sapir whorf hypothesis

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Ahmet Mesut Ateş

March 27, 2013Applied LinguisticsKaradeniz Technical University

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis by Ahmet Mesut Ateş

Mould and Cloak Theories

Within linguistic theory, two extreme positions concerning the relationship between language and thought are commonly referred to as 'mould theories’ and 'cloak theories'.

Mould theories represent language as 'a mould in terms of which thought categories are cast.'

Cloak theories represent the view that 'language is a cloak conforming to the customary categories of thought of its speakers' .


The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The Sapir-Whorf theory, named after the American linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, is a mould theory of language.

Sapir (1929)Human beings do not live in the soceity alone. Language of the society predispose certain choices of interpretation about how we view the world.

Whorf (1930s)We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. We categorise objects in the scheme laid by the language and if we do not subscribe to these classification we cannot talk or communicate.


The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis consists of two associated principle:1. Linguistic Determinism2. Linguistic Relativity

Linguistic Determinism: Language may determine our thinking patterns, the way we view and think about the world. Linguistic Determinism is also called «strong determinism»

Linguistic Relativity: the less similar the languages more diverse their conceptualization of the world; different languages view the worl differently.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis


The Whorfian perspective is that translation between one language and another is at the very least, problematic, and sometimes impossible. According to the Whorfian stance, 'content' is bound up with linguistic 'form', and the use of the medium contributes to shaping the meaning: 'it is impossible to mean the same thing in two (or more) different ways.'

The Whorfian perspective is in strong contrast to the extreme universalism of those who adopt the cloak theory. Universalists argue that we can say whatever we want to say in any language, and that whatever we say in one language can always be translated into another: Even totally different languages are not untranslatable.

Whorfian Perspective vs Universalism


In the context of the written word, the 'untranslatability' claim is generally regarded as strongest in the arts and weakest in the case of formal scientific papers (although rhetorical studies have increasingly blurred any clear distinctions). And within the literary domain, 'untranslatability' was favoured by Romantic literary theorists, for whom the connotative, emotional or personal meanings of words were crucial.

Whorfian Perspective vs Universalism


Moderate Whorfianism

Moderate Whorfianism differs from determinist Whorfianism in these ways:• Patterns of thinking can be influenced rather than

determined,• Language influences the way we see the world and it is

influenced by that also,• Any influence should be ascribed to the variety in a language

rather than the language itself (sociolect*),• Influence can be seen on the social context but not in purely

linguistic form.

Sociolect: the language used primarily by members of a articular social group.


Advantages of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Advantages* of Linguistics Determinism:– Language does exert great influence on patterns of thinking and

therefore on culture– Language may reinforce certain ideas and push them into attention

Advantages of Linguistic Relativity:– There can be differences in the semantic associations of concepts– Encoding of life experience in language is not exclusively accesible to

everyone but only to members of that certain social group– Linguistic structure doesn’t constrain what people think but only

influence what they routinely think– Language reflects cultural preoccupations

«Advantage» means in this context generally accepted or proved part of SWH.


Disadvantages of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Whorf claimed (1940):if, between two different languages, one has many words for closely related objects while other has relatively limited vocabulary users of L1 should have noted

perceptually characteristics of the objects.

BUT this doesn’t prove English speaking people do not have the ability to distinguis characteristics.

snowEskimo lang. English

Countless words describing shape, location and form

Relatively limited vocabulary


Sapir-Whorf hypothesis asserts that each language has a unique system and thus cross-cultural undertanding is impossible.

BUT we have:– Perceptional universsals (different languages may express the same

thought)– Cultural universal (each language has taboos, implements, slang)– Features to distinguish family and relatives (by seniority, biological

bond or sex)– Languages may exhibit a shared attitude towards one thing (respect

for elderly, objects of fear, concept of blasphemy)



Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is self-conflicting. It claims that «language determines thought» but also «there is no limits to diversity of languages».

If there is no limit to diversity language cannot determine thought to a great extent to be called «determination» rather than «influence».

AND many scholars indicate that human thought is universal.



• From a historical stand pint it SHOULD be society and culture that determine language because social enviroment exert great influence upon percptual ability. BUT decise factor is NOT the language.

• If language determines the world view there would be NO class conscious because every member of the society would view the world same and think by the same thinking patterns.



Further application of SWH

There are many studies on Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis but a majority of these studies focus on these main problems:

• Perception of time continuity in languages– Dividing time periodically (i.e. English)– Not dividing (i.e. Indonesian)– Dividing time by source of knowledge (i.e. Turkish)

• Perception of snow– Eskimo languages vs English

• Perception of colours– Universal colours vs local colours

• Counting systems


A study (Berlin & Kay) on colour perception which claimed that a regular, universal system of colour categorisation existed across the world’s languages: while the number of names of discrete colours varies across languages, these are based on a set of focal colours. Furthermore, research done on a stone-age cultural group in Indonesia, the Dani, by Rosch Heider (1972) suggested that members of the group, despite only having two colour categories, perceived colours in much the same way as English speakers.

Of course not all languages follow the predetermined order and too little is known about a great number of the world’s languages to be able to formulate universally valid hypotheses

Further application of SWH


References

Chandler, D. (1994). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. 27.03.2013, http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/whorf.html

Delaney, M. S. (2010). Can the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis save the planet? Lessons from cross-cultural psychology for critical language policy. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11:4, 331-340.

LIANG, H. (2011). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Foreign Language Teaching and Learning. US-China Foreign Language, 9, 569-574.

sapir whorf hypothesis

Education