Sapir-Whorf's theory of language

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 sorry.

This conception sees language as a means of expression of what is already within. However, for the Sapir-Whorf theory of language, it is of much greater importance, having a much more important role when organizing, thinking or even perceiving the world.

And it is that although the relationship between thought and language has been an area of ​​study that has received much interest on the part of psychologists and linguists, few theories have gone so far in linking these two worlds.

• Related article: "The 16 types of language (and their characteristics)"

When language shapes thought

According to the Sapir-Whorf language theory, human communication at the verbal level, the use of language in humans, is not limited to expressing our mental content. For this theory, language plays a highly relevant role in shaping our way of speaking. thinking and even our perception of reality, determining or influencing our vision of the world.

In this way, the grammatical categories in which language classifies the world that surrounds us makes us stick to a specific way of speaking. think, reason and perceive, this being linked to the culture and communicative context in which we are immersed throughout the childhood. In other words, the structure of our language it makes us tend to use specific interpretive structures and strategies.

Likewise, the Sapir-Whorf language theory establishes 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 offering a framework in which to elaborate our perceptions, so that we are capable of observe the world within socially imposed margins.

Some examples

For example, the Eskimo people are used to living in cold environments with lots of snow and ice, possessing in their language the ability to discriminate between different types of snow. Compared to other peoples, this contributes to their being much more aware of nature and context in which they live, being able to perceive nuances of reality that a Westerner is they escape.

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 colors, such as orange.

A last, much more recent example can be given with the term umami, a Japanese concept that refers to a flavor derived from the glutamate concentration and that for other languages ​​does not have a specific translation, being difficult to describe for a person western.

• You may be interested: "Noam Chomsky's theory of language development"

Two versions of the Sapir-Whorf theory

With the passage of time and the criticisms and demonstrations that seemed to indicate that the effect of language on thought is not as modulator of perception as initially stipulated by theory, Sapir-Whorf's theory of language has undergone some later modifications. That is why we can speak of two versions of this theory.

1. Strong hypothesis: linguistic determinism

Sapir-Whorf's initial view of language theory had a very deterministic and radical view of the role of language. For the strong Whorfian hypothesis, language completely determines our judgment, capacity for thought and perception, giving shape to them and it can even be considered that thought and language are essentially the same.

Under this premise, a person whose language does not contemplate a certain concept will not be able to understand or distinguish it. As an example, a people that does not have a word for the color orange will not be able to distinguish one stimulus from another whose only difference is 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 the Sapir-Whorf theory of language is not correct, at least in its deterministic conception, carrying out experiments and investigations that reflect its falsehood at least partially.

Ignorance of a concept does not imply that it cannot be created within a specific 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, the peoples that do not have a word to define a color they would not be able to distinguish between two equal stimuli except in that aspectas they could not perceive the differences. However, experimental studies have shown that they are fully capable of distinguishing these stimuli from others of different color.

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

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

• You may be interested: "Linguistic intelligence: what is it and how can it be improved?"

2. Weak hypothesis: linguistic relativism

The initial deterministic hypothesis was, over time, modified in light of the evidence that the examples used to defending it were not entirely valid nor did they demonstrate a total determination of thought on the part of the language.

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

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

Evidence

This second version has found some empirical proof, since it reflects that the fact that it costs a person conceptualize a certain aspect of reality because its language does not contemplate it makes it not focus on said aspects.

For example, while a Spanish speaker tends to pay close attention to the tense, others like Turkish tend to focus on who is doing the action, or English on spatial position. In this way, each language favors highlighting specific aspects, which when acting in the real world can provoke slightly different reactions and responses. For example, it will be easier for the Spanish speaker to remember when something has happened than where, if they are asked to remember it.

It can also be observed when classifying objects. While some peoples will use the form to catalog objects, others will tend to associate things by their material or color.

The fact that a certain concept does not exist in language causes that although 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 if what happened happened a day or a month ago, if we ask directly about when it happened, it will be difficult for us to give an answer since it is something in which we have never thought-out. Or if we are presented with something with a strange characteristic, such as a color that we have never seen, it can be perceived but It will not be decisive when making distinctions unless coloring is an important element in our thought.

Bibliographic references:

• Parra, M. (s.f.). 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.