Can one plausibly argue that people who speak different languages live in different

worlds? What, exactly, could this mean?

Every man lives in his own world since we all perceive the world differently (and the

world must here be considered to be what we perceive it to be). There are a number of

factors that affect our perception of the world, most notably our senses, our memories and

the culture to which be belong. Is it possible that the language we happen to speak is also

such a factor?

Human beings perceive the world through senses, and process the acquired images

inside the brain together with memories and beliefs, to create impressions that we interpret

and respond to. Where in this model would language fit in if it also plays a part in this

procedure? Either in the processing of input (acting as a filter to what we can observe), or

in the interpretation of it (being a filter to what we can possibly know, and therefore also to

what we can observe). Both would qualify as factors in the production of our image of the

world. So if language is an essential part of our understanding, it most certainly makes us

live in different worlds.

Many people have argued that this is the case, most notably the two American linguists,

Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, fathers of the Sapir/Whorf-hypothesis. Basically,

their hypothesis is that people who speak different languages must be considered to live in

different worlds, since our understanding of the world is indeed dependent on language.

Their main arguments are related to how we encode information in the brain. Language,

Whorf says, is the universal set of knowledge into which we must first translate what we

observe before we can interpret and understand it. In other words, it is the words

themselves together with their definitions, that carry the concepts of knowledge. I can not

know neither what the word "car" means nor what it refers to, if I have not been previously
taught what it is, they argue. And there is no way to get around the problem by explaining

what is meant by the word "car", since you would then end up knowing what "car" means.

Skeptics argue that the basic concepts of knowledge are not part of language, but that

language is a scheme for naming these concepts. That knowledge is not linguistically

dependent, rather conceptually dependent. Commonly used examples are words like "if"

and "not", which are terribly hard to explain without using those very words themselves.

Therefore, some say, we have a basic set of concepts which we expand to suit the world,

and first later give words for when we have a need to communicate. Our view upon the

world has nothing to do with our language.

Basically, it all falls back on what was first of language and conceptual, ’intelligent’

thinking, since we undoubtedly can observe a quite strong relation between them. Try to

explain a concept without using words, or try to find a word that has no concept (not

counting interjections). Is it the concepts that define our words, or is it the other way

around? Before man had a language, was he able to think in abstract concepts? This is a

tough question, which has attracted many philosophers.

It has been hard for Whorf and company to prove their standpoint scientifically. Indeed,

at first glance, it does seem a bit far-fetched to claim that we should not be able to

understand something just because we do not know the right words to name it. Is it not

more likely that what we lack is a concept, since there is often a way of communicating

whatever was to be communicated in such a manner that we do understand it without

knowing the word? However, as we break up complex concepts into several smaller ones,

and also do the same with the words describing these concepts (dividing into

morphemes), we will find ourselves ending up with concepts that are nearly inseparable

from their words, or else they will lose their meanings. So Whorf’s followers have a point in

their arguments.
 So, do people who speak different languages live in different worlds? There is no doubt

that language is an important part of a world, since it enables much of the interaction

between humans. Culture, religion and science depends on language. Therefore it is

definitely a necessary premise to differentiate worlds. But could language by itself draw the

line between two worlds? Is it a sufficient premise? Hardly, as it should often be possible to

perceive the world without using language, but by a set of basic concepts that all humans

have. So, in the strictest possible manner, "No, they do not live in different worlds, just

because of their disparate languages". However, it is not unlikely that language, together

with numerous other human ventures, such as culture and social heritage, is a factor that

matters when we face the world.