Linguistic Determinism and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
According to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the language we learn from birth determines how we divide and categorize the natural world. This hypothesis suggests that the way we perceive and classify phenomena in the world is not simply because these categories are inherent in nature but because our mind, influenced by our language system, organizes them similarly. Thus, our minds divide nature, organize it into concepts, and assign actual meanings. This process happens within the entire human linguistic community and is encoded in the patterns of our language.
The Relationship Between Language and Thought
Analysis of the Hopi language spoken by Native Americans revealed that human cognition cannot be separated from language. The native language system aligns with the cognitive system, making translation between languages with vastly different structures nearly impossible. This concept is supported by linguistic and anthropological studies. For instance, Japanese uses classifiers to categorize objects, reflecting the Japanese perception of the world. In contrast, French categorizes all objects by gender, with feminine and masculine classifications forming the basis of perception.
Cognitive Psychology and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
With the development of cognitive psychology in the 1990s, researchers shifted their focus from merely supporting or refuting the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis to understanding how language influences cognitive processes or brain information processing. Studies examined various aspects such as color naming and differentiation, object classification, spatial relationships, and temporal progression to explore the influence of language.
For example, a Papua New Guinea tribe with only two color terms—light and dark—can still perceive and differentiate between colors, challenging the idea that the absence of specific color terms limits perception. Another study compared speakers who distinguish between blue and green with those who do not, finding that the presence of specific terms leads to a tendency to categorize ambiguous intermediate colors in line with the existing terms.
Universality and Specificity of Language
Finding universality and commonalities among languages is more challenging than identifying differences. Chomsky's work revealed common features among superficially different languages, demonstrating linguistic universality. For instance, the ability to create infinite categories from diverse criteria, such as the hierarchy of animal categories (animal-mammal-dog-Jindo dog), is a shared characteristic among all languages. Basic words have a high degree of agreement across different languages and cultures. Examples include words like tree, maple, cherry blossom, and rose.
Conclusion
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is largely correct, but perhaps not to the extent Whorf suggested. Language significantly influences our thinking and perception, but the differences in cognition and perception among speakers of different languages may not be as pronounced as the differences in the languages themselves. Language provides common terms for clearly perceivable and categorically distinct concepts. However, beyond basic categories, specificity outweighs universality in language, with unique linguistic categorizations reflecting cultural significance.
Language categorizes invisible boundaries between emotions and objects, creating unique categories for each language. This implies a strong universal tendency when there are clear, perceivable distinctions common to all humans. However, beyond the basic level of categorization where perceptual similarities are clear, the specificity of language becomes more pronounced, overshadowing universality'