Current Interpretations of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis essentially consists of two distinct statements connecting the relation of thought and language. Whorf believes that humans may be able to think only about objects, processes, and conditions that have language associated with them (linguistic determinism). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis also explains the relationship between different languages (French, English, German, Chinese, and so on) and thought. Whorf demonstrated that culture is largely determined by language (linguistic relativity). Different cultures perceive the world in different ways (Chandler 1-2). Culturally essential objects, conditions, and processes usually are defined by a plethora of words, while things that cultures perceive as unimportant are usually assigned one or two words. Whorf developed this theory while studying the Hopi Indian tribe. Whorf was amazed that the Hopi language has no words for past, present, and future (Campbell 3). The Hopi have only one word for flying objects (Hayes et al. 96). A dragonfly, an airplane, and a pilot are defined using the same word. Whorf questioned whether or not the Hopi view the world differently than western peoples. After further interpretation and analysis he concluded that the Hopi have a sense for the continuum of time despite having no words to specifically describe past, present, and future (Campbell 3). This discovery partially explains why Whorf was cautiously and purposefully broad in his definitions. Drawing definitive conclusions are difficult when studying culture.
Another widely used example demonstrates that language is a reflection of culture. Americans use only a handful of terms to describe snow, including the actual word snow, sleet, freezing rain, and a few others. Eskimos, on the other hand, have many words to describe snow (Hayes et al. 96). Snow that is falling, snow on the ground, snow in blocks, and snow that makes wavy patterns each are explained through the use of separate words (Hayes et al. 96). Snow is a central feature in Eskimo culture, thus it is essential that sufficient vocabulary exists to specifically describe it.
The works of John R. Skoyles and Curtis Hayes et al. support an intimate connection between thought and language. Both sources use examples to support the strength of a 'heavy' interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Skoyles (4) cites an experiment by two Australian psychologists, Peterson and Siegal, as evidence. Multiple tests are conducted based on a doll named 'Sally.' The experimenter, in the presence of a child, shows the doll placing a marble in a box (Skoyles 4). The doll leaves the room, the marble is removed from the box and placed in a basket, and the doll returns (4). The onlooking child is asked to determine where 'Sally' is likely to look for the marble. Children reply that the doll will look in the box, although they can't determine why (4). Peterson and Siegal modified the experiment by including deaf children. The 'Sally' experiment was conducted with deaf children who had deaf parents (4). All of the deaf children with deaf parents answered correctly. The experiment was repeated with deaf children who had hearing parents. These children, for the most part, answered incorrectly (4). The deaf children with deaf parents experience meaningful interaction with their parents because their parents communicate with them in sign language (4). The deaf children with hearing parents struggled because non-concrete cognition skills weren't developed. The parents couldn't communicate with the children at an advanced cognition level due to the parents poor signing skills (4). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, if correct, would predict that the deaf children of hearing parents would perform poorly in the experiment because they lacked cognition skills that can only be developed through the use of complex language. The experiment results lead Skoyles to believe that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is correct in its strongest sense.
Hayes et al. contribute to Skoyles analysis by citing more typically common examples in a cultural context. The Japanese lack a general word for 'water' (Hayes et al. 96). In Japanese, water must be specified as being either hot or cold (96). Russians have traditionally used two words for 'blue' (96). The Russians and Japanese aren't constrained by the use of single words to discuss 'water' and 'blue,' thus the literal meaning of the words differs from the English translation. 'Water' and 'blue' are not perceived in other cultures the same way, as shown by individuals who have lived within various cultures. These examples demonstrate that individuals and societies construct reality using language. The children in the 'Sally' experiment did the same. The Japanese do not understand the concept of 'water' without it being warm or cold (Hayes et al. 96). Skoyles and Hayes et al. provide examples that demonstrate the significance and applicability of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. They consider the real life examples that are presented to be supporting and conclusive evidence.
Daniel Chandler, George Grace, and Lawrence Campbell all believe that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is significant but they feel that it isn't applicable to all situations. They support a 'weaker' interpretation of the hypothesis. Campbell critiques the work Wilhelm von Humboldt to support his position. Von Humboldt strongly believed that all thought was impossible without language (Campbell 1). Campbell counters by asking "if there was no thought before language, how did language arise in the first place?" (1). This brings up another question. Was there no thought whatsoever before language was invented?
Chandler and Campbell believe that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis can be disproven by critically examining translation patterns between languages. They specifically address linguistic relativity. Chandler (1-2) agrees that in literary writing meaning may be lost in translation due to subtle language differences, but he believes that anything can be said in any language. Campbell (2) admits that it may be necessary to use a complex phrase to translate a particular word. But he also believes that through discourse any object, process, or condition can be explained. Campbell presents the following as proof (2): "...it becomes obvious that if it was true that language dictated thought, and that concepts were untranslatable, then children would be incapable of learning language at all; for how would a child learn its first word?"
Grace (118-19) also doesn't believe that a very close relationship exists between thought and language. He believes that language plays some role in determining thought, but he de-emphasizes the link between the two. A person watching baseball who isn't familiar with the terminology would not understand the 'infield fly rule' in the same way as an avid baseball fan, but they would have a basic understanding of how the rule functioned (120). Grace (121-24) emphasizes that thought affects language as much as language affects thought.
Grace, Chandler, and Campbell believe that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis isn't true in its strongest form, but they do feel that it is applicable in certain situations. Campbell (1) points to the American Indian dialect of Zuni. Speakers of the language don't have words to distinguish between yellow and orange (1). The re-identification of some objects is more difficult for those who speak Zuni than for English-speaking people. Chandler (3) admits that language influences thought but doesn't believe that it determines thought. The supporters of this position recognize the value of the Sapir-Whorf theory despite finding critical errors in its makeup.
Terwilliger and his supporters believe that it is difficult to critically analyze the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis because Benjamin Whorf was broad in his definitions, leaving excessive opportunity for interpretation. Terwilliger feels that the hypothesis must be clearly defined before it can be proven or disproven. Terwilliger sees many contradictions within the hypothesis that are caused by incomplete definition. He points to examples that support the hypothesis, but he is equally adept at finding examples that show that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis isn't applicable to all situations.
Terwilliger points to four different levels by which the hypothesis can be interpreted upon. Each level is complex and further demonstrates that a clearer definition is necessary for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to be examined critically (286-87). He states (286) that the hypothesis can be interpreted as "referring primarily to the lexicon of the language, or primarily to its syntax...[or] as making statements about basic sensory or behavioral states of affairs, or about more cognitive and cultural states of affairs." Terwilliger (288) questions the debate about translating language and how it relates to culture. Translations between languages can sometimes be quite arbitrary. Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir never defined whether the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis infers literal translations or translations of meaning (Terwilliger 288). The interpretation of language can be misunderstood as a result of this, thus creating confusion about the practical application of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis (Terwilliger 288-89). Terwilliger believes that "...it is quite possible to translate anything in one language into any other language if one does not insist upon this totally literal translation" (288). Terwilliger and his supporters simply feel that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis cannot be critically applied because the definitions of Whorf and Sapir are very vague.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis consists of two distinct parts: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir believed that thought and language are very closely related. Most linguists who study the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis cite examples demonstrating why they either support the conclusions of Whorf and Sapir, reject them, or are unsure of exactly what the hypothesis is about. It is commonly believed that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis possesses some truth, but the extent to which it is applicable to all situations is questioned. Linguists generally support a 'strong' or a 'weak' interpretation. Linguists who study the hypothesis tend to cite examples that support their beliefs but are unable or unwilling to refute the opposing arguments. Examples exist that strengthen the arguments of everyone who studies the hypothesis. Nobody has gained significant ground in proving or refuting the hypothesis because the definitions of Sapir and Whorf are very vague and incomplete, leaving room for a significant amount of interpretation. The debate about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis will likely continue to be a struggle between opposing viewpoints. This debate will probably never be settled because the hypothesis can be interpreted in many ways.