Overview

Does a Russian speaker who has two distinct words for “blue” (goluboy for light blue, siniy for dark blue) actually see the color differently than an English speaker? This is the central question of Linguistic Relativity. It challenges the idea that language is just a neutral code for expressing universal thoughts. Instead, it suggests language is a filter or a lens.

Core Idea

The core idea is Linguistic Relativity. Different languages carve up reality in different ways. If your language requires you to specify gender (e.g., “he/she”), you might pay more attention to gender than someone whose language doesn’t. If your language uses cardinal directions (“turn north”) instead of relative ones (“turn left”), you might have a better internal compass.

Formal Definition

The hypothesis that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition.

  • Strong Version (Determinism): Language determines thought. You cannot think what you cannot say. (Largely discredited).
  • Weak Version (Relativity): Language influences thought. It makes certain concepts easier to access or more salient. (Widely accepted).

Intuition

Imagine two people looking at a bridge.

  • In German, “bridge” (Brücke) is feminine. German speakers describe bridges as “beautiful,” “elegant,” “slender.”
  • In Spanish, “bridge” (puente) is masculine. Spanish speakers describe bridges as “strong,” “sturdy,” “towering.” The grammar of their language subtly nudges their poetic imagination.

Examples

  • Color Terms: The Guugu Yimithirr people of Australia do not use “left” or “right.” They use “North,” “South,” “East,” “West.” Even for small things: “There is an ant on your south leg.” As a result, they have absolute orientation at all times, even in the dark.
  • Time: English speakers think of time as horizontal (forward/back). Mandarin speakers often think of time as vertical (up/down). This affects how they gesture when talking about the future.
  • Snow: The famous (though often exaggerated) claim that Inuit people have “50 words for snow.” While the number is debated, the principle holds: specialists have more granular vocabulary, which allows them to perceive distinctions others miss.

Common Misconceptions

  • “The Hopi have no concept of time”: Whorf famously claimed this, but it was later debunked. They do have time, just a different grammatical way of marking it.
  • It’s a prison: Language doesn’t prevent you from thinking new thoughts (we can learn new concepts), but it creates “grooves” or habits of mind that are hard to break.
  • Universal Grammar: Noam Chomsky’s opposing theory that all languages share a deep, underlying structure and that thought is universal and innate, not culturally determined.
  • Newsspeak: In Orwell’s 1984, the government destroys words to make “thoughtcrime” impossible—an example of the Strong Version of the hypothesis.

Applications

  • Bilingualism: Learning a second language gives you a second soul (Charlemagne). It opens up a new way of categorizing the world.
  • Political Correctness: The idea that changing language (e.g., using “firefighter” instead of “fireman”) can change social attitudes is based on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Criticism / Limitations

  • Translatability: If language determined thought, translation would be impossible. But we can translate (even if imperfectly), suggesting a shared human cognitive base.
  • Chicken and Egg: Does language shape culture, or does culture shape language? It is likely a feedback loop.

Further Reading

  • Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought, and Reality. 1956.
  • Deutscher, Guy. Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages. 2010.
  • Lakoff, George. Metaphors We Live By. 1980.