
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Linguistic Theory - leoht
https://www.thoughtco.com/sapir-whorf-hypothesis-1691924
======
lillesvin
I'm a linguist and my personal observation is that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
(in its stronger form) is mostly thriving among non-linguists; it's usually
psychologists (but there's also at least one instance of an economist) that
make these "revolutionary" discoveries that have been considered disproved by
linguists for several decades. Lera Boroditsky who's referenced in this piece
is among those.

Linguistic determinism (aka. The Whorfian Interpretation, aka. strong
linguistic relativity) hasn't been "a thing" among linguists for a long time
but the light, bidirectional version, "linguistic relativity", has always—more
or less—been in play. Here the issue is mainly answering the questions: "To
what degree do language and thought affect each other? And how?"

One of the scientists I respect the most, Paul Kay[0], has been working with
that in particular. He went from being a full-on universalist in the '60s to a
relativist (now) because of new discoveries. He's done a bunch of research
alongside Terry Regier et al. on linguistic relativity in the color domain
(several great articles linked in [0]). Anyone interested in this topic would
probably find those articles interesting.

[0]:
[http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/](http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/)

~~~
woodandsteel
Academics who push the strong S-W Hypothesis in spite of all the evidence
against it are usually doing so for ideological reasons. Basically, the idea
is to discredit liberalism by claiming it is based on a rigid idea of reality
the SWH is alleged to have shown is wrong.

But these same academics then turn around and argue in favor of a Marxist
ideology that is equally based on an absolute metaphysics.

------
dlkf
Lately I've trying to learn Swedish. Sometimes EN to SE translations are
fairly direct, but other times you have to adopt a different mode of thinking
before you can properly translate what you wish to say. In English, we can use
the verb "to think" in a fairly versatile manner:

\- I _think_ it's a good film (expressing a normative judgement)

\- I _think_ she is the SVP (expressing a value-neutral belief)

\- I'm _thinking_ about it (expressing the act of contemplation)

Yet if you're a native English speaker, I don't think it _feels_ particularly
versatile (at least it doesn't to me). This is just what thinking is about. By
contrast, the Swedes consider these cases wholly distinct, and have different
words for each.

\- Jag _tycker_ att filmen är bra

\- Jag _tror_ att hon är den SVP

\- Jag _tänker_ på det

Most English speakers have a very difficult time getting these straight. I
don't really have a final word here. I just think this is a nice illustration
of why the weaker version of this theory resonates with me lately.

------
himinlomax
This hypothesis is as widely accepted as it's unsupported by any evidence.
It's also quite insidious as it underlies many "social justice" efforts to
police language. Insidious, because while the benefits are very likely to be
non-existent, the censorious consequences and the contentiousness they
generate are very real.

------
mmhsieh
This is the basis of the short story "The Story of Your Life" from which the
film "Arrival" was adapted.

~~~
peter303
Also Heinleins Stranger in A Strange Land. Martian speakers unlock psychic
powers.

~~~
lovegoblin
Also Stephenson's "Snow Crash."

It's an interesting idea, but pretty thoroughly debunked.

~~~
chickenfries
And "Babel-17" by Sameul R. Delaney.

Debunked linguistics sure make for interesting sci-fi.

