The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
From George Orwell's 1984 (1948):
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc [English Socialism], but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought--that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc--should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect method. This was done partly by the invention of new words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever...A person growing up with Newspeak as his sole language would no more know that ‘equal' had once had the secondary meaning of "politically equal," or that ‘free' had once meant "intellectually free," than, for instance, a person who had never heard of chess would be aware of the secondary meanings attaching to ‘queen' or ‘rook.' There would be many crimes and errors which it would be beyond his power to commit, simply because they were nameless and therefore unimaginable."
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis theorizes that thoughts and behavior
are determined (or are at least partially influenced) by language.
If true in its strongest sense, the sinister possibility of a
culture controlled by Newspeak or some other language is not
just science fiction. Since its inception in the 1920s and 1930s,
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has caused controversy and spawned
research in a variety of disciplines including linguistics, psychology,
philosophy, anthropology, and education. To this day it has not
been completely disputed or defended, but has continued to intrigue
researchers around the world.
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf brought attention to the relationship
between language, thought, and culture. Neither of them formally
wrote the hypothesis nor supported it with empirical evidence,
but through a thorough study of their writings about linguistics,
researchers have found two main ideas. First, a theory of linguistic
determinism that states that the language you speak determines
the way that you will interpret the world around you. Second,
a weaker theory of linguistic relativism that states that language
merely influences your thoughts about the real world.
Edward Sapir studied the research of Wilhelm von Humboldt. About
one hundred years before Sapir published his linguistic theories,
Humboldt wrote in Gesammelte Werke a strong version of
linguistic determinism: "Man lives in the world about him
principally, indeed exclusively, as language presents it to him."
Sapir took this idea and expanded on it. Although he did not
always support this firm hypothesis, his writings state that there
is clearly a connection between language and thought.
From "The Status of Linguistics as a Science" (1929)
Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone
in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but
are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has
become the medium of expression in their society. It is quite
an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially
without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental
means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection:
The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world' is to a large
extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group.
No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered
as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which
different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same
world with different labels attached...Even comparatively simple
acts of perception are very much more at the mercy of the social
patterns called words than we might suppose...We see and hear
and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language
habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.
As the underlined portions show, Sapir used firm language to
describe this connection between language and thought. To Sapir,
the individual is unconscious to this connection and subject to
it without choice.
Benjamin Lee Whorf was Sapir's student. Whorf devised the weaker
theory of linguistic relativity: "We are thus introduced
to a new principle of relativity, which holds that all observers
are not led by the same physical evidence to the same picture
of the universe..." (1940/1956). He also supported, at times,
the stronger linguistic determinism. To Whorf, this connection
between language and thought was also an obligation not a choice.
From "Science and Linguistics" (1940/1956):
"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 impressions which has to be organized by our minds–and
this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We
cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances
as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize
it in this way–an agreement that holds throughout our speech
community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The
agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its
terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except
by subscribing to the organization and classification of data
which the agreement decrees."
Both Sapir and Whorf agreed that it is our culture that determines
our language, which in turn determines the way that we categorize
our thoughts about the world and our experiences in it.
For more than fifty years researchers have tried to design studies
that will support or refute this hypothesis. Support for the
strong version has been weak because it is virtually impossible
to test one's world view without using language. Support for
the weaker version has been minimal. Yet this hypothesis continues
to fascinate researchers.
Problems with the hypothesis begin when one tries to discern exactly
what the hypothesis is stating. Penn notes that the hypothesis
is stated "more and less strongly in different places in
Sapir's and Whorf's writings" (1972:13). At some points,
Sapir and Whorf appear to support the strong version of the hypothesis
and at others they only support the weak version. Alford (1980)
also notes that neither Sapir nor Whorf actually named any of
their ideas about language and cognition the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
This name only appeared after their deaths. This has lead to
a wide interpretation of what researchers consider to be the one
and only hypothesis.
Another problem with the hypothesis is that it requires a measurement
of human thought. Measuring thought and one's world view is nearly
impossible without the confounding influence of language, another
of the variables being studied. Researchers settle for the study
of behavior as a direct link to thought.
If one is to believe the strong version of linguistic determinism,
one also has to agree that thought is not possible without language.
What about the pre-linguistic thought of babies? How can babies
acquire language without thought? Also, where did language come
from? In the linguistic determinist's view, language would have
to be derived from a source outside the human realm because thought
is impossible without language and before language there would
have been no thought.
Supporters of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis must acknowledge that
their study of language in the "real world" is not without
doubt if their language influences how they categorize what they
seem to experience. Penn writes, "In short, if one believes
in linguistic relativity, one finds oneself in the egocentric
quandary, unable to make assertions about reality because of doubting
one's own ability to correctly describe reality" (1972:33).
Yet another problem with the hypothesis is that languages and
linguistic concepts are highly translatable. Under linguistic
determinism, a concept in one language would not be understood
in a different language because the speakers and their world views
are bound by different sets of rules. Languages are in fact translatable
and only in select cases of poetry, humor and other creative communications
are ideas "lost in the translation."
One final problem researchers have found with the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis is Whorf's lack of empirical support for his linguistic
insights. Whorf uses language nuances to prove vast differences
between languages and then expects his reader to infer those differences
in thought and behavior. Schlesinger attacks Whorf's flimsy thesis
support: "...the mere existence of such linguistic diversities
is insufficient evidence for the parallelist claims of a correspondence
between language on the one hand and cognition and culture, on
the other, and for the determinist claim of the latter being determined
by the former" (1991:18). Schlesinger also fails to see
the connection between Whorf's linguistic evidence and any cultural
or cognitive data. "Whorf occasionally supplies the translations
from a foreign language into English, and leaves it to the good
faith of the reader to accept the conclusion that here must have
been a corresponding cognitive or cultural phenomenon" (1991:27).
One infamous example Whorf used to support his theory was the
number of words the Inuit people have for ‘snow.' He claimed
that because snow is a crucial part of their everyday lives and
that they have many different uses for snow that they perceive
snow differently than someone who lives in a less snow-dependent
environment. Pullum has since dispelled this myth in his book
The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax (1991). He shows that
while the Inuit use many different terms for snow, other languages
transmit the same ideas using phrases instead of single words.
Despite all these problems facing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
there have been several studies performed that support at least
the weaker linguistic relativity hypothesis. In 1954, Brown and
Lenneberg tested for color codability, or how speakers of one
language categorize the color spectrum and how it affects their
recognition of those colors. Penn writes, "Lenneberg reports
on a study showing how terms of colors influence the actual discrimination.
English-speaking subjects were better able to re-recognize those
hues which are easily named in English. This finding is clearly
in support of the limiting influence of linguistic categories
on cognition" (1972:16). Schlesinger explains the path taken
in this study from positive correlation to support for linguistic
relativity: "...if codability of color affected recognizability,
and if languages differed in codability, then recognizability
is a function of the individual's language" (1991:27)
Lucy and Shweder's color memory test (1979) also supports the
linguistic relativity hypothesis. If a language has terms for
discriminating between color then actual discrimination/perception
of those colors will be affected. Lucy and Shweder found that
influences on color recognition memory is mediated exclusively
by basic color terms–a language factor.
Kay and Kempton's language study (1984) found support for linguistic
relativity. They found that language is a part of cognition.
In their study, English speakers' perceptions were distorted in
the blue-green area while speakers from Tarahumara–who lack
a blue-green distinction–showed no distortion. However,
under certain conditions they found that universalism of color
distinction can be recovered.
Peterson and Siegal's "Sally doll" test (1995) was not
intended to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis specifically, but
their findings support linguistic relativity in a population who
at the time had not yet been considered for testing–deaf
children. Peterson and Siegal's experiment with deaf children
showed a difference in the constructed reality of deaf children
with deaf parents and deaf children with hearing parents, especially
in the realm of non-concrete items such as feelings and thoughts.
Most recently, Wassman and Dasen's Balinese language test (1998)
found differences in how the Balinese people orient themselves
spatially to that of Westerners. They found that the use of an
absolute reference system based on geographic points on the island
in the Balinese language correlates to the significant cultural
importance of these points to the people. They questioned how
language affects the thinking of the Balinese people and found
moderate linguistic relativity results.
There are, on the other hand, several studies that dispute the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Most of these studies favor universalism
over relativism in the realm of linguistic structure and function.
For example, Osgood's common meaning system study found that
"human beings the world over, no matter what their language
or culture, do share a common meaning system, do organize experience
along similar symbolic dimensions" (1963:33)
In his universalism studies, Greenberg came to the conclusion
that "agreement in the fundamentals of human behavior among
speakers of radically diverse languages far outweighs the idiosyncratic
differences to be expected from a radical theory of linguistic
relativity" (1963:125).
Alford's interpretation of Whorf shows that Whorf never intended
for perception of the color spectrum to be used to defend his
principle of linguistic relativity. Alford states, "In fact,
he is quite clear in stating that perception is clearly distinct
from conception and cognition, or language-related thinking"
(1980).
Even Dr. Roger Brown, who was one of the first researchers to
find empirical support for the hypothesis, now argues that there
is much more evidence pointing toward cognitive universalism rather
than linguistic relativity (Schlesinger 1991:26).
Berlin and Kay's color study (1969) found universal focus colors
and differences only in the boundaries of colors in the spectrum.
They found that regardless of language or culture, eleven universal
color foci emerge. Underlying apparent diversity in color vocabularies,
these universal foci remain recognizable. Even in languages which
do not discriminate to eleven basic colors, speakers are nonetheless
able to sort color chips based on the eleven focus colors.
Davies' cross-cultural color sorting test (1998) found an obvious
pattern in the similarity of color sorting behavior between speakers
of English which has eleven basic colors, Russian which has twelve
(they distinguish two blues), and Setswana which has only five
(grue=green-blue). Davies concluded that the data showed strong
universalism.
Culture influences the structure and functions of a group's
language, which in turn influences the individual's interpretations
of reality. Whorf saw language and culture as two inseparable
sides of a single coin. According to Alford, "Whorf sensed
something ‘chicken-and-egg-y' about the language-culture
interaction phenomenon" (1980). Indeed, deciding which came
first the language or the culture is impossible to discern. Schlesinger
notes that Whorf recognized two directions of influence–from
culture to language and vice versa. However, according to Schlesinger,
Whorf argues that "since grammar is more resistant to change
than culture, the influence from language to culture is predominant"
(1991:17).
Language reinforces cultural patterns through semantics, syntax
and naming. Grammar and the forms of words show hierarchical
importance of something to a culture. However, the common color
perception tests are not strongly linked to cultural experience.
Schlesinger agrees: "Whorf made far-reaching claims about
the pervasive effects of language on the mental life of a people,
and all that experimental psychologists managed to come up with
were such modest results as the effect of the vocabulary of a
language on the discriminability of color chips" (1991:30).
In 1955, Dr. James Cooke Brown attempted to separate language
and culture to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. He suggested
the creation of a new language–one not bound to any particular
culture--to distinguish the causes from the effects of language,
culture, and thought. He called this artificial language LOGLAN,
which is short for Logical Language. According to Riner, LOGLAN
was designed as an experimental language to answer the question:
"In what ways is human thought limited and directed by the
language in which one thinks?" (1990).
Today with the help of the Internet, many people around the
world are learning LOGLAN. Riner appears positive in the continuing
work with LOGLAN to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:
"As far as we can yet know, LOGLAN can accommodate precisely
and unambiguously the native ways of saying things in any natural
language. In fact, because it is logically rigorous, LOGLAN forces
the speaker to make the metaphysical (cultural, worldview) premises
in and of the natural language explicit in rendering the thought
into (disambiguated) LOGLAN. Those assumptions, made explicit,
become propositions that are open for critical review and amendment–so
not only can the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis be tested, but its details
can be investigated with LOGLAN" (1990).
Further research and linguistic development is necessary to
find out if LOGLAN will defend or dispute the theory of linguistic
relativism.
Other aspects of this hypothesis which warrant further research
include another look at Peterson and Siegal's study involving
deaf children, and Lucy's suggestion of a new theoretical account
of language and thought. In Peterson and Siegal's study there
are revealed two naturally occurring groups–deaf children
of hearing parents and deaf children of deaf parents--which allow
for a within culture test of linguistic relativity (Skoyles 1999).
Their results offer direct evidence that language molds thought.
Additional research in this area with specific testing of the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in mind could prove successful. Also,
Lucy states that all linguistic relativity proposals claim that
language has some influence on thoughts about reality. He further
suggests that "a theoretical account needs to articulate
exactly how languages interpret experiences and how those interpretations
influence thought" (1997:291).
In his introduction to Whorf's body of work, John Carroll suggests
a reason why so much attention and controversy surround the theory
of linguistic relativism. Carroll states, "Perhaps it is
the suggestion that all one's life one has been tricked, all unaware,
by the structure of language into a certain way of perceiving
reality, with the implication that awareness of this trickery
will enable one to see the world with fresh insight" (1956:27).
The world is getting smaller with the diffusion of computers
and new communications technology. Interaction between members
of different cultures is becoming easier and more prevalent.
On a global scale, the hypothesis could be taken as a possible
rationalization why foreign nations fail to communicate successfully.
Awareness of linguistic relativity, however, should lead to
a better understanding of cultural diversities and help to bridge
intercultural communication gaps.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alford, D. 1980. "Demise of the Whorf Hypothesis." http://www.sunflower.com/~dwatson/dma-dwh.htm. Accessed 10/27/99.
Berlin, B and P. Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bloom, A. 1981. The Linguistic Shaping of Thought. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Brown, R. and E. Lenneberg. 1954. "A Study in Language and Cognition." Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology 49:454-462.
Brown, R. 1957. "Linguistic Determinism and the Part of Speech." Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology 55:1-5.
Brown, R. and E. Lenneberg. 1958. "Studies in Linguistic Relativity." Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Brown, R. 1976. "In Memorial Tribute to Eric Lenneberg." Cognition 4:125-153.
Carroll, J. 1956. "Introduction." Language, Thought & Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carroll, J. and J. Casagrande. 1958. "The Function of Language Classification in Behavior." Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chandler, D. 1994. "The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." http://www.aber.ac.uk/~dgc/whorf.html. Accessed 10/5/99.
Cole, M. and S. Scribner. 1974. Culture and Thought: A Psychological Introduction. New York: Wiley.
Cooper, R. and B. Spolsky (Eds.). 1991. Influence of Language on Culture & Thought. New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Crystal, D. 1987. "Thought and Language." Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. http://www.wcsu.ctstateu.edu/valkommen/thought.html. Accessed 10/5/99.
Davies, I. and G. Gorbet. 1997. "A Cross-cultural Study of Colour Grouping: Evidence for Weak Linguistic Relativity." British Journal of Psychology 88(3):493-519.
Davies, I. 1998. "A Study of Colour Grouping in Three Languages: A Test of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis." British Journal of Psychology 89(3):433-453.
Davies, I., P. Sowden and D. Jerrett. 1998. "A Cross-cultural Study of English and Setswana Speakers on a Colour Triads Task: A Test of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." British Journal of Psychology 89:1-15.
Greenawalt, E. and P. Long. 1999. "Linguistic Relativity Resource Center." http://www.baylor.edu/~erin_greenawalt/relativity.html. Accessed 11/9/99.
Greenberg, J. 1963. "Language and Linguistics." Behavioral Sciences Today. New York: Basic Books.
Harnad, S. 1995. "The Warp Factor." Guardian (London) 23 Feb 1995 p.11. http://cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/whorf.html. Accessed 10/5/99.
Hardin, C. and M. Banaji. 1993. "The Influence of Language on Thought." Social Cognition 11:277-308.
Hayes, C. 1977. ABC's of Languages & Linguistics: A Practical Primer to Language Science in Today's World. Silver Spring, MD: Institute of Modern Language.
Humboldt, W. 1841-52. Gesammelte Werke. Berlin.
Hunt, E. and F. Agnoli. 1991. " The Whorfian Hypothesis: A Cognitive Psychology Perspective." Psychology Review 98:377-389.
Johnston, P. 1996. "Between Mush and a Hard Place." ETC: A Review of General Semantics 53(3):285-292.
Kay, P and W. Kempton. 1984. "What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?" American Anthropologist 86:65-79.
Lee, P. 1997. "Language in Thinking and Learning: Pedagogy and the New Whorfian Framework." Harvard Educational Review 67:430-471.
Lenneberg, E. 1953. "Cognition in Ethnolinguistics." Language 29:469-470.
Lucy, J. 1997. "Linguistic Relativity." Annual Review of Anthropology 26:291-313.
Lucy, J. and R. Shweder. 1979. "Whorf and His Critics: Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Influences on Color Memory." American Anthropologist 81:581-615.
Mandelbaum, D. 1956. Edward Sapir: Culture, Language & Personality. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press.
Orwell, G. 1948. "1984." New York, NY: New American Library.
Osgood, C. 1963. "An Exploration into Semantic Space." Human Communication. New York: Basic Books.
Pederson. 1999. "Linguistic Relativity/Determinism." http://logos.uoregon.edu/uoling/faculty/pederson/396/LingRelHO.htm. Accessed 10/27/99.
Penn, J. 1972. Linguistic Relativity Versus Innate Ideas: The Origins of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in German Thought. Paris: Mouton.
Peterson, C. and M. Siegal. 1995. "Deafness, Conversation and Theory of Mind." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 36:459-474
Phillips, C. 1998. "Language and Thought: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." http://www.ling.udel.edu/colin/courses/ling101_f98/lecture17.html. Accessed 10/27/99.
Pullum, G. 1991. The Great Eskimo Hoax & Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Riner, R.D. 1990. "LOGLAN and the Option of Clarity." ETC: A Review of General Semantics 47(3):269-280.
Ross, P.E. 1992. "New Whoof in Whorf.: An Old Language Theory Regains its Authority." Scientific American 266(2):24-26.
Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
Sapir, E. 1929. "The Status of Linguistics as a Science." Language 5:209.
Schlesinger, I.M. 1991. "The Wax and Wane of Whorfian Views."in Cooper, R. and B. Spolsky (Eds.) Influence of Language on Culture & Thought. New York: Mounton de Gruyter.
Skoyles, J. 1999. "The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: New Surprising Evidence." http://www.user.globalnet.co.uk/~skoyles/swh.htm. Accessed 10/12/99.
Steinfatt, T. 1989. "Linguistic Reality: Toward a Broader View." Language, Communication and Culture: Current Directions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Terwilliger, R. 1968. Meaning and Mind: A Study in the Psychology of Language. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Wassman, J. and P. Dasen. 1998. "Balinese Spatial Orientation." Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute 4(4):689-713.
Whorf, B. 1940. "Science and Linguistics." reprinted in Language, Thought & Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Whorf, B. 1956. Language, Thought & Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1960. "LOGLAN." Scientific American 202(40):53-63.
1999."Current Interpretations of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.htm. Accessed 10/5/99.
1999. "Lojban and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." Alamut: Bastion of Peace and Information. http://www.alamut.com/subj/artiface/language/sapirWhorf.html. Accessed 10/5/99.
1999. "The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis." http://venus.va.com.au/suggestion/sapir.html. Accessed 10/5/99.
1999. "Whorf's Hypothesis of Linguistic Relativity." http://www.ex.ac.uk/~mjaclaes/thesis/lit4/node32.html. Accessed 11/10/99.
Rebecca Ash
COMM 374
12/3/99