RETRACTED ARTICLE: Examining Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis as One of the Main Views on the Relationship Between Language and Thought

Abstract

One of those features that set human societies apart from animal societies is the use of language. Language is a vital part of every human culture and is a powerful social tool that we master at an early age. A second feature of humans is our ability to solve complex problems. For centuries philosophers have questioned whether these two abilities are related and, if so, what the nature of the relationship between language and thought is. At the beginning of the last century psychologists joined this debate and it is a topic that is currently generating a lot of research. Another factor in the study of language and thought is the role of culture. When we study a language from another country we see that it is not just the words and grammar that are different but the customs and traditions as well. Even the ideas of that culture and the way of dealing with life can be different. There are a number of views on the nature of the relationship between language and thought. But here we are going to explore one of those views, the linguistic relativity hypothesis (LRH), concerning that the language a speaker uses influences the way the speaker thinks.

Conceptual Modeling

“…This view is in line with the weak formulation of linguistic relativity hypothesis[43].8 The pervasiveness of communication background[48] or context[10,11] for linguistic meaning is thoroughly discussed in e.g. [10,48,11].…”

Brief Textual Indicators of Political Orientation

“…Language has long been thought to reflect one’s worldview (Tohidian, 2009). Whorf (1956) viewed language as a means of molding and programming our thoughts.…”

Do the Folk Believe that They Can Speak Their Way into Interculturality?

“…8 While it is exciting to think that if we were members of a different culture and speakers of a different language, we would have a fundamentally different understanding of the nature of the universe, it turned out that Whorf's arguments were somewhat overstated and relied on investigative methods whose flaws have been since pointed out. 27 Thus, the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--the claim that language determines thought--is generally not accepted.…”