LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 1

Language Thought and Culture

Özlem ÖZTÜRK

OMÜ Graduate School of Educational Sciences

Psycholinguistics Final Paper

Instructor: Asst. Prof. Dr. Deren Başak AKMAN YEŞİLEL

January 5, 2018
LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 2

Abstract

This paper tries to explain and analyze the relation between language thought and culture

by referring to different cultures and languages around the world. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is

also explained and discussed as it offers many controversial ideas about how the language affects

the people’s perception of the world around them. In order to do so, notions of language relativity

and language determinism are reviewed by referring to different perceptions of cultures on the

same concepts.

Key Words: Language, thought, culture, language determinism, language relativity

Introduction

The relation between language, thought and culture has been a common concern for

psycholinguists and linguistic anthropologists around the world. It is clearly believed that words

shape people’s lives. The way an idea is stated affects how it is conceptualized. In addition,

studies on language acquisition show that cognitive development and language development go

hand in hand. They both interact with and shape each other (Brown, 2000, p.196). Besides,

cultural factors cannot be eliminated from the language as it is already an integral part of the

interaction between language and thought. While these concepts are strongly related to each

other, it is still a question if the language determines the thought and culture shapes the language.

Language and Thought

Throughout the first language acquisition process, with the words which are acquired, a

child learns to recognize the types of category distinctions that are relevant in the social

environment (Yule, 2006, p.216). These categories can be defined as the conceptual systems and
LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 3

it is clear that they shape the way someone thinks. However, it is still a question if the language

determines or shapes the thought. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis claims that language has a strong

influence on thought. This claim implies that every language has its own world view and people

speaking different languages perceive reality in different ways. This idea which derives from

language determinism makes the existence of an objective world questionable. As a result,

whether the language totally determines or only influences the thought is seen as the basis of the

discussion about the relation of language and thought (Wardhaugh, 2006, p.221).

Language and Culture

Culture can be defined as the beliefs and patterned behaviors belonging to a society. In

this sense, language and culture are so integrated terms that it is hard to think of the one without

the other. Language is used to express cultural elements and also culture is an integrated part of

the culture. As Brown (2000, p.177) explains “A language is a part of a culture and a culture is a

part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without

losing the significance of either language or culture.” As a result, there is a strong relation

between language and culture; on the other hand, the question if the culture and language shape

the thought still remains unexplained.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which is also known as the “Linguistic Relativity

Hypothesis”, has been a controversial issue since it was formulated. The hypothesis was first

formed by Edward Sapir, who was a linguist, and reformulated by his student, Benjamin Lee

Whorf.
LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 4

According to Sapir, there is such a relationship between language and culture that it is not

possible to understand the one without knowledge of the other. According to Sapir’s hypothesis,

the language people speak and think in shapes their perception that is, the existence of the various

language systems means that the people who think in these different languages must perceive the

world differently (Wardhaugh, 2006, p.221). In his book, ‘Language’ Sapir states that: “The fact

of the matter is that the ‘real world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language

habits of the group” (Sapir, 1929, p.207).

Whorf reformulated his teachers view to a broader and a deterministic point by claiming

that there was a predisposition. According to Whorf, the grammar of each language is not only

reproducing instrument for voicing ideas; but rather is shaping the ideas, the mental activity and

the mental process. Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, rather is a part of a

particular grammar and differs between different structures of different languages (Carroll, 1956,

p.212).

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is also widely known as the ‘Whorfian Hypothesis’ with

regards to his work on the hypothesis itself and also carrying the hypothesis to an experimental

level by his study on Hopi language and grammar and inferences of this study. Whorf’s work on

his teacher’s ideas has led the hypothesis to a different level so that the hypothesis implies two

different theories which are called as language relativity and language determinism.

Linguistic Determinism

Linguistic determinism is known as the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

According to this theory, language determines how speakers perceive and organize the world

around them that is to say, language determines thought. If a language has a word for a particular
LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 5

concept, then that word makes it easier for the speakers of that language to refer to that concept

than speakers of another language who lack such a word of the concept.

Whorf came up with that idea as a result of his research on Hopi language contrasting it

with European languages. On this study, he came to a conclusion that Hopi and European

languages differ widely in their structural characteristics. Hopi structural categories provide a

process orientation toward the world while categories in European languages give speakers of

those languages a fixed orientation toward time and space. That means, in European languages,

events occur, have occurred or will occur in a definite time; whereas to speakers of Hopi, what is

important is whether an event can be warranted to have occurred, or to be occurring, or to be

expected to occur. Whorf claimed that these differences lead to different views of the world by

Hopi speakers and speakers of European languages. The Hopi see the world as essentially an

ongoing set of processes, objects and events are not countable and discrete and also, time is not

stated as minutes, hours, days or weeks in contrast to the European languages (Wardhaugh, 2006,

p.224). As a result, he strongly argued that the speakers of Hopi and European languages

perceive the world completely different and so that they think differently.

Linguistic Relativity

Linguistic relativity, on the other hand, is known as the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf

hypothesis and it is widely accepted among linguists as it has more acceptable claims rather that

linguistic determinism. Linguistic relativity, simply claims that, people do not only talk, but to a

certain extent probably also think about the world of experience, using the categories provided by

the language. That is to say, language shapes the thought, rather than determining.
LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 6

One of the examples to support this theory may be the situation with Eskimos and ‘snow’.

It is known that Eskimos have many different words to describe different types of snow while

English speakers have only one. However, English speakers can create expressions, by

manipulating their language, to refer to fresh snow, powdery snow, spring snow or the dirty stuff

that is piled up on the side of the street after the snow-plough has gone through. These may be

categories of snow for English speakers, but they are non-lexicalized and most of them have a

very different view of ‘snow’ from the average Eskimo speaker (Yule, 2006, p.219).

Another example in which Whorf shows that language use affects behavior came from his

experience in his day job as a chemical engineer in an insurance company. He observed while no

employees smoked cigarettes in the room for full barrels, no-one minded smoking in the room

with empty barrels, although this was much more dangerous due to the highly flammable vapors

that still existed in the barrels. He concluded that the use of the word empty had led the workers

to unconsciously regarding them as harmless, although consciously they were probably aware of

the risk of explosion from the vapors (Wardhaugh, 2006, p.224).

Conclusion

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis claims that language and culture affect someone thoughts.

The strong version, linguistic determinism of the hypothesis states that all human actions and

thought are determined by the language itself. This theory is less accepted than the weaker

version, linguistic relativity, which claims that language affects and shapes the way someone

thinks.

People use language to report knowledge, and knowledge is expressed by the language;

that, at least shows that language has an effect on organization of the knowledge and thinking. On
LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 7

the other hand, people have the ability to manipulate the language to express opinions, so that it

seems hard to claim that the language affects how people perceive the world.

There are many arguments supporting and denying this hypothesis. While it is widely

accepted that there is a relation between language and thought as well as language and culture, it

is important to consider that this hypothesis is still unproved. As a result, it does not seem

possible to accept or deny the hypothesis at all.

LANGUAGE THOUGHT AND CULTURE 8

References

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Pearson

Education

Carroll, J. B. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sapir, E. (1929). The Status of Linguistics as a Science. Language, 5(4), 207–214. doi:

10.2307/409588

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. New York: Cambridge University Press