Traditionally, the human being has understood language as a means of communication through which it is possible to establish a link with the world and allows us to express what we think or feel.

This conception sees language as a means of expressing what is already inside. However, for Sapir-Whorf’s theory of language, it has a much greater importance , having a much more important role in organizing, thinking or even perceiving the world.

Although the relationship between thought and language has been a field of study that has received much interest from psychologists and linguists, few theories have gone so far in relating these two worlds.

When language shapes thought

According to Sapir-Whorf’s language theory, human communication at the verbal level, the use of language in human beings, is not limited to expressing our mental contents . For this theory, language plays a very important role in shaping our way of thinking and even our perception of reality, determining or influencing our view of the world.

In this way, the grammatical categories in which language classifies the world around us make us stick to a specific way of thinking, reasoning and perceiving, this being linked to the culture and communicative context in which we are immersed throughout childhood. In other words, the structure of our language makes us tend to use specific structures and interpretative strategies.

Likewise, Sapir-Whorf’s language theory states that each language has its own terms and conceptualizations that cannot be explained in other languages. This theory therefore emphasizes the role of the cultural context in providing a framework in which to elaborate our perceptions, so that we are able to observe the world within socially imposed margins .

Some examples

For example, the Eskimo people are used to living in cold environments with large amounts of snow and ice, possessing in their language the ability to discriminate between various types of snow. In comparison with other peoples, this contributes to their being much more aware of the nature and context in which they live, being able to perceive nuances of reality that a Westerner might not.

Another example can be seen in some tribes in whose language there are no references to time. Such individuals have severe difficulties in conceptualizing time units . Other peoples do not have words to express certain colours, such as orange.

.

A final, much more recent example is the term umami, a Japanese concept that refers to a flavour derived from the concentration of glutamate and which for other languages has no specific translation, being difficult for a Western person to describe.

Two versions of Sapir-Whorf theory

With the passage of time and the criticism and demonstrations that seemed to indicate that the effect of language on thought is not as modulating of perception as the theory initially stipulated, Sapir-Whorf’s theory of language has undergone some subsequent modifications . This is why we can speak of two versions of this theory.

1. Strong hypothesis: linguistic determinism

The initial vision of Sapir-Whorf’s language theory had a very deterministic and radical view of the role of language. For the strong Whorphine hypothesis, language completely determines our judgment , thinking and perception capacity, giving them form and even being able to consider that thought and language are in essence the same thing.

Under this premise, a person whose language does not contemplate a certain concept will not be able to understand it or distinguish it. As an example, a people who have no word for the color orange will not be able to distinguish one stimulus from another whose only difference is the color. In the case of those who do not include temporal notions in their speech, they will not be able to distinguish between what happened a month ago and what happened twenty years ago, or between present, past or future.

Evidence

Several subsequent studies have shown that Sapir-Whorf’s theory of language is not correct, at least in its deterministic conception , and experiments and research have been carried out that reflect its falsity at least partially.

Ignorance of a concept does not imply that it cannot be created within a given language, which under the premise of the strong hypothesis would not be possible. Although it is possible that a concept does not have a concrete correlate in another language, it is possible to generate alternatives.

Continuing with the examples of previous points, if the strong hypothesis were correct, people who do not have a word to define a colour would not be able to distinguish between two equal stimuli except in that aspect , since they would not be able to perceive the differences. However, experimental studies have shown that they are fully capable of distinguishing such stimuli from others of different colour.

Similarly, we may not have a translation for the term umami, but we are able to detect that it is a taste that leaves a velvety sensation in the mouth, leaving a prolonged and subtle aftertaste.

Likewise, other linguistic theories, such as that of Chomsky, have studied and indicated that although language is acquired through a long learning process, there are partially innate mechanisms that, before the emergence of language as such, allow us to observe communicative aspects and even the existence of concepts in babies, which are common to most known peoples.

2. Weak hypothesis: linguistic relativism

The initial deterministic hypothesis was, over time, modified in the face of evidence that the examples used to defend it were not completely valid and did not demonstrate a total determination of thought by language.

However, Sapir-Whorf’s theory of language has been developed in a second version, according to which although language does not determine per se thought and perception, but it does result in an element that helps to shape and influence the type of content to which most attention is paid.

For example, it is proposed that the characteristics of the spoken language may influence the way in which certain concepts are conceived or the attention given to certain nuances of the concept to the detriment of others.

Evidence

This second version has found some empirical evidence, since it reflects that the fact that a person finds it difficult to conceptualize a certain aspect of reality because his language does not contemplate it makes him not focus on such aspects.

For example, while a Spanish speaker tends to pay close attention to the verb tense, others like Turkish tend to focus on who performs the action, or English on the spatial position. Thus, each language favours highlighting specific aspects , which when acting in the real world can provoke slightly different reactions and responses. For example, the Spanish speaker will find it easier to remember when something has happened than where, if he is asked to remember.

It can also be observed when sorting objects. While some people will use the shape to catalogue objects, others will tend to associate things by their material or colour.

The fact that a certain concept does not exist in language means that even if we are able to perceive it we do not tend to pay attention to it. If for us and our culture it is not important whether what happened a day ago or a month ago, if we are asked directly when it happened it will be difficult for us to give an answer since it is something we have never thought about. Or if we are presented with something with a strange characteristic, such as a colour that we have never seen, it may be perceived but will not be decisive in making distinctions unless colouring is an important element in our thinking.

Bibliographic references:

  • Parra, M. (n.d.). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Department of Linguistics, National University of Colombia.
  • Sapir, E. (1931). Conceptual categories in primitive languages. Science.
  • Schaff, A. (1967). Language and Knowledge. Editorial Grijalbo: Mexico.
  • Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality. The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts.