One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

I will pose three arguments to support my case regarding linguistic relativity and its validity:A Cognitive Approach: Conceptual metaphorsThe way that we categorize and metaphorically represent our thoughts is influenced by characteristics of our native language. According to conceptual metaphor theory [1], upheld by linguist George Lakoff and philosopher Mark Johnson, we understand many of our ideas in terms of others. A good example is debating (as we are doing now), and the hidden metaphorical connotations used in our language:He won the argument.Your claims are indefensible.He shot down all my arguments.His criticisms were right on target.If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out.Here we see a trend in which arguing is a "war," or perhaps, to be more precise, a "struggle." Through this metaphor, we lose sight of the cooperative and "creative" aspects of argument, one could argue, among numerous other facets of argumentation that could be metaphorically represented. In this way, our culture's metaphorical categorization of topics affects the way we perceive them.Another example is the difference between metaphors regarding the topic of marriage within the English and Chinese languages. Although there are congruent metaphors within the two systems, there are also substantial disparities. Both English and Chinese have metaphors to describe marriage as a taste, but different tastes are used, and Chinese has a tendency to use multiple tastes to describe marriage (e.g., "In fact, marriage is like life, which has all sorts of joys and sorrows like the five tastes [translated].", as opposed to English, which tends to only use a single taste (e.g, "But the marriage turned sour and they divorced.") [2]This phenomen depicted in these two examples is, indeed, a result of cultural influence. But let us remember that the interaction between language and culture is back-and-forth; in other words, both influence each other. If this were not the case, language would not be a dynamic sociocultural system and would therefore remain static. Culture sets the traits of our language and thereby restricts our world view, and through our restricted world view, our language evolves and shapes our culture.Swearing studyA study [3] shows "autonomic responses to swear words [are] larger than to euphemisms and neutral stimuli." We are "verbal[ly] condition[ed]," as explained by the study, to have a greater emotional response to these words over others; in other words, it is more stressful to say them than it is to say other words. Of course, nothing inherent about these words makes them more emotionally alarming than others. Indeed, we are conditioned by our linguistic system to shape our world view around the idea that these words are more stressful. Therefore, our physiological systems (and neurological/cognitive system) react differently to them than to other, less culturally "harmful" words.And, finally, as the study states: "Such an outcome [denoted in the study] satisfies the definition of linguistic relatively: Word forms, in and of themselves, exerting some control on affect and cognition in turn."Guugu Yimithirr DirectionalityGuugu Yimthirr (GY, for short) is an Australian aboriginal language. Other than being the origin language of the word "kangaroo," it also has a peculiar aspect to it that has perplexed and amazed linguists for decades: its system of position and direction. In the English language, we use the system of "left," "right," "down," "up," etc. In GY, however, they strictly use the cardinal direction system ("north," "south," "east," and "west") to indicate position and direction. [4] For example, if we see a good-looking foxy mama in the vicinity of our friend, we may say (if we are English speakers), "Look at that hottie behind you to the right!" In GY, though, we would say, "Look at that hottie to the west!"Let us contrast English and GY for a moment. In English, our system is relative; the right of an object, for example, can change depending on the position of the objection. In GY, on the other hand, the directions are fixed, so someone's west will always be the same. This requires the GY speaker to have an excellent sense of cardinal direction, which is typically absent in those who speak languages that do not depend on it. This difference in reference point regarding position and direction; it is an example of how much of an effect language can have on our world view.Imagine you live in a hotel room and that there is a hotel room across the hall from yours that looks identical to yours. As an English speaker, if you walk into the hotel room opposite from yours, you will think that it is your room. A GY speaker, however, having a keen sense of cardinal direction, would walk into the room across the hall and inherently know that it is another room due to the different cardinal direction he would be facing as he enters the room. Cool stuff, right?---In conclusion, based on the evidence presented, the "linguistic relativity principle," as coined by Benjamin Lee Whorf [5], is valid.Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.english.hku.hk...[3] http://www.plosone.org...[4] http://www.anthro.ucsd.edu...[5] http://www.anthro.ucsd.edu...