A sociolinguistic study on the relationship of language and worldview
sapir-whorf
hypothesis
Though the name suggests that two individuals postulated the same theory in conjunction, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the combination of two thought processes by two different linguistic theorists. Edward Sapir further developed Wilhelm Humbolt's work in the 1800s on the connection between language and worldview, which Sapir's most prominent student, Edward Whorf, further expanded. Sapir and Whorf never actually stated such ideas in the form of a hypothesis and the term “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” was created by another one of Sapir's students, Harry Hoijer (Language and Thought, 2012). Sapir focused more on linguistic determinism, an absolutist view of the connection between language and perception, while Whorf departed and often argued against determinism in favor of linguistic relativism, a less constraining version of the same concept (see tab “Linguistic Determinism vs Linguistic Relativism”). Currently, researchers depart from using the phrase Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and prefer to refer to the principle of linguistic relativity. This phrasing acknowledges that Sapir and Whorf were not the original proponents to theorize the relationship between language and thought. Hearkening to the classic “nature vs nurture” debate, there exist many a conflicting ideology surrounding thought and language. One of which questions whether the psychological functioning of humans is mostly universal/innate or if they are acquired through learning. Two sides of this discussion are the constructivist and the universalist viewpoints. The constructivist states that cognition is influenced by socially constructed and learned elements and is not subject to biology. The opposite, universalist view, states that humans share the same basic set of faculties and that there is little or no variability tied to cultural differences. To confuse things even further, there are three other views as a part of the innate vs learned debate, that of the idealist, essentialist, and relativist. The idealist holds that mental capacities are unrestricted by biology. The essentialist holds that it is possible for individuals or groups to conceptualize the world with some essential differences. Lastly, the relativist states that the conceptualization of different cultural groups is not necessarily compatible nor can it be measured by the same standards (The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, n.d.). Though the theory of the language holding influence over worldview is useful and worth questioning, it was historically used to uphold imperialism during the early 20th century. Prominent Western linguists used the theory to justify the eradication of native languages by claiming that the peoples were savages who could be reformed through “civilized” language. Franz Boas was the first to challenge this view, and thus the modern take on linguistics was born. (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, n.d.) Add Comment |