whorfian hypothesis

Presented to: Prof . Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Butt
Presented by : Asma Iqbal Kayani
MPhil Linguistics,
NCBA , Gujrat (Pakistan)

He gave man speech, and speech created
thought, Which is the measure of the universe'
(Prometheus Unbound, Shelley)
Language reflects the culture. However , language
is part of the culture and it also constitutes the culture.
(Jin & Cortazzi,1998)
There is neither a society without a
language nor a language without a society
which uses it”
( Baylon & Fabre,1975)

 The question of the relationship between language,
,thought and culture has been of great interest and inquiry.
 Boas , Sapir for the first time threw light on this
relationship: language expresses the thoughts ,beliefs and
assumptions of a community ; hence language reflects ways
of looking at the world and understanding reality.
 kluckhohn (1944) believes that culture without language
is unthinkable.

 Kramsch (1998) believes that language relates to the
culture in three main complex ways:
Language
Expresses cultural Embodies cultural symbolizes cultural
Reality reality reality
to express ideas , beliefs language is inherently symbolizes ones
That are understood within creative , so is used in identity , symbolic
A specific cultural setting various ways with a guide to the
variety of possible meanings culture

 Plato and Aristotle
 language is only the outward form or expression of thought.
 the behaviorist J. B. Watson
 thought is language .
 thought is sub-vocal speech.
 “thinking aloud,” it is called speech; “speaking covertly,” is thinking.
 language determines thought
 categories of thought are determined by linguistic categories.
 Theorists within this group are divided between those
 who think that language completely determines cognitive categories
 and those who merely say that language strongly influences cognitive
categories.

linguistic
political
 Language is a social term
cultural
historical
 Sociolinguistics views language as a socio cultural
phenomena.

Claims about this relationship:
1.The structure of a language determines the way in
which speakers of that language view the world . The
weaker version is that the structure does not determine
the world view but is extremely influential in
predisposing speakers of a language toward adopting a
particular world-view.(associated with Sapir and
Whorf)
2.The culture of a people find reflection in the language
they employ.
3.There is a little or no relationship between language
and culture.

Claim no. 1 is referred to as Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.
Sapir acknowledged close relationship between
language and culture , claiming that it is of
disposition i.e. you could not understand or
appreciate the one without a knowledge of the other.
Whorf extended these ideas by claiming that this
relationship is deterministic one i.e. the structure of
a language determines the way its speakers view the
world.

 A long-standing claim is that the structure of a
language determines the way in which the speakers of
that language view the world. This view is called
Linguistic Determinism.
 A somewhat weaker version is that the structure
doesn’t determine the view but is still extremely
influential in predisposing speakers of a language
towards adopting a particular world-view. This view is
called Linguistic Relativism.

“Our speech is based on our thoughts”
i.e. language is dependent on thought.
“What one perceives is dependent on the spoken
word”
i.e. thought is dependent on language.

Linguistic theory
Relation between language and thought
Mould Theories Cloak Theories
Language is a mould in language is a cloak
Terms of which thought conforming to the
Categories are cast customary categories
of thought of its speakers
The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis
The general idea that differences in language structure cause
people to view the world differently

 Whorfian claim:
Translation between one language and another is
problematic as it is impossible to mean the same thing
in two different ways.
 Universalism’s claim:
We can say whatever we want to say in any language
and translation is possible.

Things make sense to humans through a mediator , language
Notion of linguistic relativity
German Scholars:
Johann
Herder(1744-1803)
Humboldt()
Different people
speak different
languages because
they think
differently.
USA scholars:
Boas(1858-1942):language has a role in unconscious
shaping & explaining concepts of culture and
thought
Sapir(1884-1939):people see ,hear and experience as
they do because the language habits of community
predispose certain choices of interpretations.
Whorf(1897-1941): language shapes cognition; that
is, concepts and ways of thinking depend on
language. People who speak significantly different
languages, then, view the world differently.

 the Whorf hypothesis was named after the early
twentieth-century linguist Benjamin Whorf, who
claimed that, because the Hopi language
expressed statements about time in importantly
dissimilar ways than other languages, the Hopi
held a different conception of time than other
peoples. Related to linguistic relativity is linguistic
determinism, the view that language necessitates
how one thinks (thinking outside the bounds of
one's language is impossible).

This theory is presented by Whorf and is also
known as Whorfian Hypothesis.
It holds that one’s language shapes one’s view
of reality.
 it represents language as a mould in terms of
which thought categories are cast.
It states that thought is cast from language what
you see is based on what you say.
 The structure of one’s language influences the
manner in which one perceives and understands
the world
 Therefore, speakers of different languages will
perceive the world differently

Whorfian hypothesis
Linguistic
Determinism
Strong
Determinism
Weak
determinism
Linguistic Relativity

 strong Whorfianism weak Whorfianism
Linguistic Determinism Linguistic Relativism
Language determines Language biases
our perception our perception
of the world of the world

The claim is that language may determine our thinking
patterns . It refers to the concept that what is said, has
only some effect on how concepts are recognized by
the mind. This basic concept has been broken down
even further into “strong” and “weak” determinism
(The Sapir-Whorf Hypotheses, 2002, p.1

 Strong Determinism
refers to a strict view that
what is said is directly
responsible for what is
seen by the mind.
So,
In it language defines one’s
view of the world.
 Weak Determinism
there is indeed some
affect on perception of
one’s language, but that
this is not as clear as in
strong determinism.
So,
In it language doesn’t
define one’s view of the
world.

 it can be defined:
“distinctions encoded in one language are unique to
that language along,” and that “there is no limit to the
structural diversity of languages” (The Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis, p.1).
The claim is that different languages view the world
differently.
This view of cognition can be more simply defined as
meaning:
the language which one is brought up in (socially exposed
to and taught) is the language that that person will think
and perceive the world in

The Sapir-Wharf Hypothesis very pragmatically presents
how language does have an affect on thinking as
 the first component of the theory, linguistic
determination, makes sense when applied to reality. In
actual thought one does indeed perceive concepts and
objects in accordance to the words used to describe
them. (speak a word and different people will imagine
different concepts for it)
 the second component , linguistic relativity also makes
sense(old homes example)
 The theory gives the reason of why all languages do
not translate to each other

1.Theoretical scope
It is comprehensive as it includes the possible factors
of analysis for this theory. Everything that is encoded
and decoded and the language used by society and
cultures used all are encompassed in this theory.
2.Appropriateness
is also achieved by this theory. The theory expects that
the language of a person has an affect on how he
decodes and that encoding differs from language-to-
language and cannot always be translated. (a word
would bring to different minds--different images, all
because of the receiver’s different experiences with the

3.The heuristic value
the heuristic value of the hypothesis lies in the
fact that one is motivated to do experiments to verify
its validity.
4. Validity
this theory holds great value as it accomplishes
correspondence validity because the theory is very
observable and has been observed numerous times by
certain people.

 5. simple and logical
It makes complete sense that one’s atmosphere and
culture will have an affect on their decoding. In
research done by the authors of the theory, many
Indian tribes do not have word for certain objects
because they do not exist in their lives.
6. Pragmatic point of view
Pragmatically the Hypothesis makes sense. It has the
potential to be used in describing a great many
misunderstandings in everyday life. This notion of
relativity, passes beyond dialect boundaries, and delves
into the world of language--from county-to-country and
consequently from mind-to-mind.

Theory is widely criticized by linguists and anthropologists
especially in its strong determinism
on the following grounds:
 It is not easy to admit that human thoughts were prisoners
of the structure of languages.
“Peoples’ thoughts and perceptions are not determined by the
words and structures of their language. We are not prisoners
of our linguistic systems” ( Fromkin et al. 2007)
 Again it is unreasonable to believe that speakers of a
language would not understand thought of another language
users because of the different structure of their language.

 Whorf and Sapir are themselves reported to have at times
contradictory statements ,as sometimes they advocated the
strong position of Linguistic determinism and at other
times , they adopted the week version of it.
 Whorf claimed “if between two different languages , one
has many words for closely related objects while other has
relatively limited vocabulary, the users of L1 should have
perceptually characteristics of the objects e.g. Eskimo
language has different words for snow but in English we
have mostly one word.
BUT it doesn’t prove that English speaking people don’t
have the ability to distinguish characteristics.

 Whorf claimed that each language has a unique
system and thus cross-cultural understanding is
impossible.
BUT we can notice that
 many languages exhibit a shared attitude towards
certain phenomena e.g. objects of fear, things of
contempt etc.
 features to distinguish family and relatives by
seniority or biological bond.
 Different languages may express same thought

 Hypothesis is self conflicting as it claims that language
determines thought but also claims there is no limits to
diversity of languages.
BUT scholars indicate that human thought is universal.
 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.
 If language determines thought ,people speaking
different languages would never understand each
other.

 Languages borrow words from each other fairly and
frequently.
 What about bilinguals who can express their ideas
freely in two or more languages?
 What about deaf and dump people who understand
,respond and do think without using language ,If
language determines thought ?

 The Hypothesis presents a view of reality being
expressed in language and thus forming in
thought. The principles outlined in it present a very
pragmatic and even simple view of how one perceives.
 Now a days the weak version of this theory is generally
acknowledged but it needs further research and
analysis.
 Whorfian hypothesis highlights the interconnection of
language and culture.
 Language reflects cultural meaning ,choices and at the
same time it can be understood in the light of its
cultural context

Whether it is language which governs thought
and hence shapes the culture ,
or
it is the culture which acts upon language and
conditions language use?

 There can be no deny to the fact that
language , culture and thought are
significantly connected .
 The relationship is not of ‘which’ determines
‘which’. It is also not a relation of cause and
effect, but a relation of alliance and
correspondence.

whorfian hypothesis

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to whorfian hypothesis (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

whorfian hypothesis