The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that language shapes the cognitive processes and perceptions of individuals. This theory was first hypothesized by Benjamin Whorf, who believed language encompasses the cultural aspects of societies and enables effective and proper communication between its speakers. He believed that language and thought are inseparable, that language is influenced by thoughts and views of individuals who speak it, and in turn language shapes the views of individuals in a society. The accumulation of thoughts and beliefs of individuals in a common society leads to the formulation of a culture which directly affects and shapes language. Furthermore, the linguistic relativity hypothesis is categorized in two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is referred to as linguistic determinism and the second hypothesis is linguistic influence. Linguistic determinism, also known as the strong version, or more radical version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, states that individuals who speak different languages have different thought processes, mainly in terms of categorization and classification, outlook and memory. It dictates that language controls and shapes the beliefs and mindsets of its speakers, hence individuals who speak different languages as their mother tongue, have different cognitions and perceptions in life. Thus, language governs and determines the beliefs and perceptions of individuals. This version of Whorfian hypothesis, is widely accepted as incorrect amongst linguists as there is little evidence that supports the claims of this hypothesis and it is not possible to conduct studies that have strong evidence that would support it. Moreover, the linguistic influence hypothesis is regarded as the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The linguistic influence hypothesis constitutes that language to some extent is involved in influencing the cognition and thought processes of its speakers. Mainly, it is language use and linguistic categories used in communication and speech which shapes perception and cognition of the speakers. The linguistic influence hypothesis is accredited with having substantial empirical evidence that supports the claims of the hypothesis and is proved to be correct; as language usage and linguistic categories does in fact influence the thought processes of speakers. Therefore, the linguistic relativity hypothesis or linguistic influence hypothesis holds true. Thus, the linguistic influence hypothesis can be observed in many aspects of language, such as the lexical and pragmatic aspect of language, language as means of communication, language in relation to cognition, and lastly the abstract knowledge of language embedded in our memory.
This hypothesis points to various notions of how language influences thoughts and perception, how it shapes and categorizes memory and worldview, and how various lexical aspects of language influences the way individuals formulate their speech, decisions and shape their reality. To quote Einstein, “thinking and language are linked together”.
To begin with, language is a tool where one uses to communicate within a society efficiently and effectively. Language is also a window in to the societal needs and demands, where as a consequence it reveals implicit notions required by society that are embedded within the structure of the language. Thus, in order to communicate effectively, one should not only be familiar with the semantics, and syntactical use of the language but also with the implicit annotations such as usage of particular phonology and registers within the linguistic categories of a language for proper and successful ways of communication. Thus, language not only allows communication but, it also influences the way in which individuals interact, the roles they take on, the way they formulate opinions and thoughts, and perceive their reality. In other words, one’s view of the world is dependent on the structure of the language one speaks. The language shapes perception, reality, and the way individuals think and act throughout their lives.
The Whorfian hypothesis dictates that language shapes thought, it controls perception and cognition. Thus, the evolution of language by these guidelines results in creation of various codes, where the complexity of these codes are a reflection into the extent of psychological capacities that language imposes on it users, (Earl Hunt and Franca Agnoli, 1991). Therefore, mental ability and performance depend on the way one uses language; how one thinks is coherent with how one speaks and behaves. This is in itself counter intuitive, and can be concluded that language shapes beliefs and culture within a society.
Languages differ due to differences in culture and societal needs, the hypothesis declares that languages are unique in that they favor some thought processes over others, to the extent that some thoughts are easily expressed in one language whereas, other languages never develop those thoughts and ideas. Therefore, individuals who speak different languages as their mother tongue develop different thought processes.
Moreover, it is not the inability of translatability; all types of speech can be translated in different languages. This concept focuses more on the fact that some ways of thinking, and accepted speech, have been formulated to better serve the cultural needs of the language and its speakers. Furthermore, the hypothesis promotes the idea that each language is developed from speakers’ outlooks and this is demonstrated through the degree of naturalness of linguistic categories and grammar that is prevalent and embedded into habitual language use. The article by Chen et. Al, demonstrated the degree of naturalness and how languages differ in accordance to the culture. The study used the word “Mokita” in Kiriwinan language of New Guinea as an example to demonstrate linguistic differentiation between cultures and how it affects their outlooks and perception. Mokita is defined as “truth everyone knows but no one speaks”, however, in the English language there is no such word that would bear this meaning. As a result, the study further illustrates the idea that in one language there exists words or phrases where in other languages, these terms are never developed. Hence, the development of such linguistic categories in a particular language is due to the fact, that society find them necessary to be embedded in their language. Therefore, variations across lexical and grammatical aspects of different languages are established due to variations amongst cultural and societal needs. As a result, each language is unique, its etymology differs in the sense that the chronological account for birth and development of a particular word is developed in a way that meets the needs of its speakers more effectively. Consequently, if a concept is viewed as significant or necessary it will be coined as a word or a phrase, where the speakers know and understand them clearly and easily and can effectively use these linguistic categories to communicate in accordance with their needs.
Language is a key communication tool, in addition, it is considered to play an important role in shaping cognitive processes and the way individuals perceive their reality. This is supported by empirical evidence that has been discovered through psychological studies, notably the study by Boroditsky and Gaby that proves that individuals with divergent cultures and language have different world views. This study demonstrated that time and language structure have cognitive associations. The study reveals time, a fundamentally universal concept that should be the constant across all cultures, differs dramatically in terms of representation meaning, how the speakers of the language perceive time. This different view of time is due to the cross-cultural differentiation that influences how they perceive the concept of time. Time is viewed as relative, meaning this notion varies from one culture to the next in regards to representation of a hierarchical time line. However, by definition time is constant across space, and this relativity of time in language is a way of using this notion as means of communication. It is proved in this study “the Pormpuraawans’ superior knowledge of spatial orientation is consistent with patterns of spatial reference in the local languages.”, (Bororditsky and Gaby, 2010). This study also revealed that Pormpuraawan view time in ways that other groups of people cannot, and this is solely because they have a different definition of time in their language and culture. This is because of their ability to perceive time cardinally in terms of spatial representation and is their culture being based on cardinal directions. The study demonstrated that cultural differences can greatly impact domains of knowledge embedded in cognitive systems. Therefore, language and cognitive systems are associated, and linked and shape one another, accordingly.
Furthermore, the lexical aspect of a language may not differ from one culture to another, it is the abstract knowledge required for formulation of propositions in speech, that varies in between cultures. In other words, formulation of speech in a particular language differs substantially, compared it to another language. Even though, the topic can be understood in both languages, it is the constituents that make up the speech which differs dramatically such as; how to phrase a sentence, use a particular word, or impose a particular emotion into the phrase. The idea is that the abstract knowledge of language use, linguistic categories and formulation of speech is the one that differs. Hence, it is not the translatability of a language to another language that is possible which may disprove the Whorfian hypothesis. The theory delves deeper than just the translatability of speech, word from word. It constitutes the roots of a language, the knowledge of speech formulation and its construction. The theory doesn’t discuss the semantics of a language and word to word utterances, it is the foundation of language that is embedded in individual’s minds and its usage. Thus, speech formulation and language use is a window in to the way a person thinks and perceives the world. Furthermore, this hypothesis holds true upon analysis of many languages that lack the same cultural values. “Embedded in cultural systems, language use carries shared knowledge and meanings as well as norms within the community. Cross-linguistic variations reflect differentiated ways of thinking in a culturally rooted style.” (Chen, Bennet Martinez and Ng., 140)
The cross cultural differences within societies reflect the differences in the way of thinking or cognitive style. The cognitive style of individuals shapes the perception of one self, others and the surroundings. Cognitive style is not the language structure that one employs for means of only receiving and dictating a message, cognitive style influences worldviews and outlooks, and is defined as how one employs language as means of communication. This is reflective of how one uses specific linguistic categories such as a dialect, register, or phonology for different types of communications. Hence, the changes in language use and formulation is a reflection of cultural affirmations. As it is suggested in the study by Chen et. Al, use of language causes the cultural outlooks and mentalities of that language to be enclosed and embedded in one’s mind thus, affecting their perception and thoughts. The idea that language influences thought and behavior as it constrains cognitive organization (Whorf, 1956) is supported through observations and research by comparing the different cultures and their linguistic coding that influences their perception, beliefs and mindsets. This is evident by studying the use of language overtime. The regular use of specific linguistic categories, and grammar shapes people’s attitudes and their views of their surroundings and reality. This is demonstrated in the study conducted by Kim et Al., where through comparative analysis of language use between Korean and mandarin speaking individuals, it revealed differences in views toward their environment. This study illustrates that there are substantial differences, opposing views and thoughts between the two groups regarding their environment which is reflective of their culture and society. The study showed that language influences human behavior and attitude and it established an association between language and pro-environmental outlooks. This study used a cross-cultural survey where it revealed that linguistic differences leads to the differences in pro-environmental attitudes among tourists especially in Korean and mandarin speaking individuals. As a result, this study demonstrated the role of culture and language in shaping attitudes of individuals.
In addition, to further understand the applicability of this hypothesis, instead of comparing languages that have evolved over centuries in specific nations to meet their needs within that society, or to reflect their values more openly within their language, one can look at digital language and its prevalence in modern language. The digital language has evolved from decades ago; it is probably considered one of the fastest evolution of language in practical use. This evolution is to serve its users more efficiently, there has been development of various acronyms and phrases that are only understood if you are familiar with this language. The study of this evolution is a great resource as a comparative method to understand the formulation and establishment of a language. It shows how language can serve its users, how it reshapes to formulate propositions necessary for its speakers, and how it can invade another language as it becomes prevalent in a society. Digital language has become very common in everyday language, especially English. There are shortened sentences, words, and even words with letters for fast and efficient communication. Thus, digital language represents the fast evolution and formulation of language as a tool for efficient communication, in order to serve its speakers better, and represent the digital system more effectively. This proves that languages serve as a tool for communication and becomes embedded in the mind where it contributes to the cultural affirmations within that society, shaping it into a more complete representation of the modern society.
Lastly, in order to understand the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis better, and to convey the actual message of this hypothesis, one must understand how language shapes the non-linguistic experiences faced everyday, and how language influences the interpretations of the individual from their world around. The interpretations are the key to this hypothesis and the needed capacity or the time for information processing is not relevant to this hypothesis. The schema is an abstract part of the mind, that allows for analysis, information gathering and assumption of key facts. It allows for the ability to interpret and understand the surroundings. There are two types of schema, the highly restricted schema, that provides detailed expectations about a small part of the world, and the non-restricted schema which provides a broader expectation about a greater number of variables. The schema is generally influenced with the language one is accustomed with. Also, the schema works with the arithmetic schema in which it shapes one’s interpretation of the world. The interesting aspect of schema, as mentioned in the article by Hunt and Agnoli, is that the schema is shaped based on the numerical outlines of the language. This schema formulates the spatial schema in which one orients oneself in three dimensional space. Thus, another aspect of language that influences the interpretations of reality and interpretations of oneself in space varies with the language one employs. Meaning, depending on the language one employs the schema influences one’s perception and interpretation of the world. This is significant since, it can be concluded that individuals in the same space and time, can view or locate themselves differently, in relation to their language. This proves that language has powerful influences on one’s mind and perception of the world.
In conclusion, the theory of Sapir -Whorf of linguistic relativity and linguistic influence is accurate in many instances. This paper discussed the various aspects of language that influences perception, thoughts, and beliefs. The interesting fact that is grasping is that language influences time and space. This tool is so powerful on the mind that given the constraints of the language that it imposes on the mind and its psychological capacity, it influences how one perceives oneself in reality. Furthermore, language obtains an abstract knowledge in one’s mind, it holds information and embedded notions regarding one’s beliefs with respect to the culture. One can conclude that not only language is a tool for communication, it is also a powerful tool in shaping one’s reality and perception. It is evident that language shapes one’s outlook on life, these implicit notions are hidden in the vocabulary of the language which establishes the perceptions of individuals in concordance with the cultural beliefs within that society. Language has evolved to allow for an easier way of communication, removing the burden from short term memory by incorporating it in the long term memory. The different codes within one language is itself a psychological demand that is placed on its speakers. The linguistic influence that language places on its speakers is far more intricate and complex than just the translatability of languages. Language is embedded in the mind, and it influences and shapes one’s perception, it must be regarded as an outline where it morphs ideas into its own context and it limits certain aspects of reality based on the availability of ideas within that language. It promotes fluidity of certain ideas in a specific society that demands it. It is in itself a creator and a dominator, it shapes and controls one’s ideas and perception through its roots, and it nourishes ideas that are significant and necessary in a society.