A Proposed Solution to The Linguistic Relativity (Sapir–Whorf) Hypothesis

The question of whether human language plays a constitutive role in shaping human thought, or merely dresses up pre-formed thoughts—thus occupying a secondary role in the constitution of thought—has occupied scientists and philosophers of language and mind for centuries. The present paper undertakes a philosophical investigation of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and seeks to dispel certain confusions surrounding it. It is demonstrated that human language is both an inseparable component of human psychology (a cognitive mechanism) and an indispensable part of the social practices in which humans participate (a social tool, a technology that each culture uses creatively). The distinction between language as a cognitive–semiotic system and as a culture specific-national constituent is crucial when we investigate linguistic relativity. Ultimately, language coordinates, influences, and directs thought and psychological processes; it also constitutes and reproduces culture, helping it to evolve.

Linguistic Relativity, Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis, Linguistic Anthropology, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Mind

1. Ahearn, L. M. (2021). Living language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. California: University of California Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of times East: absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian aboriginal community. Psychological science, 21(11), 1635-1639. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–79). MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Casasanto, D., Boroditsky, L., Phillips, W., Greene, J., Goswami, S., Bocanegra-Thiel, S., Santiago-Diaz, I., Fotokopoulu, O., Pita, R., & Gil, D. (2004). How deep are effects of language on thought? Time estimation in speakers of English, Indonesian, Greek, and Spanish. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 575–580). Cognitive Science Society. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Christidis, A.-F. (2002). Όψεις της γλώσσας [Opseis tis glossas]. Athina: Nisos. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Dalimier, C. (Trans.). (1998). Platon: Cratyle (Garnier Flammarion 954). Paris: Flammarion. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. De Mauro, T. (2019). Mini-semantica [Mini-semantics]. Laterza: Laterza. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York: Metropolitan Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Evans, V. (2019). Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Everett, D. (2017). How language began: The story of humanity's greatest invention. London: Profile Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Everett, D. L. (2008). Don’t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. New York: Pantheon Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and punishment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian indigene group. Science, 306(5695), 499–503. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/409588 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Stubbs, M. (1997). Linguistic relativity: A critical overview. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 117–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. Technology Review, 42(6), 229–231, 247–248. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(19), 7780–7785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701644104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Predictive Health Monitoring Systems for Electric Vehicle Powertrains Using Edge AI and CAN Bus Data
• Internship Portals: A Systematic Review of Current Platforms and Future Directions
• Towards Better Urban Mobility: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pedestrian Infrastructure in Naval, Biliran Province, Philippines
• An Affordable and Sustainable Efficient Color Sorting System Using Arduino and TCS3200 Sensor
• Financial Stress and Mobility Patterns: Implication for Transportation Policy Among Jeepney Passengers