Sapir whorf theory: Introduction:

The linguistic relativity principle, or the SapirWhorf hypothesis, is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the behave differently depending on the language they use. The hypothesis is generally understood as having two different versions: (i) the strong version that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavior

way they people think, so that speakers of different languages will tend to think and

categories and (ii) the weak version that linguistic categories and usage influence

reality which is perceived in thought. Perception and expression are frequently understood to be synonymous and it is assumed that our speech is based on our

It is often thought that the reality expressed in spoken word is the very same as the

thoughts. This idea presumes that what one says is dependant of how it is encoded one perceives is dependent on the spoken word. To the followers of this idea, Lee Whorf are known for their part in the popularization of this very

and decoded in the mind. However, there are many that believe the opposite: what thought is dependant on language. Linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin principle. Their collective theory, know as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or more all communication theory. The theory also fulfills the criteria, which essentially determine its workability.

commonly the Theory of Linguistic Relativity, holds great significance in the scope of

reality. It is a mould theory in that it represents language as a mould in terms of language-what you see is based on what you say.

The Theory of Linguistic Relativity holds that: ones language shapes ones view of

which thought categories are cast. More basically, it states that thought is cast from

Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativity. The first part, linguistic

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be divided into two basic components:

determinism, refers to the concept that what is said, has only some effect on how concepts are recognized by the mind. This basic concept has been broken down even further into strong and weak determinism.Strong determinism refers to a an experiment done by two Australian scientists, Peterson and Siegal, this view of

strict view that what is said is directly responsible for what is seen by the mind. In determinism is shown to be supported. In the experiment, deaf children view a doll, which is placed a marble in a box. The children then see the marble removed and placed in a basket after the doll is taken away. They are later asked where they

believe the doll will look for the marble upon returning. Overwhelmingly, the deaf deaf children with non-deaf parents answer mostly incorrectly.

children with deaf parents answer correctly (that the doll will look in the box). The

parents have communicated with them through complex sign language and their being able to get the correct answer. The children, having grown up in an environment with complex language (American Sign Language) recognized that the doll would probably look to where she had placed the marble. The other children, who had not grown up in a stable linguistic environment (their parents not being hearing impaired and thus not being fluent in ASL) were not able to see the Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis was correct according to strong determinism

The experiment showed clearly the relationship between deaf children whose

relationship. These results lead the experimenter John R. Skoyles to believe that the

indeed some affect on perception of ones language, but that this is not as clear as in strong determinism. For instance, in weak determinism language does not define by language. ones view of the world, whereas, in strong determinism this view is defined strictly

The other view on determinism, weak determinism, recognizes that there is

part of the hypothesis can be defined: distinctions encoded in one language are

The second division of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is linguistic relativism. This

unique to that language along, and that there is no limit to the structural diversity of languages (The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, p.1). As stated by Sapir himself:

social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their societyThe fact of the matter is that the real world is to a large extent

Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of

unconsciously built on the language habits of the groupWe see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation.

This view of cognition can be more simply defined as meaning: the language which will think and perceive the world in.

one is brought up in (socially exposed to and taught) is the language that that person

not translate to each other. One such example is of the Punjabi word joot. This word in its most literal translation to English means the unclean, not pure, or

Linguistic relativity opens the window to the realization that all languages do

with-germs (as in half eaten food). No matter how many definitions one tries to

constructjoot cannot be translated in its full meaning. This brings to mind that

notion that language is relative, thus the same word can have different meanings for different people and these subjective meanings let rise varying cognitions. Linguist Ferruccio Rossi Landi paraphrases that the formal relationships of language exert an influence on the rest of social life and on the way of thinking of the speaker of that language(Language As Work & Trade, 1983, p.114).

Hypothesis very pragmatically presents this. The first concept provided within the theory, linguistic determination, makes sense when applied to reality. In actual thought one does indeed perceive concepts and objects in accordance to the words

Indeed language does have an affect on thinking and the Sapir-Wharf

used to describe them. In a personal experiment I individually asked a group of my

peers what they saw (in their minds-eye) when I said the word table. More than half of them saw a dinning table, a few saw a coffee table, and one saw a mathematical table. This showed me that although all of the responses I received one broad word: table.

had specific names (dining table, coffee table, etc.), their naming was triggered by

my inquiry into the second portion of the theory, linguistic relativity. I then went and asked an elderly relative of mine from India if they were aware of a word for word for coffee tableso if they were asked to visualize a coffee table when they were younger and still in their birth nation they would never have cognitively word for table, the word mech, and it refers to a dining table.

After determining that this portion did indeed make good sense to me I continued

coffee table in Punjabi (my ethnic language) and the response was no. There is no

recognized a coffee table (considering they were monolingual). There is only one

evaluation and meets them very well. The first of these criteria is that of the

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis addresses the criteria that are set forth for

theoretical scope. This criterion refers to the comprehensiveness of a theory. When see that there are many possibilities: all of thought to be more accurate. Everything that is encoded and decoded and the language used by society and cultures used all are encompassed in this theory.

looking at what is included in the possible factors of analysis for this theory, one can

language by which one is surrounded has an affect on how they decode and that

Appropriateness is also achieved by this theory. The theory expects that the

encoding differs from language-to-language and cannot always be translated. In

experimentation this has been tested and then shown. In my experiment, mentions images, all because of the receivers different experiences with the word. This was

earlier, I anticipated that the word table would bring to different minds--different then proven when I actually asked the question. This experiment also supports the heuristic value of the theory. At the time of my experiment I had not even thought

of the heuristic value of the hypothesis. The theory so interested me that I just did the experiment as a means of personally verifying its validity.

criteria. From the experiment as well as from earlier, more notable ones it can be noted that this theory holds great value. It also accomplishes correspondence times. validity because the theory is very observable and has been observed numerous

This validity, which was tested and found to be supported, is the next of the

sound. It makes complete sense that ones atmosphere and culture will have an

Furthermore, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is very simple and logically

affect on their decoding. Referring back to the elderly Punjabi, they did not grow up with coffee tables; therefore, it did not come to mind. Likewise, in research done by the authors of the theory, many Indian tribes do not have word for certain objects because they do not exist in their lives. The logical plainness of this idea of relativism clearly provides parsimony.

successfully. The theory is shown as a window through which to view the cognitive process, not as an absolute. It is set forth to be used in looking at a phenomenon differently than one usually would.

Finally, the Theory of Linguistic Relativity also achieves openness

be used in describing a great many misunderstandings in everyday life. When one says a Pennsylvanian says yuns it doesnt make any sense to a Californian, but

Pragmatically the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis makes sense. It has the potential to

when examines it is just another word for you all. The Linguistic Relativity Theory addresses this and points out that it is all-relative. This notion of relativity, passes beyond dialect boundaries, and delves into the world of language--from county-tocountry and consequently from mind-to-mind. Is language reality truly a ward of thought or is it thought which occurs because of language. The Sapir Wharf and thus forming in thought.

Hypothesis very transparently presents a view of reality being expressed in language