THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS
Keywords:
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, linguistic relativity, linguistic determinism, cognition, translation studies, second language acquisition, multicultural communicationAbstract
This article critically examines the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which explores the relationship between language and thought. The discussion begins with a theoretical framework outlining the distinction between linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity, followed by the contributions of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. It analyzes the ways in which language can shape cognitive processes, drawing on examples from cross-linguistic studies of color, space, and time. The paper also highlights major criticisms of the hypothesis, particularly its strong deterministic version, while acknowledging the relevance of weaker forms of linguistic relativity. Modern perspectives, including Neo-Whorfian research, cognitive linguistics, and interdisciplinary approaches, are explored to show how the hypothesis has evolved in contemporary scholarship. The article concludes by emphasizing the hypothesis’s implications for translation studies, second language acquisition, and multicultural communication, suggesting that while strong determinism is untenable, linguistic relativity remains an important concept for understanding the interplay between language and cognition.
References
1. Athanasopoulos, P., Bylund, E., Montero-Melis, G., Damjanovic, L., Schartner, A., Kibbe, A., … & Thierry, G. (2015). Two languages, two minds: Flexible cognitive processing driven by language of operation. Psychological Science, 26(4), 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567509
2. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
3. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
4. Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge University Press.
5. Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050
6. Kay, P., & Regier, T. (2006). Language, thought, and color: Recent developments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.007
7. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
8. Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109–169). MIT Press.
9. Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge University Press.
10. Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.26.1.291
11. Malotki, E. (1983). Hopi time: A linguistic analysis of the temporal concepts in the Hopi language. Mouton.
12. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Brill.
13. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. William Morrow and Company.
14. Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An introduction to the study of speech. Harcourt, Brace & World.
15. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.
16. Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. MIT Press.
