Language is a fundamental aspect of the human experience and numerous scholars have questioned if what is spoken through language is the same as what is perceived by thought. Two scholars, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, explored this topic and founded one of the most notable linguistic theories, The Sapir-Whorfian Hypothesis. The Sapir-Whorfian Hypothesis, commonly referred to as the Whorfian Hypothesis, has been a topic of controversy since it was first discussed by Edward Sapir in 1929. The hypothesis received great recognition for its proclamation of the impact language has on thought. The hypothesis states that an individual’s thought are influenced by the language the individual speaks and is divided into two components: Linguistic Relativism and Linguistic Determinism. Linguistic Relativism is the weaker form and asserts that distinctions found in one language are unique to that particular language alone and there is no limit to the structural diversity of languages. Linguistic Determinism states that the semantics of a language affect the way an individual perceives the world and shapes that person’s thought.
Scholars vary along the spectrum of the Whorfian Hypothesis from complete support of Linguistic Determinism to complete rejection of the Whorfian Hypothesis. One scholar who has shown favor for Linguistic Determinism is scholar Lera Boroditsky. Her research on the Whorfian Hypothesis has enabled her to conclude that people who speak different languages do in fact think differently. In order to come to the conclusion that language does in fact influence thought, Boroditsky traveled to Pormpuraaw, a small Aboriginal community in northern Australia. There she discovered that the locals, the Kuuk Thaayorre, use cardinal-direction terms to define space. Through her trip to Pormpuraaw, Lera discovered a significant difference in navigational ability and spatial knowledge between speakers of languages that primarily rely on absolute reference frames. In order to support her finding Boroditsky gave people sets of pictures that showed a type of temporal progression. She asked them to arrange the photos to show the correct temporal order. Each person was tested in two separate sittings, each time facing in a different cardinal direction. Boroditsky discovered that the Aborigines did not place the photos in sequential order like English speakers, left to right, or Hebrew and Arabic speakers, right to left, they did it by the compass, from east to west (. On the other end of the spectrum stands John McWhorter. In his article, McWhorter emphasizes his idea that language does not give an individual a particular worldview. McWhorter provides examples that refute the assertion proposed by the Whorfian Hypothesis. He states that the people of New Guinea have only one word for eating, drinking, and smoking. However, McWhorter claims that although these individuals do not have a particular word for a certain action does not mean that the people of New Guinea are less sensitive to cuisine than those who have multiple words for eating. McWhorter even continues to counter the argument made by Whorf about the Hopi. He states that the Hopi do have numerous markers of European time.
After learning more about the Whorfian Hypothesis, I came to the conclusion that the Whorfian Hypothesis does hold some truths. Language does influence thought and an individual’s perception to some extent. However, I do not believe that language governs thought to the point that an individual’s thoughts are bound by their language. Therefore, I support the weaker version of the Whorfian Hypothesis, Linguistic Relativism.
An example supporting my position is seen through my experience with my best friend who speaks English and Urdu. Whenever she asked me to turn off the lights in a room, she would say “shut the light.” I never truly understood why we had different terms for the same action even though we were speaking the same language. I also noticed this same trend with my other friends who spoke Urdu. When I got older, I realized that when they were learning English they did not have a direct translation in Urdu for the term “turn off” so instead they would use the word “shut.” Although they did not have one particular word or phrase for the English phrase “to turn off” does not mean that they were unable to conceive the thought for completing the action of turning off the lights in a room. If this were the case my friends would have had a very expensive power bill. Another example that proves that language can not completely determine thought is seen in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984. In this book, George Orwell explores the concepts of the Whorfian Hypothesis through the creation of the language “Newspeak.” Newspeak was created by the Party members with the intention to control the speaker’s thoughts and perceptions. As I began to think about Linguistic Determinism, I immediately thought of 1984. In the novel, the Party diminishes the vocabulary so that individuals would be forced to limit the ideas they are capable of formulating and reduce their thoughts to simplistic terms. If this idea were to hold true, people whose language does not have a word for a particular thought would not be able to formulate or express their thoughts in any way. Another example is seen through my knowledge of the English and Spanish languages. The Spanish word “sobremesa” is used to describe the after dinner activities period in which there is no more food on the table, but the people at the table are relaxing or engaging in conversation. Although, there is not a specific word to describe this experience, does not mean that English speakers do not engage in conversation at the dinner table after all of the food is gone.
In conclusion, the Whorfian Hypothesis may not be accurate in all aspects. However, it is true in some regards. Language does in fact influence and play a role in our thought processes. Although the question of to what extent does language influence thought is still under scrutiny, there is no doubt that language is central to the human experience and does influence thought.