Does language dictate the way that we think?

Many people agree that there is a very strong relationship between language and thought, but the relationship itself causes many disagreements. To what extent are language and thought connected? Can we think without using language?  Are thought and language dependent or independent? Although these are very interesting questions, in this post, I will focus on the following question: does our language dictate the way that we think?

This question is the basis of linguistic relativity as it asks whether the structure of language or language itself affects or changes the way that speakers conceptualize their world. It is crucial when investigating this problem that languages (especially those from different families) differ in many extreme ways, so that we are able to examine their effects on speakers.

Like many philosophical questions, this was greatly debated in the 18^th century, especially by the Germans including Johann Georg Hamann (1730-88), Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), and Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835). The highlighted theme at this time was that since there are so many languages on the planet and communication is incredibly important, it must affect our culture and thought. 

However, this conundrum spread across the world when it was addressed by Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and his student, Benjamin Whorf (1897-1941). Together, they created the famous Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which combines two major ideas. Firstly, linguistic determinism, which means that language controls the way we think. Secondly, they believed in linguistic relativity, showing that there are many features of a language not found identically in any other. I believe that the following quote summarizes Sapir’s interpretation of the question, as said in 1929:

‘The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on 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 worlds with different labels attached.’

Whorf’s opinion is more blurred as he tended to change his arguments to gain the audience’s attention. For example, linguists believe that many of his bold arguments were purely to boost the reputation of his theory and to captivate a large following. The following quote may be an example of his hyperbolic technique; however, I think that the logic of the quote shows his mind-set.  

‘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’

In order two judge this theory; I shall discuss the following sub- questions:

2. Which areas of language affect thought? How can we measure these effects with a systematic method?
 

Many different areas of language are said to have the ability to affect the speakers. For example, in the 1950s linguists focused on the colours. Apart from relative frequencies of radiation waves, there are no firm boundaries between different colours, so different languages use different methods to describe the colours. Investigators used Munsell colour chips, which are of a standardised array of colours, to see how their subjects would classify them. In 1969, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay compared the colour vocabulary of 100 languages to see how many universal colours or shades exist. They found 11 such colours; for example, each language that they examined had an equivalent to the English word ‘white’. In their study, they noticed that there was no word for ‘colour’ in language in Peru called Aguaruna. Interestingly, they found that they found it easier to explain the test to bilingual people (who also spoke Spanish) because of this reason. This suggests to me that the Aguaruna speakers were less able to think about colour because of their lack of word for it, possibly hinting towards the Sapir-Whorf theory.

2. What can language influence?

The theory explicitly hypothesises that language influences thought. Taking this example of colour, if a language does not had a word for a certain shade or hue of a colour it is likely that speakers will be less likely to differentiate that colour. This will not only affect visual perception but even memory. Evidence has been found to support this in Russian, where they make a greater distinction between light and dark shades of blue, because subject were more able to visually discriminate between different shades.

In the 1970’s an additional study was completed, which compared the perception of colour in English to Berinmo (a small tribe in Papua New Guinea). Both groups were given 160 different colours and they had to categorize and group them. Interestingly, the Berinmo separated the colours into fewer categories as they did not differentiate blue and green therefore they linked these together. However, they did split different shades of yellow into two groups, as in their language they have two different words for yellow (nol and wor). Sawyer said in 1999 that because of their linguistic differences, the English were better at separating blue/ green colours and the Berinmo speakers were better at identifying differences in yellow. Therefore this study also backs up that the colour perception of different language groups depends on the amount of colour words that their language processes, supporting the Sapir-Whorf theory further. 

But this effect is not restricted to colours. Another example lies in the language Kuuk Thaayorre which is spoken in Pormpuraaw (an aboriginal area in Australia), where instead of using words like ‘left’ and ‘forwards’ they only use cardinal directions such as south or north. This has a huge impact on the way that they think because they have a much greater navigational ability than speakers of other language since they always know exactly which was they are facing. In fact their language affects the way that they act too and therefore will affect their culture. When asked to arrange some pictures in chronological order, speakers placed them so that time ran from east to west, regardless of their bodily position.

33. How strong are the influences?

Human languages and their users are very adaptable, for example, most languages borrow words from other languages if they do not have an equivalent in their own. One of these is ‘schadenfreude’ which is a loanword from German meaning the pleasure found from others’ misfortune. Therefore, in many cases, a languages ability to change or constrict thinking ability is minimal however, there have been many cases showing quite extreme influences.

Further evidence for the Sapir-Whorf theory

Recently, there have been many more experiments completed in relation to this theory. I am going to focus on a study by Lera Boroditsky. Think about the following question:

We have a meeting on Wednesday. It has been moved forwards two days to Friday. Which day is the meeting, Monday or Friday?

Which do you think is most likely? This example shows the basis of Boroditsky’s work, considering whether language can affect our perception of time. Time is an abstract idea that we cannot see therefore language is used to make it seem physical so we are more able to understand it. In English we say phrases such as ‘Easter is coming’, using a sense of motion to show that ‘soon it will be Easter’. But, there are two ways to look at this, either we are moving towards Easter, or Easter is moving towards us. 

Boroditsky predicts that people who have recently been travelling will be more likely to assume that they are moving so are ego-moving. These people think that they are moving towards Easter and going back to the example of the meeting, they’ll think that the date of the meeting is Friday (as they will be the ones moving forwards two days). Whereas people who have been stationary for a long time are more likely to be time-moving so are more likely to say Monday. Boroditsky tested this in an airport where there is a mixture of people rushing and waiting and she found that her hypothesis was correct – a person’s physical position affects the way they think and communicate time.

In fact time is a very interesting subject when addressing this theory because there are many languages which treat time differently. Historically, there was a ‘Hopi time controversy’ because people, including Whorf, believed that people that spoke Hopi conceptualized time differently than speakers of most other languages. In fact many people were adamant that they had no sense of time at all. 

According to Whorf, Hopi had "no words, grammatical forms, construction or expressions that refer directly to what we call 'time'", and therefore he inferred that it had "no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the universe proceeds at equal rate, out of a future, through the present, into a past”.

Since then there have been many arguments against this as there are methods to discuss time, for example they have the construction ‘I will X’, showing what will happen in the future. Malotki published books claiming both that the Hopi language did have words and constructions referring to time and that users do cognitively think about time using spatial metaphors to signify units of time. Malotki found that there are distinct markers of time. For example a word in the future has a –ni suffix whereas present and past tenses are unmarked. He noticed, however, that they judge time on the movement of the sun, for example someone could say that time is moving quickly by saying ‘"the sun moves slowly quickly" so instead of thinking about time directly, they’re thinking about the sun. Although they may have the ability to think about time, they’re language does not allow them to think about the abstract ideas related to it because Hopi focuses so much on the sun and therefore this daily continuum. 

Modern evidence against the Sapir-Whorf theory

Chomsky conducted a lot of research on generative grammar and found many similarities between languages. He named the most similar of these linguistic universals, and although no universal has been found in all 5,000 languages, he predicts that it is likely they do appear. Chomsky also predicted that these universals may be predetermined in a child’s brain and could be the reason how they learn their L1 with such ease and haste. Therefore, his arguments state that maybe languages do not differ as much as Sapir and Whorf suggested, so linguistic relativity may not be true. If languages are all very similar, they cannot differ by enough to influence the thought of their users.

An idea against linguistic determinism is that people have been found to have the ability to think if they cannot talk. People who have grown up without language and those who have lost their language (i.e stroke victims and aphasics) are able to follow instructions and are commonly able to remember what they were thinking and are able to retell their thoughts once they gain their ability to communicate. Furthermore, animals such as chimpanzees who do not speak a formal sophisticated language are able to think about time, space and are able to categorize object so they must be able to think about colour and shape.

To conclude, I believe that the Sapir- Whorf hypothesis sparked a lot of interest in the topic and it changed the way that many people look at the relationship between language and thought. Their work has influenced many people, but also caused others to retaliate against them. Taking both sides into account, I still think that our language must have some influence on thought. Language may not have the ability to govern though, but it may still constrain and influence it to a certain extent.

For more information:

• I recommend ‘The Language Instinct’ by Steven Pinker for arguments against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
•  ‘Rethinking Linguistic Relativity’ (John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson) includes a lot of research and ideas about the Sapir-Whorf theory.