Linguistic studies and theories were created to analyze such elements of the language as functions, purpose, origins, form, and grammar features. However, most of the linguistic theories were developed by Europeans for the analysis of languages based on Latin. Interestingly, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis posits that the structure and vocabulary of a given language influence the users’ cultural patterns, social organization, and worldview (Lord 60). This paper aims to discuss to what extent this hypothesis is true.
To be more precise, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis assumes that the perception of reality by speakers of different languages differs depending on the vocabulary. Sapir-Whorf sees the reason in that “without the words or structure to articulate a concept, that concept won’t occur” (Lord 61). However, this is a controversial statement, as it violates the law of cause and effect – languages are formed based on existing concepts and do not form them. In addition, the hypothesis implies that languages use different pattern systems to analyze nature and channel reasoning.
No less important, the validity of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis ultimately depends on the given context. Interpretation of this hypothesis should consider how it applies to multiple languages, including those that do not belong to the Latin group. All languages have different lexical concepts, and even if languages have similarities, there are different cultural overtones for similar concepts (Regier and Xu 1). These concepts can influence how native speaker thinks, which can impact how they perceive the world. Therefore, language can shape thought in many ways and to a great extent.
It is also worth noting that Sapir attempted to give traction to underrepresented languages, such as Native American tongues, and prove that the cultures that spoke them were on par with European languages. This was happening when language was only regarded as “complex” if it was based on Latin (Lord 61). Coupled with the fact that linguistics stems from Western academic research and was rooted in European and Latin languages, in many aspects Sapir was ahead of his time in linguistic and cultural relativity.
Nancy Lord gives a deeper estimation of Sapir’s hypothesis in terms of concept formation. She says that “languages, of course, belong to environments in the same way that living creatures do, shaped by and shaping the places that spawn them” (Lord 61). According to the scholar, this is true “both for the words needed to identify and address the particulars of those places and for the structures needed to survive in them” (Lord 62). Therefore, Lord determines the complex processes of the emergence of concepts not related to the lexical form and subsequent distribution in this form. In addition, she defines the importance of places and environments that differ significantly across cultures.
Interestingly, according to Lord, the Romanization of European languages has caused a disconnect between the essence and form of words and verbal constructions. The scholar cited Benjamin Lee Whorf saying that “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 this way” (Lord 62). This may imply that there could be a break in the cultural context in ‘underrepresented’ languages.
Thus, it was discussed to what extreme the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true. The hypothesis proposes the theory that languages and cultures are formed within the environment. However, this does not mean that languages shape culture or environment, or how nations understand reality. In other words, the hypothesis expands speech analysis tools but must be consistent in causal terms.
Works Cited
Lord, Nancy. “Native Tongues: The Languages That Once Mapped the American Landscape Have Almost Vanished.” Winds of Change 14.2 (1999): 60-62.
Regier, Terry, and Yang Xu. “The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Inference under Uncertainty.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 10 (2018).