Linguistic Determinism: Words and Thoughts

If there is no socio-cultural background, there is no human language; at the same time, the word exists in everyone's head, so language interaction will not occur unless you use words. Individuals do not create languages, they only use what society gives them. In Saeed (2009), the language is a mirror of culture and is determined by the speaker's own language category. Research on the relationship between language and culture, and the relationship between language and thought has a long history and presents a very useful proposal for contemporary linguistics: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

Language decision theory The concept of linguistic relativity was proposed by amateur linguist Benjamin Lee Worf in the 1950s, 22 Wolf defended the so-called language determinism and argued that the language decided the basis of thinking. As a result of this category, in language determinism, language formation is very powerful and it is even possible to cover existing recognition and conceptual abilities in the same way infants are disabled 23. Language determinism differs from the language as the language of thinking in that it separates languages ​​from the conceptual system 25, 26. This distinction represents a significant advancement of the previous proposal, but language determinism leads to unpredictable predictions of language, thinking, world relations

Language determinism is a kind of assertion claiming languages ​​to determine ideas. In other words, people can not think about things that can not be expressed in their own languages, and can think only by the way their languages ​​allow. Language relativity (called Saphir-Whorf hypothesis) is the actual form of language determinism, which claims that the view of the world and the reality are determined by the structure of the language of the speaker. Reality is an explanation of how things are actually formed and it is not the way they are imagined. But trying to define the reality as another - reality is not reality - upon deciding the "real" state of things, this definition is distorted - this is stupid on its own