Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis

Culture and Language: Does the Language We Use Determine How We Think?

Does the language we speak affect how we think? Might French Canadians, Chinese, and Africans see the world differently because of the vocabulary and syntax of their native languages?

According to the linguistic relativity hypothesis, the answer is yes. This hypothesis — also called the Whorfian Hypothesis after Benjamin Whorf, the famed linguist who developed it — holds that the language we use determines how we think and how we perceive reality.

Whorf (1956) pointed out that some cultures have many different words for colors, whereas others have only a few. English has 11 words for basic colors: black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, and gray (Adelson, 2005). At the other end of the spectrum is the Navajor language, which has no separate words for blue and green.

If we had only a few words to describe colors, would we be able to identify the many different colors in the spectrum?

The answer is yes, based on landmark research conducted by Eleanor Rosch (Rosch, 1975; Rosch-Heider & Olivier, 1972). Rosch and her colleagues showed that members of a preliterate tribe in New Guinea, whose language contained but two color names, were just as capable of recognizing many different colors as English-speaking subjects. This finding suggests that people have the capacity to recognize colors regardless of differences in the words they use to describe them.

Overall, research evidence fails to support the strict version of the Whorfian hypothesis that holds that the language we use determines how we think and perceive the world (Pinker, 2003). But a weaker version of the theory does have merit, a version that proposes that our culture and the language we speak influences how we think and how we perceive the world (Fiedler, 2008; Boroditsky, 2011). This view is consistent with the experiences of many bilingual and multilingual people who say they think differently when using each of their languages (Tohidian & Tabatabaie, 2010).

Language influences thinking in other ways. Consider this sentence: “A person should always be respectful of his parents.” If the very concept of personhood embodies maleness, where does that leave females? As nonpersons? If Sally sees that he is used when referring to professionals like doctors, engineers, or scientists, might she get the idea that such careers are not as available to her as they are to her brothers?

Is Language Unique to Humans?

Do animals other than humans use language? Consider the case of Koko, a gorilla trained to use American Sign Language (ASL). Apes lack the vocal apparatus needed to form human sounds, so researchers have turned to nonverbal means of expression, such as sign language used by people with impaired hearing, to communicate with them. One day Koko flashed the ASL sign for pain and pointed to her mouth (“Koko the Gorilla,” 2004). Dentists were summoned and soon discovered that Koko had a decayed tooth. They removed the tooth to relieve the pain.

Koko was able to communicate with humans, but was she using language? In the 1960s, investigators Beatrice and Allen Gardner trained a chimpanzee named Washoe to use about 160 signs, including signs for “apple,” “tickle,” “flower,” and “more” (R.A. Gardner & Gardner, 1969, 1978). Washoe learned to combine signs into simple phrases, such as “more fruit” and “gimme flower.” She even displayed a basic grammar by changing the position of the subject and object in her signing to reflect a change in meaning. For example, when she wanted her trainer to tickle her, she would sign, “You tickle Washoe.” But when she wanted to do the tickling, she would sign, “Washoe tickle you” (Gardner & Gardner, 1978).

David Premack developed an artificial language in which plastic chips of different sizes, colors, and shapes symbolize different words (see Figure X below). Using shaping and reinforcement techniques, he trained a chimp named Sarah to communicate by placing the chips on a magnetic board. Sarah learned to form simple sentences. For example, she would request food by putting together a sequence of chips that signaled “Mary give apple Sarah” (Premack, 1971).

Figure X | Examples of Materials Used in Premack’s Study | Source: Internet

Perhaps the most remarkable demonstration of simpanzee (Savage-Rumbaugh, Shanker, & Taylor, 1998; Shanker & Savage-Rumbaugh, 1999). Kanzi’s mother had been trained to communicate by pushing geometric symbols into a keyboard, but Kanzi had received no special training himself. He apparently had learned the keyboard system by observing his mother’s training sessions. At age two, Kanzi stunned his trainers when he suddenly began manipulating symbols on the keyboard to ask for a specific fruit. By age six, he was using some 200 symbols to communicate.

So, so apes acquire and use language? Critics claim that Washoe, Sarah, and others merely learned to imitate gestures and other responses for which they were reinforced, rather than learning the complex syntax and morphemes of a true human language like ASL (Pinker, 1994; Terrace, 2005). A chimp signing “me cookie” is no different, critics say, than a pigeon learning to perform a series of responses to obtain a food pellet.

Questions remain about whether an ape’s ability to manipulate symbols, as Kanzi is demonstrating here, is tantamount to human language.

Perhaps the question of whether apes can use language depends on how broadly we define language. If our definition includes communicating through the use of symbols, then apes as well as other nonhuman species may indeed be able to use language. But if our definition hinges on the use of complex syntax and grammatical structures, then the ability to use language may be unique to humans. The language abilities of Kanzi and other chimps may involve a kind of primitive grammar that is similar to that used by human infants or toddlers, not the complex forms of language that children naturally acquire as they mature (Seyfarth & Cheney, 2003).

Even so, scientists believe that ape communication may hold clues to the origins of human language (Pollick & de Waal, 2007). Apes frequently gesture with their hands, which scientists suspect may have represented a starting point in the development of human language (Tierney, 2007; Wade, 2007). Humans may have learned to talk with their hands before they learned to speak with their mouths (Wargo, 2008). People continue to use their hands for emphasis when they speak.