Sapir-Worf Hypothesis: Linguistic Determinism and Linguistic Relativity

According to Susanne K. Langer in the essay “Language and Thought,” an essential difference between animals and humans is the way humans think in symbols and signs, instead of just solely relying on signs. Langer suggests that thinking in signs, which is something both humans and animals share in common, is a process that leads us to react instinctively to the physical presence of that sign. Signs are very much a direct cause to a particular effect. It seems that to learn a sign you simply must be conditioned to respond certain ways to a specific observation. Symbols, though, are exclusively human devices of language that provoke thoughts about a particular thing. The use of symbols has allowed humans to reach much more complex levels of thought,

Most questions of whether and how language shapes thought start with the simple observation that languages differ from one another. And a lot! Just look at the way people talk, they might say. Certainly, speakers of different languages must attend to strikingly different aspects of the world just so they can use their language properly.

At 18, I enlisted in the Marine Corps. In basic training, I was introduced to a new way of speaking, and of thinking. This new language, integral to the transformation of my thought practices, transformed me, from a civilian to a Marine. My experiences in the Marines confirm the idea of linguistic relativity, proposed in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, and served as my initiation into the Marine Corp’s Community of Practice.

Diversity in Language – Parillo argues that there were 200 or more distinct societies that spoke 200 mutually unintelligible languages with hundreds of dialects. Different languages point to different perceptions and understandings of the worlds around them. For example, the Navajo did not distinguish third person pronouns like his, her, and their, but instead used compound words mixed with adjectives and nouns. To say “his wife” the Navajo would say something like “one-wife-of-one-man.”

Language influences thought. The rule of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language influences the routes in which its speakers can conceptualize their reality, i.e. their view of reality. Famously known as the Sapir–Whorf theory, or Whorfianism, the standard is by and large comprehended as having two unique variants: (i) the solid form that language decides thought and that linguistic categories constrain and decide psychological classifications and (ii) the feeble rendition that phonetic classes and utilization impact thought and certain sorts of non-semantic conduct.

It is common for languages to take words, phrases and meanings from one another, and this is no different than English taking from Greek and Latin. While some Greek or Latin words have been changed into prefixes and suffixes, others have become phrases, and even events have garnered their own meaning by today’s standards. This includes the adaptation to technology, science, military purposes and even everyday use, many of which are significant in their own respective area.

Languages and the way one speaks, can have many differences around the world, however, just different alphabets or linguistic rules are not the only things that make a person unique. Speaking a certain language contrast to others also may affect the way one thinks or operates. In a article published by the Wall Street Journal, Lera Boroditsky, a professor of psychology at Stanford, proves that language distinctions can have an effective on one’s cognitive skills and decision-making. “Lost in Translation” by Lera Boroditsky is an article convincing fellow psychologists or language scholars that knowing divergent languages can cause one to think in different ways. Boroditsky uses allusion, appeal to expert opinion, statistics, and anticipating objection to argue to her audience that there is a direct connection between language and one’s thought process which can cause one to act or think in a particular way.

Cioran’s radical, etymological awareness of how language can shape our identity, society, and perception of the world – our Plato’s cave -- is explored in detail through theories of linguistic relativity. For example, how native English speakers perceive the time continuum as horizontal as a result of front/back terminology (e.g. “The past is now behind us”) whereas native Mandarin speakers perceive time as vertical as a result of up/down terminology, looking up to the future and down to the past (Boroditsky). Linguistic relativity is often seen as a grounded, or “weak”, version of the now widely disregarded Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. But while the hypothesis is not scientific fact, it’s exploration of language and societal-building correlation provide a philosophical, Malcolm Gladwell-esque observation of the world.

Linguistic relativity is the notion that language can affect our thought processes, and is often referred to as the ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’, after the two linguists who brought the idea into the spotlight. Whorf writes how “Language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity” (1956:212), and I will explain how it is able to do so. In this essay I will argue that certain ways of mental categorization, spatial cognition and reality interpretation, based on the characteristics of our specific variety of language, influence our perception of the world. I will discuss how languages divide up nature differently, and

In order to approach the question; the author developed an understanding of the authorship of Charles Darwin that he employed as the foundation with which he was able to further his studies. Because of the understanding of the approach employed, it becomes undisputed that the methodology that was employed to carry out the research was qualitative, making varied comparisons trying to bring out the quality of the content under investigation ("How human language could have evolved from birdsong. (n.d.). The findings of the content of the article show that the reception accorded by the professors in the field of linguistic was positive. This translates to the fact that the research findings made a positive impact in linguistics as it is considered to have its effect in the next five years to come. The conclusion associated with the research question has been narrowed down to the fact that in deed the origins of human language are associated with birdsong and in a broader perspective, the animal kingdom. From the conclusion associated with the content of the article and the reception that the content of the article has from the field of linguistics, the article has proven to be convincing on the arguments that it presented ("How human language could have evolved from birdsong.

The evolution of human language is a highly debated topic with many perspectives and theories dating back to the 19th century and as a result is it a subject full of ambiguity. This is due to the fact that there is an abundance of theories with evidence to give them grounds to argue, not only this, but because more than one aspect of the evolution of language is in question. The first question lies in the purpose of its development, what evolutionary advantages would it present early humanity. The second is how it came to fruition, was it through natural selection or was it taught. The third query lies within the early stages of human language, what form did it take and why. Was language always vocal or did it start by being gestural similar to sign language. There is an abundance of forms of communication in the animal kingdom, namely babies crying for their mothers’ attention or calls to warn of danger. However, this can not be deemed as a language because in the context of evolutionary linguistics, language is defined “as any system which allows for the free and unfettered expression of thoughts into signals, and the complementary interpretation of such signals into thoughts” (Fitch, 2010 pg.

Culture and language have long been believed to be intimately interrelated. Defined by anthropologist Tylor (1871, p.1), culture is "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society." People learn culture through language. Language, one of the most distinctive characteristics of human, is unique to human with its productive and creative nature (Hockett, 1960). This essay aims to discuss how language is influenced by culture. CL7 and Gossophilia

Throughout twenty-centuries ago, writers thought that ordinary language and literary language were two different languages. But this is an analytical assumption. There is only one language, which

“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.” – Benjamin Lee Whorf

It has been noted that while considering changing word meanings is vital to the diachronic study of language, the notion and practice of studying them has been historically belittled as an intellectual pursuit. Semantic change is often irregular and arbitrary as a concept, as its causes are wide-ranging and multi-faceted. However, critics such as Willem B. Hollmann now give weight and notoriety to studying semantics synchronically . By considering individual cases, one can explain some word changes and apply common rules. These often occur intra-linguistically or through common social or political changes, especially surrounding class conflict. However, although we can catalogue the semantic change of similar or groups of words, word