The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Analysis of Linguistic

influence on Culture and Thought

Abstract
It’s been a debatable question that language followed by thought and culture or the other way
around. Famously quoted in celluloid, “Once you involve with new language you start dreaming
in it”, surely this shows extreme view but fact is that our thought and culture get influenced by
language we use to communicate with each other. We can desist that speakers of different
languages therefore have cognition differently because of language clout.
Keywords: Linguistic determinism thought, Influence, Indian-Korean speakers.

Introduction
Edward Sapir as a student of Franz boas got inspired to work on Native American Languages.
He attempted to establish relationship between Anthropology and Linguistics as well as
considered as the pioneer for using cognitive science in Anthropology. By conjugating these
discourses, he worked on various manners in which language influence culture and thought, this
approach of Sapir further developed by his pupil Benjamin Lee Whorf. He is famous for strongly
encouraging and promoting the idea that distinctive languages create frame for how their speaker
realize and analyze the world. Sapir and Whorf never formally formulated this hypothesis, not
even provided any empirical evidences to support it. In-depth study of their works gives notion
of their approach as Sapir withstand in a classic passage that:
“No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social
reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same
world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as
we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of
interpretation.” (Sapir 1958 [1929], p. 69)
This paper will begins with differentiating between what is linguistic influence (weak) and
linguistic determinism (strong) and later on how linguistic determinism failed to prove its worth
with reference to the Franz boas work on North American groups. In later Part, critical
examination of such evidences which prove that Language has influence on people and further
support provided by language influence on thinkingness while comparing Indo- Korean
perspective discussed at length.

Linguistic Determinism & Linguistic Influence: Which is fitter?

The Sapir and Whorf Hypothesis explains that Structural frame of language influence its
speakers world view or cognition. This hypothesis is often exemplified to two versions i.e.
Strong Version also known as Linguistic determinism states that language determines thought,
that linguistic section limit and determines cognitive divisions. And Weak version as Linguistic
influence states that linguistic section and usage determine at certain limit or only influence
thought and cultural aspects. Linguistic Determinism argues that individual’s experience of
world simply based of language they habitually use. Researchers have proven that “people find it
easier to recognize and remember shades of colors for which they have a specific name in name
in their language.” (D’Andrade 1995, p.23)
In the opposition of this Linguist said that one may recognize the distinct colors even while
absence of particular word for each shade in language they use.
Whilst few accepts its ‘strong’ or deterministic form, many now accepting a ‘weak’ form
because “the emphasis is on the potential for thinking to be ‘influenced’ rather than unavoidably
‘determined’ by language; it is a two-way process, so that ‘the kind of language we use’ is also
influenced by ‘the way we see the world’.”(Chandler 1995, p.18) Linguistic deterministic like
American Linguist William Dwight Whitney, believes that some languages are superior to other
languages and to support this he actively perpetuated to annihilate native American Languages
because “ their speakers were savages and would be better off learning English and adopting a
civilized way of life.”(Seuren 1998, p. 180) Extreme deterministic consider the inferior
languages are cause of inappropriate behavior and lack of development. They consider language
as solely deterministic factor for individuals thought and its impact on culture. When such
groups lack knowledge of superior language like, English it is naturally to expect poor cognition
level.
This view of Linguistic Determinist was challenged by American Anthropologist-Linguist Franz
Boas; while working with Native North American Eskimo group ‘Inuit’ he criticized such radical
ideology of determinist. This Eskimo group ‘Inuit’ use sign language known as ‘Inuit
Uukturausingit’ which is currently classified under endangered category by United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Its birth anticipated to be rooted
in early 18th century as a way of communication, “probably evolved from hunting and gathering
signs used in Inuit culture” (Schuit, 2010) for deaf community members of group. It is important
to consider the fact that ‘Nanavut region has higher than average incidence of congenital
deafness’ (SIL International, 2017). Boas argues that Inuit use this sign language not only for
communiation but also for trade purpose. When so-called savages are able to develop
communicative source for weaker section of group then how much is it justified to say that
lanaguage determine thought, how it can be used to categorised them as poor congnitive
individuals. He further added in support of Native American language speakers that these people
are equally civilised in own way. Boas specifically empasized that there is no such thing as a
inferior or superior languages; Rejected Linguistic Determinism by stating that Language can
influence the way to see the world reality but can not be hold singularly responsible for
determinating the personality of individuals as “It would be naïve to imagine that any analysis of
experience is dependent on pattern expressed in language” (Sapir & Morris 1946, p. 106)

Linguistic Influence on Thought and Culture

Sapir and Whorf perceive close relationship between language and culture, clinching that “it was
not possible to understand or appreciate one without knowledge of the other” (Wardhaugh 2002,
p. 220) the hypothesis clearly states that “there are certain thoughts of an individual in one
language that cannot be understood by those who live in another language” (Woolfson 1981, p.
46). The way people think at some level is influence by their language. Each language comprises
its own cognitive tool kits, a set of instruction and ideas which speakers of generation in past
have created. Some of the close kin language of the world provide similar tool kit and some are
very different. For example “Possession of a common language is still and will continue to be a
smoother of the way of mutual understanding between America and England.” (Sapir 1921,
p.215) During late1980s and early 1990s, cognitive linguistics redeveloped their curiosity in the
weak version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis i.e. Linguistic Influence. George Lakoff was one of the
prominent figures to support this approach. He argues that “Language is often used
metaphorically and that language use different cultural metaphors that reveal something about
how speakers of the language think.” (Lakoff, 1990) For example, ‘When a Navaho says that he
went somewhere he never fails to specify whether it was afoot, astride, by wagon, auto, train, or
airplane. This is done partly by using different verb stems which indicate whether the traveler
moved under his own steam or was transported, partly by naming the actual means.....Moreover
the Navaho language insists upon another type of splitting of the generic idea of "going" to
which German is as indifferent as English. The Navaho always differentiates between starting to
go, going along; arriving at, returning from a point.’ (Kluckhohn & Leighton 1962, p.274-275)

All languages have ambiguity in nature which is part of natural human thoughts. We
communicate with each other using a cluster of words present in our language; each language
can differ from the next in myriad ways. Language is elementary to show our involvement with
each other and with the world, it’s so deeply interwoven in existence of human that it’s
impossible to envision life without it. Languages are not just tools for exhibiting our thoughts but
they actually influence our thoughts. By virtue of what language architect thought begins with
the facile observation that language differ from each other and this difference shows difference
in cognitive approach of speakers towards world view. For example, In English we represent past
as in something happened in later period and future as something will happen in upcoming
period. To explain the past and future incidents through bodily gesture English speakers move
their hand or body back and forth respectively. But Aymera, Language of native of Bolivia, Peru
and Chile speakers use to explain past and future in totally opposite manner that is bodily gesture
in front for past and back for future.

This issue has been in debate for a very long time whether or not language influences our
thought. And to explain its influence on thought some of the tribal group language can resolve
this debate. For example, Native Mexican language ‘Cucatec’ they have words like uphill,
downhill, across, down to state direction unlike north, south, east, west or left and right to show
positioning and direction. But to the surprise they never lose their way and always correctly
analyze the direction in the completely unknown region. Assuredly, Language need distinctive
things of their users and speakers of different language must engage in and conceal varied
aspects of world so they can use their language accordingly.

“When a culture loses its language, the dominant culture has reign to re-interpret the subordinate
language as it sees fit.”(Bourdieu, 1991) American Congress also passed an act as they accepted
the fact that to safeguarding one’s culture, preservation of language is necessary. Extract from
the act “The traditional languages of native Americans are an integral part of their cultures...form
the basic medium for the transmission, and thus survival, of Native American cultures….and
values.” (Native American Languages Act, 1990) To what means does speaking of language can
have affect on culture is heated issue in contemporary era. We can annotate this dilemma with
rational instance. For example, there is Vase on table of house A, which was broken due to some
reason. The way of asking or interrogating the situation varies if this house Native A is:
English Speaker- Who did that/What?
Spanish Speaker/Japanese Speaker- What happens/ what was done?
The response of different speakers shows their varying approach towards the similar situation. It
implies that to the some extent language influence culture and thought.
Linguistic Influence on Thinking: Indian-Korean Perspective
India and Korea have very old bond from Buddhism to present economic tie-ups both countries
have seen own share of ups and downs with some similarity in language syntax with each other
but individuals of these countries do not have similar assign to thought. To get in depth analysis
of the language influence on thinkingness of different language speakers, Indian and Korean
language instances are here compared and their varying perspectives for same situation are
thoroughly explained. For example,

1. Namaste & Annyeonghaseyo both are used as greetings in India and Korea respectively but
their meaning has contrastingly different. Namaste means ‘I bow the god within you’ or ‘the
spirit within in me salutes the spirit in you’ whereas Annyeonghaseyo simply means ‘Are you
fine?’ General usage is not so distinct but when it comes to understand the perspective of using it
whole sense of these greetings changes.

2. ‘Let’s have a meal together sometime soon’ when we use this expression in Indian and Korean
Language both the speakers have different meaning attached to it. In India, if you use this
expression it means that sometime in near future we have to plan something together but in for
Korean Speaker ‘Eonjenganeun hamkke meogja’ expression is just common greeting for them
and unlike Indian, it doesn’t necessarily interpret as having meal together.

3. ‘Did you have lunch/dinner?’ or ‘Jeomsin/Jeonyeog meogeossni’ similarly as above

mentioned example is another form of greetings for Korean Speaker or a way to initiate the
conversation. They don’t mean it literally but if this same expression used by Indian speakers it
simply means person is concern about your meal timing.

This variation in perspective toward same situation shown by Indian-Korean language speakers
clarify that how languages has distinct effect towards world reality and influence thinkingness of
the individual. We can identify that its language that are also responsible for producing and
influencing distinctiveness in thought and culture by analyzing individuals who are learning
language other than native one or who are bilinguals. Once they learnt language other than
mother tongue, their cognitive pursuance began to simulate like native speakers. As Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis states mind rewire oneself as you learn new language.

Conclusion
From the above discussion we can conclude that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, linguistic
determinism will remain disputable as it’s not able prove extreme approach of explaining how
language is solely determine thoughts and culture. On the contrary, linguistic influence has
acceptable outlook to state that linguistic categories and usage influence though and culture. We
can say, language may not determine the thinkingness and person’s world view but make certain
kind of effect on evolving the possible thinking avenue. Although the process differs from
extremist as proposed, still it suggests that language have powerful influence on cognition and
culture subsequently analyzing the Indian-Korean Language speakers greeting manner and its
diverse interpretation for them.
References:

Boas, F. (1911). Handbook of Indian languages. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 40.
Washington: Government Print Office.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Languages & Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chandler, D. (1995). The Act of writing: A media theory approach. Aberystwyth: University of
Wales Press.

D’Andrade, Roy G. (1995). The development of Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Kluckhohn, C., & D. Leighton (1962). The Navaho. New York: Double-day.

Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press.

Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the study of speech. Harcourt, Brace.

Sapir, E. (1929). The Status of Linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4): 207.

Sapir, E. & S. Morris (1946). American Indian Grammatical Categories. pp.106.

Schuit, J. (2010). Documentation & Description of Inuit Sign Language. Endangered Language
Archive.

Seuren, P. (1998). Western Linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN

0631-20891-7

Inuit Sign Language: A Language of Canada (2017). Ethnologue: Languages of the World
Archive. SIL International.

Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Fourth ed.). Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.

Woolfson, P. (1981). Language, Thought, and, Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.