Human beings do not live alone in the world and language plays a key role in how people understand reality. According to the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the language we speak completely determines how we think and perceive the world, with no true translation possible between languages. More moderate versions hold that language influences thought but does not determine it entirely, and different languages may influence how their speakers perceive some concepts like time, numbers, or colors. Many studies have investigated this hypothesis but have found both supporting and non-supporting evidence.

1. Submitted by

2. 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.

3. Whorf (1941)
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.

4. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis can be
divided into two basic components
Linguistic
determinism Linguistic
relativity

5. The linguistic relativity hypothesis states
that language structure affect the way
people conceptualize the world for
instance in the Eskimo language, different
words are used to denote different kinds of
snow. According to
“Linguistic relativity” a speaker should thus
tell apart different kinds of snow by its
physical feature.

6. One well-known example Whorf used to
support his theory was the number of
words the Eskimo Language has for
‘snow for example ‘apun’ snow on the
ground ‘qanikca’ hard snow on the qround
‘ etc.
Arabic has many words for different kinds
of camels, in Chinese there is only one
term luotuo and in English there is camel.

7.  Here's an example that you might find amusing. In a certain part of New
Guinea, people live a hand-to-mouth existence as they always have done.
Consequently, they have no wealth and no reason to count things. Their
language has a word for one and another word for two. But, that's the extent
of their counting system. Today, because of contact with the outside world,
they've had to adapt their language. They use the word for dog to indicate
the number four (possibly because a dog has four legs). So, here's how the
system works (using English-equivalents):
One = 1
Two = 2
One and two = 3
Dog = 4
Dog and one = 5
Dog and two = 6
Dog and one and two = 7
Dog dog = 8
Dog dog and one = 9
and so on.

8. The Whorfian perspective is that
translation between one language and
another is at the very least, problematic,
and sometimes impossible.
. One such example is of the Punjabi word
“joot.”

9.  Linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a
language has an impact on the way that its
speakers view the world. Because we can only
really think of the world through the use of
language and words, it seems to make sense that
the structure of our language would have an
impact on how we perceive the world.
 Linguistic determinism does not disagree with this
general idea. Instead, it goes beyond it. Linguistic
determinism argues that the structure of language
does not simply affect our way of looking at the
world; it actually determines how we look at the
world.

10. Popularly known as the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis or Whorfianism , the principle is
often defined to include two version
• That language determines
thought and that linguistic
categories limit and determine
cognitive categories
Strong
version
• That language categories and
usage influence thought and
certain kind of non linguistic
behavior.
Weak
version

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

12. Mould
theories
• Thoughts
categories are
cast
Cloak theories
• Customary
categories of
thoughts of its
speaker

13.  Mould theory :The idea that language moulds
thought rather than simply expressing it.
According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
content is bound up with linguistic form, and
the use of the medium contributes to shaping
the meaning. In common usage, we often talk
of different verbal formulations ‘meaning the
same thing’, but for those of a Whorfian
persuasion, such as Fish, ‘it is impossible to
mean the same thing in two (or more)
different ways’ (at least in literary contexts).

14. Cloak theory :The neoclassical idea of
language as simply the dress of thought,
based on the assumption that the same
thought can be expressed in a variety of
ways (linguistic dualism). Linguistic
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 .

15.  Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in
the world of 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 society. It is quite an illusion to
imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of
language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving
specific problems of communication or reflection. The fact of the
matter is that the 'real world' is to a large extent unconsciously built
upon the language habits of the group. No two languages are ever
sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social
reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds,
not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see
and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because
the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of
interpretation. (Sapir 1958 [1929], p. 69)

16. Human beings do not live alone in the
world they need a medium to communicate
their expression of thought. It is not
possible to realities of societies or world
without use of language. A ‘real world’ is to
at large extent unconsciously built upon
the language habit of the group. No, two
languages can express the same social
realities.

17.  We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native
languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the
world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare
every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is
presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to
be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the
linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it
into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely
because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this
way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech
community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The
agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its
terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by
subscribing to the organization and classification of data which
the agreement decrees. (Whorf 1940, pp. 213-14; his
emphasis)

18. The world is organized by our mind and
this means largely by the linguistics
system in our mind.
According to the article, Whorf distanced
himself from the behaviorists stance that
thinking is entirely linguistic.

19. Our thinking is
determined by
language.
People who speak
different languages
perceive and think
about the world
quite differently.

21. According to the strong version of the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there is no
real translation. The Whorfian
perspective is that translation
between one language and another is at
the very least problematic and
sometime impossible.

22. and it is impossible to learn the
language of a different culture unless
the learner abandons his or her own
mode of thinking and acquires the
thought patterns of the native
speakers of the target language.

23. “Rethinking linguistic relativity”
“Chinese and English counterfactuals:
the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited”
[BOOK] “Universalism versus relativism
in language and thought: proceedings
of a colloquium on the Sapir-Whorf
hypotheses”
“Language and emotions: emotional
Sapir–Whorf hypothesis”

24. 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.

25. 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

26. Astudy (Berlin & Kay) on color perception which claimed that a
regular, universal system of color categorization 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
color 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

27.  An initial step in investigating linguistic
relativity is hence to identify an area of
 linguistic divergence, which is pervasive and
salient enough in both languages so as to
 generate potential cognitive implications for
their respective speakers. The study therefore
 needs to narrow its focus of investigation to a
particular linguistic aspect present in both
 languages, yet differing in the way it is
manifested

28.  Slobin (2000)
 Slobin (2000) elaborates further on his
‘dynamic approach to linguistic relativity’ by
 looking at linguistic data drawn from picture-
elicited oral narratives, creative fiction,
 translation, spontaneous conversation,
parent-child discourse, text-elicited imagery
 recollections, and gestures accompanying
speech.

29. In his comparative examination of motion
events in satellite- versus verb-framed
languages, he concludes (2000: 133) that
“the considerable range of evidence
examined here
is at least suggestive of rather divergent
mental worlds of speakers of the two
language types”
(emphasis added).

30.  John Lucy has identified three main strands of research into
linguistic relativity.
 First: The first is what he calls the "structure centered"
approach. This approach starts with observing a structural
peculiarity in a language and goes on to examine its possible
ramifications for thought and behavior. The first example of
this kind of research is Whorf's observation of discrepancies
between the grammar of time expressions in Hopi and
English. More recent research in this vein is the research
made by John Lucy describing how usage of the categories of
grammatical number and of numeral classifiers in the Mayan
language Yucatec result in Mayan speakers classifying objects
according to material rather than to shape as preferred by
speakers of English

31.  Second: The second strand of research is the "domain
centered" approach, in which a semantic domain is chosen
and compared across linguistic and cultural groups for
correlations between linguistic encoding and behavior. The
main strand of domain centered research has been the
research on color terminology, although this domain according
to Lucy and admitted by color terminology researchers such
as Paul Kay is not optimal for studying linguistic relativity,
because color perception, unlike other semantic domains, is
known to be hard wired into the neural system and as such
subject to more universal restrictions than other semantic
domains. Since the tradition of research on color terminology
is by far the largest area of research into linguistic relativity it
is described below in its own section

32.  Third: The third strand of research is the "behavior centered"
approach which starts by observing different behavior
between linguistic groups and then proceeds to search for
possible causes for that behavior in the linguistic system. This
kind of approach was used by Whorf when he attributed the
occurrence of fires at a chemical plant to the workers' use of
the word 'empty' to describe the barrels containing only
explosive vapors. One study in this line of research has been
conducted by Bloom who noticed that speakers of Chinese
had unexpected difficulties answering counter-factual
questions posed to them in a questionnaire. After a study, he
concluded that this was related to the way in which counter-
factuality is marked grammatically in the Chinese language.

33.  with relevance to linguistic relativity is Daniel Everett's work on
the Pirahã language of the Brazilian Amazon.[64] Everett
observed several peculiarities in Pirahã culture that he
interpreted as corresponding to linguistically rare features,
such as a lack of numbers and color terms in the way those
are normally defined, and a lack of certain types of clauses.
Everett's conclusions about the exceptional status of the
Pirahã have been met with skepticism from other linguists,
and some scholars reanalyzing his materials have argued that
they don't support his conclusions.[65] That is, these critics
argue, the lack of need for numbers and color discrimination
explains both the lack of counting ability and the lack of color
vocabulary

34.  The tradition of using the semantic domain of color names as an object for investigation of
linguistic relativity began with Lenneberg and Roberts' 1953 study of Zuni color terms and
color memory, and Brown and Lenneberg's 1954 study of English color terms and color
memory. The studies showed a correlation between the availability of color terms for
specific colors and the ease with which those colors were remembered in both speakers of
Zuni and English. Researchers concluded that this had to do with properties of the focal
colors having higher codability than less focal colors, and not with linguistic relativity effects.
Berlin and Kay's 1969 study of color terms across languages concluded that there are
universal typological principles of color naming that are determined by biological factors
with little or no room for relativity related effects.[69] This study sparked a long tradition of
studies into the typological universals of color terminology. Some researchers such as John
A Lucy,[70] Barbara Saunders[71] and Stephen C Levinson[72] have argued that Berlin and
Kay's study does not in fact show that linguistic relativity in color naming is impossible,
because of a number of basic unsupported assumptions in their study (such as whether all
cultures in fact have a category of "color" that can be unproblematically defined and
equated with the one found in Indo-European languages) and because of problems with
their data stemming from those basic assumptions. Other researchers such as Robert E.
Maclaury have continued investigation into the evolution of color names in specific
languages, refining the possibilities of basic color term inventories. Like Berlin and Kay,
Maclaury found no significant room for linguistic relativity in this domain, but rather
concluded as did Berlin and Kay that the domain is governed mostly by physical-biological
universals of human color perception.

35. Kenneth E. Iverson, the originator of the
APL programming language, believed that
the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis applied to
computer languages (without actually
mentioning the hypothesis by name). His
Turing award lecture, "Notation as a tool of
thought", was devoted to this theme,
arguing that more powerful notations aided
thinking about computer algorithms