sapir whorf hypothesis gcse psychology

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis)

Mia Belle Frothingham

Author, Researcher, Science Communicator

BA with minors in Psychology and Biology, MRes University of Edinburgh

Mia Belle Frothingham is a Harvard University graduate with a Bachelor of Arts in Sciences with minors in biology and psychology

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

There are about seven thousand languages heard around the world – they all have different sounds, vocabularies, and structures. As you know, language plays a significant role in our lives.

But one intriguing question is – can it actually affect how we think?

It is widely thought that reality and how one perceives the world is expressed in spoken words and are precisely the same as reality.

That is, perception and expression are understood to be synonymous, and it is assumed that speech is based on thoughts. This idea believes that what one says depends on how the world is encoded and decoded in the mind.

However, many believe the opposite.

In that, what one perceives is dependent on the spoken word. Basically, that thought depends on language, not the other way around.

What Is The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?

Twentieth-century linguists Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf are known for this very principle and its popularization. Their joint theory, known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or, more commonly, the Theory of Linguistic Relativity, holds great significance in all scopes of communication theories.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that the grammatical and verbal structure of a person’s language influences how they perceive the world. It emphasizes that language either determines or influences one’s thoughts.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that people experience the world based on the structure of their language, and that linguistic categories shape and limit cognitive processes. It proposes that differences in language affect thought, perception, and behavior, so speakers of different languages think and act differently.

For example, different words mean various things in other languages. Not every word in all languages has an exact one-to-one translation in a foreign language.

Because of these small but crucial differences, using the wrong word within a particular language can have significant consequences.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is sometimes called “linguistic relativity” or the “principle of linguistic relativity.” So while they have slightly different names, they refer to the same basic proposal about the relationship between language and thought.

How Language Influences Culture

Culture is defined by the values, norms, and beliefs of a society. Our culture can be considered a lens through which we undergo the world and develop a shared meaning of what occurs around us.

The language that we create and use is in response to the cultural and societal needs that arose. In other words, there is an apparent relationship between how we talk and how we perceive the world.

One crucial question that many intellectuals have asked is how our society’s language influences its culture.

Linguist and anthropologist Edward Sapir and his then-student Benjamin Whorf were interested in answering this question.

Together, they created the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that our thought processes predominantly determine how we look at the world.

Our language restricts our thought processes – our language shapes our reality. Simply, the language that we use shapes the way we think and how we see the world.

Since the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis theorizes that our language use shapes our perspective of the world, people who speak different languages have different views of the world.

In the 1920s, Benjamin Whorf was a Yale University graduate student studying with linguist Edward Sapir, who was considered the father of American linguistic anthropology.

Sapir was responsible for documenting and recording the cultures and languages of many Native American tribes disappearing at an alarming rate. He and his predecessors were well aware of the close relationship between language and culture.

Anthropologists like Sapir need to learn the language of the culture they are studying to understand the worldview of its speakers truly. Whorf believed that the opposite is also true, that language affects culture by influencing how its speakers think.

His hypothesis proposed that the words and structures of a language influence how its speaker behaves and feels about the world and, ultimately, the culture itself.

Simply put, Whorf believed that you see the world differently from another person who speaks another language due to the specific language you speak.

Human beings do not live in the matter-of-fact world alone, nor solitary in the world of social action as traditionally understood, but are very much at the pardon of the certain language which has become the medium of communication and expression for their society.

To a large extent, the real world is unconsciously built on habits in regard to the language of the group. We hear and see and otherwise experience broadly as we do because the language habits of our community predispose choices of interpretation.

Studies & Examples

The lexicon, or vocabulary, is the inventory of the articles a culture speaks about and has classified to understand the world around them and deal with it effectively.

For example, our modern life is dictated for many by the need to travel by some vehicle – cars, buses, trucks, SUVs, trains, etc. We, therefore, have thousands of words to talk about and mention, including types of models, vehicles, parts, or brands.

The most influential aspects of each culture are similarly reflected in the dictionary of its language. Among the societies living on the islands in the Pacific, fish have significant economic and cultural importance.

Therefore, this is reflected in the rich vocabulary that describes all aspects of the fish and the environments that islanders depend on for survival.

For example, there are over 1,000 fish species in Palau, and Palauan fishers knew, even long before biologists existed, details about the anatomy, behavior, growth patterns, and habitat of most of them – far more than modern biologists know today.

Whorf’s studies at Yale involved working with many Native American languages, including Hopi. He discovered that the Hopi language is quite different from English in many ways, especially regarding time.

Western cultures and languages view times as a flowing river that carries us continuously through the present, away from the past, and to the future.

Our grammar and system of verbs reflect this concept with particular tenses for past, present, and future.

We perceive this concept of time as universal in that all humans see it in the same way.

Although a speaker of Hopi has very different ideas, their language’s structure both reflects and shapes the way they think about time. Seemingly, the Hopi language has no present, past, or future tense; instead, they divide the world into manifested and unmanifest domains.

The manifested domain consists of the physical universe, including the present, the immediate past, and the future; the unmanifest domain consists of the remote past and the future and the world of dreams, thoughts, desires, and life forces.

Also, there are no words for minutes, minutes, or days of the week. Native Hopi speakers often had great difficulty adapting to life in the English-speaking world when it came to being on time for their job or other affairs.

It is due to the simple fact that this was not how they had been conditioned to behave concerning time in their Hopi world, which followed the phases of the moon and the movements of the sun.

Today, it is widely believed that some aspects of perception are affected by language.

One big problem with the original Sapir-Whorf hypothesis derives from the idea that if a person’s language has no word for a specific concept, then that person would not understand that concept.

Honestly, the idea that a mother tongue can restrict one’s understanding has been largely unaccepted. For example, in German, there is a term that means to take pleasure in another person’s unhappiness.

While there is no translatable equivalent in English, it just would not be accurate to say that English speakers have never experienced or would not be able to comprehend this emotion.

Just because there is no word for this in the English language does not mean English speakers are less equipped to feel or experience the meaning of the word.

Not to mention a “chicken and egg” problem with the theory.

Of course, languages are human creations, very much tools we invented and honed to suit our needs. Merely showing that speakers of diverse languages think differently does not tell us whether it is the language that shapes belief or the other way around.

Supporting Evidence

On the other hand, there is hard evidence that the language-associated habits we acquire play a role in how we view the world. And indeed, this is especially true for languages that attach genders to inanimate objects.

There was a study done that looked at how German and Spanish speakers view different things based on their given gender association in each respective language.

The results demonstrated that in describing things that are referred to as masculine in Spanish, speakers of the language marked them as having more male characteristics like “strong” and “long.” Similarly, these same items, which use feminine phrasings in German, were noted by German speakers as effeminate, like “beautiful” and “elegant.”

The findings imply that speakers of each language have developed preconceived notions of something being feminine or masculine, not due to the objects” characteristics or appearances but because of how they are categorized in their native language.

It is important to remember that the Theory of Linguistic Relativity (Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) also successfully achieves openness. The theory is shown as a window where we view the cognitive process, not as an absolute.

It is set forth to look at a phenomenon differently than one usually would. Furthermore, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is very simple and logically sound. Understandably, one’s atmosphere and culture will affect decoding.

Likewise, in studies done by the authors of the theory, many Native American tribes do not have a word for particular things because they do not exist in their lives. The logical simplism of this idea of relativism provides parsimony.

Truly, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis makes sense. It can be utilized in describing great numerous misunderstandings in everyday life. When a Pennsylvanian says “yuns,” it does not make any sense to a Californian, but when examined, it is just another word for “you all.”

The Linguistic Relativity Theory addresses this and suggests that it is all relative. This concept of relativity passes outside dialect boundaries and delves into the world of language – from different countries and, consequently, from mind to mind.

Is language reality honestly because of thought, or is it thought which occurs because of language? The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis very transparently presents a view of reality being expressed in language and thus forming in thought.

The principles rehashed in it show a reasonable and even simple idea of how one perceives the world, but the question is still arguable: thought then language or language then thought?

Modern Relevance

Regardless of its age, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or the Linguistic Relativity Theory, has continued to force itself into linguistic conversations, even including pop culture.

The idea was just recently revisited in the movie “Arrival,” – a science fiction film that engagingly explores the ways in which an alien language can affect and alter human thinking.

And even if some of the most drastic claims of the theory have been debunked or argued against, the idea has continued its relevance, and that does say something about its importance.

Hypotheses, thoughts, and intellectual musings do not need to be totally accurate to remain in the public eye as long as they make us think and question the world – and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis does precisely that.

The theory does not only make us question linguistic theory and our own language but also our very existence and how our perceptions might shape what exists in this world.

There are generalities that we can expect every person to encounter in their day-to-day life – in relationships, love, work, sadness, and so on. But thinking about the more granular disparities experienced by those in diverse circumstances, linguistic or otherwise, helps us realize that there is more to the story than ours.

And beautifully, at the same time, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis reiterates the fact that we are more alike than we are different, regardless of the language we speak.

Isn’t it just amazing that linguistic diversity just reveals to us how ingenious and flexible the human mind is – human minds have invented not one cognitive universe but, indeed, seven thousand!

Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir‐Whorf hypothesis?. American anthropologist, 86(1), 65-79.

Whorf, B. L. (1952). Language, mind, and reality. ETC: A review of general semantics, 167-188.

Whorf, B. L. (1997). The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In Sociolinguistics (pp. 443-463). Palgrave, London.

Whorf, B. L. (2012). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT press.

This website works best with JavaScript switched on. Please enable JavaScript

• Centre Services
• Associate Extranet
• All About Maths

Specifications that use this resource:

• GCSE Psychology 8182

Lesson plan: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: Paper 2 Section B Language, thought and communication

This is a sample lesson plan to help teachers to structure a one hour lesson on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in the 'Language, thought and communication' topic on Paper 2 of our GCSE Psychology specification (8182). It's a guide only and can be amended to suit teachers and their students’ needs.

Learning objectives

• All students should be able to understand and evaluate the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
• Some students will be able to give a more detailed evaluation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
• All students should be aware of some psychological evidence suggesting that there are variations in recall of events and recognition of colours.
• All students should be able to draw on knowledge and understanding of the entire course of study to show a deeper understanding of the theories about language and thought.

Prior knowledge needed

Students don't need prior knowledge but will benefit from having studied Piaget's theory that language depends on thought (also in the 'Language, thought and communication topic' of this specification).

Resources and preparation

• Differentiated study sheets that provide method, results etc for relevant studies
• Relevant textbook pages for the topic
• YouTube: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
• What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?
• Whodunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory

Further work and reading

Students to write an answer to a 9 mark exam question in the 'Memory' section of SAMS for 81821.

Preparation for next lesson

Complete homework.

Document URL https://www.aqa.org.uk/resources/psychology/gcse/psychology/teach/lesson-plan-the-sapir-whorf-hypothesis

Last updated 25 Apr 2019

• Account details

AQA GCSE Psychology Language, Thought and Communication

This section provides revision resources for AQA GCSE psychology and the Language, Thought and Communication chapter. The revision notes cover the AQA exam board and the new specification. As part of your GCSE psychology course, you need to know the following topics below within this chapter:

• AQA Psychology
• Language, Thought and Communication

We've covered everything you need to know for this memory chapter to smash your exams.

• The latest AQA GCSE Psychology specification (2023 onwards) has been followed exactly so if it's not in this resource pack, you don't need to know it.
• We've provided practice questions at the end to help you get better with this topic.
• Completely free for schools , just get in touch using the contact form at the bottom.
• Teachers can print and distribute this resource freely in classrooms to aid students and teaching.
• Instant download, no waiting.

What is the Relationship Between Language and Thought?

For language, thought and communication, the GCSE psychology specification states you need to know the following for this section:

• Piaget’s theory: language depends on thought.
• The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: thinking depends on language.
• Variation in recall of events and recognition of colours, eg in Native American cultures.

A big difference between humans and other animals is our ability to use language to communicate. Animals do use communication however they do not use a language as humans do.

Research also seems to indicate that animals are unable to use complex thoughts which may mean that language and thoughts are connected as it is evident among humans. There are different theories that attempt to explain the relationship between language and thought; the two we will be focusing on are:

• Piaget’s theory: language depends on thought

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

Piaget’s theory: language depends on thought.

We covered Piaget’s theory in the GCSE psychology development topic , however, it is also relevant here.

Piaget’s work was important as it helped us understand how humans develop cognitively and he believed this cognitive development also led to the growth of language. This would mean that we are only able to use language at a level that matches our cognitive development.

According to Piaget’s theory , children will develop language in four stages :

• In the sensorimotor stage , babies are still discovering what their bodies can do, including the ability to make sounds. Babies then learn to copy the sounds they hear other people making.
• At the pre-operational stage , children are egocentric and focus only on themselves. They use the language they have developed to voice their internal thoughts, rather than to communicate with other people.
• During the concrete operational stage , the ability to use language has developed significantly however children use it to talk about actual concrete things.
• Once children reach the formal operational stage , they can use language to talk about abstract, theoretical ideas.

Piaget believed that while all children move through these stages, some people do not get to the formal operational stage.

Evaluating Piaget’s theory: Language Depends on Thought

There are various criticisms of Piaget’s theory that undermines its validity, such as:

• Piaget created his theory based on the observation of his own children. As they were his own, they were unlikely to be aware that they were being observed as part of a study making the behaviour more natural. 
• However, an issue with this is Piaget may have let his own personal biases affect his judgement on what he was seeing. This lack of objectivity would affect the validity of his findings.
• Piaget also recorded his observations on his own. The findings would be more reliable if the observations were recorded using another researcher so they could compare results. If the results were similar, they would have inter-observer reliability however if they were different it would prove that the study lacked consistency and reliability. As he did not do this, there is the argument that the findings lack reliability and validity.
• The sample Piaget used was small and much of his research was based on observing his own children. Therefore his findings cannot be generalised and said to apply to all children.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf and is also sometimes referred to as the concept of Linguistic Relativity .

This theory states that our thoughts and behaviours are affected and formed by the language we speak .  This would mean that cultures with different languages and vocabulary will have very different ways of thinking and understanding things.

As part of their theory, Sapir-Whorf suggested that language may, therefore:

• Lead us to focus on certain ways of seeing and understanding things.
• Make some ways of thinking easier and more likely than others.
• Lead to a memory bias whereby the ability to recall or retrieve certain information is increased or decreased.

Sapir-Whorf provided evidence for their hypothesis by studying indigenous languages. Whorf compared Native American languages with English and used the Hopi’s as an example due to their use of different words for “time” and the Eskimo’s large number of words for “snow”.

The theory suggests that the language we speak influences how we focus, see and understand things . For example, even within the same language, there are cultural and generational differences in the way words are understood. Take a phone or camera, they are now very different compared to the previous generations and this will ultimately affect how people think about them.

The Sapir-Whorf theory also suggests that through being familiar with recent meanings of words as they evolve, this will likely affect how people make connections as to their meanings. For example, if you were tasked with writing a description for the words “orange” and “cloud”, you may write about them being more than just a fruit and a cloud in the sky. You may refer to the fact that Orange is a mobile phone company and “cloud” also refers to a form of storage for data.

Below is a great explanation that breaks down Linguistic Relativity, aka Sapir-Whorf’s theory, in an easy to understand way:

Evaluating Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

• Sapir and Whorf’s hypothesis has been criticised and some of their methods have been deemed unreliable, for example, Eskimo’s have approximately the same number of words for snow as people who speak English. Whorf also never met anyone from the Hopi tribe himself.
• Books and other forms of written literature can be translated into completely different languages without them losing their meaning to readers.
• People who may grow up without a language, or those that lose the ability to speak such as stroke victims, are still able to think.

Variation in Recognition of Colours

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests the language we speak can lead us to focus on certain ways of seeing things . The theory argues that this can make some ways of thinking more likely than others.

Some languages do not distinguish between colour variations. For example, The Tarahumara Native Americans from north-western Mexico, have one word for both blue and green. Researchers found that English speakers perceived bigger differences between shades of blues and green than Tarahumara speakers.

The Russian language also has different words for lighter and darker blues. Researchers found that Russian speakers were more likely than English speakers to recognise differences between two shades of blue.

Variation in Recall of Events

The Sapir-Whorf theory suggests our ability to recall certain information is affected by the language we speak .

Researchers have studied how English speakers and Spanish speakers described intended and accidental actions. Participants were asked about things like seeing someone accidentally bump and knock over a vase. When the action was intended, all the participants were able to correctly identify the person responsible. When the action was accidental, English speakers were able to identify the person correctly more often than Spanish speakers.

English speakers also had a much better recall of who was involved in accidental actions than Spanish speakers when the participants recall of intended action was tested.

Differences Between Human and Animal Communication

For Differences Between Human and Animal Communication, the GCSE Psychology specification states you need to know the following:

• Limited functions of animal communication (survival, reproduction, territory, food).
• Von Frisch’s bee study.
• Properties of human communication not present in animal communication, eg plan ahead and discuss future events.

Animals don’t use language to communicate as humans do, however, they do use a form of vocalisation which is a form of communication with sound.

Birds, for example, sing, insects chirp while animals like lions or cats may growl. The messages conveyed by animals through vocalisation are similar to what humans may communicate such as expressing interest in a mate, showing alarm or letting others know they need to back off .

Research into animal communication has also found similarities between non-verbal communication between humans and animals. For example, in primates, similarities include the use of facial expressions to convey emotion, using body posture to show dominance or submission and the use of touch for bonding and reassurance.

Here’s a good video discussing animal communication:

Limited functions of animal communication

As the video above shows, research into animal communication has shown that it is far more complex and elaborate than we initially thought.

In general, however, animals do use communication for far few purposes than humans do and we can break this down into four main reasons: survival, reproduction, territory and food.

Animals use communication in a number of ways to aid in their survival. 

For example, animals may call to their young should they wander away, use alarm calls to warn others of the presence of a predator or use threat signals such as showing their teeth, making themselves look bigger and growling, to warn others to back away.

Reproduction

Animals communicate to aid in reproduction and do so not necessarily through sound but actions and displays.

For example, some animals use colour displays (such as peacocks and their colourful tails) to attract a mate and ensure reproduction. Other animals may also use colours to frighten or warn off predators.

Territory/Food

Research by Karl von Frisch found that bees communicated to each other on where to find food using dance-like movements. 

Ants have also been found to communicate with one another using different chemical smells called pheromones. Pheromones can be used to convey a variety of different messages including the location of food.

Other research has found that rhesus monkeys made unbroken eye contact and began to behave aggressively as a means to show dominance. Eye contact is believed to be used as a way to display dominance by the monkeys because they perceived the researchers as threatening.

Karl Von Frisch’s Bee Study 1950

Aim: To investigate how bees communicate the location of a food source to each other.

Study design: A field experiment was conducted in real-world settings. The participants, in this experiment, were the honeybees. Von Frisch still manipulates the independent variable, but there is limited control of extraneous variables.

Method: Food sources for a hive of bees were created by placing glass containers of sugar-water at different locations. A hive with glass sides was used so that the behaviour of the bees could be easily monitored. When the bees visited the sugar-water containers to feed, they were marked with tiny spots of different coloured paints to easily identify them when they returned back to the glass hive. The researchers then observed and recorded their behaviour and movements upon returning to the hive after visiting the food source.

Results : The bees were observed to be making different movements that appeared to depend on how far away the food source was from the hive. For example, when the food source was no further than a 100 metres from the hive, the bees did a round dance (picture A) by turning rapidly in circles to the right and then left.

When the food source was moved further away, the bees performed a tail-wagging dance (picture B), moving forward in a straight line while wagging their abdomens from side to side, before turning in a circle towards the left. This was then followed by the bees moving straight forward again before turning in a circle towards the right. This pattern of behaviour was repeated a number of times.

Karl Von Frisch found that the number of turns a bee did within fifteen seconds of “waggle dancing” actually communicated how far away the food source was. He also found that bees used the straight part of the dance to communicate where the food source was in relation to the current position of the sun.

Conclusion : Von Frisch concluded that bees use a variety of different movements to communicate to each other the distance and direction of food sources.

Evaluating Karl Von Frisch’s Bee Study 1950

• Von Frisch’s research is important as it was one of the primary studies into animal communication and influenced other researchers to conduct research into animal communication.
• The results from his bee study have been found to be reliable as when others have recreated it, they have found similar results. This consistency (reliability) in findings allows us to be more certain that the results are trustworthy and valid.
• The artificial setup of sugar-water and bees having to gather this from glass containers is not natural or indicative of the everyday behaviour of bees. Due to this setup, the study could be argued to lack ecological validity.
• Researchers did find putting a sugar solution on flowers also resulted in the bees acting the same way which indicates the setup is valid and can be generalised to real-world settings for bee behaviour.
• Another limitation is the use of glass hives. Bees do not normally live in such hives and this may have affected their behaviour however subsequent research that has replicated the study using wooden hives has had similar results. Another argument for their behaviour by researchers is that in order to find food, bees may also use cognitive maps based on their memory of landmarks.

Properties of human communication not present in animal communication

Human communication and animal communication may share some similar properties, but only human communication contains all properties. These are known as the design features of language .

Two properties unique to human language and communication is productivity and displacement .

• Productivity is the ability to create an unlimited number of different messages. It allows language to be used creatively and is not found in animal communication. Von Frisch’s bee study could vary the messages they conveyed by their dancing but there are limits to what they can say. For example, they do not appear to have movements or signals that mean up or down.
• Displacement is the ability to communicate about things that are not present or events that have yet to happen in the future. This allows language to be used to plan ahead and discuss future events. Planning behaviour displayed by animals, for example squirrels storing nuts for winter, are likely to be due to innate or instinctive forces rather than communicated ideas.

Evaluating Design Features of Language

• It is difficult to say for certain which properties of language are design features used exclusively by humans as we do not fully understand animal communication. More is being learnt about animal communication all the time.
• Although some animals, such as Koko the gorilla, can use the same properties of communication as humans, this behaviour is not naturally occurring behaviour and such animals may therefore be simply imitating humans.
• There are also ethical concerns around testing such research on animals. Keeping wild animals in captivity and training them to behave in ways that are not natural to them is considered ethically cruel.

What is Non-Verbal Communication?

For Non-Verbal Communication, the GCSE Psychology subject requires you to know about the following:

• Definitions of non-verbal communication and verbal communication.
• Functions of eye contact including regulating flow of conversation, signalling attraction and expressing emotion.
• Body language including open and closed posture, postural echo and touch.
• Personal space including cultural, status and gender differences.

Non-verbal communication can be simply defined as a way of conveying messages without the use of words .

For this topic, we will focus exclusively on ways in which we communicate without the use of technology i.e. text messages, email etc. This can however include aspects of speech such as the tone, pitch or volume of someone’s voice. It can also include visual cues such as eye contact and body language.

Communication that uses words is called verbal communication. This can involve talking to someone or reading a letter.

The Functions of Eye Contact

Although we may not be aware of how they play a role, eye contact and movements have a very important function in communication .

Research has found that when someone is about to finish speaking, they give the other person a prolonged look. In experiments where speakers have worn dark glasses, research has found that when we cannot see someone’s eyes, we are unsure when they are going to finish speaking and when to start talking themselves. Wearing dark glasses in one experiment saw more pauses and interruptions which suggests one function of eye contact is to regulate the smooth flow of conversation.

Pupil dilation has also been found to express emotion. Dilation is when the pupils expand and look larger. In one research study, when young men were shown two pictures of the same girl and asked to comment on which was more attractive, the majority chose the girl whose picture had been altered to look more dilated. The pupils of the participants were also found to dilate when they looked at the altered photo.

Other research has also found that people have a preference to those that look at them more frequently. This may be a signal for attraction as we interpret a high level of looking as a signal of attraction.

With animals, posture is used to communicate dominance, threat and submission . Humans also use posture to communicate non-verbally.

For example, crossing arms during a conversation is known as a closed posture. Psychologists believe this could indicate rejection, disagreement or feeling threatened. When people have their arms uncrossed in a relaxed position, this is known as an open posture . This is believed to indicate acceptance.

Some research studies have found that the posture someone adopts influences how much they are liked. Having an open posture is seen to increase people’s perception of the individual as friendly and attractive. Closed postures mean you are more likely to be seen as unfriendly and less attractive.

People that tend to get on well together are seen to adopt one another’s posture when having a conversation. This is known as a postural echo. Research studies have found that a postural echo gives an unconscious message of friendliness and people are more liked when they use it.

Touch is another form of non-verbal communication and a powerful signal that can produce unconscious emotional reactions.

There is a huge difference between different cultures on the amount of touch that is permitted between individuals with western societies being less restrictive than some eastern societies.

Research by psychologists has found that touch can lead to people being favoured more positively . One study measured the attitudes of students who return their library books. The librarian briefly touched them on the hand as they returned their books and subsequently reported to have a much more positive attitude towards both the library and librarian when compared to those who had not been touched.

Other research has found touch can be persuasive too . When you briefly touch other people, research has found they are more likely to agree to your request. One study measured the persuasive effects of touch where a man asked women to dance with him. When he touched a womans arm for a second, two-thirds agreed to dance with him. When the same man did not use touch, his success rate dropped by half.

Differences in Personal Space

Studies suggest there are a number of gender differences in personal space .

Men tend to have a bigger personal space boundary than women, and both genders prefer to have a greater amount of space between themselves and members of the opposite sex.

There are also gender differences in how we position ourselves when we are close to other people. Women prefer to sit next to their friends by their side while men prefer to sit opposite them.

Women tend to have their personal space boundary invaded more often by men than the other way around. Men feel more uncomfortable when their personal space is invaded from in front of them while women tend to feel more uncomfortable when their personal space is invaded from the side.

Other factors that affect personal space is age and personality. Research suggests people tend to sit or stand next to people if they are a smaller age. People with the personality types known as introverts tend to have a larger personal space boundary than those deemed extroverts.

Status is another factor that affects personal space. Studies have found that people tend to stand closer to others they deem to be of the same status as themselves compared to people of a higher status. People of a higher status feel more free to choose how close they are to someone.

Cultural norms are another factor that affects personal space. When comparing the personal space of groups of white English people and Arab people during conversations, results showed the comfortable conversation distance for white English people was between 1 and 1.5 metres. For Arab people, this was much less than that suggesting culture is a mitigating factor for personal space.

Explanations of Non-Verbal Behaviour

For Explanations of Non-Verbal Behaviour, you need to know the following For GCSE Psychology:

• Darwin’s evolutionary theory of non-verbal communication as evolved and adaptive.
• Evidence that non-verbal behaviour is innate, eg in neonates and the sensory deprived.
• Evidence that non-verbal behaviour is learned. Yuki’s study of emoticons.

Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory of Non-Verbal Communication

• Darwin suggested several principles for the evolution of non-verbal communication that expresses emotions. One of these principles is serviceable associated habits. A serviceable behaviour is one that has a purpose, for example, humans may have used biting as an early form of self-defence. In a similar way to animals, early humans may also have exposed their teeth as a threat signal. A serviceable associated habit happens when we have a similar experience, but the behaviour now does not serve the same purpose. The behaviour is now therefore a habit that is associated with feeling a certain way or certain situations. This could therefore explain why people expose their teeth when they have an angry facial expression.
• Another principle Darwin suggested was the principle of actions due to the constitution of the nervous system. This means that some forms of non-verbal communication are actually caused by our nervous system. For example, dilated pupils and an open mouth are part of a frightening facial response, but they are also the same effects of adrenaline being released into our bodies by our nervous system during the fight or flight response.
• Pupil dilation increases visual information and allows us to potentially see the best way to avoid danger. An open mouth increases oxygen supply which allows us to move away from a threat much faster. Pupil dilation can also happen when we are attracted to someone and also makes us more attractive. A high level of looking is also interpreted as a signal of attraction. These cues are examples of non-verbal communication which help with reproduction.

Evaluation of Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory of Non-verbal Communication

• Research evidence supports Darwin’s theory. Medical evidence supports the idea that the function of our nervous system causes certain actions, such as pupil dilation. Other research into neonates also suggests that some non-verbal behaviours are innate and biologically determined (genetics).
• A criticism is that non-verbal behaviours can also easily be explained by learning through observation rather than genetics. Social learning theory believes behaviours are learned through the observation and replication of other people. 
• It is possible that behaviours may be both innate and learned. When we are born we have the ability to cry and laugh but we can also learn to control them and use them in a way that fits in with social and cultural norms. Some behaviours however may serve no purpose in reproduction or survival such as the use of gestures.

Evidence that Non-verbal Behaviour is Innate

Darwin’s theory proposed that emotional expressions were innate or due to genetics. Facial expressions should therefore be the same across all cultures and research evidence suggests expressions for anger, disgust, happiness, sadness, fear and surprise are universally recognised by most cultures throughout the world. One experiment filmed people from Papua New Guinea telling a story using non-verbal communication. The film was shown to college students from America who were able to accurately identify the emotions they conveyed. This lends support to Darwin’s theory that non-verbal communication may be biologically determined. If this is the case, emotional expressions should also be found in neonates. The younger a baby is, the less likely that any expressions they display are learned through observations. Research into neonate facial expressions has shown that they use a pre-cry expression to convey sadness, as well as smiling, disgust, pain and surprise. This further supports the argument that some facial expressions may be innate behaviour. Research has also focused on babies who are sensory deprived (e.g. born blind). If facial expressions are learnt then they should not convey the same behaviour as those not blind as these would not have been observed. Research has shown that babies born blind have smiling behaviours that are similar to those with normal sight. Other research used 4800 photographs of sighted and blind athletes to compare the facial expressions they made at significant moments. Researchers found that both the sighted and blind athletes expressed their emotions in similar ways.

Evidence that non-verbal behaviour is learned

There is also a body of evidence to suggest non-verbal behaviour is a learned response .

Yuki’s study of emoticons suggests the way we interpret facial expressions is in part due to culture and nurture (learning) .

For example, non-verbal communication and speech are closely linked. This is seen in the way eye contact is used to help the flow of a conversation. This form of non-verbal communication is learned at the same time we learn to use language with both learned through social interactions. This is supported by the historical and generational changes in how non-verbal communication has been used.

Masaki Yuki’s Emoticons Study 2007

Aim : To investigate if culture affects how facial cues are used when understanding other peoples emotions.

Study design : A questionnaire with standard questions for all participants and a rating scale from 1 to 9. Participants consisted of American and Japanese students.

Method : Yuki showed participants emoticons with six different combinations of eyes and mouths. The eyes and mouths were happy, neutral and sad. Participants were then asked to rate how happy they thought each face was.

Results : The Japanese students were found to give the highest ratings for the faces with happy eyes and the lowest ratings for the face with sad eyes. American students tended to give the highest ratings to the faces with happy mouths and the lowest ratings to the faces with sad mouths.

The results showed that Japanese and American people may give more weight to different parts o the face when interpreting another person’s emotions. The Japanese students focused more on the eyes while the American students focused more on the mouths. This would suggest a difference in their understanding of facial expressions.

Conclusion : Yuki concluded that this happened because people learn their own cultural norms on expression and interpretation of emotions. Yuki suggested the results may be related to how openly a culture expresses emotion. For example, the eye muscles are not as easy to control as those around the mouth and therefore the eyes may be seen as the most truthful facial cue in cultures that limit their emotional expressions (such as Japan).

In western cultures such as the USA where open emotional expression is normal, the mouth may be seen as the best guide to interpret emotions.

Evaluating Masaki Yuki’s Emoticons Study 2007

• Yuki’s study is important as it provides support for the theory that non-verbal behaviour is learned to some extent.
• A criticism of Yuki’s study is emoticons were used instead of real faces. Trying to interpret an emoticon is not natural or part of everyday behaviour. Therefore the study lacks ecological validity.
• A strength of the study is when Yuki used photos of people instead, the results were still the same.
• Another criticism is the participants were aware they were part of a research study. This may have affected the responses they gave and they may have displayed demand characteristics. The researchers may have also given subtle clues as to the answers to participants and this may also invalidate the results.
• The participant sample was also very limited because they consisted of only students. This means the results can not be generalised to other age ranges of people that are younger or older.
• The study only looked at the basic emotions of happiness and sadness. Therefore. the findings cannot be generalised to other facial expressions and other emotions.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Get Free Resources For Your School!

Welcome Back.

Don’t have an account? Create Now

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

Create a free account.

Already have an account? Login Here

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: How Language Influences How We Express Ourselves

Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

Thomas Barwick / Getty Images

What to Know About the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

Real-world examples of linguistic relativity, linguistic relativity in psychology.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, refers to the idea that the language a person speaks can influence their worldview, thought, and even how they experience and understand the world.

While more extreme versions of the hypothesis have largely been discredited, a growing body of research has demonstrated that language can meaningfully shape how we understand the world around us and even ourselves.

Keep reading to learn more about linguistic relativity, including some real-world examples of how it shapes thoughts, emotions, and behavior.  

The hypothesis is named after anthropologist and linguist Edward Sapir and his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf. While the hypothesis is named after them both, the two never actually formally co-authored a coherent hypothesis together.

This Hypothesis Aims to Figure Out How Language and Culture Are Connected

Sapir was interested in charting the difference in language and cultural worldviews, including how language and culture influence each other. Whorf took this work on how language and culture shape each other a step further to explore how different languages might shape thought and behavior.

Since then, the concept has evolved into multiple variations, some more credible than others.

Linguistic Determinism Is an Extreme Version of the Hypothesis

Linguistic determinism, for example, is a more extreme version suggesting that a person’s perception and thought are limited to the language they speak. An early example of linguistic determinism comes from Whorf himself who argued that the Hopi people in Arizona don’t conjugate verbs into past, present, and future tenses as English speakers do and that their words for units of time (like “day” or “hour”) were verbs rather than nouns.

From this, he concluded that the Hopi don’t view time as a physical object that can be counted out in minutes and hours the way English speakers do. Instead, Whorf argued, the Hopi view time as a formless process.

This was then taken by others to mean that the Hopi don’t have any concept of time—an extreme view that has since been repeatedly disproven.

There is some evidence for a more nuanced version of linguistic relativity, which suggests that the structure and vocabulary of the language you speak can influence how you understand the world around you. To understand this better, it helps to look at real-world examples of the effects language can have on thought and behavior.

Different Languages Express Colors Differently

Color is one of the most common examples of linguistic relativity. Most known languages have somewhere between two and twelve color terms, and the way colors are categorized varies widely. In English, for example, there are distinct categories for blue and green .

Blue and Green

But in Korean, there is one word that encompasses both. This doesn’t mean Korean speakers can’t see blue, it just means blue is understood as a variant of green rather than a distinct color category all its own.

In Russian, meanwhile, the colors that English speakers would lump under the umbrella term of “blue” are further subdivided into two distinct color categories, “siniy” and “goluboy.” They roughly correspond to light blue and dark blue in English. But to Russian speakers, they are as distinct as orange and brown .

In one study comparing English and Russian speakers, participants were shown a color square and then asked to choose which of the two color squares below it was the closest in shade to the first square.

The test specifically focused on varying shades of blue ranging from “siniy” to “goluboy.” Russian speakers were not only faster at selecting the matching color square but were more accurate in their selections.

The Way Location Is Expressed Varies Across Languages

This same variation occurs in other areas of language. For example, in Guugu Ymithirr, a language spoken by Aboriginal Australians, spatial orientation is always described in absolute terms of cardinal directions. While an English speaker would say the laptop is “in front of” you, a Guugu Ymithirr speaker would say it was north, south, west, or east of you.

As a result, Aboriginal Australians have to be constantly attuned to cardinal directions because their language requires it (just as Russian speakers develop a more instinctive ability to discern between shades of what English speakers call blue because their language requires it).

So when you ask a Guugu Ymithirr speaker to tell you which way south is, they can point in the right direction without a moment’s hesitation. Meanwhile, most English speakers would struggle to accurately identify South without the help of a compass or taking a moment to recall grade school lessons about how to find it.

The concept of these cardinal directions exists in English, but English speakers aren’t required to think about or use them on a daily basis so it’s not as intuitive or ingrained in how they orient themselves in space.

Just as with other aspects of thought and perception, the vocabulary and grammatical structure we have for thinking about or talking about what we feel doesn’t create our feelings, but it does shape how we understand them and, to an extent, how we experience them.

Words Help Us Put a Name to Our Emotions

For example, the ability to detect displeasure from a person’s face is universal. But in a language that has the words “angry” and “sad,” you can further distinguish what kind of displeasure you observe in their facial expression. This doesn’t mean humans never experienced anger or sadness before words for them emerged. But they may have struggled to understand or explain the subtle differences between different dimensions of displeasure.

In one study of English speakers, toddlers were shown a picture of a person with an angry facial expression. Then, they were given a set of pictures of people displaying different expressions including happy, sad, surprised, scared, disgusted, or angry. Researchers asked them to put all the pictures that matched the first angry face picture into a box.

The two-year-olds in the experiment tended to place all faces except happy faces into the box. But four-year-olds were more selective, often leaving out sad or fearful faces as well as happy faces. This suggests that as our vocabulary for talking about emotions expands, so does our ability to understand and distinguish those emotions.

But some research suggests the influence is not limited to just developing a wider vocabulary for categorizing emotions. Language may “also help constitute emotion by cohering sensations into specific perceptions of ‘anger,’ ‘disgust,’ ‘fear,’ etc.,” said Dr. Harold Hong, a board-certified psychiatrist at New Waters Recovery in North Carolina.

As our vocabulary for talking about emotions expands, so does our ability to understand and distinguish those emotions.

Words for emotions, like words for colors, are an attempt to categorize a spectrum of sensations into a handful of distinct categories. And, like color, there’s no objective or hard rule on where the boundaries between emotions should be which can lead to variation across languages in how emotions are categorized.

Emotions Are Categorized Differently in Different Languages

Just as different languages categorize color a little differently, researchers have also found differences in how emotions are categorized. In German, for example, there’s an emotion called “gemütlichkeit.”

While it’s usually translated as “cozy” or “ friendly ” in English, there really isn’t a direct translation. It refers to a particular kind of peace and sense of belonging that a person feels when surrounded by the people they love or feel connected to in a place they feel comfortable and free to be who they are.

Harold Hong, MD, Psychiatrist

The lack of a word for an emotion in a language does not mean that its speakers don't experience that emotion.

You may have felt gemütlichkeit when staying up with your friends to joke and play games at a sleepover. You may feel it when you visit home for the holidays and spend your time eating, laughing, and reminiscing with your family in the house you grew up in.

In Japanese, the word “amae” is just as difficult to translate into English. Usually, it’s translated as "spoiled child" or "presumed indulgence," as in making a request and assuming it will be indulged. But both of those have strong negative connotations in English and amae is a positive emotion .

Instead of being spoiled or coddled, it’s referring to that particular kind of trust and assurance that comes with being nurtured by someone and knowing that you can ask for what you want without worrying whether the other person might feel resentful or burdened by your request.

You might have felt amae when your car broke down and you immediately called your mom to pick you up, without having to worry for even a second whether or not she would drop everything to help you.

Regardless of which languages you speak, though, you’re capable of feeling both of these emotions. “The lack of a word for an emotion in a language does not mean that its speakers don't experience that emotion,” Dr. Hong explained.

What This Means For You

“While having the words to describe emotions can help us better understand and regulate them, it is possible to experience and express those emotions without specific labels for them.” Without the words for these feelings, you can still feel them but you just might not be able to identify them as readily or clearly as someone who does have those words. 

Rhee S. Lexicalization patterns in color naming in Korean . In: Raffaelli I, Katunar D, Kerovec B, eds. Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics. Vol 78. John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2019:109-128. Doi:10.1075/sfsl.78.06rhe

Winawer J, Witthoft N, Frank MC, Wu L, Wade AR, Boroditsky L. Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007;104(19):7780-7785.  10.1073/pnas.0701644104

Lindquist KA, MacCormack JK, Shablack H. The role of language in emotion: predictions from psychological constructionism . Front Psychol. 2015;6. Doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00444

By Rachael Green Rachael is a New York-based writer and freelance writer for Verywell Mind, where she leverages her decades of personal experience with and research on mental illness—particularly ADHD and depression—to help readers better understand how their mind works and how to manage their mental health.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Examples, Definition, Criticisms

Developed in 1929 by Edward Sapir, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (also known as linguistic relativity ) states that a person’s perception of the world around them and how they experience the world is both determined and influenced by the language that they speak.

The theory proposes that differences in grammatical and verbal structures, and the nuanced distinctions in the meanings that are assigned to words, create a unique reality for the speaker. We also call this idea the linguistic determinism theory .

Spair-Whorf Hypothesis Definition and Overview

Cibelli et al. (2016) reiterate the tenets of the hypothesis by stating:

“…our thoughts are shaped by our native language, and that speakers of different languages therefore think differently”(para. 1).

Kay & Kempton (1984) explain it a bit more succinctly. They explain that the hypothesis itself is based on the:

“…evolutionary view prevalent in 19 th century anthropology based in both linguistic relativity and determinism” (pp. 66, 79).

Linguist Edward Sapir, an American linguist who was interested in anthropology , studied at Yale University with Benjamin Whorf in the 1920’s.

Sapir & Whorf began to consider lexical and grammatical patterns and how these factored into the construction of different culture’s views of the world around them.

For example, they compared how thoughts and behavior differed between English speakers and Hopi language speakers in regard to the concept of time, arguing that in the Hopi language, the absence of the future tense has significant relevance (Kay & Kempton, 1984, p. 78-79).

Whorf (2021), in his own words, asserts:

“Every language is a vast pattern-system, different from others, in which are culturally ordained the forms and categories by which the personality not only communicates, but also analyzes nature, notices or neglects types of relationship and phenomena, channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his consciousness” (p. 252).

10 Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Examples

• Constructions of food in language: A language may ascribe many words to explain the same concept, item, or food type. This shows that they perceive it as extremely important in their society, in comparison to a culture whose language only has one word for that same concept, item, or food.
• Descriptions of color in language: Different cultures may visually perceive colors in different ways according to how the colors are described by the words in their language.
• Constructions of gender in language: Many languages are “gendered”, creating word associations that pertain to the roles of men or women in society.
• Perceptions of time in language: Depending upon how the tenses are structured in a language, it may dictate how the people that speak that language perceive the concept of time.
• Categorization in language: The ways concepts and items in a given culture are categorized (and what words are assigned to them) can affect the speaker’s perception of the world around them.
• Politeness is encoded in language: Levels of politeness in a language and the pronoun combinations to express these levels differ between languages. How languages express politeness with words can dictate how they perceive the world around them.
• Indigenous words for snow: A popular example used to justify this hypothesis is the Inuit people, who have a multitude of ways to express the word snow. If you follow the reasoning of Sapir, it would suggest that the Inuits have a profoundly deeper understanding of snow than other cultures.
• Use of idioms in language: An expression or well-known saying in one culture has an acute meaning implicitly understood by those that speak the particular language but is not understandable when expressed in another language.
• Values are engrained in language: Each country and culture have beliefs and values as a direct result of the language it uses. 
• Slang in language: The slang used by younger people evolves from generation to generation in all languages. Generational slang carries with it perceptions and ideas about the world that members of that generation share.

See Other Hypothesis Examples Here

Two Ways Language Shapes Perception

1. perception of categories and categorization.

How concepts and items in a culture are categorized (and what words are assigned to them) can affect the speaker’s perception of the world around them.

Although the examples of this phenomenon are too numerous to cite, a clear example is the extremely contextual, nuanced, and hyper-categorized Japanese language.

In the English language, the concept of “you” and “I” is narrowed to these two forms. However, Japanese has numerous ways to express you and I, each having various levels of politeness and appropriateness in relation to age, gender, and stature in society.

While in common conversation, the pronoun is often left out of the conversation – reliant on context, misuse or omission of the proper pronoun can be perceived as rude or ill-mannered.

In other ways, the complexity of the categorical lexicons can often leave English speakers puzzled. This could come in the form of classifications of different shaped bowls and plates that serve different functions; it could be traces of the ancient Japanese calendar from the 7 th Century, that possessed 72 micro-seasons during a year, or any number of sub-divided word listings that may be considered as one blanket term in another language.

Masuda et al. (2017) gives a clear example:

“ People conceptualize objects along the lines drawn between existing categories in their native language. That is, if two concepts fall into the same linguistic category, the perception of similarity between these objects would be stronger than if the two concepts fall into different linguistic categories.”

They then go on to give the example of how Japanese vs English speakers might categorize an everyday object – the bell:

“For example, in Japanese, the kind of bell found in a bell tower generally corresponds to the word kane—a large bell—which is categorically different from a small bell, suzu. However, in English, these two objects are considered to belong within the same linguistic category, “bell.” Therefore, we might expect English speakers to perceive these two objects as being more similar than would Japanese speakers (para 5).

2. Perception of the Concept of Time

According to a way the tenses are structured in a language, it may dictate how the people that speak that language perceive the concept of time

One of Sapir’s most famous applications of his theory is to the language of the Arizona Native American Hopi tribe.

He claimed, although refuted vehemently by linguistic scholars since, that they have no general notion of time – that they cannot decipher between the past, present, or future because of the grammatical structures that are used within their language.

As Engle (2016) asserts, Sapir believed that the Hopi language “encodes on ordinal value, rather than a passage of time”.

He concluded that, “a day followed by a night is not so much a new day, but a return to daylight” (p. 96).

However, it is not only Hopi culture that has different perception of time imbedded in the language; Thai culture has a non-linear concept of time, and the Malagasy people of Madagascar believe that time in motion around human beings, not that human beings are passing through time (Engle, 2016, p. 99).

Criticism of Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

1. language as context-dependent.

Iwamoto (2005) expresses that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis fails to recognize that language is used within context. Its purely decontextualized textual analysis of language is too one-dimensional and doesn’t consider how we actually use language:

“Whorf’s “neat and simplistic” linguistic relativism presupposes the idea that an entire language or entire societies or cultures are categorizable or typable in a straightforward, discrete, and total manner, ignoring other variables such as contextual and semantic factors .” (Iwamoto, 2005, p. 95)

2. Not universally applicable

Another criticism of the hypothesis is that Sapir & Whorf’s hypothesis cannot be transferred or applied to all languages.

It is difficult to cite empirical studies that confirm that other cultures do not also have similarities in the way concepts are perceived through their language – even if they don’t possess a similar word/expression for a particular concept that is expressed.

3. thoughts can be independent of language

Stephen Pinker, one of Sapir & Whorf’s most emphatic critics, would argue that language is not of our thoughts, and is not a cultural invention that creates perceptions; it is in his opinion, a part of human biology (Meier & Pinker, 1995, pp. 611-612).

He suggests that the acquisition and development of sign language show that languages are instinctual, therefore biological; he even goes so far as to say that “all speech is an illusion”(p. 613).

Cibelli, E., Xu, Y., Austerweil, J. L., Griffiths, T. L., & Regier, T. (2016). The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Probabilistic Inference: Evidence from the Domain of Color.  PLOS ONE ,  11 (7), e0158725.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158725

Engle, J. S. (2016). Of Hopis and Heptapods: The Return of Sapir-Whorf.  ETC.: A Review of General Semantics ,  73 (1), 95.  https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-544562276/of-hopis-and-heptapods-the-return-of-sapir-whorf

Iwamoto, N. (2005). The Role of Language in Advancing Nationalism.  Bulletin of the Institute of Humanities ,  38 , 91–113.

Meier, R. P., & Pinker, S. (1995). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language.  Language ,  71 (3), 610.  https://doi.org/10.2307/416234

Masuda, T., Ishii, K., Miwa, K., Rashid, M., Lee, H., & Mahdi, R. (2017). One Label or Two? Linguistic Influences on the Similarity Judgment of Objects between English and Japanese Speakers. Frontiers in Psychology , 8 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01637

Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What Is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?  American Anthropologist ,  86 (1), 65–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/679389

Whorf, B. L. (2021).  Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf . Hassell Street Press.

Gregory Paul C. (MA)

Gregory Paul C. is a licensed social studies educator, and has been teaching the social sciences in some capacity for 13 years. He currently works at university in an international liberal arts department teaching cross-cultural studies in the Chuugoku Region of Japan. Additionally, he manages semester study abroad programs for Japanese students, and prepares them for the challenges they may face living in various countries short term.

• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Upper Middle-Class Lifestyles: 10 Defining Features
• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Arousal Theory of Motivation: Definition & Examples
• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Theory of Mind: Examples and Definition
• Gregory Paul C. (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 10 Strain Theory Examples (Plus Criticisms of Merton)

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Linguistic Theory

DrAfter123/Getty Images

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the  linguistic theory that the semantic structure of a language shapes or limits the ways in which a speaker forms conceptions of the world. It came about in 1929. The theory is named after the American anthropological linguist Edward Sapir (1884–1939) and his student Benjamin Whorf (1897–1941). It is also known as the   theory of linguistic relativity, linguistic relativism, linguistic determinism, Whorfian hypothesis , and Whorfianism .

History of the Theory

The idea that a person's native language determines how he or she thinks was popular among behaviorists of the 1930s and on until cognitive psychology theories came about, beginning in the 1950s and increasing in influence in the 1960s. (Behaviorism taught that behavior is a result of external conditioning and doesn't take feelings, emotions, and thoughts into account as affecting behavior. Cognitive psychology studies mental processes such as creative thinking, problem-solving, and attention.)

Author Lera Boroditsky gave some background on ideas about the connections between languages and thought:

"The question of whether languages shape the way we think goes back centuries; Charlemagne proclaimed that 'to have a second language is to have a second soul.' But the idea went out of favor with scientists when  Noam Chomsky 's theories of language gained popularity in the 1960s and '70s. Dr. Chomsky proposed that there is a  universal grammar  for all human languages—essentially, that languages don't really differ from one another in significant ways...." ("Lost in Translation." "The Wall Street Journal," July 30, 2010)

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was taught in courses through the early 1970s and had become widely accepted as truth, but then it fell out of favor. By the 1990s, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was left for dead, author Steven Pinker wrote. "The cognitive revolution in psychology, which made the study of pure thought possible, and a number of studies showing meager effects of language on concepts, appeared to kill the concept in the 1990s... But recently it has been resurrected, and 'neo-Whorfianism' is now an active research topic in  psycholinguistics ." ("The Stuff of Thought. "Viking, 2007)

Neo-Whorfianism is essentially a weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and says that language  influences  a speaker's view of the world but does not inescapably determine it.

The Theory's Flaws

One big problem with the original Sapir-Whorf hypothesis stems from the idea that if a person's language has no word for a particular concept, then that person would not be able to understand that concept, which is untrue. Language doesn't necessarily control humans' ability to reason or have an emotional response to something or some idea. For example, take the German word  sturmfrei , which essentially is the feeling when you have the whole house to yourself because your parents or roommates are away. Just because English doesn't have a single word for the idea doesn't mean that Americans can't understand the concept.

There's also the "chicken and egg" problem with the theory. "Languages, of course, are human creations, tools we invent and hone to suit our needs," Boroditsky continued. "Simply showing that speakers of different languages think differently doesn't tell us whether it's language that shapes thought or the other way around."

• Definition and Discussion of Chomskyan Linguistics
• Generative Grammar: Definition and Examples
• Cognitive Grammar
• Universal Grammar (UG)
• Transformational Grammar (TG) Definition and Examples
• Linguistic Competence: Definition and Examples
• Definition and Examples of Case Grammar
• An Introduction to Semantics
• Construction Grammar
• Definition and Examples of Referents in English Grammar
• Pragmatics Gives Context to Language
• Figure of Thought in Rhetoric
• 10 Types of Grammar (and Counting)
• Where Did Language Come From? (Theories)
• What Is Lexicogrammar?
• Definition and Examples of Syntax

Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

Have you ever heard that Inuits have over 100 words for snow? It’s a fascinating way to look at how different languages are shaped by the world around us. You might have also heard that this fact isn’t actually real.

Theories in psychology and science are always changing and evolving. There are many different schools of thought that suggest how humans see the world, communicate, or make decisions. And when a theory or concept gets popular, it may spread like wildfire, bringing false information with it.

I want to discuss a concept in psychology that has been up for debate for decades. The research surrounding this concept brought us the idea that Inuits have 100 words for snow! This video is about the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.

What is the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis?

The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis began as linguistic determinism. This concept states that our language determines how we think and perceive the world. There are different levels of linguistic determinism, some that are “stronger” than others. “Weaker” forms of this idea suggest that language simply influences the way we think.

To people who only speak one language, the concept of linguistic determinism might be hard to grasp. There are many different languages, but we’re all saying the same things, right?

Not so much. Different languages, especially those spoken on different continents or in more isolated areas, have varying structures. Some languages contain tenses for the past, present, and future, like English. When we put events in a linear timeline, it’s not hard to see our world in a more linear fashion. That’s not exactly the case in other languages or cultures.

We can also look at how languages use (or don’t use) pronouns. Some languages have gendered pronouns for everything: the sun, the moon, a chair, a television, etc. Other languages only have gendered pronouns for people or a handful of objects. Others have different types of pronouns for animate objects, inanimate objects. “Fluid” gendered pronouns exist in some languages.

If we assign everything a gender, how might that influence the way we look at gender (or the objects assigned a specific gender?) If we put every event into a linear timeline, how might that influence the way we view history?

These are some of the questions that sparked the ideas of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.

Linguistic Relativity

There are over 6,500 spoken languages in the world today. At least one-third of these languages have fewer than 1,000 speakers. There are thousands of “extinct” languages, too.

If language determines the way that we think and see the world, what does this say about people who speak different languages?

This is where the second part of the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis comes in, and why it’s also known as Linguistic Relativity. Linguistic Relativity states that because language determines how we think and perceive the world, people who speak different languages think and perceive the world differently.

Examples of Linguistic Relativity In Today’s Languages

Take the world Gezellig . Gezellig is a Dutch word that can’t exactly be translated to English. It describes a feeling of coziness, but it’s so much more than just an adjective. A visit to see close friends is Gezellig. The feeling of walking into your grandparent’s house can be Gezellig. Family reunions, relaxing coffee shops, or a connection with a new friend can all be Gezellig. 

One could argue that the existence of this word could explain how Dutch and English/American culture differs. Many language experts believe that Gezellig is the “heart of Dutch culture.” Americans simply don’t place the same emphasis on coziness and togetherness as the Dutch do.

When Americans do long for the cozy life, they look to European cultures. Gezellig describes a similar feeling and atmosphere as the Danish and Norwegian word Hygge. They’re not the same - while Gezellig usually describes a more sociable gathering or person, Hygge is more likely to describe physical comfort. Warm bowls of soup, sheepskin rugs, and extra fuzzy blankets are all crucial to the Hygge lifestyle. Since Denmark and Norway can be quite cold, it makes sense that Hygge is a favorable lifestyle. The differences in climate may also offer an explanation as to why Hygge cannot be directly translated in English.

How Linguistic Relativity May Be Used To Manipulate

Some experts believe that Sapir Whorf could be used to develop or explain how artificial intelligence can better communicate with humans. Understanding Sapir Whorf can also cause the manipulation of languages. Take Newspeak in George Orwell’s 1984. Newspeak made it impossible for citizens to criticize the establishment. If you don’t have the language to criticize the establishment, how can you do it?

Films like Arrival also explore this idea. Of course, Arrival is a fictional movie and exaggerates what could be possible. But this idea continues to fascinate linguists, storytellers, and moviemakers.

History and Controversy Surrounding The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis

Why is this hypothesis called the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis?

It’s not because someone named Sapir Whorf came up with it. Edward Sapir was a Polish-American anthropologist and linguist born in the late 19th century. He studied and classified indigenous languages, including the languages of Inuit tribes in Canada. Sapir believed the language could influence the way we think, but he was not a believer of strong linguistic determinism. He also did not conduct experiments on the way that language influenced thought.

Benjamin Whorf, born 13 years after Sapir, took his ideas and ran with it. Through his work, he suggested a stronger idea of linguistic relativity. He has been quoted as saying, “Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.”

Not all linguists are on board with language’s impact on thought. Some of the hypothesis’ greatest critics are Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker. British linguist Geoffery Pullum has also criticized the hypothesis with a paper called “The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax .” You can guess what fun fact was included in that paper.

Despite claims to debunk the hypothesis, it still remains one of the more influential concepts in the world of linguistics. Two decades after Pullum published his paper, anthropologist Igor Krupnik published a book with his own research on Inuit languages. He found at least 100 terms for sea ice.

So does language determine how we think? Does it simply influence how we think? There is no right or wrong answer that all linguists can agree upon. There is still more work to be done - and while more languages become extinct every year, the time to do that work is now.

Related posts:

• Skinner’s Box Experiment (Behaviorism Study)
• Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP Definition + Examples)
• Facial Feedback Hypothesis (Definition + Examples)
• Acculturation (Definition + 20 Examples)
• Genie - The Feral Child

Reference this article:

About The Author

Free Personality Test

Free Memory Test

Free IQ Test

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 155992

There has been extensive research on what is known for linguists as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Linguists and other social scientists,use this hypothesis to analyze the complex relations between language and culture. In short, Sapir-Whorf hypothesis explains that language shapes or influences the culture in which it is spoken . 70 In other words, the languages we speak shape our social and cultural realities. So if we are speaking English, English (and all of the linguistic sexism found in it) would shape our cultural realities. Going by this hypothesis, one might argue labeling people as “female” or “male” shapes the idea of who the default individual would be. In that sense English can indeed be perceived as sexist, as it conveys intuitive notions that might shape the speaker’s and listener’s point of view. Take, for instance, the examples below:

In addition to language creating “defaults” in our standards for normalcy (and thereby creating deviations from those standards) we also create (or recreate) degradations of the female noun. For example, hound keeping its canine meaning, but bitch gaining another meaning entirely. Mistress and master used to be equal in meaning; now master evokes power, excellence, and ownership, whereas mistress is someone with whom you can cheat on your spouse. Incidentally, you cannot use master in the same way. Consider this old riddle that goes something like this: A father and son go out for a camping trip. On the way home from the camping trip the father and son get into a terrible car accident where the father is killed immediately upon impact. The son promptly gets rushed to the emergency room where the doctor inside prepares to save the boy’s life. Until, the doctor walks over to the critically injured boy and says, ‘I can’t operate on this boy. He’s my son.’ This is the end of the riddle. The question then becomes; who is the doctor? If you are like many people you’ll be puzzled at first thinking, “Uh, but you said the father died. How could he be in the emergency room if he is dead?” To which, of course, he cannot be (though, I’ve heard variations on the ghost dad / zombie dad theme numerous times!). That leaves only one option: the boy’s mother is the doctor. “Ahhhhhh, duh!” Yes, duh. But why was this obvious answer not immediately apparent? The answer has to do with the theme of this section: language has ways of seeing and understanding the world built into it that both reflect and reconstruct our social structures through our use of them. Since the word ‘doctor’ connotes a position of power, it is often understood to be held by a man. Though we now know full well women can and are doctors, the cultural and linguistic vestige from the past, the legacy of the power in Western culture, predisposes us to thinking the doctor must be a man, blinding us from the obvious fact that most people have two parents (and often a mother and a father)!

So who do we blame? English, right? Grab the pitchforks! Not quite. We cannot blame language; linguistic sexism is abstract and draws on human experiences to give it shape and meaning. And yet there is something in our heads that associates feminine with ‘ pretty ’ and masculine with ‘ strong ’. While language isn’t to blame, language does reflect and reinforce the culture of its users. Us!

Is language sexist? Only as much as the user is. Is sexism linguistic? Not only linguistic, but yes, the evidence in grammar is enough to draw conclusions pointing to sexism. How can we fight linguistic sexism and sexist language? Language is a reflection of us and does not exist without us, and our realities are shaped by language. So it’s almost like looking in a mirror and becoming frustrated when the image won’t change without us changing it. We would have to reconstruct sexism in thought before we could eliminate sexism in speech . Then, eliminating it in speech would reinforce eliminating it in thought. (However, going back to the examples provide earlier on using inclusive language can help the process of reconstruction our thoughts on sexism and gender standards.)

70 Deutscher, G. (2011). Through the language glass. Why the world looks different in other languages , Arrow Books, London

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. AQA Psychology

Subject: Psychology

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Lesson (complete)

Last updated

9 October 2018

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

AQA GCSE Psychology. Language, Thought and Communication NEW SPEC topic.

I did this with year 9 and year 10 and it worked very well. It is a long module but includes;

Obtainable learning objectives for different abilities Easily differentiated resources All of the New Spec relevant information. Mind maps and Revision lesson and End of topic Assessment (in full module bundle)

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

IResearchNet

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis in Popular Psychology

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis or the linguistic relativity principle, formulated by Edward Sapir (1884–1936) and refined by his student, Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941), states that human thinking is highly dependent on the language spoken by the individual thinker. As language is our main tool for organizing our experiences, the argument goes, the language that we use imposes limits both on what is experienced and on how it is expressed. The structure of the language spoken by a social group, in other words, influences their understanding of reality and therefore how they behave with respect to it.

Whorf was influenced by his study of the Hopi language, which does not contain any words or grammatical structures corresponding to notions of time; the language makes no reference to past, present, or future. From this, Whorf argues that the metaphysics embodied in the Hopi language is fundamentally different from that encoded in Western European languages such as English. This suggests that the fundamental worldview of the Hopi, and therefore their underlying thought processes, must be different from ours. Another favorite piece of evidence for the hypothesis involves the observation that the Inuit language has many different words for snow, depending on such characteristics as color, density, etc., whereas we in temperate climates merely call it by one word.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

This hypothesis has been a favorite among opponents of Noam Chomsky’s ideas of a universal, deep structure to human languages and an innate language acquisition device; if different languages reflect or even determine different understandings of the world, then there is no underlying universal grammar. Evidence for this argument (also known as linguistic determinism—the idea that what we are capable of thinking is actually determined by the structure of our native language), however, is rather sparse, while countervailing evidence is all around. Consider the ability to learn foreign languages, for example. If the thought processes involved in the foreign languages were in fact alien to the mind of a speaker of another language, such learning should present almost insurmountable difficulties.

More difficult for Sapir-Whorf supporters, however, is the fact that their favorite pieces of evidence turn out simply not to be true. Ekkehart Malotki, an anthropologist who has studied the Hopi extensively, has shown that, contrary to Whorf’s claims, their language contains multiple tenses and words for units of time. Additionally, far from having no concept of time, they actually have fairly sophisticated methods for recording events. Regarding the Inuits, as far as anthropologists have been able to determine, there may be as many as a dozen words for snow, around the same number as in English: slush, melted snow, light powder, wet snow, dirty snow, or any of the other terms regularly heard during a New England winter. Outdoor enthusiasts may of course have more, as their activities may require them to distinguish among more varieties. Rather than suggesting that a cultural group’s language determines their worldview, the available evidence instead supports a weaker version of the Whorfian hypothesis: language does influence the way people perceive and remember their environment, and so it may predispose humans to look at the world in a certain way.

References:

• Hunter, E, and Agnoli, F. “The Whorfian Hypothesis: A Cognitive Psychology Perspective.” Psychological Review, 98(3) (1991): 377–390;
• Malotki, E. The Making of an Icon. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000.