Sapir and Whorf consider language a vital aspect of existence, going so far as to label it a “necessity” in a physical sense. Within the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, the term “necessity” pertains to being essential for existence. Sapir categorizes language as the mechanism for thought, while Whorf views language as an individual’s innermost realm. Whorf identifies language as the fundamental constituents of each person’s perception. The hypothesis equates language with life, in the most literal sense. If language were absent, life itself, one’s thoughts, and their entire world would cease to exist.
Whorf and Sapir have different perspectives on the relationship between language and life. Whorf emphasizes the view that “language is life” more explicitly compared to Sapir, who sees language as either a module of life or an “art of thought.” However, they both acknowledge the significance of historical context and accidents in shaping language. Whorf adopts a theological approach, claiming that language encompasses the entirety of the universe. Both authors agree that the historical paths followed by languages explain the differences and variations present in languages today.
Reading Whorf and Sapir’s work can prompt one to engage in deep philosophical pondering. I tapped into my own philosophical inclination to explore instances supporting and refuting the hypothesis. During a conversation with a friend, I inquired about the meaning of “existence.” Her simple response was “to feel.” Considering the hypothesis, how vital is language in experiencing emotions? Is it possible to experience emotions or have feelings without employing language? According to my friend’s perspective, being alive or existing in this reality solely requires the capacity for emotions on some level. Consequently, we arrive at the ultimate question: which comes first, life or language? In this case, it is important to not envision language solely as the spoken or written word you are currently processing. With the question of life or language, I am alluding more to an internal language, perhaps one only we ourselves can comprehend. Starting from the moment we are born, or maybe even before birth, are we innately equipped with an internal language in order to interpret the world from our own unique perspective?
The concept of “existence as feeling” challenges the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as it is impossible to pinpoint the exact moment when language develops with enough clarity for humans to begin perceiving the world. We can only accurately determine language development in humans when a child adopts the language spoken around them. Prior to this, humans may possess language or perceive the world in a similar manner to others, but we cannot ascertain this. Consequently, this idea directly contradicts the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis since our world comprises indeterminate factors alongside language.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes that language enables individuals to exist within their own separate realities, as indicated by a particular speech pattern. I have observed this pattern not only in my own speech, but also in conversations with others who have contrasting perspectives, suggesting they inhabit a different “perception.” This speech pattern manifests when individuals say “I have to [do something]” as opposed to “I should [do something]” or “I want…” The latter may not always be explicitly expressed but can be implied. When discussing societal activities, these phrases carry an implicit sense of existence that allows listeners to perceive the speaker’s internal self-perception during communication. This type of conversation occurs within a narrative context, where the speaker chooses one of these options and maintains it. Ultimately, selecting either “have to,” “should,” or “want” unveils the speaker’s self-perception in relation to others and the world at large.
The passage illustrates a specific scenario where an individual frequently uses the phrase “have to” and occasionally uses “should” when discussing her family. For her older brother, who often needs help due to addiction-related withdrawal issues, she prefers using “have to.” When she says “I have to go home over the summer and take care of him,” she believes her presence is necessary specifically for her brother and her family. She also feels indebted to them. The shift to using the term “should” may suggest that she has realized she is not truly obligated and that her own perceptions are tied to cultural and societal expectations. When someone begins using the word “want” to describe their actions, two possibilities arise: they are either being dishonest or they no longer feel compelled by cultural pressures. Naturally, abandoning phrases like “having to” and “should,” especially in relation to social activities, linguistically demonstrates a change in one’s worldview, indicating they no longer solely see the world from others’ perspective. This change in perception influenced by cultural factors aligns with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
