In the field of psycholinguistics, linguistic relativity is a phenomenon that asserts the idea that language impacts thoughts and perceptions. Under this phenomenon, it is possible that people who speak English may think differently than people who speak Spanish and other languages. Because of linguistic learning and exposure, one person may perceive gender differently and they might also visualize numbers alternatively from someone else. This language phenomenon has been detailed through the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and is comprised of three ideas: it assumes that languages can differ significantly in both word meaning and syntactic constructions, that the semantics of a language can influence the way in which speakers conceptualize the world, and that language can affect thinking (Wolff & Holmes, 2010). Through examining the different research studies conducted regarding the linguistic relativity phenomenon, this paper will focus on perspectives of both support and rejection of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The hypothesis will be explored through many different linguistic fields, evaluating how people of different languages understand and construct the following: representations of events, conceptions of time, number systems, mental representations of music, and lastly, recognition of swearing and euphemisms. As stated previously, not all evidence in this paper supports the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This hypothesis has been difficult to study due to a large variance of results across the spectrum of relativity and determinism, but all research found is interesting and provides a fascinating look into the complicated field of linguistic determinism and relativity.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis covers a spectrum of weak to strong evidence; the strong version of the hypothesis asserts that language completely determines thought (linguistic determinism), whereas the weak version asserts that language only influences thinking (linguistic relativity). Given the fact that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis involves a spectrum of ideas, this portion of the paper will analyze and discuss research that provides evidence against the hypothesis as a whole. To begin, it is important to note that not all languages are structured the same. For example, Spanish, English, and Chinese all follow the actor – act – patient formula, and languages such as Turkish do not (Goldin-Meadow, Soo, Ozyurek, & Mylander, 2008). An actor- act – patient formula directly reflects the sentence structure that English speakers use. For example: woman, twisting, knob, would be the word order for saying that a woman is twisting a knob (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2008). When considering this variation in language structure, it is possible that it may influence thought regarding the representation of events. Goldin-Meadow et al. (2008) found that the order of representing events in a nonverbal format is not extremely susceptible to linguistic relativity. Instead, humans use a natural order when representing events nonverbally. Although their study included speakers of four different languages which vary in sentence structure, participants from all languages utilized the same order on two opposing nonverbal tasks (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2008). Clearly the evidence fails to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, especially when considering the differences that exist in sentence structures across languages. The study conducted by Goldin-Meadow et al. (2008) was the first to investigate this area of linguistic relativity, but it interestingly does not support the theory of linguistic relativity.

While some areas of research may suggest very weak and unsupportive evidence of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, evidence has been found to have some relationship with linguistic relativity. Boroditsky (2001) studied how an individual’s view of time is altered by language. Boroditsky (2001) examines and compares English speakers and Mandarin speakers. Both these languages view time differently; English speakers view time on a horizontal platform, whereas Mandarin speakers observe time from a vertical standpoint. More specifically, English speakers use words such as “ahead, back, forward, and before” to talk about time, but Mandarin speakers typically use words such as shàng (up) and xià (down) to talk about the order of events. Although research has found that English and Mandarin speakers view time differently, Boroditsky (2001) found through their study that these differences are not permanent. The Boroditsky (2001) study was composed of three different tests which considered different aspects of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Native speakers of Mandarin and English were trained to think in the opposing language’s view of time. When trained to view time as Mandarin speakers do, English speakers eventually spoke about time in the same manner as the Mandarin native speakers. The results of the Boroditsky (2001) study demonstrate that a person’s language shapes habitual thought, but does not completely determine thought. Therefore, the evidence found here does not support the stronger side of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, linguistic determinism (Boroditsky, 2001). Although this research does support linguistic relativity, it fails to establish the stronger theory of linguistic determinism.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis considers a spectrum of relativity and determinism. The first research presented failed to promote any evidence on the spectrum, the second article supported relativity, but not determinism. The variety of results and evidence reflects the problems found in research when investigating the hypothesis. The following article explores evidence of linguistic relativity in music pitch. Dolscheid, Shayan, Majid, and Casasanto (2013) compared mental representations of musical pitch in native speakers of Dutch and Farsi. Dutch speakers, like English speakers, describe pitch as high or low, whereas Farsi speakers express pitch as thin or thick. Interestingly, all participants showed evidence of their own bias perspectives in regard to pitch, but when trained in the alternative perspective concerning the other language, they were able to make changes and adapt (Dolscheid, Shayan, Majid, & Casasanto, 2013). The results support linguistic relativity but do not support linguistic determinism because the participants were able to adapt and use the different viewpoints of the other language regarding music pitch. This study demonstrates another example of evidence falling on the weaker side of the spectrum for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

The next area of research covers a different area of language, swears and euphemisms and their ability to influence emotion through different languages. The key claim for the Bowers and Pleydell-Pearce (2011) study is that the phonological form of a word can directly evoke a negative emotional response, via verbal conditioning. Aside from the semantic or meaning content of the word, simply the sound of a word can evoke an emotional response in an individual. Swear words were found to be more stressful to use than their corresponding euphemisms. An example in Swedish is the word ja¨vlar [devils], which is considered to be quite harsh and is instead substituted by the euphemism ja¨ rnva¨gar [railroads] (Bowers & Pleydell-Pearce, 2011). The study shows fairly strong evidence for conditioning of an emotional response to swear words in all languages, swear words and their structure and sounds evoke much stronger emotional reactions than euphemisms. Euphemisms are great since they allow a message to be conveyed without triggering an emotional response by the receiving individual. This shows support for linguistic relativity, since the words must be learned and conditioned to create a negative psychological response (Bowers & Pleydell-Pearce, 2011). This infers that a swear word in Spanish would also likely not instill an emotional response in an English speaker, unless the English speaker was conditioned in that language. In essence, swear words are thought about differently in different languages. Bowers and Pleydell-Pearce (2011) and their research provide a different perspective for linguistic relativity and the use of swear words and their partnered euphemisms.

The previously discussed research suggests either no evidence or indication of support for the weaker side of the spectrum for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, linguistic relativity. The next research article conducted by Gordon (2004) provides substantial evidence for the stronger side of the spectrum, linguistic determinism. Gordon (2004) visited the Pirahã tribe in the Amazon. The people of this tribe have a vastly different system for counting; instead of numerical codes which specifically pinpoint an exact number they use a system based off of three categories, the “one-two-many” system. For these people, one is one, two is two, but anything beyond that is described as “many” (Gordon, 2004). Using this system seems impossible from an English perspective, since English and other modernized languages have developed using an elaborate system of counting. According to Gordon (2004) the Pirahã have no categorized name for the specific, singular quantity like the English counting system has. Alternatively, the Pirahã have a term for “roughly one” and a term for “small,” this system precludes any precise translation of exact numerical value (Gordon, 2004). As presented earlier there is not much evidence for the more extreme side of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; however, in this unique case, Gordon (2004) discovered an exceptionally rare case in support of linguistic determinism. Through the experiments conducted by Gordon (2004), the people of the Pirahã tribe failed to represent exact quantities due to the lack of significant knowledge and practice in a complex number system. Essentially, the thoughts constructed through the Pirahã number system appear to be determined by language.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a complex idea which covers a broad spectrum of influence that language has on thought. Many different fields have been explored, for some research there has been no evidence at all, while others suggest support for linguistic relativity, and a few rare cases finally show the possibility of linguistic determinism, the most extreme side of the spectrum. Evidently, language does influence the way humans think. Although languages have many similarities, some are different enough to condition contrasting thoughts. The question that endures involves the strength of the evidence for the hypothesis, and whether it supports linguistic determinism or relativity. Language is an ever evolving system which will continue to shape, lead, and possibly determine the thoughts of the language’s speakers.

References

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1-22. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0748

Bowers, J. S., & Pleydell-Pearce, C. W. (2011). Swearing, euphemisms, and linguistic relativity. Plos ONE, 6(7), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022341

Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (2013). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24(5), 613-621. doi:10.1177/0956797612457374

Goldin-Meadow, S., Chee So, W., Özyürek, A., & Mylander, C. (2008). The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America, 105(27), 9163-9168. doi:10.1073/pnas.0710060105

Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306(5695), 496-499. doi:10.1126/science.1094492

Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. J. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Wires Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265. doi:10.1002/wcs.104