Whorfian Hypothesis

Compiled by- Akhilesh Parab

(1937402)
• It is also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis.
• It was given in 1956
• It says that language determines or influences thinking.
•Language is primary and thoughts are influenced or shaped by the nature of language and not
vice-versa.

L
Snow
Eskimo has several words for snow
English has only one.
Rice
Hanuxoo speakers in Philipines have 92 different names for various types
of rice.
Camel
There are hundreds of camel related words in Arabic.
Three Versions: Whorfian Hypothesis
According to Miller and Mc Neill (1969),
• Strong Hypothesis- Language determines thinking.
Thus, any language can impose constraints on thought varying from one language to
another.
• Weak Hypothesis- Language influences perception.
• Weakest Hypothesis- Language influences memory.
 Evidence
By casual inspection of world’s languages,
• Hanuxoo people in Philippines have 92 different names for various types of
rice.
• There are hundreds of camel related words in Arabic.
These differences may influence thought.
However, it is more plausible that the environmental conditions influences the things
people think about, and this in turn influences their linguistic usage.
Thus, these differences occur because thought influences language rather than because
language influences thought.
I. Heider (1972)
According to Whorfian hypothesis color categorization and memory should vary as a
function of participants native language.
• Study compared English speaking (Americans) and Dani speaking (Stone age
agriculture people from Indonesian New Guinea) participants.
• Dani language has 2 basic color terms- “mola” (for bright and warm colors) and “mili” (for
dark and cold colors)
•Results indicated that the both groups had comparable color memory.
•This contradicted the Whorfian Hypothesis.
•She concluded that color categories are universal.
•According to Berlin and Kay (1969), recognition of colors is hierarchical in nature.

II. Roberson, Davies and Davidoff (2000)

•Roberson et al. (2000) were unable to replicate the findings of this study when comparing the
English speaking participants with Berinmo (from Papua New Guinea).
•Berinmo has 5 basic color terms.
•Based on categorical perception.
• English language has categories of blue and green and Bernimo language has categories of nol
(close to green) and wor (close to yellow).
•Participants were presented with a 3 colored stimuli
•Task was to select 2 most similar stimuli from a group of 3.
e.g. The first two are green and third is blue
According to the notion of categorical perception,
English Speakers should regard two green stimuli as being more similar and bernimo speakers
wont. (language does not distinguish between blue and green)
• Similarly, when Berinmo speakers were presented 2 nol stimuli and one wor stimulus. It was
predicted that they would select 2 nol stimuli as similar.
•This won’t be a case in English Speakers.
• Both the predictions were successfully demonstrated in the study.
•They found that the language determined the performance.
•Both groups showed categorical perception based on their language

Roberson et al. also studied the effects of categorical perception on memory.

•They tested recognition memory.
•Target stimuli was presented first.
•Two test stimuli were presented and a choice was given to choose the one similar to target
stimulus.
According to Whorfian Hypothesis,
English speakers should have a good recognition if the test stimuli were on the opposite side
of the green-blue boundary whereas; Berinmo speakers will have a good recognition memory
if the stimuli were on the opposite side of the nol-wor boundary.

•All these predictions were supported.

•Later, it was argued findings obtained from the Berinmo participants could be due to their
lack of experience to man-made color, rather than their limited color vocabulary.

III. Winawer et al. (1990)

•Used Russian participants

•Russian language has 2 separate words for blue.
• siniy meaning dark blue and goluboy meaning light blue.
• Target stimulus was siniy (dark blue) which was displayed throughout the task.
• Task was to select the one similar to the target stimulus.
• Russian participants performed faster when the distractor was a goluboy (light blue) instead
of siniy (dark blue).
• This effect of categorical perception won’t be seen in English speakers. (as they describe all
the stimuli as blue)
•Both these predictions were supported.
IV. Evidence that language can influence thinking. (Hoffman, Lau & Johnson, 1986)

• They used bilingual speakers (English-Chinese)

• Participants were asked to red the description of individuals.
• Based on these descriptions the participants were asked to provide a free
interpretation of the individual.
• It was found that Bilinguals thinking in Chinese had Chinese stereotypes in their
interpretation whereas, Bilinguals thinking in English had English stereotypes.
• For example, English speakers have a stereotype for artistic type people. They
consider them to be moody, with intense temperament and with a bohemian
lifestyle.
• Chinese speakers do not have this stereotype.
• Thus, inferences we draw can be influenced by the language we are thinking.
V. Cassanto (2008)

• He pointed out that English speakers generally used distance metaphors for describing
a duration of an event.
• For example- A long meeting or a short discussion.
• In contrast Greek speakers use amount metaphors for the same.
• For Example- “Synastisis pon diekes poli”, meaning meeting that lasts much.
• Task was to estimated the brief interval of the time of the task being in two different
situations.
• In situation one, participants saw a line growing on the screen. (length of the line was
unrelated to the duration)
• In situation two, participants saw a liquid filling in a container. (amount was unrelated
to the duration)
• It was hypothesized that English speakers duration estimate of the task would be
strongly biased in situation one (length of line) and not in situation two (extent of the
fill)
• Opposite was predicted for the Greek speakers
• Both these predictions were supported.
 Evaluation of Evidence
• Increased support for the Whorfian hypothesis on several kinds of task. (e.g. color
discrimination, color memory, temporal estimation.)
• Available evidence only supports the weak and the weakest versions of the
Whorfian Hypothesis.
• When the tasks that are used give flexibility to the participants in the approach they
adopt, there is a modest evidence of the strong version of the hypothesis. (Hoffman
et al., 1986)
• It is important to establish whether the limiting effects of language on cognition are
easy to remove or not.
• Whorf (1956) claims it to be hard to remove whereas, Hunt and Agnoli (1991)
assumed that it would be relatively easy.
• Demand for further research.