LingoLattice

Source: Farm Progress

One of my favorite theories of language is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This was first created by Edward Sapir in 1929 and was furthered by Benjamin Whorf. It suggests that the way we think and experience life is greatly affected by our native languages. This theory is so interesting to me because it opens up the idea that the language we speak could be more than just a tool for communication. It can be a way for us to view the world and it suggests that understanding a language could lead to a deeper understanding of a culture.

If this theory is difficult to understand, I have a couple of examples! A language might have multiple words for the concept of “snow,” like in Inuktitut, and speakers of that language might have a more nuanced understanding of snow than someone who only has one word for it in their language. Additionally, some languages have grammatical gender, meaning nouns are classified as masculine and feminine. In German, the word for “bridge” is feminine (die Brücke), while in French it is masculine (le pont). This could suggest that German speakers are more likely to describe bridges as beautiful or elegant, while French speakers might describe them as strong or sturdy. Finally, Japanese has multiple different levels of politeness built into its language. This shapes how speakers view relationships, family, and social hierarchy.

Despite these interesting points, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is surrounded by controversies. Benjamin Whorf proposed the idea that language can limit thought. This means that you literally don’t have the ability to think about something unless you have the words or grammatical structures to express it. I personally find this a bit extreme. You can still have thoughts or feelings without precise words, but if your language gives you better tools, you might think about them more fluently or even more often.

Here are some examples:

1. Some languages have only two or three color terms like “light” and “dark,” while others have dozens. People in those languages can still see all the colors, even if they could be slower to distinguish or name them.
2. English speakers say “I miss you,” but Japanese doesn’t have a direct translation. Instead, they might say something more like “I feel lonely because you’re not here.” This doesn’t mean that Japanese people don’t know what it’s like to miss someone, they just don’t reflect on it in the same way.
3. In Tagalog, the word “gigil” describes the irresistible urge to pinch something cute—there’s no English equivalent. The closest thing we have in English is probably cuteness aggression, but there is no concise way to express this feeling. Just because our language doesn’t recognize it as an official feeling, doesn’t mean that we don’t feel or recognize it.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, despite its controversies, is incredibly important. It challenges how we understand the relationship between language, thought, and reality. At its core, it suggests that the language we speak influences what we notice, how we categorize experience, and even what we consider to be real. Even though the strongest version of the hypothesis has been rejected, the milder form continues to inspire research.

Beyond the academic realm, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis has cultural, ethical, and even political weight. It raises questions about how language can be used to control thought—as famously explored in George Orwell’s 1984—or what is lost when a language dies and takes its worldview with it. It also suggests that expanding our language can expand our consciousness: that by learning new words and concepts we might unlock new ways of thinking and feeling.