in culture, affect the process of
forming human ideas about these phenomena and events and their evaluation.

This theory was developed by Sepir's follower Benjamin Lee Wharf (1897-
1941), called the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis or the Sepir-Whorf Hypothesis,
and formed the basis of ethnolinguistics.
Benjamin Lee Wharf was born on April
24, 1897 in Winthrop, Massachusetts. He
studied at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, majoring in chemical
technology. In 1919 he went to work and
although Wharf worked in the company all
his life, devoting only free time to scientific
pursuits, he published many works on
linguistics. Many of them were included in
the collection "Language, Thinking and
Reality" (1956). He died on July 26, 1941.

2
 Wharf studied the Hopi language (the Utah-Aztec branch of the Tano-Aztec
languages), and it was on its basis that he formulated the foundations of the theory
of linguistic relativity.
According to this theory, the picture of the human world is largely determined
by the system of language in which he speaks. According to Wharf, grammatical
and semantic categories of language are not only tools for transmitting the thoughts
of a person who speaks, they also shape his ideas and guide his mental activity.
Therefore, people who speak different languages will have different perceptions of
the world, and in the case of significant structural differences between their
languages when discussing some topics, they may have difficulty understanding.
Because languages classify the environment differently, their speakers differ in the
way they relate to it: "We distinguish in the world of phenomena one or the other
not because they are self-evident; which must be organized by our consciousness,
The theory of linguistic relativity states that individuals divide the world into
fragments that are determined by the structure of their native language. For
example, if there are several different words in one language to denote a number of
related objects, and another language denotes these objects in one word, the native
speaker must first distinguish in his mind the characteristics that distinguish these
objects, while the native another language is not obliged to do so. Thus, native
speakers of different languages have different mental images of the same object. In
English there is only one word for snow, in Eskimo there are several; Eskimo
speakers need to distinguish between what kind of snow we are talking about:
falling or lying on the ground. Similarly, Wharf argues that grammatical
categories, such as time or number, also compel those who speak to perceive the
world in a certain way.
The theory of linguistic relativity has been controversial since its inception.
Most linguists and psychologists have argued that speakers of languages in which
certain distinctions are not made, but are able to do so if the need arises, although
perhaps not so easily and quickly. Sepir-Wharf's theory stimulated serious

3
discussions and experiments concerning the relationship between language and
thought.
Although there are many facts that support this hypothesis, some other data still
raise questions about its validity.
EARLY CONFIRMATION OF THE SEPIR-WHARF HYPOTHESIS.
Classification of objects.
In one of the first studies on language, in terms of approach to things, people
who speak Navajo and English Carol and Casagrande studied the relationship
between the system of classification of forms in language and how children pay
attention to the shape of objects when classifying them. The Navajo language has
an interesting grammatical feature, which is that certain verbs that denote actions
with objects (for example, "pick up", "throw"), turn into different linguistic forms
depending on what type of objects are operated. There are 11 such linguistic forms
for objects of different contours and properties.
With this in mind, scientists have predicted that such linguistic features may
affect cognitive processes. In their experiment, they compared how often children
whose main language is Navajo or English used their shape, appearance, or type of
material to classify objects. Children whose main language was Navajo were much
more likely than English-speaking children to classify objects according to their
form.
The results of these experiments, along with observations on the connection
between culture and vocabulary, provided the first confirmation of the idea that the
language we speak influences what thoughts come to mind. Language can thus act
as a mediator, helping to identify ways in which children understand some parts of
their world.
The language of color.
Another set of scientific studies that prove the validity of the Sepir-Wharf
hypothesis is work in the field of color perception. Gleason stated that: “The
continuous scale of color shades that exists in nature is represented in language by
a series of discrete categories ... There is nothing in the properties of the spectrum
4
or in the properties of its perception by man to force it to be divided in this way.
This specific method of separation is part of the structure of language.

REBUTTAL OF THE SEPIR-WHARF HYPOTHESIS

Judgments about the validity of the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis based on research
on color perception must take into account the fact that our ways of perceiving
colors are largely determined by our biological structure, especially the biological
structure of our visual system. This system is the same for people of all cultures.
Our biological structure plays a very important role in our perception of color
and can lay a universal foundation in the nature of this perception, regardless of
linguistic differences in color names. In this case, it would be surprising to find
differences in the perception of colors based on language. Thus, we cannot reject
the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis simply because language seems to have little effect on
how we perceive colors. In fact, if we look at other areas of human behavior, we
will find there strong evidence to support the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis.

AND AGAIN CONFIRMATION OF THE SEPIR-WHARF

HYPOTHESIS.
Since the appearance of the first scientific papers that support and later refute
the Sepir-Whorf hypothesis, many other studies have been conducted, and some of
them confirm the validity of this hypothesis.

Causal relationships.
Niekawa-Howard examines the relationship between Japanese grammar and
Japanese perceptions of the causes of events. In Japanese, there is traditionally an
interesting passive verb form, which includes the following meaning: because the
subject of the sentence "was forced" to do the action expressed by the main verb,
he is not responsible for the action itself and its results. Of course, we can convey
this information in Ukrainian, but we will have to use a lot of additional words and
5
phrases. The Japanese verb in the passive form conveys this meaning in a veiled
form. Niekawa-Howard notes that people whose native language is Japanese and
who often encounter this passive form are more likely than people to take
responsibility for others, even if the results are positive.

Bloom's experiment: A hypothetical explanation.

Another piece of evidence that supports Sepir's Wharf hypothesis is Bloom,
who reports that people who speak Chinese less than those who speak English tend
to give hypothetical interpretations to hypothetical stories. He interprets these
results as strong evidence in favor of the fact that the structure of language serves
as a mediator for cognitive processes. Because Chinese and English are very
different in the transmission of hypothetical content.
In English, the conditional tense is used (If I were you, "if I were you"). In
Chinese, there is no conditional tense (the grammatical Chinese equivalent of the
phrase "if I were you" in a literal translation looks something like this: "it will be if
I am you").

Differences in cognitive abilities

Another argument for Sepir's Wharf hypothesis is that scientists have confirmed
that at least some differences in cognitive abilities are based on differences in
language structure. They compared the mental processes of people who speak
English and Tarahumara, the language of the natives of the Yucatan Peninsula in
Mexico, which has no difference between the concepts of "blue" and "green".
The researchers gave the participants two non-linguistic tasks, both of which
included choosing from pieces of colored glass that "differ most" in color from
other pieces. It turned out that participants shared colors better when they could
use the strategy of naming them, and this shows us that linguistic differences can
affect the performance of non-linguistic tasks.

Other evidence of linguistic relativity

6
 Several other studies provide compelling evidence to support linguistic
relativity. For example, Lucy, comparing American English with the language of
the Yucatan Maya tribes living in southeastern Mexico, identifies different patterns
of thinking related to differences in language. Hussein shows how the unique
features of the Chinese language affect the ease of information processing. Site and
Baker in their study - the effects of language on the quality and order of
reproduction of figures in the form of visual images, also conclude in favor of the
Sepir-Wharf hypothesis.
Together, these works provide significant support for the Sepir-Wharf
hypothesis.

NEW REFUTATION OF THE SEPIR-WHARF HYPOTHESIS

Despite convincing evidence in favor of the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis, some work
still leads to results that do not support the theory of linguistic relativity. Au, for
example, denies Bloom's interpretation of his data. Au reports the results of five
experiments designed to replicate Bloom's experiment using Chinese and English
versions of the same stories used by Bloom, and concludes that the propensity for
hypothetical interpretations is probably not related to the use of conditional bias. in
the language. Liu also failed to replicate Bloom's experiment.
Takano discusses both the conceptual and methodological issues associated
with Bloom's experiments, arguing that the positive results obtained by Bloom may
be the product of methodological inaccuracies. To study the nature of these
inaccuracies, Takano conducted three experiments and concluded that the reason
for the differences that Bloom spoke of could be a difference in the level of
mathematical training, rather than linguistic differences. There are also other
studies conducted decades after the hypothesis that contradict its validity.
The controversy over the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis continues in the scientific
literature, and, no doubt, the importance of its possible consequences plays not the
least role here. In the absence of solid evidence to support or refute this hypothesis,

7
some scholars have recently put forward several alternative models of the
relationship between language and thinking.

Many scientific papers on the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis look as if they are not the
same hypothesis - in fact, they consider several different Sepir-Whorf hypotheses.
In 1960, Joshua Fishman published a comprehensive classification of the most
important ways to discuss this hypothesis. In his description, these different
approaches are arranged in increasing complexity. Of the four levels, the simplest
is level 1, the most difficult is level 4. Levels 3 and 4 are actually the closest to
Sepir and Wharf's original ideas about grammar and syntax of language, not
vocabulary.
From Fishman's point of view, the area of lexical differences between
languages is the most studied, which gives only partial support to the hypothesis of
linguistic relativity. However, the less studied area of syntactic and grammatical
differences between languages provides us with convincing evidence to support the
view that language influences ways of knowing the world.
LanguagesТdiffer, and these linguistic differences are due to important
differences in customs and generally accepted norms of behavior in the cultures
where these languages develop. Culture is closely connected with both vocabulary
and pragmatics of language. And, despite some skepticism about the strength of
the Sepir-Wharf hypothesis, a painstaking study of cross-cultural research to test it
confirms at least part of it.

8
 SOURCES
1. https://www.simplypsychology.org/sapir-whorf-hypothesis.html
2. https://www.thoughtco.com/sapir-whorf-hypothesis-1691924
3. https://www.unitedlanguagegroup.com/blog/the-sapir-whorf-
hypothesis-and-languages-effect-on-cognition
4. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/
Linguistics/Book%3A_Languages_and_Worldview_(Allard-Kropp)/
03%3A_The_Ethnolinguistic_Perspective/3.01%3A_Linguistic_Relativity-
_The_Sapir-Whorf_Hypothesis
5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/sapir-whorf-
hypothesis#:~:text=The%20strong%20form%20of%20the,use%20different
%20languages%2C%20Whorf%20claimed.