what does hypothesis of linguistic relativity mean

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: How Language Influences How We Express Ourselves

Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

what does hypothesis of linguistic relativity mean

Thomas Barwick / Getty Images

What to Know About the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Real-world examples of linguistic relativity, linguistic relativity in psychology.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, refers to the idea that the language a person speaks can influence their worldview, thought, and even how they experience and understand the world.

While more extreme versions of the hypothesis have largely been discredited, a growing body of research has demonstrated that language can meaningfully shape how we understand the world around us and even ourselves.

Keep reading to learn more about linguistic relativity, including some real-world examples of how it shapes thoughts, emotions, and behavior.

The hypothesis is named after anthropologist and linguist Edward Sapir and his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf. While the hypothesis is named after them both, the two never actually formally co-authored a coherent hypothesis together.

This Hypothesis Aims to Figure Out How Language and Culture Are Connected

Sapir was interested in charting the difference in language and cultural worldviews, including how language and culture influence each other. Whorf took this work on how language and culture shape each other a step further to explore how different languages might shape thought and behavior.

Since then, the concept has evolved into multiple variations, some more credible than others.

Linguistic Determinism Is an Extreme Version of the Hypothesis

Linguistic determinism, for example, is a more extreme version suggesting that a person’s perception and thought are limited to the language they speak. An early example of linguistic determinism comes from Whorf himself who argued that the Hopi people in Arizona don’t conjugate verbs into past, present, and future tenses as English speakers do and that their words for units of time (like “day” or “hour”) were verbs rather than nouns.

From this, he concluded that the Hopi don’t view time as a physical object that can be counted out in minutes and hours the way English speakers do. Instead, Whorf argued, the Hopi view time as a formless process.

This was then taken by others to mean that the Hopi don’t have any concept of time—an extreme view that has since been repeatedly disproven.

There is some evidence for a more nuanced version of linguistic relativity, which suggests that the structure and vocabulary of the language you speak can influence how you understand the world around you. To understand this better, it helps to look at real-world examples of the effects language can have on thought and behavior.

Different Languages Express Colors Differently

Color is one of the most common examples of linguistic relativity. Most known languages have somewhere between two and twelve color terms, and the way colors are categorized varies widely. In English, for example, there are distinct categories for blue and green .

Blue and Green

But in Korean, there is one word that encompasses both. This doesn’t mean Korean speakers can’t see blue, it just means blue is understood as a variant of green rather than a distinct color category all its own.

In Russian, meanwhile, the colors that English speakers would lump under the umbrella term of “blue” are further subdivided into two distinct color categories, “siniy” and “goluboy.” They roughly correspond to light blue and dark blue in English. But to Russian speakers, they are as distinct as orange and brown .

In one study comparing English and Russian speakers, participants were shown a color square and then asked to choose which of the two color squares below it was the closest in shade to the first square.

The test specifically focused on varying shades of blue ranging from “siniy” to “goluboy.” Russian speakers were not only faster at selecting the matching color square but were more accurate in their selections.

The Way Location Is Expressed Varies Across Languages

This same variation occurs in other areas of language. For example, in Guugu Ymithirr, a language spoken by Aboriginal Australians, spatial orientation is always described in absolute terms of cardinal directions. While an English speaker would say the laptop is “in front of” you, a Guugu Ymithirr speaker would say it was north, south, west, or east of you.

As a result, Aboriginal Australians have to be constantly attuned to cardinal directions because their language requires it (just as Russian speakers develop a more instinctive ability to discern between shades of what English speakers call blue because their language requires it).

So when you ask a Guugu Ymithirr speaker to tell you which way south is, they can point in the right direction without a moment’s hesitation. Meanwhile, most English speakers would struggle to accurately identify South without the help of a compass or taking a moment to recall grade school lessons about how to find it.

The concept of these cardinal directions exists in English, but English speakers aren’t required to think about or use them on a daily basis so it’s not as intuitive or ingrained in how they orient themselves in space.

Just as with other aspects of thought and perception, the vocabulary and grammatical structure we have for thinking about or talking about what we feel doesn’t create our feelings, but it does shape how we understand them and, to an extent, how we experience them.

Words Help Us Put a Name to Our Emotions

For example, the ability to detect displeasure from a person’s face is universal. But in a language that has the words “angry” and “sad,” you can further distinguish what kind of displeasure you observe in their facial expression. This doesn’t mean humans never experienced anger or sadness before words for them emerged. But they may have struggled to understand or explain the subtle differences between different dimensions of displeasure.

In one study of English speakers, toddlers were shown a picture of a person with an angry facial expression. Then, they were given a set of pictures of people displaying different expressions including happy, sad, surprised, scared, disgusted, or angry. Researchers asked them to put all the pictures that matched the first angry face picture into a box.

The two-year-olds in the experiment tended to place all faces except happy faces into the box. But four-year-olds were more selective, often leaving out sad or fearful faces as well as happy faces. This suggests that as our vocabulary for talking about emotions expands, so does our ability to understand and distinguish those emotions.

But some research suggests the influence is not limited to just developing a wider vocabulary for categorizing emotions. Language may “also help constitute emotion by cohering sensations into specific perceptions of ‘anger,’ ‘disgust,’ ‘fear,’ etc.,” said Dr. Harold Hong, a board-certified psychiatrist at New Waters Recovery in North Carolina.

As our vocabulary for talking about emotions expands, so does our ability to understand and distinguish those emotions.

Words for emotions, like words for colors, are an attempt to categorize a spectrum of sensations into a handful of distinct categories. And, like color, there’s no objective or hard rule on where the boundaries between emotions should be which can lead to variation across languages in how emotions are categorized.

Emotions Are Categorized Differently in Different Languages

Just as different languages categorize color a little differently, researchers have also found differences in how emotions are categorized. In German, for example, there’s an emotion called “gemütlichkeit.”

While it’s usually translated as “cozy” or “ friendly ” in English, there really isn’t a direct translation. It refers to a particular kind of peace and sense of belonging that a person feels when surrounded by the people they love or feel connected to in a place they feel comfortable and free to be who they are.

Harold Hong, MD, Psychiatrist

The lack of a word for an emotion in a language does not mean that its speakers don't experience that emotion.

You may have felt gemütlichkeit when staying up with your friends to joke and play games at a sleepover. You may feel it when you visit home for the holidays and spend your time eating, laughing, and reminiscing with your family in the house you grew up in.

In Japanese, the word “amae” is just as difficult to translate into English. Usually, it’s translated as "spoiled child" or "presumed indulgence," as in making a request and assuming it will be indulged. But both of those have strong negative connotations in English and amae is a positive emotion .

Instead of being spoiled or coddled, it’s referring to that particular kind of trust and assurance that comes with being nurtured by someone and knowing that you can ask for what you want without worrying whether the other person might feel resentful or burdened by your request.

You might have felt amae when your car broke down and you immediately called your mom to pick you up, without having to worry for even a second whether or not she would drop everything to help you.

Regardless of which languages you speak, though, you’re capable of feeling both of these emotions. “The lack of a word for an emotion in a language does not mean that its speakers don't experience that emotion,” Dr. Hong explained.

What This Means For You

“While having the words to describe emotions can help us better understand and regulate them, it is possible to experience and express those emotions without specific labels for them.” Without the words for these feelings, you can still feel them but you just might not be able to identify them as readily or clearly as someone who does have those words.

Rhee S. Lexicalization patterns in color naming in Korean . In: Raffaelli I, Katunar D, Kerovec B, eds. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics. Vol 78. John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2019:109-128. Doi:10.1075/sfsl.78.06rhe

Winawer J, Witthoft N, Frank MC, Wu L, Wade AR, Boroditsky L. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(19):7780-7785. 10.1073/pnas.0701644104

Lindquist KA, MacCormack JK, Shablack H. The role of language in emotion: predictions from psychological constructionism . Front Psychol. 2015;6. Doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00444

By Rachael Green Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

General Categories
Mental Health
IQ and Intelligence
Bipolar Disorder

Linguistic Relativity in Psychology: Exploring the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Can the language we speak shape the very way we think, perceive, and understand the world around us? This seemingly simple question has sparked a fascinating debate in the field of psychology, linguistics, and cognitive science for decades. It’s a query that challenges our assumptions about the relationship between language and thought, inviting us to explore the intricate dance between words and ideas.

Imagine for a moment that you’re learning a new language. As you fumble through unfamiliar sounds and grammatical structures, you might find yourself not just speaking differently, but thinking differently too. This isn’t just a fleeting sensation; it’s a phenomenon that has captivated researchers and philosophers alike, giving rise to the concept of linguistic relativity in psychology.

The Roots of Linguistic Relativity: A Journey Through Time and Thought

The idea that language might influence thought isn’t new. It’s been kicking around in various forms since ancient times. But it wasn’t until the early 20th century that this notion really gained traction in the academic world. Enter Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, two linguists whose work would forever change how we think about… well, thinking.

Sapir, a renowned anthropologist-linguist, and his student Whorf, developed what would later be known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that the structure of a language determines, or at least influences, a speaker’s worldview and cognitive processes. It’s a bit like saying that the lens through which we view the world is tinted by the language we speak.

But why should we care about this? Well, it turns out that linguistic determinism in psychology has profound implications for how we understand human cognition, culture, and even our own identities. It challenges the notion of a universal human experience, suggesting instead that our perceptions might be as diverse as the languages we speak.

Unpacking the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis: More Than Just Words

So, what exactly is linguistic relativity in psychology? At its core, it’s the idea that the language we speak influences our cognitive processes. But it’s not just about vocabulary or grammar; it’s about how language shapes our very perception of reality.

Think about it this way: have you ever tried to explain a concept in one language, only to find that it’s much easier to express in another? That’s linguistic relativity in action. It suggests that some thoughts might be easier to conceive in certain languages due to their unique structures and vocabularies.

There are two main flavors of this theory: the strong version (linguistic determinism) and the weak version (linguistic influence). The strong version posits that language determines thought, while the weak version suggests that language merely influences thought. Most modern researchers lean towards the weak version, acknowledging that while language does impact cognition, it’s not the only factor at play.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: A Linguistic Revolution

Now, let’s dive a bit deeper into the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Benjamin Whorf’s contribution to psychology was groundbreaking. He studied Native American languages and noticed that they often encoded concepts differently from European languages. This led him to propose that speakers of different languages might perceive the world differently.

For instance, Whorf famously (and somewhat controversially) claimed that the Hopi language lacked words for time, leading its speakers to have a fundamentally different conception of time compared to English speakers. While this specific claim has been disputed, it sparked a wave of research into how different languages might shape different ways of thinking.

But it’s not all smooth sailing in the world of linguistic relativity. Critics argue that the hypothesis oversimplifies the complex relationship between language and thought. They point out that people can still think about concepts even if their language lacks specific words for them. After all, we can imagine new inventions before we have names for them, right?

The Evidence: From Colors to Numbers

Despite the controversies, there’s a growing body of evidence supporting the idea that language does influence thought in subtle but significant ways. Let’s look at some intriguing examples:

1. Color perception: Studies have shown that languages with more color terms can lead to faster color recognition. For instance, Russian speakers, who have separate words for light blue and dark blue, are quicker at distinguishing between these shades than English speakers.

2. Spatial cognition: Some languages use absolute directions (north, south, east, west) instead of relative ones (left, right). Speakers of these languages have been found to have superior spatial orientation skills.

3. Time perception: The way languages grammatically encode time can influence how speakers think about time. For example, Mandarin speakers tend to think about time vertically (with the future below and the past above), while English speakers think about it horizontally.

4. Numerical cognition: Languages with more precise number systems have been linked to better mathematical abilities. For instance, children who speak languages with regular counting systems (like Chinese) tend to learn to count earlier than those who speak languages with irregular systems (like English).

These findings suggest that while language might not determine thought entirely, it certainly seems to nudge our cognitive processes in certain directions.

The Ripple Effect: Implications of Linguistic Relativity

The implications of linguistic relativity extend far beyond academic curiosity. They touch on fundamental aspects of human experience and interaction. For instance, cultural relativism in psychology is closely tied to linguistic relativity, suggesting that our cultural and linguistic backgrounds shape our worldviews.

This has profound implications for fields like education and cross-cultural communication. If language shapes thought, then learning a new language isn’t just about memorizing vocabulary and grammar rules. It’s about gaining access to new ways of thinking and perceiving the world.

In the realm of second language acquisition, linguistic relativity suggests that learners might need to adjust not just their speech, but their cognitive patterns when using a new language. This could explain why truly bilingual individuals often report feeling like different people when speaking different languages.

Moreover, understanding linguistic relativity could help us design more effective educational strategies. By recognizing how language shapes cognition, we might be able to tailor teaching methods to leverage the strengths of different linguistic backgrounds.

Modern Perspectives: Neo-Whorfian Approaches and Beyond

As we’ve journeyed through the landscape of linguistic relativity, you might be wondering: where does this field stand today? Well, like any good scientific theory, it’s evolved.

Modern researchers have developed neo-Whorfian approaches that seek to refine and test the original hypothesis using rigorous experimental methods. These approaches acknowledge the complexity of the language-thought relationship, moving away from simplistic “language determines thought” claims towards more nuanced investigations of how language might influence specific cognitive processes.

One exciting area of research is the intersection of linguistic relativity with cognitive science and neurolinguistics. Brain imaging studies are beginning to reveal how language processing might interact with other cognitive functions, providing a biological basis for understanding linguistic influence.

Linguistic influence in psychology is now seen as a dynamic, multifaceted phenomenon. It’s not just about whether language influences thought, but how, when, and to what extent. Researchers are exploring questions like: How does multilingualism affect cognitive flexibility? How do different grammatical structures shape attention and memory? How might language influence decision-making processes?

The Future of Linguistic Relativity: Uncharted Territories

As we look to the future, the field of linguistic relativity continues to evolve and expand. Researchers are exploring new frontiers, from the impact of emoji and internet slang on cognition to the potential cognitive effects of programming languages.

One particularly intriguing area is the study of language acquisition psychology . By understanding how children acquire language and how this process shapes their cognitive development, we might gain deeper insights into the fundamental relationship between language and thought.

Moreover, as our world becomes increasingly interconnected, understanding linguistic relativity could be crucial for fostering cross-cultural understanding and communication. It reminds us that our linguistic diversity isn’t just a barrier to be overcome, but a rich tapestry of different ways of perceiving and interacting with the world.

Wrapping Up: The Endless Dance of Language and Thought

As we conclude our exploration of linguistic relativity in psychology, it’s clear that the relationship between language and thought is far more complex and nuanced than we might have initially imagined. While the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – that language determines thought – has largely fallen out of favor, there’s compelling evidence that language does influence our cognitive processes in subtle yet significant ways.

From color perception to spatial cognition, from time concepts to numerical thinking, our languages seem to gently guide our minds along certain paths. Yet, it’s crucial to remember that this influence isn’t deterministic. Human cognition is remarkably flexible, capable of transcending linguistic boundaries when needed.

The ongoing debate around linguistic relativity serves as a powerful reminder of the intricate interplay between language, culture, and cognition. It challenges us to consider how the words we use might shape our understanding of the world, and how learning new languages might open up new ways of thinking.

As we continue to unravel the mysteries of language development psychology and explore the cognitive foundations of grammar psychology , we’re likely to gain even deeper insights into this fascinating phenomenon. The study of linguistic relativity isn’t just about understanding language – it’s about understanding ourselves, our diverse ways of thinking, and the rich tapestry of human cognition.

So, the next time you find yourself struggling to express an idea in one language that seems so simple in another, or marveling at a concept that seems uniquely tied to a particular culture, remember: you might be experiencing linguistic relativity in action. It’s a testament to the beautiful complexity of human language and thought, a reminder that our words don’t just describe our world – they help shape it.

References:

1. Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65.

2. Casasanto, D. (2008). Who’s afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning, 58, 63-79.

3. Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. Metropolitan Books.

4. Everett, C. (2013). Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. De Gruyter Mouton.

5. Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge University Press.

6. Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65-79.

7. Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26(1), 291-312.

8. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70-96). Cambridge University Press.

9. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.

10. Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265.