Changes

* "In truth, it is widely accepted by ethnolinguists that culture affects language, but it is controversial as to whether or not language affects culture."<ref>"Benjamin Whorf," New World Encyclopedia, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Benjamin_Whorf?oldid=795326 (accessed February 25, 2009).</ref>

* "In truth, it is widely accepted by ethnolinguists that culture affects language, but it is controversial as to whether or not language affects culture."<ref>"Benjamin Whorf," New World Encyclopedia, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Benjamin_Whorf?oldid=795326 (accessed February 25, 2009).</ref>

It was formulated by [[Benjamin Lee Whorf]], a student - and later colleague of -  [[Edward Sapir]], who stated during the 1930's that:<ref>Whorf, Benjamin; Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (John Carroll, Editor) ; 1956; MIT Press; pp 213-14.</ref>

It was formulated by [[Benjamin Lee Whorf]], a student - and later colleague of -  [[Edward Sapir]], who stated during the 1930s that:<ref>Whorf, Benjamin; Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (John Carroll, Editor) ; 1956; MIT Press; pp 213-14.</ref>

{{cquote|We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but ''its terms are absolutely obligatory''; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. <small>''(Emphasis the author's own)''</small>}}  

{{cquote|We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but ''its terms are absolutely obligatory''; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees. <small>''(Emphasis the author's own)''</small>}}  

==Related Theories==

==Related Theories==

There are two opposing theories regarding the the relationship between language and thought. These are referred to as "mould theories" and "cloak theories". '''Mould theories''' see language as a "mould", used to cast various thought categories. '''Cloak theories''', by contrast, represent the view that language is a "cloak" that conforms to the customary thought categories of a language's speakers. However, behaviourists believe that language and thought are identical and that thinking is entirely linguistic. Non-verbal thought does not exist and there is no translation from thought to language.<ref>Bruner, J. S., J. S. Goodnow & G. A. Austin ([1956] 1962): A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley</ref>

There are two opposing theories regarding the relationship between language and thought. These are referred to as "mould theories" and "cloak theories". '''Mould theories''' see language as a "mould", used to cast various thought categories. '''Cloak theories''', by contrast, represent the view that language is a "cloak" that conforms to the customary thought categories of a language's speakers. However, behaviourists believe that language and thought are identical and that thinking is entirely linguistic. Non-verbal thought does not exist and there is no translation from thought to language.<ref>Bruner, J. S., J. S. Goodnow & G. A. Austin ([1956] 1962): A Study of Thinking. New York: Wiley</ref>

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is a mould theory of language and consists of two associated principles. These are "linguistic determinism", which states that our language determines our thinking, and "linguistic relativity", which states that people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently.  

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is a mould theory of language and consists of two associated principles. These are "linguistic determinism", which states that our language determines our thinking, and "linguistic relativity", which states that people who speak different languages perceive and think about the world quite differently.