In the late 1980s and early 1990s, advances in cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics renewed

interest in the SapirWhorf hypothesis.

[!"
#ne of those who adopted a $ore Whorfian approach
was %eorge &a'off. (e argued that language is often used $etaphorically and that languages use
different cultural $etaphors that reveal so$ething a)out how spea'ers of that language thin'. *or
e+a$ple, ,nglish e$ploys $etaphors li'ening ti$e with $oney, whereas other languages $ay not tal'
a)out ti$e in that fashion. #ther linguistic $etaphors $ay )e co$$on to $ost languages )ecause they
are )ased on general hu$an e+perience, for e+a$ple, $etaphors
li'ening up with good and bad withdown. &a'off also argues that $etaphor plays an i$portant part in
political de)ates where it $atters whether one is arguing in favor of the -right to life- or against the
-right to choose-. whether one is discussing -illegal aliens- or -undocu$ented wor'ers-.
In his )oo' Women, Fire and Dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind,
[//"
&a'off
reappraised the hypothesis of linguistic relativity and especially Whorf0s views a)out how linguistic
categori1ation reflects and2or influences $ental categories. (e concluded that the de)ate on linguistic
relativity had )een confused and resultingly fruitless. (e identified four para$eters on which
researchers differed in their opinions a)out what constitutes linguistic relativity. #ne para$eter is the
degree and depth of linguistic relativity. So$e scholars )elieve that a few e+a$ples of superficial
differences in language and associated )ehavior are enough to de$onstrate the e+istence of linguistic
relativity, while others contend that only deep differences that per$eate the linguistic and cultural
syste$ suffice as proof. 3 second para$eter is whether conceptual syste$s are to )e seen as
a)solute or whether they can )e e+panded or e+changed during the lifeti$e of a hu$an )eing. 3 third
para$eter is whether translata)ility is accepted as a proof of si$ilarity or difference )etween concept
syste$s or whether it is rather the actual ha)itual use of linguistic e+pressions that is to )e e+a$ined.
3 fourth para$eter is whether to view the locus of linguistic relativity as )eing in the language or in the
$ind. &a'off concluded that since $any of Whorf0s critics had critici1ed hi$ using definitions of
linguistic relativity that Whorf did not hi$self use, their criticis$s were often ineffective.
4he pu)lication of the 1995 anthology Rethinking linguistic relativity edited )y sociolinguist 6ohn 6.
%u$per1 and psycholinguist Stephen 7. &evinson $ar'ed the entrance to a new period of linguistic
relativity studies and a new way of defining the concept that focused on cognitive as well as social
aspects of linguistic relativity. 4he )oo' included studies )y cognitive linguists sy$pathetic to the
hypothesis as well as so$e wor'ing in the opposing universalist tradition. In this volu$e, cognitive and
social scientists laid out a new paradig$ for investigations in linguistic relativity. &evinson presented
research results docu$enting rather significant linguistic relativity effects in the linguistic
conceptuali1ation of spatial categories )etween languages. 4wo separate studies )y 8elissa
9ower$an and :an I. Slo)in treated the role of language in cognitive processes. 9ower$an showed
that certain cognitive processes did not use language to any significant e+tent and therefore could not
)e su);ect to effects of linguistic relativity. Slo)in descri)ed another 'ind of cognitive process that he
na$ed -thin'ing for spea'ing- the 'ind of processes in which perceptional data and other 'inds of
prelinguistic cognition are translated into linguistic ter$s for the purpose of co$$unicating the$ to
others. 4hese, Slo)in argues, are the 'inds of cognitive process that are at the root of linguistic
relativity.
Present status[edit]
7urrent researchers such as &era 9orodits'y, 6ohn 3. &ucy and Stephen 7. &evinson )elieve that
language influences thought, )ut in $ore li$ited ways than the )roadest early clai$s. ,+ploring these
para$eters has spar'ed novel research that increases )oth scope and precision of prior e+a$inations.
7urrent studies of linguistic relativity are neither $ar'ed )y the naive approach to e+otic linguistic
structures and their often $erely presu$ed effect on thought that $ar'ed the early period, nor are they
ridiculed and discouraged as in the universalist period. Instead of proving or disproving a theory,
researchers in linguistic relativity now e+a$ine the interface )etween thought <or cognition=, language
and culture, and descri)e the degree and 'ind of interrelatedness or influence. *ollowing the tradition of
&enne)erg, they use e+peri$ental data to )ac' up their conclusions.
[8"[9"
>aul ?ay, co@author of the
se$inal wor' a)out color na$ing, ulti$ately reached the conclusion that -[the" Whorf hypothesis is
supported in the right visual field )ut not the left-.
[A0"
(is findings show that ta'ing in account )rain
laterali1ation allows another perspective on the de)ate.
>sycholinguistic studies have gone far )eyond color perception <although that is still studied=, having
e+plored $otion perception, e$otion perception, o);ect representation, and $e$ory.
[A1"[AB"[A/"[A"
4he gold
standard of psycholinguistic studies on linguistic relativity is now finding cognitive differences in
spea'ers of different language when no language is involved in an e+peri$ental tas' <thus rendering
inapplica)le >in'er0s clai$ that linguistic relativity is -circular-=.
Cecent wor' with )ilingual spea'ers atte$pts to tease apart the effects of language fro$ the effects of
culture on aspects of )ilingual cognition including perceptions of ti$e, space, $otion, colors, and
e$otion.
[AA"
Cesearchers have descri)ed differences )etween )ilinguals and $onolinguals in perception
of color,
[A5"
representations of ti$e,
[A!"
or other ele$ents of cognition.
Empirical research[edit]
6ohn &ucy has identified three $ain strands of research into linguistic relativity.
[A8"
4he first is what he
calls the -structure centered- approach. 4his approach starts with o)serving a structural peculiarity in a
language and goes on to e+a$ine its possi)le ra$ifications for thought and )ehavior. 4he first e+a$ple
of this 'ind of research is Whorf0s o)servation of discrepancies )etween the gra$$ar of ti$e
e+pressions in (opi and ,nglish. 8ore recent research in this vein is the research $ade )y 6ohn &ucy
descri)ing how usage of the categories of gra$$atical nu$)er and of nu$eral classifiers in the 8ayan
language Ducatec result in 8ayan spea'ers classifying o);ects according to $aterial rather than to
shape as preferred )y spea'ers of ,nglish.
[A9"
4he second strand of research is the -do$ain centered- approach, in which a se$antic do$ain is
chosen and co$pared across linguistic and cultural groups for correlations )etween linguistic encoding
and )ehavior. 4he $ain strand of do$ain centered research has )een the research on color
ter$inology, although this do$ain according to &ucy and ad$itted )y color ter$inology researchers
such as >aul ?ay, is not opti$al for studying linguistic relativity, )ecause color perception, unli'e other
se$antic do$ains, is 'nown to )e hard wired into the neural syste$ and as such su);ect to $ore
universal restrictions than other se$antic do$ains. Since the tradition of research on color ter$inology
is )y far the largest area of research into linguistic relativity it is descri)ed )elow in its own section.
3nother se$antic do$ain which has proven fruitful for studies of linguistic relativity is the do$ain of
space.
[50"
Spatial categories vary greatly )etween languages and recent research has shown that
spea'ers rely on the linguistic conceptuali1ation of space in perfor$ing $any Euotidian tas's.
Cesearch carried out )y Stephen 7. &evinson and other cognitive scientists fro$ the 8a+ >lanc'
Institute for >sycholinguistics has reported three )asic 'inds of spatial categori1ation and while $any
languages use co$)inations of the$ so$e languages e+hi)it only one 'ind of spatial categori1ation
and corresponding differences in )ehavior. *or e+a$ple the 3ustralian language %uugu Di$ithirr only
uses a)solute directions when descri)ing spatial relations F the position of everything is descri)ed )y
using the cardinal directions. 3 spea'er of %uugu yi$ithirr will define a person as )eing -north of the
house-, while a spea'er of ,nglish $ay say that he is -in front of the house- or -to the left of the house-
depending on the spea'er0s point of view. 4his difference $a'es %uugu yi$ithirr spea'ers )etter at
perfor$ing so$e 'inds of tas's, such as finding and descri)ing locations in open terrain, whereas
,nglish spea'ers perfor$ )etter in tas's regarding the positioning of o);ects relative to the spea'er <for
e+a$ple telling so$eone to set a round ta)le putting for's to the right of the plate and 'nives to the left
would )e e+tre$ely difficult in %uugu yi$ithirr=.
[51"
4he third strand of research is the -)ehavior centered- approach which starts )y o)serving different
)ehavior )etween linguistic groups and then proceeds to search for possi)le causes for that )ehavior in
the linguistic syste$. 4his 'ind of approach was used )y Whorf when he attri)uted the occurrence of
fires at a che$ical plant to the wor'ers0 use of the word 0e$pty0 to descri)e the )arrels containing only
e+plosive vapors. #ne study in this line of research has )een conducted )y 9loo$ who noticed that
spea'ers of 7hinese had une+pected difficulties answering counter@factual Euestions posed to the$ in
a Euestionnaire. 3fter a study, he concluded that this was related to the way in which counter@factuality
is $ar'ed gra$$atically in the 7hinese language. (owever, other researchers have attri)uted this
result to flawed translations that 9loo$ used.
[5B"
3nother line of study )y *rode StrG$nes e+a$ined
why *innish factories had a higher occurrence of wor' related accidents than si$ilar Swedish ones. (e
concluded that cognitive differences )etween the gra$$atical usage of Swedish prepositions and
*innish cases could have caused Swedish factories to pay $ore attention to the wor' process where
*innish factory organi1ers paid $ore attention to the individual wor'er.
[5/"
3nother widely pu)lici1ed pro;ect with relevance to linguistic relativity is :aniel ,verett0s wor' on
the >irahH language of the 9ra1ilian 3$a1on.
[5"
,verett o)served several peculiarities in >irahH culture
that he interpreted as corresponding to linguistically rare features, such as a lac' of nu$)ers and color
ter$s in the way those are nor$ally defined, and a lac' of certain types of clauses. ,verett0s
conclusions a)out the e+ceptional status of the >irahH have )een $et with s'epticis$ fro$ other
linguists, and so$e scholars reanaly1ing his $aterials have argued that they don0t support his
conclusions.
[5A"
4hat is, these critics argue, the lac' of need for nu$)ers and color discri$ination
e+plains )oth the lac' of counting a)ility and the lac' of color voca)ulary.
[55"
Cecent research with non@linguistic e+peri$ents in languages with different gra$$atical properties
<e.g., languages with and without nu$eral classifiers or with different gender gra$$ar syste$s=
showed that there areFto a certain degreeFdifferences in hu$an categori1ation due to such
differences.
[5!"
9ut there is also e+peri$ental research suggesting, that this linguistic influence on
thought is not of long continuance, )ut di$inishes rapidly over ti$e, when spea'ers of one language
are i$$ersed )y another.
[58"
Color terminology research[edit]
Main article: Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate
4he tradition of using the se$antic do$ain of color na$es as an o);ect for investigation of linguistic
relativity )egan with &enne)erg and Co)erts0 19A/ study of Iuni color ter$s and color $e$ory, and
9rown and &enne)erg0s 19A study of ,nglish color ter$s and color $e$ory. 4he studies showed a
correlation )etween the availa)ility of color ter$s for specific colors and the ease with which those
colors were re$e$)ered in )oth spea'ers of Iuni and ,nglish. Cesearchers concluded that this had to
do with properties of the focal colors having higher coda)ility than less focal colors, and not with
linguistic relativity effects. 9erlin and ?ay0s 1959 study of color ter$s across languages concluded that
there are universal typological principles of color na$ing that are deter$ined )y )iological factors with
little or no roo$ for relativity related effects.
[59"
4his study spar'ed a long tradition of studies into the
typological universals of color ter$inology. So$e researchers such as 6ohn 3 &ucy,
[!0"
9ar)ara
Saunders
[!1"
and Stephen 7 &evinson
[!B"
have argued that 9erlin and ?ay0s study does not in fact show
that linguistic relativity in color na$ing is i$possi)le, )ecause of a nu$)er of )asic unsupported
assu$ptions in their study <such as whether all cultures in fact have a category of -color- that can )e
unpro)le$atically defined and eEuated with the one found in Indo@,uropean languages= and )ecause
of pro)le$s with their data ste$$ing fro$ those )asic assu$ptions. #ther researchers such as Co)ert
,. 8aclaury have continued investigation into the evolution of color na$es in specific languages,
refining the possi)ilities of )asic color ter$ inventories. &i'e 9erlin and ?ay, 8aclaury found no
significant roo$ for linguistic relativity in this do$ain, )ut rather concluded as did 9erlin and ?ay that
the do$ain is governed $ostly )y physical@)iological universals of hu$an color perception.
[!/"[!"
Outside of science[edit]
4he hypothesis of linguistic relativity has inspired $any to thin' a)out how it $ight )e possi)le to
influence thought )y consciously $anipulating language.
Therapy and self-development[edit]
Main articles: General semantics and eurolinguistic !rogramming
3lready as Sapir and Whorf were for$ulating the ideas of linguistic relativity, >olish@3$erican
engineer 3lfred ?or1y)s'i was independently developing his theory of %eneral Se$antics which was
ai$ed at using language0s influence on thin'ing to $a+i$i1e hu$an cognitive a)ilities. ?or1y)s'i0s
thin'ing was influenced )y logical philosophy such as Cussel and Whitehead0s !rincipia
Mathematica and Wittgenstein0s "ractatus Logico#!hilosophicus.-
[!A"
3lthough ?or1y)s'i was not aware
of Sapir and Whorf0s writings when he developed his thin'ing, the $ove$ent was followed )y Whorf0s
ad$irer Stuart 7hase, who fused Whorf0s interest in cultural@linguistic variation with ?or1y)s'i0s
progra$$e in his popular wor' -4he 4yranny of Words-. 3nother follower and populari1er of
?or1y)s'i0s wor' was S. I. (aya'awa, who wrote Language in "hought and $ction. 4he %eneral
Se$antics $ove$ent in turn influenced the develop$ent of Jeurolinguistic progra$$ing, another
therapeutic techniEue that see's to use awareness of language use to influence cognitive patterns.
[!5"
Independently of Whorf and Sapir, ?or1y)s'i descri)ed the )asic principle of his theory in a way that is
a -strong- version of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity.
[!!"
We do not reali1e what tre$endous power the structure of an ha)itual language has. It is not an
e+aggeration to say that it enslaves us through the $echanis$ of s[e$antic" r[eactions" and that the
structure which a language e+hi)its, and i$presses upon us unconsciously, is auto$atically pro;ected
upon the world around us.
F?or1y)s'i <19/0= in %cience & %anity p. 90
[!8"
Artificial languages[edit]
Main articles: 'onstructed languages and ()perimental languages
In their fiction, authors such as 3yn Cand and %eorge #rwell have e+plored how linguistic relativity
$ight )e e+ploited for political purposes. In Cand0s wor' a fictive co$$unistsociety have re$oved the
possi)ility of individualis$ )y re$oving the word -I- fro$ the language of their co$$unity, and in
#rwell0s *+,- the authoritarian state has created the language -Jewspea'- to $a'e it i$possi)le for
people to thin' critically a)out the govern$ent.
#thers have )een fascinated )y the possi)ilities of creating new languages that could ena)le new, and
perhaps )etter, ways of thin'ing. ,+a$ples of such languages designed to e+plore the hu$an $ind
include &oglan, e+plicitly designed )y its inventor 6a$es 7oo'e 9rown to test the hypothesis of
linguistic relativity, )y e+peri$enting whether it would $a'e its spea'ers thin' $ore logically. Spea'ers
of &o;)an, a develop$ent of &oglan, report that they feel spea'ing the language enhances their a)ility
for logical thin'ing. Su1ette (aden ,lgin, who also was involved in the early develop$ent of
neurolinguistic progra$$ing, invented the language &Kadan, specifically devised to e+plore linguistic
relativity, )y $a'ing it easier to e+press what ,lgin considered the fe$ale worldview, as opposed
to Standard 3verage ,uropean languages which she considers to convey a -$ale centered- world
view.
[!9"
3lso the language Ith'uil developed )y 6ohn Lui;ada, has )een designed with linguistic
relativity in $ind, e+ploring the li$its of how $any cognitive categories a language can $a'e use of,
and 'eep its spea'ers aware of at a single ti$e.
[80"
Programming languages[edit]
?enneth ,. Iverson, the originator of the 3>& progra$$ing language, )elieved that the SapirWhorf
hypothesis applied to co$puter languages <without actually $entioning the hypothesis )y na$e=.
(is 4uring award lecture, -Jotation as a tool of thought-, was devoted to this the$e, arguing that $ore
powerful notations aided thin'ing a)out co$puter algorith$s.
[81"
4he essays of >aul %raha$ e+plore si$ilar the$es, such as a conceptual hierarchy of co$puter
languages, with $ore e+pressive and succinct languages at the top. 4hus, the so@called blub parado+
<after a hypothetical progra$$ing language of average co$ple+ity called .lub= says that anyone
preferentially using so$e particular progra$$ing language will know that it is $ore powerful than
so$e, )ut not that it is less powerful than others. 4he reason is that writing in so$e language
$eans thinking in that language. (ence the parado+, )ecause typically progra$$ers are -satisfied with
whatever language they happen to use, )ecause it dictates the way they thin' a)out progra$s-.
[8B"
In a B00/ presentation at an open source convention, Du'ihiro 8atsu$oto, creator of the progra$$ing
language Cu)y, said that one of his inspirations for developing the language was the science fiction
novel .abel#*/, )ased on the SapirWhorf (ypothesis.
[8/"
See also[edit]
9asic 7olor 4er$sM 4heir Nniversality and ,volution
,s'i$o words for snow
,thnolinguistics
(ypocognition