Sapir-Whorf Theory

Since its inception in the early 20th century, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism has sparked major debates. This hypothesis describes the connection of language and thought, by suggesting that language controls thought. Along with this hypothesis cones two carnations that support it; the weaker version, linguistic relativity, describes language to be able to cause minor influences in thought. The stronger version, linguistic determinism describes language to have complete control of thought. On the other hand, academics such as Steven Pinker disagree with this concept, by stating that the hypothesis is “wrong, all wrong”. It is clear that although both sides have their merits, linguistic relativism is the most suitable conclusion to the Sapir- Whorf hypothesis.

One of the key controversies of the Sapir – Whorf hypothesis essentially describes language to have a complete control over thought. This is not mere speculation; rather it is supported by the fundamental differences within languages throughout the world. A key observation that Benjamin Whorf had made was focused around the semantics of words. He noted that workers of an oil plant would have been extremely careful when they were moving barrels full of petrol. But they were careless when the barrels were empty; even though an ‘empty’ barrel was far more dangerous than a ‘full’ one. This led him to conclude that the term ‘empty’ had caused this irregular behaviour; indicating that many words have predetermined meanings or connotations, thus determines the thought of people. Similarly, the structure of many languages differs greatly in the way that they are able to deliver information. For example, when Koreans describe whether obj...

... middle of paper ...

...speakers would point to the top and bottom of the dot. However, after learning Chinese, the English speakers’ cognitive abilities began to imitate that of the mandarin speakers. As new languages are learnt, people adjust their perception of the world.

Language does not fully influence thought; rather language provides us with a [air of tinted glasses, forever altering our perception. The three outcomes of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is linguistic determinism, linguistic relativism and that thought is not affected by language. Language is a tool for communication; its linguistic processes are common in most aspects of thought. It unconsciously influences our thought from basic cognition to major life decisions. The language that we speak influences the way we think, our perception of the world, and hence how we see ourselves in society.