Over 7,000 human languages have been identified on Earth. This means that human cognition has naturally developed to use 7,000 systems of communication to exchange information and thoughts. Yet they are often unintelligible to one another and have strikingly different features. Given the complexity of the human communication system, one may wonder whether language influences thought, and, more specifically, whether the language one speaks can influence the way one thinks. This quest is at the heart of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the Linguistic Relativity hypothesis.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the Linguistic Relativity hypothesis, was originally formulated by the two 20th-century linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf. At its heart, the idea is that the language one speaks can set limits on the concepts one can think of. Hence, according to this hypothesis, language plays an incredibly significant role in determining the objects and modalities of one’s thought.
For a practical example, think of words for colors. Color words differ across languages, with some having numerous lexical items that discriminate among several core colors (e.g., crimson or lilac), and others having as few as two lexical items to discriminate between light and dark colors.
Hence, according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, not having a word for a color in one’s native language would prevent one from thinking discretely about that color or from perceiving it distinctly in thought. Therefore, speaking a language that does not have a word for “green” might prevent one from distinctly imagining and perceiving “green” as different from “blue” or “yellow.”
Similarly, not all languages have the same words for emotions. Hence, not having a word to describe an emotion one feels might lead one to struggle to identify and distinguish it from others, consequently making it difficult to think of it as distinct from other emotions.
The Success of the Hypothesis
While suffering from several fallacies, the hypothesis remains among the best-known findings in linguistic research among non-linguists. Exploring whether a human artifact, such as language, may have the power to limit one’s thought ability is undeniably fascinating. It is bound to generate great interest even among laypersons.
However, in addition to the appeal of the topic, the hypothesis can also achieve some theoretical success if it performs well during testing. The main thing we want to check is whether there is a measurable difference in the discrimination of objects with certain labels between the two groups: the one with a good command of such labels, and the other without such a command. Technically speaking, labeling objects and concepts is a way to identify and distinguish them from similar or dissimilar items. In philosophy of language and semantics, this is called reference or denotation.
For example, the lexical item “child” denotes a human of any gender under the age of 13, whereas “teenager,” “adult,” and “elderly person” denote humans of any gender but in different age groups. In this example, the lexical items clarify that one is not simply referring to any human of any gender, but to any human of any gender within a specific age group. Being able to avail oneself of those labels allows one to recognize the existence of each group and to discriminate between them.
It is easy to imagine that if the labels for each group did not exist, one would necessarily struggle to identify them as separate and would rather think more easily of humanity as a whole.
The Problems With the Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, however, goes beyond advocating for denotation and rather states that thinking about, or even perceiving, entities that do not have a name in one’s language is impossible.
Think, for example, of the German word “Schadenfreude,” which describes the concept of rejoicing or being happy for the misfortune or failure of others. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis not only argues that having a word to name and denote the emotion allows one to picture it more clearly and perceive it in contrast with other emotions of the same kind, but also claims that one would not be able to think about, feel, or perceive this emotion overall. Hence, the hypothesis claims that the ability to think about the feeling of rejoicing at someone’s misfortune is more limited among English speakers than among German speakers.
A similar example could be made when thinking of colors. Italian distinguishes between dark blue, associated with the color of the sea or a night sky, and named “blu,” and light blue, associated with the color of the sky on a sunny day and named “azzurro.” Those two colors do not act as shades of one another, any more than, for an English speaker, “pink” or “orange” are shades of “red”; they are colors in their own nature. It might be possible to claim that not having a name to discriminate between dark and light blue could increase the difficulty in perceiving them as clearly distinct. However, it is undeniable that the language used cannot limit one’s power to think about a darker blue and a lighter blue.
What Does Linguistics Say?
While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has generated considerable debate, modern linguists widely reject linguistic determinism (the idea that language determines what we can think) many contemporary researchers accept a weaker version known as linguistic relativity, which demonstrates that language can influence cognitive biases and perception.
Languages are constantly evolving, but language change is never independent of human agency. Languages are tools for human communication and, as such, are shaped by the needs of human communicators. Hence, languages, by nature, develop and evolve according to the communicative needs of their users.
This entails that languages automatically develop lexical items and expressions for things that need to be communicated. When new experiences bring language users to face new thoughts and perceptions, or when they feel the need to denote a particular instance of an experience in contrast with others of the same kind, they would develop a way to do so.
To provide a practical example, imagine moving to a very faraway country and tasting the local food. The flavors that you would experience would necessarily be incredibly different from the ones you are accustomed to, and you might feel the need to avail of a new word or periphrasis to describe them.
The new flavors consist of a new experience and a new perception, which, once experienced and perceived, may require you to adapt your language to describe a wholly new sensation. However, the fact that your language might not have had a way to describe that flavor does not entail that you could not perceive it, and that you cannot think back about it. Instead, the language adapted itself to your newly arisen need for expression.
It follows that language does not come before thought but rather serves as a tool for communicating thoughts. Hence, arguing that language can determine thought would entail misunderstanding the influence that thought has over language and the derivational process that joins experience, perception, and thought to language.
What Does Philosophy Say?
While linguistically challenging, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is bound to generate further debate in the field of philosophy, particularly in the philosophy of mind. Philosophy of mind is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with cognition, i.e., the functioning of the mind, and the way we perceive, understand, and communicate. Part of its endeavor is also to investigate the nature of cognitive relations and exchanges between individuals, a matter that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis directly challenges.
A very relevant issue presented by the hypothesis is that, by accepting it, one would have to argue that humans have overall different systems of cognition that are ultimately incompatible.
At the risk of simplifying the hypothesis, it would follow from the fact that over 7,000 languages have been identified in the world, that humanity has developed over 7,000 systems of cognition, shaped by the languages associated with them. Claiming that humans do not share a cognitive system, but rather have several cognitive systems, each slightly or deeply different from the others, inevitably raises additional questions about communication and understanding.
The Destiny of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
This much can be safely concluded: since its initial formulation, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has generated great interest and fed numerous debates both within and outside of the academic world.
As pointed out in the previous sections, its claims are too strong and ultimately inconsistent with the nature of cognition. So, the hypothesis is wrong.
The hypothesis has made some interesting predictions that have prompted academic interest in the relationship between language and cognition and inspired multiple insightful studies on the issue. Hence, while the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been widely investigated and revised better to reflect the actual nature of the human cognitive system and enhance its potential accuracy, it has also been criticized for making inaccurate predictions.
Considering that this would not have been possible without the initial formulation of the hypothesis, its value remains unobjectionable for the interest that it has generated in the study of the relation between language, thought, and cognition.
