Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

It's been a debatable question that language followed by thought and culture or the other way around. Famously quoted in celluloid, " Once you involve with new language you start dreaming in it " , surely this shows extreme view but fact is that our thought and culture get influenced by language we use to communicate with each other. We can desist that speakers of different languages therefore have cognition differently because of language clout.

Philosophy Compass, 2009

The idea that natural languages shape the way we think in different ways was popularized by Benjamin Whorf, but then fell out of favor for lack of empirical support. But now, a new wave of research has been shifting the tide back toward linguistic relativity. The recent research can be interpreted in different ways, some trivial, some implausibly radical, and some both plausible and interesting. We introduce two theses that would have important implications if true: Habitual Whorfianism and Ontological Whorfianism. We argue that these offer the most promising interpretations of the emerging evidence. It is a standard position in philosophy that language is nothing more than a means for the expression of thoughts (Locke 1690; Fodor 1975). This is also a popular position in psychology, where many hold that language learners map words onto antecedently existing concepts. The concepts come first, and only later the language to express them (Pinker 1984; Piaget and Inhelder, 1967 ⁄ 1948). Recent empirical research, however, suggests that language is more than a means for expression and communication. There is now compelling evidence that language affects the way people think, and that each language has a distinctive influence on its speakers' mental abilities; speaking Maya rather than Spanish, or Korean rather than English has an effect on the thought or experience of speakers. This idea, known as 'linguistic relativity,' has modern roots in the work of the linguist, Edward Sapir, who claims, [T]he ''real world'' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group…We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. (1929: 209) Sapir's remark is offhand , but the idea was developed by his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf's most quoted passage reads: Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly, between different grammars. 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 impression which has to be organized by our minds-and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. (Whorf 1940 ⁄ 1956: 212) These passages suggest two theses that are gaining support in current empirical research. The Sapir's quote indicates something about the means by which language influences thought; we will call it Habitual Whorfianism. And both Sapir and Whorf speculate about the effects of that influence-what we will call Ontoglogical Whorfianism. In this

2018

Culture is a crucial part of human life and every society has its own. Culture can be defined as roughly as ‘humans’ perception of the world’. Today we know that culture and language have a sincere relationship. According to Everett, culture reflects human life and language reflects the culture. For example, if a society’s language dies inevitably the culture of that society will perish too. Because of this close relationship linguists created theories about their parts. However, before talking about these theories it is useful to get familiar with some terms.

Some have sought to describe the form of the relationship between language and mind, or more narrowed again, how language affects the human mind. Of the many characters that describes the relationship between language and mind, the authors saw that the exposure of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf is widely cited by various researchers in examining the relationship of language and mind. Sapir and Worf says that there is no two languages that have similarities to be considered as the same social reality. Sapir and Worf describe two hypotheses about the relationship between language and thought. The influence of language on thought can occur through habituation and operation of the formal aspects of language, for example gramar and lexicon. Whorf said that "grammatical and lexical resources of individual languages heavily constrain the conceptual representations available to their speakers". Gramar and the lexicon in a language determines that there is a conceptual representation of the user's language.

After some opening (and loose) examples of relativity in the reference of a few words, I offer a brief summary of Sapir's important contributions to our understanding of language, starting with phonology. Following Sapir comes an even briefer note on Whorf. After this setup I turn to a summary of what I have learned about word meanings and linguistic relativity from my work on the Fanti kinship terminology. I conclude with what I see as some of the basic takehome lessons of this discussion. I will be happy to provide references for any of what I say to anyone who asks.

The name of Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist, ethnographer and a very interesting thinker, is in most cases associated with the so-called ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’. Texts on relationships between language, mind, culture, perception, and experience often refer to that hypothesis and to Whorf as one of the major authors (with Edward Sapir as the other). It goes despite the fact that he is not the person who formulated its fundamental principles in their strong version, such as total linguistic dependence of thought and perception, absolute language non-translability, etc. Though not being the actual creator of that theoretical construct, he received a sharp criticism in causal determinism. One of the main reasons for the critics’ misinterpretations of Whorf is that he argued from a non-traditional epistemological viewpoint, involving Einsteinian relativity and quantum theories, Jungian psychoanalysis, Gestalt psychology, Eastern philosophy concepts and so on. His approach is better characterized as holistic, linking the cosmos and individual. Instead, he was attributed with causal and reductionist ways of thinking. Although Whorf named and stated the linguistic relativity principle, his ideas should not be reduced merely to it. In this paper, I try to show that he was actually concerned not only with the links between language, thought and culture. The purpose of this study is to explain his ideas within the holistic approach he himself was inclined to. On one hand, in his essays Whorf uses rigorous scientific reasoning and, at the same time, he attempts to paint a broader philosophical picture of the cosmos and our interaction with it, where language, indeed, plays a very important role. Based on linguistic data, he tries to formulate what I would call a significant philosophic message that has a practical temper – (1) we should be aware of the important role that language plays on our cognition especially unconscious usage; (2) study of other language systems and metaphysics concealed in them might contribute to a higher level of our cognition. Besides, he considers a fascinating and quite mysterious question of an inward kin between language and nature.

Language Sciences 25, 393-432, 2003

Probably no contemporary linguist has published as profusely on the connections between semantics, culture, and cognition as Anna Wierzbicka. This paper explores the similarities and differences between her ‘‘natural semantic metalanguage’’ (NSM) approach and the linguistic theory of Benjamin Lee Whorf. It shows that while some work by Wierzbicka and colleagues can be seen as ‘‘neo-Whorfian’’, other aspects of the NSM program are ‘‘counter-Whorfian’’. Issues considered include the meaning of linguistic relativity, the nature of conceptual universals and the consequences for semantic methodology, the importance of polysemy, and the scale and locus of semantic variation between languages, particularly in relation to the domain of time. Examples are drawn primarily from English, Russian, and Hopi.

—The Sapir-Whorf's Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis provokes intellectual discussion about the strong impact language has on our perception of the world around us. This paper intends to enliven the still open questions raised by this hypothesis. This is done by considering some of Sapir's, Whorf's, and other scholar's works.