The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the theory that an individual's thoughts and actions are determined by the
language or languages that individual speaks. The strong version of the hypothesis states that all human
thoughts and actions are bound by the restraints of language, and is generally less accepted than the
weaker version, which says that language only somewhat shapes our thinking and behavior. Following
are quotes from the two linguists who first formulated the hypothesis and for whom it is named, Edward
Sapir and Benjamin Whorf :

"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. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality
essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving
specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the 'real world' is to a large
extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of the group. 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 (1958:69)

"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we
isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face;
on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized
by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it
into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to
organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the
patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are
absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of
data which the agreement decrees." -Whorf (1940:213-14)

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
behavorists 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:

"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.

What are some criticisms of the hypothesis?

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."

While linguists generally agree that the weaker Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic
relativism, can be shown to be true to some extent, there are criticisms of the stronger form of the Sapir-
Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic determinism. Among the criticisms of the strong form of the
Hypothesis are:

 One of Whorf's central arguments in his paper on language determining thought was that the
Hopi terminology for time gave the Hopi a different and unique understanding of how time
worked, distinct from the typical Western conception of time. Pinker (1994) argues that Whorf had
never actually met anyone from the Hopi tribe and that a later anthropologist discovered, in fact,
the Hopi conception of time was not so different from the traditional Western understanding of it.
 The problem of translatability: if each language had a completely distinct reality encoded within it,
how could a work be translated from one language to another? Yet, literary works, instruction
manuals and so forth are regularly translated and communication in this regard is not only
possible, but happens every day.

References:

Nordquist, Richard. "The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." ThoughtCo, Sep. 4, 2018, thoughtco.com/sapir-whorf-hypothesis-

1691924.

Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Sapir, Edward. 1958. Culture, Language and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1940. Science and Linguistics. Technology Review (1940) 35: 229-31, 247-8.