Sapir-Whorf and linguistic mediation
Explanation
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, was articulated by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf in the 1930s. It holds that the structure of the language we speak influences (in weak versions) or determines (in strong versions) the way we think and experience the world. If two languages divide the colour spectrum differently, their speakers might perceive and categorise colours differently.
Whorf based many of his ideas on studies of Native American languages, particularly Hopi. He argued that the Hopi conception of time (more cyclical, without grammatical tense in the Indo-European sense) reflected a metaphysics different from the Western one. Although his specific analysis of Hopi has been questioned, his general thesis (language is not transparent to thought) has had enormous influence.
Contemporary versions of the hypothesis have been refined. The strong version (language determines thought) is generally rejected: speakers of different languages can think similar concepts and translate between them. The weak version (language influences thought, directs attention, facilitates certain categorisations) has significant empirical support. Studies on colour perception, spatial orientation (languages with absolute vs. relative orientations), grammatical gender, and temporal concepts show subtle but real effects.
For consciousness, this perspective suggests that subjective experience is not independent of language. What we live, remember, feel, is mediated by the linguistic categories available to us. Inner thought is, for the most part, linguistic. Learning a new language is not just learning new words; it is acquiring a new way of articulating the world, with consequences for how it is experienced.
Recent research (Boroditsky, Lupyan, Casasanto) has confirmed linguistic effects on cognition in many areas: colour perception (Russians better distinguish light blue and dark blue because they have separate words), spatial orientation (speakers of Australian Kuuk Thaayorre use cardinal points and have an extraordinary spatial orientation), temporal conceptualisation (the Aymara place the past in front because they see it, and the future behind because they do not see it). Differences are subtle but measurable.
Implications for the theory of consciousness are important. Human consciousness is linguistically articulated in ways that affect its content. This reinforces the cultural and social dimension of mind, and challenges views of consciousness as something purely biological or universal. Each language is, in part, a world. Linguistic diversity, today threatened by the accelerated extinction of minority languages, is also cognitive and experiential diversity: a cultural and mental loss.
Strengths
- Accumulated empirical evidence in the moderate version.
- Intercultural and anthropological implications.
- Compatible with social constructivism and cultural psychology.
- Challenges naive cognitive universalism.
Main critiques
- Strong version refuted.
- Effects generally small and context-dependent.
- Some cognitive universals well documented.
- Risk of essentialising languages and cultures.