ABIAS, Leonard Paul B. Paper No.

2
AB Communication July 27, 2009

DOG VS. CANINE, SHEEP VS. MUTTON

Language is said to point and direct its users towards different types of observations and
perceptions of similar events and objects, yielding different views of the world. This, from what I
understand, is the primary description of the principle of linguistic relativity. This is based upon
the fact that physical representations do not lead its observers to the same perceptions and
understandings of the world, not unless they have the same or similar backgrounds in terms of
language.
Thoughts and behaviors are determined by language. This is what the Sapir – Whorf
hypothesis proposes. From their view, especially Edward Sapir’s, the understanding of a culture
would be impossible if there one would not try to understand the development of that culture’s
language. He sees us as prisoners of our own language. One culture seems to not think of
anything outside its language. It sees the world differently compared to how other cultures see it.
An individual may live a day unconscious that he is building his world upon the language
and language habits of the group or culture he belongs to. He would think that he is there, just
adjusting to reality, going with the flow, without considering language as a main factor to his
adjustment and that language is just a mere mean of expression, solving problems in
communication, misunderstandings or reflection.
No two languages may ever be said similar in terms of the perception of the world and
the reality. The worlds in which different cultures live, I think, are quite distinct. They are not
just the same world with different attached labels. We perceive the same communication events
but our language habits and of our community and culture influence certain choices of
interpretation.
The world is a complicated planet, and this complication is presented for our minds to
understand and organize. We categorize the humanity and the world and organize it into
concepts. This categorization is dictated by our community and our linguistic patterns and is
translated into codes in the forms of our language.
The concept of linguistic determinism makes us realize that all languages do not translate
each other. One concept in this language, if translated to another, may lose its sense. No matter
how many definitions one tries to construct, that concept cannot be translated in its full meaning.
This makes language relative.
Ultimately, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis makes sense for me. It has the potential to be
used in describing many misunderstandings in life. This concept probes more into language, and
passes beyond the difficulties and boundaries in dialects. But also, let us not close the issues
through the hypothesis. There are things which need to be argued upon.