Linguistic relativity

Linguistic relativity asserts that language influences worldview or cognition. One form of linguistic relativity, linguistic determinism, regards peoples' languages as determining and influencing the scope of cultural perceptions of their surrounding world.^[1]

Several various colloquialisms refer to linguistic relativism: the Whorf hypothesis; the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (/səˌpɪər ˈhwɔːrf/ sə-PEER WHORF); the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis; and Whorfianism.

The hypothesis is in dispute, with many different variations throughout its history.^[2] The strong hypothesis of linguistic relativity, now referred to as linguistic determinism, is that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and restrict cognitive categories. This was a claim by some earlier linguists pre-World War II;^[3] since then it has fallen out of acceptance by contemporary linguists.^[4]^{[need quotation to verify]} Nevertheless, research has produced positive empirical evidence supporting a weaker version of linguistic relativity:^[4]^[3] that a language's structures influence a speaker's perceptions, without strictly limiting or obstructing them.

Although common, the term Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is sometimes considered a misnomer for several reasons. Edward Sapir (1884–1939) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941) never co-authored any works and never stated their ideas in terms of a hypothesis. The distinction between a weak and a strong version of this hypothesis is also a later development; Sapir and Whorf never used such a dichotomy, although often their writings and their opinions of this relativity principle expressed it in stronger or weaker terms.^[5]^[6]

The principle of linguistic relativity and the relationship between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields, including philosophy, psychology and anthropology. It has also influenced works of fiction and the invention of constructed languages.

^ Ottenheimer, Harriet (2009). The anthropology of language : an introduction to linguistic anthropology (2 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-0-495-50884-7. OCLC 216940204.
^ Leavitt 2010, p. 3.
^ ^a ^b Boroditsky, Lera; Liberman, Mark (13–23 December 2010). "For and Against Linguistic Relativity". The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited. Archived from the original on 15 February 2012. Retrieved 19 September 2019. (a debate between university professors)
^ ^a ^b Ahearn, Laura M. (2012). Living language : an introduction to linguistic anthropology. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. p. 69. ISBN 978-1-4443-4056-3. OCLC 729731177.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^ Hill & Mannheim 1992.
^ Kennison, Shelia M. (2013). Introduction to language development (1 ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. p. 207. ISBN 978-1412996068. Scholars have noted that Sapir's view may have reflected a weaker version of the hypothesis than the view of Whorf (Rollins, 1980). However, others point out that Whorf's own writings suggest that his view may have fluctuated between the weak and strong versions (Carroll, 1956).

[1] Ottenheimer, Harriet (2009). The anthropology of language : an introduction to linguistic anthropology (2 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. pp. 33–34. ISBN 978-0-495-50884-7. OCLC 216940204.

[FOOTNOTELeavitt20103-2] Leavitt 2010, p. 3.

[langlog-3] Boroditsky, Lera; Liberman, Mark (13–23 December 2010). "For and Against Linguistic Relativity". The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited. Archived from the original on 15 February 2012. Retrieved 19 September 2019. (a debate between university professors)

[:0-4] Ahearn, Laura M. (2012). Living language : an introduction to linguistic anthropology. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. p. 69. ISBN 978-1-4443-4056-3. OCLC 729731177.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

[FOOTNOTEHillMannheim1992-5] Hill & Mannheim 1992.

[:1-6] Kennison, Shelia M. (2013). Introduction to language development (1 ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. p. 207. ISBN 978-1412996068. Scholars have noted that Sapir's view may have reflected a weaker version of the hypothesis than the view of Whorf (Rollins, 1980). However, others point out that Whorf's own writings suggest that his view may have fluctuated between the weak and strong versions (Carroll, 1956).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]