The use of language is among the critical aspects that distinguish a human being from other animals. Thus, language is an integral aspect of every society and a crucial social instrument that the community must pass to the next generations. Besides, the ability to solve complex problems is another feature unique to human beings. The two abilities have been a center for debate for centuries; scholars have attempted to establish the nature of the relationship between thoughts and languages. Moreover, one cannot ignore the impact of culture in the study of ideas and languages. Indeed, languages differ in grammar and words and traditions, values, traditions, and customs. Studies have established various approaches to understanding the relationship between languages and thoughts; however, the linguistic relativity hypothesis is influential.
The linguistic relativity hypothesis also referred to as the Sapir-Whorf principle postulates that the language spoken by people impacts the way they think and perceive reality. The doctrine emphasizes the relationship between grammar, vocabulary, and languages, suggesting that the individual using a particular language tends to perceive, think, and remember reality specific to that language (Rhode et al., 2016). Thus according to the theory, people who use different languages have a different view of the world. The hypothesis traces back to the works of Edward Sapir, an American linguist, and anthropologist. Sapir studied language usage among Native American Tribes such as the Nootka, Hopi, and Apache and found that distinction between the languages affected how Native communities perceived their environment.
For Sapir, the language that one uses does not interfere with reality; instead, it shapes it. His view recognized the objective nature of reality; however, given that linguistic habits influence reality, language plays a pivotal role in the cognition process (Sharifian, 2017). Therefore, according to Sapir, languages spoken by people shape their thoughts and perception of the environment. Thus, individuals who speak and think in various languages have different perceptions of the universe (Wolff & Holmes, 2011). The linguist further recognizes the relationship between culture and language. It is challenging to understand a culture without prior knowledge of the language; besides, one cannot understand language without knowledge of culture.
However, the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis has a close association with the works of Benjamin Lee Whorf, Sapir students. As a linguist, Whorf evaluated the language usage among the native Americans. His study found those distinctions between languages that individuals use to determine their thoughts. For Whorf people express their thoughts through languages; thus different language structure follows distinct thought, hence influencing perception. Unlike Sapir, the Whorf hypothesis is homogenous and more radical; however, studies refer to it as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or The Whorf hypothesis due to the significant influence of Whorf’s views. Over the years, studies have identified at least two versions of the theory that differences in implications and emphasis. They include the strong and weak versions. The strong version argues that people’s language determines their thoughts, such as the concepts and ideas one has. Thus, one’s thoughts are particular to the language one uses. On the contrary, the weaker version states that language structures influence our perception of reality.
The Strong Hypothesis
The strong version closely links to Whorf. The linguist conducted numerous studies on the language used by the Native Americans and found that the language difference, vocabulary, and grammar applied to refer to a different object, shaped the way the community thought of their environment (Tohidian, 2008). For instance, according to the researcher, while the word “snow” is a single term in English, Eskimos use various terms that describe snow, such as “clinging snow,” “wet snow,” falling snow,” “frosty snow” among others. Such language differences result in significant differences in the manner in which individuals view the snow.
Additionally, Whorf found that Hopi, a Native Indian tribe used only one word for various flying objects such as insects, flies, and pilots. He also observed some grammatical distinctions between English and Hopi. For instance, the researcher found no clear grammatical structures in the Hopi language, concluding that the language was timeless. Unlike the English language, with a clear and visible distinction between tenses, the Hopi language had no structure to distinguish between future, present, and the past. Furthermore, Whorf found that while English quantifies time objectively using seconds, minutes, days, months, or years, Hopi society was different. For the community, time was subjective and depended on how they viewed it. Indeed, such language differences determine an individual’s thoughts and result in significant differences in cultural concepts.
The strong version of the hypothesis overstates the decisive impacts of languages on human thinking. According to the version, our languages determine our thoughts, implying that individuals who speak different languages have different thinking patterns. It ignores other decisive factors that determine individual consciousness, such as social existence, as suggested by the Marxism principle (Wang, 2017). Indeed, in traditional and modern societies, economic status is the primary classification of human beings, which forms the worldview. Therefore, if language significantly impacted our worldview, then the economic classes and class struggle would disappear autonomously. Notably, the language systems have no specific definition of an individual world’s view. Indeed, individuals speaking in different languages can have similar philosophical, religious, and political views. On the other hand, people using a common language may have distinct world views.
The weak hypothesis
The version claims that the languages spoken by people significantly influence their thought. Tohidian (2008) noted that the weak hypothesis entails two versions, the weakest and the weak. The weakest version suggests that language impacts one’s memory. On the contrary, the weakest version postulates that The language used people influences their perception. According to the version, language affects memory to the extent that linguistic coding store information in the memory (Wolff & Holmes, 2011). Thus, the version has significant consequences in cognition.
The weak version has various advantages. First, language has a significant influence on our culture and thinking. A language assists in reinforcing certain beliefs and ideas, making them notable and propelling them to the forefront of attention. Indeed, language facilitates people in expressing their feelings and emotions. However, perhaps the primary advantage of the weak version does not claim that language structures constrain our perception and thoughts, but it only tends to influence our everyday thoughts (Wang, 2017). This aspect makes language crucial in cultural preoccupations, illustrating the importance of context in examining the more profound meaning encoded in languages.
On the contrary, one issue with the weak version is in the determination of the testing parameters. The premise that language impacts thoughts are indistinct. One cannot fail to question the aspects of ideas influenced by language. The question of whether language influence all thoughts or certain types of view is a critical issue. To some extent, some scholars have regarded the theory as vague and unprovable.
An Example of Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
The sexist language used in the work environment presents a real-life example of the hypothesis. In the provision of health care, the nursing profession is a field that most people associate with females. Indeed, a man willing to take a career in nursing face objection and teasing from family and acquaintances. Unlike a female nurse, who the community always refers as a “nurse,” men are often referred to as “male nurses.” Despite holding the same occupation, society will use different titles to refer to them. Indeed, the language used to refer to such works relates to the societal sexist cultural view that males cannot be nurses. Such languages shape society’s view toward the role of women and men. Other words used include “policeman” “fireman,” among others.
Criticism of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
Scholars have outlined various arguments against the hypothesis. First, the concept of grammatical structures challenges the validity of the theory. The speaker’s perception and syntactic of the language are not interdependent, as suggested by the premise. Notably, grammatical features of languages are pure superficial elements of linguistic structures. Another argument against the theory lies in language translation. According to the strong version of the hypothesis, it is impossible to accurately translate or learn a new language without abandoning one’s mode of thinking. However, studies have shown that it is possible to achieve
successful translation between languages.
Society and language are interdependent aspects making it difficult to understand one without the other. Although the Linguistic relativity hypothesis has various shortcomings, Whorf was not entirely wrong. One cannot refute the role of language in modifying our perception, shaping our thought, and creating reality.
