words make thoughts, or influence them at least: an introduction to the sapir-whorf hypothesis

I recently heard about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. According to Wikipedia, the hypothesis, “is a principle claiming that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition, and thus people’s perceptions are relative to their spoken language.”¹

Continuing from Wikipedia:

The principle is often defined in one of two versions: the strong hypothesis, which was held by some of the early linguists before World War II,[1] and the weak hypothesis, mostly held by some of the modern linguists.[1]

• The strong version says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories.
• The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis reminds me of the benefits that accrue from learning. That is, when I learn a new concept (such as a new word), I have a new tool in my tool set with which to approach problems. It literally opens up new pathways in how I think and broadens the landscape of what’s possible.

Side Note: I suspect that the way new words provide new tools is part of the appeal for untranslatable words (e.g., sisu², ikigai, etc.). They expand our awareness and in that way help shake up our ways of thinking about problems to arrive at new conclusions.³

Footnotes

• ¹ Linguistic Relativity | Wikipedia
• ² I first heard about Sisu from James Clear’s post Sisu: How to Develop Mental Toughness in the Face of Adversity.
• ³ There are a number of sites that aggregate these untranslatable words. Two that I like are Eunoia.world, a personal project of Steph Smith, and Untranslatable.org, which seems to have gone quiet, but has a fairly large catalogue of words.