Tar!K______ 1
Critical Thinking Essay: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Strong vs. Weak)
The Sapir Whorf hypothesis supports the idea that language shapes the way we perceive
the world around us. Some may call it “linguistic relativity,” but there are two ways to look at this
hypothesis. In the 1800s, linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf created a theory
that told the world that our native languages could limit how we think and perceive reality. This
statement was very controversial because it is very vague and discredits many languages. This
theory is controversial because it limits people who speak different languages and their abilities to
view the world around them. For example, the Japanese language does have specific words for
every single color on the spectrum. They will put colors that are similar to each other in the same
category, like blue and green. Sapir’s theory would say that Japanese people can’t understand the
difference between green and blue because they don’t have different words for the color.
Therefore, a weaker version of this hypothesis stated that language does not shape our perception;
however, it influences it. Meaning, even though Japanese people do not have a word for the color
blue and the color green, they may see them as similar because their language influences them.
But, they can see a difference between the color. The two versions of Sapir’s theory were put into
categories; the robust version: linguistic determinism and the weak version: linguistic relativity.
Linguistic relativity is the most inclusive way to look at Sapir’s hypothesis because it considers
how language shapes everyone worldwide. Linguistic determinism is a very close-minded way to
look at Sapir’s view because it undermines all languages and doesn’t assume that every language
is different and will have other linguistic structures.
First, the weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity) changes the
theory’s meaning, making it more inclusive to all languages. In the Ted Talk: “How Language
Shapes the Way We Think,” Lera Boroditsky highlights the way language can shape many aspects
of our life. Boroditsky studied an ab-original group in Australia named the “Kuuk Thaayorre” and
learned many different aspects of their language that differed from many others. Her main point
that she came across was the Kuuk Thaayorres concept of time and how it directly related to
cardinal directions. The idea of time for the Kuuk Thaayorres is entirely based on the order a
person is standing. One of the tribe members was asked if they could look at pictures of
Boroditsky’s grandfather over the years and organize the images in chronological order. When the
tribe member sat down, he was facing south; so, he managed according to the time photo was taken
from right to left, making sense. However, when the tribe member sat down, he was facing north;
so, he organized the picture’s right to left, not making sense to Boroditsky. Unlike many other
languages, the Thaayorres sense of time is categorized by the direction they are facing. In English,
the concept of time is linear; we think of time as something that is always passing. If someone who
spoke English were to be asked to do the same thing the tribe member did, they would have put
the photos in order from left to right. This is an excellent example of how language influences
thought. One culture can have a completely different concept of time because of how their
language portrays time. If the Thaayorres grew up disregarding cardinal directions and focused on
a linear timeline, they would have a similar concept of time as a person who speaks English.
Nonetheless, if you agreed with the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the ability to
learn an idea such as time would be irrelevant. Using this version of the theory would disregard
the person’s mental capacity in the tribe, and they would argue that they cannot conceptualize time.
Critical Thinking Essay: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (Strong vs. Weak)
The Sapir Whorf hypothesis supports the idea that language shapes the way we perceive
the world around us. Some may call it “linguistic relativity,” but there are two ways to look at this
hypothesis. In the 1800s, linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf created a theory
that told the world that our native languages could limit how we think and perceive reality. This
statement was very controversial because it is very vague and discredits many languages. This
theory is controversial because it limits people who speak different languages and their abilities to
view the world around them. For example, the Japanese language does have specific words for
every single color on the spectrum. They will put colors that are similar to each other in the same
category, like blue and green. Sapir’s theory would say that Japanese people can’t understand the
difference between green and blue because they don’t have different words for the color.
Therefore, a weaker version of this hypothesis stated that language does not shape our perception;
however, it influences it. Meaning, even though Japanese people do not have a word for the color
blue and the color green, they may see them as similar because their language influences them.
But, they can see a difference between the color. The two versions of Sapir’s theory were put into
categories; the robust version: linguistic determinism and the weak version: linguistic relativity.
Linguistic relativity is the most inclusive way to look at Sapir’s hypothesis because it considers
how language shapes everyone worldwide. Linguistic determinism is a very close-minded way to
look at Sapir’s view because it undermines all languages and doesn’t assume that every language
is different and will have other linguistic structures.
First, the weaker version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity) changes the
theory’s meaning, making it more inclusive to all languages. In the Ted Talk: “How Language
Shapes the Way We Think,” Lera Boroditsky highlights the way language can shape many aspects
of our life. Boroditsky studied an ab-original group in Australia named the “Kuuk Thaayorre” and
learned many different aspects of their language that differed from many others. Her main point
that she came across was the Kuuk Thaayorres concept of time and how it directly related to
cardinal directions. The idea of time for the Kuuk Thaayorres is entirely based on the order a
person is standing. One of the tribe members was asked if they could look at pictures of
Boroditsky’s grandfather over the years and organize the images in chronological order. When the
tribe member sat down, he was facing south; so, he managed according to the time photo was taken
from right to left, making sense. However, when the tribe member sat down, he was facing north;
so, he organized the picture’s right to left, not making sense to Boroditsky. Unlike many other
languages, the Thaayorres sense of time is categorized by the direction they are facing. In English,
the concept of time is linear; we think of time as something that is always passing. If someone who
spoke English were to be asked to do the same thing the tribe member did, they would have put
the photos in order from left to right. This is an excellent example of how language influences
thought. One culture can have a completely different concept of time because of how their
language portrays time. If the Thaayorres grew up disregarding cardinal directions and focused on
a linear timeline, they would have a similar concept of time as a person who speaks English.
Nonetheless, if you agreed with the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the ability to
learn an idea such as time would be irrelevant. Using this version of the theory would disregard
the person’s mental capacity in the tribe, and they would argue that they cannot conceptualize time.
