1. A Critique of Whorf’s Theory of Linguistic Relativity
Aaron Kirk
Theory of Linguistic Relativity
Word Count: 1590
October 9, 2014

2. A CRITIQUE OF WHORF’S THEORY OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY 1
Language is meaning, according to Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. Put more
correctly, language is the means by which one experiences meaning in any particular culture.
Every encounter or interaction one has with the world can be explained in terms of one’s
language. Built on early observations of the relationships between the language of a people and
their experiences and thoughts (Lee, 2014), Whorf’s theory of linguistic relativity emphasizes
language as the core of human communication, experience, and understanding. But these brief
sentences do not do this intricate, thought-provoking hypothesis justice. So, we shall discuss it in
greater detail in the coming pages. First, the major tenants of the theory will be examined.
Second, I will attempt to objectivity evaluate it based on several of Heath and Bryant’s (2000)
“Criteria of Theory Construction” (p. 13). And third, I will conclude with a few personal
thoughts regarding linguistic relativity and why I believe the theory is important – regardless of
whether or not its tenants are correct.
Perhaps the most defining characteristic of linguistic relativity is that its core line of
reasoning runs virtually opposite to most other theories of human communication. Rather than
arguing (as referential theory does) that words gain their meaning from the things and
experiences that they reference, linguistic relativity holds that the meaning of these things
derives from the words we assign to them (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 107). Therefore, the
language defines the experience rather than the experience defining the language.
Linguistic relativity’s central tenant is remarkable in its explanatory power and scope; the
differences between entire cultures and peoples can be explained through differences in their
languages. Whorf hypothesized that languages themselves, being not neutral but culture-laden,
express the worldviews, behavior, and thinking habits of a culture (Lee, 2014). So, each and
every group of people with their own language will view the world differently than others, and

3. A CRITIQUE OF WHORF’S THEORY OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY 2
possess differing behavioral customs and thinking habits. Our perceptions of reality, therefore,
cannot be considered objective or completely reliable because those perceptions carry with them
the subjective “shading” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 108) of our particular culture’s language.
This explains how two people from different parts of the world can look at the same word or
reference and think completely different things. For example, the cow: “in (American) culture, a
cow is a…kind of livestock that is raised for food…Hindus have a different view of the cow.
They see cattle as a temporary home for the spirit of another human being…Thus, a cow is
whatever each linguistic culture says it is.” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 108) In short, according to
the main contention of linguistic relativity, what we experience and interpret in the world is
largely due to the various predispositions and biases in our language itself.
Another central tenant of linguistic relativity relates to the names we assign to various
situations and phenomena; specifically, “how people name a situation will affect their behavior
in that situation.” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 108) Whorf observed this pattern himself in his
place of employment. When employees were working around what they knew to be empty
gasoline drums, they nevertheless displayed great care and concern for their safety. Although
seemingly harmless in their minds, the word “gasoline” on the barrels triggered a cultural
warning. However, when the employees were working around combustible limestone – a rock
material that is normally nonflammable – the employees did not show the caution that they
exuded towards the empty gasoline drums (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 109).
The important thing to note from Whorf’s observation is that a simple changing of words
caused a behavioral change, despite fact that the actual levels of safety were reversed. Even
though the drums were empty, the employees saw the word “gasoline” and displayed caution.
And although the rock was said to be flammable, the word “limestone” created a sense of

4. A CRITIQUE OF WHORF’S THEORY OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY 3
carelessness and apathy. It is that relationship between words (language) and behavior that is at
the core of linguistic relativity.
In summary, the theory of linguistic relativity is really quite simple. The input variable –
that is, the independent variable – is comprised of all the differences in language a particular
culture has: vocabulary, syntax, grammar, etc. And the output – the dependent variable – is
comprised of the differences in experiences and thoughts (Lee, 2014) that a culture possesses.
More concisely stated, the theory of linguistic relativity asserts a direct causal relationship
between language and experiences; a culture’s language determines that culture’s experiences.
As we will detail later, relationships like these are very difficult to prove, especially since
empirical evidence is difficult to ascertain in communications (Lee, 2014), but the tenants of the
theory are nonetheless remarkable in their uniqueness, explanatory scope, and potential impact.
With the major tenants and variables of linguistic relativity detailed, we now move on to
the evaluation portion of this critique. According to Heath and Bryant (2000), “A Good Theory
Must Explain.” (p. 13) And explain linguistic relatively certainly does. Theories in this discipline
are primarily formed in response to observed patterns or phenomena in human communication –
and I can think of few such phenomena as significant and mind-boggling as all the millions of
differences between the cultures and peoples of the world. Worldviews, behavioral habits, even
dietary preferences – all of it can be given an explanation through the theory of linguistic
relativity. And what is more, the explanations are all unified and illustrated through language
itself, something with which every human being is familiar. Whether or not the hypothesis is
empirically confirmable, it cannot be denied that linguistic relativity fulfills this criterion very
well.

5. A CRITIQUE OF WHORF’S THEORY OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY 4
Another characteristic of a sound theory is its ability to predict “Sequences of Actions,
Events, and Outcomes.” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 13) That is, a good theory can take a situation
and predict its likely outcome. I would argue that linguistic relativity fulfills this criterion with a
certain degree of success, though not quite as well as the criterion of explanation. Going back to
Whorf’s observation of the workers and the gasoline drums, employees reacted to the names of
the objects first and foremost, despite the levels of safety being changed quite dramatically.
Applying “if-then reasoning” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 13) to this situation is fairly simple: if
something is given a name that entails some response (danger, in this case), then people around
the object will act in accordance with what the name implies, even if it is seemingly unnecessary.
Whether or not most humans actually act in such a way is another issue, but the theory does
provide a basic, coherent framework for predicting the outcome of similar situations.
This also means that linguistic relativity can be helpful in trying to control the events and
outcomes of communication, another criterion for a good theory (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 14).
In this case, employers could give names to certain items, even if those names were misleading
or false, and, at least in theory, greatly influence (control) the reactions of employees towards the
objects.
Another area of evaluation in which linguistic relatively succeeds is simplicity. “A Good
Theory is Parsimonious. It can be briefly and succinctly stated.” (Heath & Bryant, 2000, p. 15)
At the beginning of this paper, I used three words to summarize the theory: language is meaning.
Granted, that doesn’t tell one much in the way of details, but it is a succinct statement of the
theory’s primary focus. Even when getting more technical, linguistic relativity can be explained
through a single independent variable and a single dependent variable.

6. A CRITIQUE OF WHORF’S THEORY OF LINGUISTIC RELATIVITY 5
Unfortunately, Whorf’s hypothesis starts to show its flaws when we come to the final
criterion for a sound theory that I will discuss: falsifiability. As Heath and Bryant (2000) put it:
“If a theory cannot be disproven, it probably cannot be proven.” (p. 15) Like many theories of
human communication, linguistic relativity simply has very little to lean on when it comes to
hard, empirical evidence – making it difficult to either prove or disprove the theory in any
scientific way. There is virtually no quantifiable, empirical way to determine the cause of
differences between cultures – at least not yet. And, therefore, it is impossible to prove that the
cause of those differences is anything other than what linguistic relativity says it is. Think about
it; one could put any general human construct in the place of “language,” keep the exact same
variables, and they would still have a theory that explains everything the original does. That is
not to say the theory is worthless, but when a hypothesis asserts a strong causal relationship that
is simply too difficult to prove or disprove, it greatly diminishes its chances of being correct or
taken seriously.
To conclude, I greatly admire the theory of linguistic relativity. Its tenants are remarkably
far-reaching and it passes many of the tests for a sound theory. It has some major issues –
essentially not being falsifiable and lacking much serious evidence – but it is nevertheless
unique, interesting, parsimonious, and, most significantly, important. As someone who holds
communication through language in the utmost regard, I think humanity would be much better
off if we took Whorf’s hypothesis to heart; if language is the means by which we experience the
world, let us master it. Let us become better communicators and better people through studying
and practicing our methods of verbal communication. I believe that there is another criterion for
a good theory: potential to push the human race forward. And it does not necessarily have to be
true to do that.

7. References
Heath, R. L., & Bryant, J. (2000). Human communication theory and research: Concepts,
contexts, and challenges (2nd ed.). New York: Routlege.
Lee, J. (2014). Ch 1-Theory and research -Part1-Lee [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
https://elearning.uh.edu