What would you think if we said that the language we speak not only allows us to communicate but also determines how we perceive reality? This may seem like an exaggeration, but the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis argues exactly that. According to this hypothesis, people who speak different languages perceive the world differently. In other words, from the services offered on sites like Mr Bet to everyday life, the way we perceive reality is determined by the language we speak.

So, is there any truth to this claim? How did the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis arise, and what does it claim? We will attempt to answer all of these questions below.

What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?

This is a hypothesis developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, and it’s not a new idea. Both of these linguists died before World War II and never actually met in real life. So, they didn’t publish any joint work, but their ideas were so similar that their students named this hypothesis the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis after their deaths.

The hypothesis is actually based on quite simple principles and essentially argues the following:

• A person’s thought process is shaped by the language they speak.
• Therefore, language determines how we perceive reality.
• For example, if a language doesn’t have a definition for a color, nobody will talk about this color, and speakers of that language have poorer color memory.

This hypothesis has two forms: linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism, but the determinist form is currently considered invalid. Linguistic relativity, on the other hand, claims that the vocabulary and type of language spoken (geocentric or egocentric) influence how we perceive reality, as in the example above. All of this may seem a bit overwhelming, so let’s explain each one separately.

Basics of Linguistic Relativity

First, let’s talk about what the terms geocentric and egocentric mean. The first simply refers to the person-independent use of directional nouns (north, southwest, etc.). The second one is again about the use of directional nouns, but this time they are used in a person-dependent manner (for example, left and right). Some languages are more geocentric, while others are more egocentric.

So, how does this affect the way we perceive reality? There are some studies showing that speakers of geocentric languages (e.g., Guugu Yimithirr in Australia) have more advanced navigational skills. Conversely, speakers of egocentric languages (e.g., English) may have a harder time navigating compared to them. We can give more examples:

• Remember the color example above? For example, in Ukrainian, completely different terms are used for light blue and dark blue (i.e., neither contains the word “blue”). This categorization allows Ukrainian speakers to have better color memory than English speakers and to distinguish shades of blue more quickly.
• Some languages define time horizontally (for example, “forward to the week” in English), while others define it vertically (for example, “shàng” in Mandarin means both up and future). This causes each language to perceive time differently.
• Languages with grammatical gender, such as German and Spanish, cause memory to be shaped accordingly. For example, because speakers of these languages assign gender-consistent attributes to inanimate objects, they may have more biased memories.

These may seem like simple and harmless examples, but the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis claims that the language we speak also affects our cognitive functions. Even if its originators didn’t intend it that way, this is a potentially dangerous idea, as it can be used to argue that speakers of some languages are more or less “advanced” than others.

However, it would be wrong to say that these ideas originated with Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. Even Plato believed that conceptions of reality depend on spoken language, and many linguists throughout the 19th century advocated similar ideas. During this period, no one had a clear understanding of how the human brain worked, so some rather exotic ideas emerged. With the development of brain imaging tools, most linguists have moved away from these ideas. In the 1990s, a form of this hypothesis, defined as “cognitive linguistics,” emerged, but it is difficult to say that it has gained widespread acceptance.

Is There Any Truth to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?

Frankly, this depends on who you ask. This isn’t a universally accepted hypothesis, but there are linguists who believe it’s true. Those who oppose it primarily raise the following objections:

• Cultural values: Cognitive differences are determined not only by language but also by cultural values. So, even if differences in reality perception are true, this is not solely due to language.
• Lack of neuroscientific evidence: Brain imaging studies performed while performing cognitive tasks show that we all have the same neural pathways for basic functions. Language differences don’t alter these pathways in any way.
• Bilingualism: If this hypothesis were true, neural pathways of bilingual speakers would differ from other people. However, no studies have demonstrated this. (That being said, there is research showing that bilingual speakers make more emotional decisions when speaking their native language and more logical decisions when speaking other languages.)

Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide whether the hypothesis is valid: it’s not a scientifically accepted fact, it’s merely a “suggestion.” This may or may not make sense to you, and it’s impossible to say that one is better than the other. However, since the 1990s, the number of linguists working on linguistic relativity has decreased significantly, meaning scholars seem to be moving away from the idea.