Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

The hypothesis is that language determines reality - that people that have a different experience of reality because they have many words for something. The counter claim is that it is reality that in fact determines language - because of the environment you live in, your language is adapted to that. What to you guys think?

Personally, i lean towards the counter claim. It was like when we were talking about how there are certain words in different languages and that they cannot be directly translated into another language. Is it a possibility that different cultures have different words that are specific to them because they are prevalent in their reality but not in another?

Although I can see both sides, I am inclined to believe the Hypothesis. The fact that language determines reality, if we assume that we are discussing personal realities, is to a strong degree true. It seems that because a large majority of our knowledge is gained through communication and language, the things we learn can define our reality. If we are defined by the things we 'know' then we must also be defined by what we have been 'told' through language. In a sense, I am taking the Wachowski Brothers's point of view, and stating that what is real is merely something that we believe. By building upon this two assumption, we may make the logical connection that what we believe is our reality. And this is why language can have a severe effect on reality. We believe what we learn, and what we believe is reality. It is merely an existential point of view on the definition of reality, and thus it's merit in language. As well as Vice Versa.

_{I believe that both ideas are interconnected with each other. When there is a new word for something that had not been named before, people would notice it now and it will become a part of their reality. However, in order for this to occur there must be something in the reality of the person who created the word that triggers the want to name the thing.}

------------

I was goint to say that I disagree because I was thinking "just because you give something a name, and because of the specific name you give it, doesn't change the meaning of the word", but then I remembered the artible we read on gender and communication, and realized that "date rape" was not understood properly until it was given a name! and yes, my original statement was true in the sense that it does not change the ACTUAL meaning of the word. However, the word meaning often refers to the way the general public understands the word, and this, I think, is the type of meaning that should be explored when looking at the hypothesis.

I have to side with the counter claim on this one. I believe that the words we have created in society are all based on our environment, the atmosphere of the places we live in, and the people surrounding us in our every day lives. Furthermore, i agree with the statement mentioned previously; many different languages have words that cannot be directly translated into another language. This has probably occurred because these certain words in some languages describe a specific emotion or feeling that is present in the environment or atmosphere of a certain culture. That same emotion may not be as obvious or present in another culture, and as a result it would not be present in that language as well. So, as you can see, it is in fact the reality of what is going on within a culture that determines how the language is created, and this varies for every language worldwide.