Do Certain Thoughts Only Exist In Certain Languages? : Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis

Have you ever Googled for words to explain a specific feeling or way of describing something, knowing that the exact word/phrase is in a language other than English? You end up finding something along the lines of “15 Words That Don’t Exist in the English Language” or even “10 Words We Wish We Had in English.”

Knowing that certain phrases are better encapsulated by certain languages begs the question - Are there are certain thoughts that you can only have in certain languages?

For instance, the Japanese term "tsundoku" refers to the act of acquiring books and letting them pile up unread, while the Portuguese word “saudade’ expresses a deep emotional longing. Even if we find these terms intriguing, we frequently critique the lack of perfect translations into English, highlighting our language's limitations in adequately portraying a wide range of human emotions and experiences.

Language is often considered the cornerstone of human communication, the tool we use to express our thoughts, feelings, and experiences. But what if language not only shapes how we communicate but also influences how we think and perceive the world around us? This intriguing concept forms the basis of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, a theory that suggests the structure and content of language can affect our cognition and perception [1].

Imagine two individuals, each speaking a different language, describing the same event.

According to the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, their descriptions may vary not just in terms of vocabulary or syntax, but also in the fundamental way they conceptualize and interpret the event itself. This idea challenges the notion of a universal human experience, suggesting instead that our understanding of reality is mediated by the language we use to articulate it.

At the heart of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis is the idea that language acts as a lens through which we perceive and interpret the world. This concept is often attributed to the pioneering work of Benjamin Lee Whorf and his colleague Edward Sapir in the early 20th century [1]. This hypothesis comes in two forms: strong and weak. The strong version suggests that language determines thought, meaning that speakers of different languages perceive the world in fundamentally different ways. The weak version, on the other hand, proposes that language influences thought, shaping cognitive processes to varying degrees.

One of the most famous examples of linguistic relativity comes from Whorf's analysis of the Hopi language. He observed that the Hopi lacked grammatical constructs for expressing the concept of time in the same way as English or other European languages. This led him to speculate that the Hopi worldview, which emphasized cyclical patterns rather than linear progression, was influenced by their language [2]. In other words, the structure of the Hopi language predisposed its speakers to perceive time differently than speakers of languages with distinct temporal markers.

In addition to the markers of time, it seems that some linguistic rules are intertwined with societal and cultural norms. Pronouns like ‘I’ and ‘you’ are essential in languages like English to identify the speaker and listener; whereas in other languages like Japanese, pronouns are frequently omitted. The societal implications of dropping pronouns suggests that these individuals have more collectivistic values than languages that use pronouns and tend to have more individualistic values.

While the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis has sparked considerable debate among linguists, psychologists, and philosophers, some interesting observations have emerged that contribute to a better understanding of the extent to which language influences how people think. Studies have shown that language can influence various aspects of cognition, including spatial reasoning and color perception [3]. For example, languages can vary in how they describe spatial relationships, such as directions, distances, and locations. Some languages rely on absolute frames of reference (e.g., north, south, east, west), while others use relative frames of reference (e.g., left, right, front, behind) [3].

What does this imply about how someone accustomed to using absolute vs relative spatial terminology thinks? Well, absolute spatial language speakers may do better on activities involving spatial orientation because they are more sensitive to cardinal directions. On the other hand, speakers of languages having relative spatial words could be more focused and proficient in activities that need them to manipulate objects in small spaces.

Similar to spatial recognition, colour recognition is another example of how linguistic limitations may impact how people think about colours. While considering the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, it may be easy to assume that languages that have a broad list of names for different colours might be better ar distinguishing different colours compared to a language, such as Dani, that has limited vocabulary pertaining to colour. In fact, there are only two basic terms for colour in Dani – ‘mili' refers to darker/cooler tones such as black, blue, and green whereas ‘mola’ refers to lighter/warmer tones such as white, red, and yellow. Despite having limited terms identifiing different colours, this does not mean that they are unable to differentiate between these colours. What it does mean is that in Dani, colours are categorized in language to represent groupings of colours in the same category (such as light or dark categories of colours) [4].

As we can see in the example of the linguistic restrictions of colours, the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis does not imply that language controls our thoughts or limits our capacity to think about specific concepts. Instead, it proposes that language influences the way we organize and categorize our experiences, shaping our cognitive processes in subtle yet meaningful ways.

So, what does this mean for our understanding of the human mind? The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis encourages us to value the multitude of human languages, viewing them not only as means of communication but also as portals offering insight into human cognition.

Implications in Everyday Life

For language learners and educators, the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis highlights the importance of immersing oneself in the cultural and linguistic context of a language. By understanding how language structures influence thought patterns, educators can design more effective language teaching methods tailored to the needs and cognitive frameworks of their students. Further, in a globalized world where cross-cultural interactions are commonplace, the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis offers valuable insights into fostering effective communication and understanding across linguistic and cultural boundaries, as highlighted by the lack of pronoun use in Japanese. By recognizing and respecting the diverse ways in which languages shape thought, individuals can bridge cultural gaps and cultivate empathy and appreciation for different perspectives.

The implications of linguistic relativity extend beyond language learning and intercultural communication, permeating various fields such as law, marketing, and technology. In legal contexts, for instance, the interpretation of legal documents may vary depending on the linguistic and cultural background of the interpreters. In marketing, understanding how language influences consumer behavior can inform targeted advertising strategies. Even in technology, the design of user interfaces and algorithms can be optimized by considering the cognitive biases shaped by language. The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis offers a compelling framework for understanding the intricate relationship between language and cognition. As we continue to navigate an increasingly interconnected world, embracing linguistic diversity and recognizing the influence of language on thought is essential for fostering effective communication, intercultural understanding, and innovation across diverse fields. While the debate surrounding this theory continues, its implications extend far beyond the realm of linguistics, offering profound insights into the nature of human cognition and the diversity of human experience.

In returning to the initial question of whether you can only have certain thoughts in certain languages, here is my take on an answer. Sure, the language you speak may have some limitations on how you think, but that doesn’t mean you are constrained to only think about things you can articulate with language. Otherwise, why would you bother Google searching for words to explain a specific feeling or way of describing something if you hadn't already been thinking about it?

Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that rather than language affecting how you think, it more so affects how you articulate these thoughts. We have the capacity to engage in thought without relying on words – otherwise, the invention of language would not have occurred in the first place. Perhaps what we refer to as intuition could be those unspoken thoughts. Nevertheless, the presence of language aids us in refining and articulating these thoughts more effectively, making language an essential tool to help us communicate with the rest of the world.

"The limits of our language do not define the limits of our cognition" - Elliot W. Eisner

Sources used :

1. Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 291–312. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952524

2. Boutonnet, B., Dering, B., Viñas-Guasch, N., & Thierry, G. (2013). Seeing Objects through the Language Glass. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(10), 1702–1710. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00415

3. Haun, D. B. M., Rapold, C. J., Janzen, G., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). Plasticity of human spatial cognition: Spatial language and cognition covary across cultures. Cognition, 119(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.009

4. Witzel, C., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2018). Color Perception: Objects, Constancy, and Categories. Annual review of vision science, 4, 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-vision-091517-034231