Changes

* "Whorf [was] appealing to the general educated audience of his day to become linguistically aware -- to realize to what extent the language you speak influences what and how you think."<ref name=great />

* "Whorf [was] appealing to the general educated audience of his day to become linguistically aware -- to realize to what extent the language you speak influences what and how you think."<ref name=great />

* "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 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>

{{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>}}  

"Sapir believed that language shapes human perception and directs human behavior. From his view, understanding a culture was impossible without understanding the historical development of that culture’s language."<ref> [http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edward_Sapir?oldid=687648 "Edward Sapir,"] New World Encyclopedia, (accessed February 25, 2009). </ref> An example of Sapir's beliefs can be found in [[George Orwell]]'s book ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four|1984]]''. Here, "Newspeak" was created to alter the way people thought about the government. The new vocabulary was a method of mind control, since the population could not think of things that were not included in the vocabulary. In essence, they were prisoners of their own language.

"Sapir believed that language shapes human perception and directs human behavior. From his view, understanding a culture was impossible without understanding the historical development of that culture’s language."<ref>[http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edward_Sapir?oldid=687648 "Edward Sapir,"] New World Encyclopedia, (accessed February 25, 2009).</ref> An example of Sapir's beliefs can be found in [[George Orwell]]'s book ''[[Nineteen Eighty-Four|1984]]''. Here, "Newspeak" was created to alter the way people thought about the government. The new vocabulary was a method of mind control, since the population could not think of things that were not included in the vocabulary. In essence, they were prisoners of their own language.

==Related Theories==

==Related Theories==

Few linguists today would accept the pure form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, yet may find some resonance in a more moderate take on the theory. The "pure" and "moderate" forms differ in that the pure form places the emphasis on the potential for thinking to be influenced rather than determined by language and that it is a two-way process, in other words, "the kind of language we use is also influenced by the way we see the world."

Few linguists today would accept the pure form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, yet may find some resonance in a more moderate take on the theory. The "pure" and "moderate" forms differ in that the pure form places the emphasis on the potential for thinking to be influenced rather than determined by language and that it is a two-way process, in other words, "the kind of language we use is also influenced by the way we see the world."

There is some middle ground to be found in moderate form of both. For example, there are languages with words for things that other languages do not have. A good example is the Neuer people of [[Sudan]], who have more than 400 words to describe cattle. Each word indicates differences in colour, size, body shape and the shape of the horns. Just because we do not have a word with the same meaning, does not imply that we cannot comprehend what the word is - and it can be counter-argued against Sapir-Whorf that simply by being able to comprehend the word, we can indeed the see world through that speaker's eyes. <ref>http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/cgi-bin/412/9900psyc1011.pl?read=42</ref>

There is some middle ground to be found in moderate form of both. For example, there are languages with words for things that other languages do not have. A good example is the Neuer people of [[Sudan]], who have more than 400 words to describe cattle. Each word indicates differences in colour, size, body shape and the shape of the horns. Just because we do not have a word with the same meaning, does not imply that we cannot comprehend what the word is - and it can be counter-argued against Sapir-Whorf that simply by being able to comprehend the word, we can indeed the see world through that speaker's eyes.<ref>http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/cgi-bin/412/9900psyc1011.pl?read=42</ref>

==References==

==References==