The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis) is one of the most major breakthroughs in modern linguistics. It states that your thinking is effected or affected by the language(s) you know. How you see and experience the world is a product of your linguistic understanding of how to express it. Two people seeing the exact same sunset will have a different interpretation of the exact same experience if they speak two different languages.
The idea was arguably first presented in a recognizable form by Wilhelm von Humboldt in the 19th century (though the idea that language and experience are tied is far more ancient). It took until the early 20th century for this to cross from the realms of philosophy into that of science. Philosophy had opened the door to a new way of thinking which shaped understanding of the world and the science of linguistics.
With a name like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, you’d think that the named individuals were the first to present it as a scientific idea, but the very name of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a misnomer. Neither Edward Sapir or Benjamin Whorf came up with the theory, but they were credited with it initially. They did write prolifically on concepts related to it however.
The general underlying philosophy that language determines experience or language influences experience was already part of the zeitgeist for German humanist philosophy. This wasn’t a new idea, but the distillation of a philosophical idea into a scientific one. There was also a bit of disagreement on exactly how deep the connection to language and abstraction really was.
Strong and Weak Interpretation
I alluded to the multiple interpretations previously, but never went into detail. There are two primary interpretations, a strong interpretation and a weak interpretation. The strong interpretation states that language determines thought. What you are able to conceptualize, classify, and abstract is a product of what you are able to describe and define. While this interpretation was once the more commonly accepted interpretation, it largely fell out of favor (though I’ve had several professors who still adhere to it).
The simplest thought experiment to challenge (though not necessarily disprove) the strong interpretation is the idea of teaching colors or the concept of numbers or similar to a language without them. They may adopt the words or concepts and add them, but how does the idea reach their language? A linguistic concept correlates with the abstract concept, but “which concept came first?” is the typical relativist answer to this sort of question.
The implications of whether the concept spills over into language, or language spills over into the abstraction allows for the weak interpretation of linguistic relativism. The weak interpretation basically states that linguistic concepts impact thinking, but don’t necessarily limit it. This can be taken as something like trying to conceptualize 4D shapes to get a stronger version (possible but unnaturally difficult), or like an artist creating a color to paint with (easy but hard to communicate without a word).
Critics such as Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker have argued against linguistic relativism in general, but there evidence primarily goes against the strong interpretation. A tribe in the Amazon, known as the Pirahã present an argument for at least the weak interpretation. They lack a number system which directly impacts their ability to work with the concept efficiently. Linguistic limitations directly impact certain conceptual abilities. Just how deeply is a totally different question.
Implications of Linguistic Relativism
The strong interpretation has fallen out of favor for many reasons, some arguably more progressive than others. To put it bluntly, the strong interpretation states that different cultures have different conditioned conceptual abilities. A “simpler” tribal language (one with less contact) would “scientifically” be viewed as having a lower capacity to understand “advanced concepts”. This gets problematic quickly (and not just for the more obvious reasons).
Our previous example of the Pirahã had issues with applying memory based concepts to numbers. The Nambian Himba have a totally different color system (PDF) which impacts how they view and classify certain colors. While relativism can’t be ruled out, it also doesn’t seem to work out as strongly as was once believed. It’s hard to conceptualize certain things, but its also possible for people to learn and acquire the idea or the linguistics to differentiate what once was a foreign idea.
One of the big implications in this from a more personal perspective is how learning a language affects me. Learning a new language opens up a new way to ordering, classifying, and constructing thoughts. It makes certain concepts more accessible without wholesale borrowing. English may have no qualms with grabbing words and ideas, but it’s not quite the same as shaping your whole interpretation of your own mental state and understanding of the world to match a different linguistic system and culture.
I love learning languages. I love the challenge, but I love how it helps me explore the self. My personality in one language is arguably different than my personality in the other. I haven’t changed as a person, but my tools to convey myself have. The revelation that different languages were inherently different is what got me into linguistics and language learning in the first place.
Ego and Language Acquisition
How conceptually different your known language(s) and your target language are can impact how easy it is to learn. You can’t approach a new language expecting to just translate, you have to embrace and acquire it. You need to learn to speak using the arbitrary rules of the language and the culture behind it. The line between the language and the culture can quickly become blurred. What concepts are products of the language and what linguistic developments are the result of cultural development?
You can’t just conceptualize 车 in Mandarin as a “car” or even a “vehicle”. There’s a subtle enough difference that it’s not enough to just assign a term to it. You need to understand the concept of what is and isn’t included in the conceptualization for 车. It feels completely arbitrary in English, but that’s because it follows a different logic. Facing this sort of development can serve as a challenge to the ego to step back from its current understanding of the world.
Your linguistic understanding of how to categorize concepts needs to be readjusted to match the expectations of the target language. Some people can do this relatively easily, others can’t. Grammar gets even more complicated since it adjusts our interpretation of the overall situation. The particle 了 marks completion in Mandarin, but it isn’t easy to define rules for when you should use it or what exactly defines linguistic “completion”. There are whole books about it, and even those only scratch the surface.
A child in the right environment learns all of this absolutely effortlessly by comparison to an adult. Any neurotypical small child placed in any household anywhere in the world and raised there will learn the language around them. Adults need to challenge their worldview in a way which can be uncomfortable or counter-intuitive. I knew 了 was more than past tense, but going beyond past tense to understand the idea of completion was a completely different challenge.
Applying This to Language Learning
How we understand the language learning process directly impacts how we understand learning a language. As new scientific methods for learning have been discovered and tested, language learning materials have grown and evolved. By understanding the implications of how the difference in conceptualization works, you can approach a language differently.
There is a component of ego and fear when facing learning a new language for many people. There’s a boundary where they have to abandon what they know and are comfortable with in order to acquire what they don’t. Some can make the leap easily, others can flirt with the edge, others can’t even get that far.
Linguistic relativity may be up for debate in how strong the interpretation is, but we can see that the conditioning received can impact the ability to conceptualize new ideas. Are you ready to learn more and expand your horizons potentially challenging how you classify the world? This ability and willingness to iterate on the ego impacts whether a language student is going to succeed or not.
Opening new linguistic pathways opens new methods of expression. Learning a language isn’t just learning to communicate, it’s learning to interpret yourself into a different worldview and set of ideals while retaining the core essence of the self. Each new word, each new concept, each new linguistic hurdle introduces you to a new facet of yourself through a different filter. What does learning a language do for you?
Linguistic relativity is one of the most fundamental linguistic concepts to understanding the difference between languages. No matter the interpretation, we can agree that how you think and conceptualize is impacted by language. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis may be incredibly simple, but it’s also incredibly profound for how we view our relationship with higher thinking.
Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay