Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism has sparked important debates. This hypothesis describes the connection between language and thought, suggesting that language controls thought. Together with this hypothesis there are two carnations that support it; the weaker version, linguistic relativity, describes language as capable of causing minor influences on thought. The strongest version, linguistic determinism, describes language as having complete control of thought. On the other hand, academics such as Steven Pinker disagree with this concept, stating that the hypothesis is “wrong, all wrong”. It is clear that, although both sides have their merits, linguistic relativism is the most suitable conclusion to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis. One of the key controversies of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis essentially describes the fact that language has complete control over thought. This is not mere speculation; rather it is supported by fundamental differences within languages around the world. A key observation made by Benjamin Whorf concerned the semantics of words. He noted that workers at an oil facility would be extremely careful when moving barrels full of gasoline. But they were careless when the barrels were empty; even though an “empty” barrel was much more dangerous than a “full” one. This led him to conclude that the term “empty” had caused this erratic behavior; indicating that many words have predetermined meanings or connotations, thus determines people's thinking. Likewise, the structure of many languages differs greatly in how they are able to provide information. For example, when Koreans describe if object... in the center of the paper... the interlocutors would point to the top and bottom of the dot. However, after learning Chinese, English speakers' cognitive abilities began to mimic those of Mandarins. As people learn new languages, they change their perception of the world. Language does not completely influence thinking; rather language provides us with an air of stained glass, forever altering our perception. The three outcomes of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis are linguistic determinism, linguistic relativism, and the fact that thought is not influenced by language. Language is a communication tool; its linguistic processes are common in most aspects of thinking. It subconsciously influences our thinking, from basic cognition to major life decisions. The language we speak influences the way we think, our perception of the world and therefore the way we see ourselves in society.

Topic > Since the beginning of the 20th century, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism has sparked important debates. This hypothesis describes the connection between language and thought, suggesting that language controls thought. Together with this hypothesis there are two carnations that support it; the weaker version, linguistic relativity, describes language as capable of causing minor influences on thought. The strongest version, linguistic determinism, describes language as having complete control of thought. On the other hand, academics such as Steven Pinker disagree with this concept, stating that the hypothesis is “wrong, all wrong”. It is clear that, although both sides have their merits, linguistic relativism is the most suitable conclusion to the Sapir-Worf hypothesis. One of the key controversies of the Sapir-Worf hypothesis essentially describes the fact that language has complete control over thought. This is not mere speculation; rather it is supported by fundamental differences within languages around the world. A key observation made by Benjamin Whorf concerned the semantics of words. He noted that workers at an oil facility would be extremely careful when moving barrels full of gasoline. But they were careless when the barrels were empty; even though an “empty” barrel was much more dangerous than a “full” one. This led him to conclude that the term “empty” had caused this erratic behavior; indicating that many words have predetermined meanings or connotations, thus determines people's thinking. Likewise, the structure of many languages differs greatly in how they are able to provide information. For example, when Koreans describe if object... in the center of the paper... the interlocutors would point to the top and bottom of the dot. However, after learning Chinese, English speakers' cognitive abilities began to mimic those of Mandarins. As people learn new languages, they change their perception of the world. Language does not completely influence thinking; rather language provides us with an air of stained glass, forever altering our perception. The three outcomes of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis are linguistic determinism, linguistic relativism, and the fact that thought is not influenced by language. Language is a communication tool; its linguistic processes are common in most aspects of thinking. It subconsciously influences our thinking, from basic cognition to major life decisions. The language we speak influences the way we think, our perception of the world and therefore the way we see ourselves in society.