Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed that the language you speak shapes how you think. Whorf studied Hopi extensively and claimed its grammar encoded a fundamentally different conception of time than European languages. Where English treats time as a commodity that flows and can be saved or wasted, Hopi allegedly made no such metaphysical commitments.
The hypothesis comes in two strengths. The strong version: language determines thought, making some concepts literally unthinkable without the linguistic forms. The weak version: language influences thought, making some concepts more accessible than others. The strong version is largely discredited. The weak version has substantial empirical support.
Whorf’s specific claims about Hopi didn’t survive scrutiny. Hopi has tense markers; Hopi speakers conceptualize time similarly to English speakers. The research methods were problematic — few native speakers, limited linguistic analysis, selective interpretation. Critics like Steven Pinker argue that Whorf saw what he expected to see.
But dismissing Whorf entirely goes too far. Language does influence cognition in documented ways. Russian speakers discriminate shades of blue faster because Russian has separate basic color terms for light and dark blue. Speakers of languages with obligatory evidential markers (how you know what you’re saying) are more careful about source attribution.
Spatial language provides strong evidence. Kuuk Thaayorre speakers in Australia use absolute directions (north, south, east, west) rather than relative ones (left, right). Ask a Kuuk Thaayorre speaker to arrange pictures in temporal order, and they arrange them east to west — maintaining absolute spatial orientation for a temporal concept. Speakers track cardinal direction constantly to speak their language; this tracking becomes automatic.
The effect isn’t that speakers of different languages can’t think the same thoughts. A Kuuk Thaayorre speaker can learn and use “left” and “right.” An English speaker can learn to track cardinal direction. But the default mode differs, and defaults shape habitual cognition.
The implications extend beyond linguistics. Legal systems, educational methods, persuasion techniques all depend on language. The frames we use (welfare vs. assistance, illegal vs. undocumented, estate tax vs. death tax) influence how we think about issues even when the referent is identical.
Whorf was wrong about the strong claim and often wrong about specifics. But he was right that language is not a neutral medium. How we speak shapes how we think, even if it doesn’t determine it entirely.
Go Deeper
Books
- Language, Thought, and Reality by Benjamin Lee Whorf — The collected writings. Read to understand what Whorf actually claimed.
- The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker — The famous critique of strong linguistic relativism. Accessible and provocative.
- Through the Language Glass by Guy Deutscher — The best modern treatment. Shows which Whorfian claims have empirical support.
Related: [[language]], [[metaphors-we-live-by]], [[linguistic-determinism]], [[cognitive-maps]]