There are two main versions of this hypothesis:
* Strong version (linguistic determinism): This version argues that language *completely* determines thought. People who speak different languages are fundamentally incapable of thinking about the world in the same way.
* Weak version (linguistic relativity): This version argues that language influences thought, but it doesn't completely determine it. People who speak different languages may think about the world in slightly different ways, but they can still understand each other's perspectives.
Evidence and Counterarguments:
* Evidence for the weak version: Studies have shown that people who speak different languages tend to perceive and categorize the world differently. For example, speakers of certain languages have different ways of describing colors or spatial relationships.
* Counterarguments to the strong version: Studies have shown that people can learn new concepts and think about the world in ways that are not explicitly represented in their native language. Additionally, translation between languages is possible, suggesting that people can understand each other's thoughts despite differences in language.
Current Perspectives:
While the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is largely considered to be too extreme, the weak version is still debated. Many linguists and cognitive scientists believe that language does influence thought, but the extent of this influence is still being researched.
In summary, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis argues that language affects how we think about the world, but the extent of this influence is still a subject of ongoing debate.