The Influence of Language

Sapir Whorf hypothesis is an extremely important theory (or at least basis for theoretical discussion) within the field of linguistics. Moreover, it has implications for the very definition of reality as it is perceived by people. One of the key tenets of this hypothesis is the relationship between culture, language and thought. The hypothesis poses the notion that language influences thought. The degree that it influences thought is up to debate.

There are some adherents who believe that language determines thought and that "meaning is locked within the grammatical and semantic structure of individual languages" (Collin, 2013, p. 282). Others believe that language merely "influences" (Wenzel, 2011, p. 458) thought. What is less mutable is the concept that culture helps to determine language, and in this way ultimately helps to influence thought.

The fundamental notion of this hypothesis is that the words one uses -- which are specific to various languages -- greatly impact what one thinks about, as well as how one thinks about it. This tenet is predicated on the viewpoint that people think in terms of words, or in terms of language. To this end, there are various points of stratification about "reality" (Carnes, 1970, p. 263) to which language ultimately confines a thinker.

People do not necessarily think outside of those terms, because they have no terms to categorize or to figuratively 'voice' their thoughts. It would be difficult to outright refute the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. Most people think in terms of language. Therefore, it is plausible that the very terms and intricacies of language itself impact the way one thinks, what one thinks about, etc. Moreover, there are various forms of research that appear aligned with this hypothesis, or which perhaps even outright support it.

Collin (2013) wrote an article underlying the difficulty of translating important political terms and their underlying ideas. In doing so, he noted that "abstract nouns like justice, soul, sovereignty, and leader are all embedded within overall signification systems and possess special associations" (Collin, 2013, p. 283). Some of the terms identified in this passage, in addition to the systems of signification and their special associations, certainly vary according to time in space.

The term justice among Jews in post World War II concentration camps is much different than the same term in a plagiarism suit against a student today. These examples buttress the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. Although the Sapir Whorf hypothesis is feasible, some doubts do exist as to its validity within the strictly clinical sense of this term. In order to adjudge the validity of this hypothesis, it is necessary to evaluate some of the research that Sapir and Whorf undertook to from it.

The nature of some of that research is questionable. For instance, Whorf did a substantial amount of research that was based on Native Americans as subjects. To his credit, he made a point of utilizing cross cultural comparisons. However, the fact that he relied upon this one group of people (even though he.