The claim states that: "we dissect nature along the lines led down by our native language". It is continued with "we cut up, organize it into concepts and ascribe significance as we do". This claim summarizes the previously mentioned study, with the only difference being that the study involved shapes and the claim implicates nature. Personally, I agree with the claim, for instance, Pintupi (an Australian language), has several words to describe hole. That is how they "dissect nature along the lines led down" by their "native language". Another example is Hopi (a language of the American Indians) where time is considered not a quantity but a duration spoken from the point of view of the speaker. By looking at time as a duration, the Hopi's way of thought and perception of that specific aspect of nature is different than anyone that thinks of time as a quantity. Other categories that may be very different include those of causation, and the self.
The stronger version of the hypothesis, which approaches the idea of language determining the way we think, also has numerous amounts of evidence. There is recent work in linguistics and cognitive science that supports the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. "Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought", is a collection of papers describing the hypothesis and focusing on the accuracy of the strong version of the theory. The claim supporting this division of the hypothesis was said by Shelley in his "Prometheus Unbound", he wrote: "He gave men speech and speech created thought". "He" here is in reference to God. This claim is considered a religious script and therefore cannot be measured as sufficient support to the hypothesis, but for religious people, another religious script maintaining the strong version of the hypothesis and the claim is in the opening of St. John's Gospel, "In the beginning was the word".
More appropriate evidence involves the works of John R. Skoyles and Curtis Hayes et al., which support an intimate connection between thought and language. Both sources use examples to support the strength of the strong interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Unfortunately, I am obliged to disagree with this section of the hypothesis since some emotions cannot be expressed as words yet are feelings, thus affecting thought and perception. So language could not possibly have been created before emotion since it expresses emotion and if there was emotion there must have been thought. Another reason to disagree would be a situation where linguist Wilhelm Von Humboldt strongly believed that all thought was impossible without language. Another linguist named Campbell countered him by asking "if there was no thought before language, how did language arise in the first place?" This situation brought up more questions involving the hypothesis.
When questions aroused involving translation, some skeptics believed that translating a sentence would make it lose part of its meaning, but many linguists disagreed. David Crystal said: "One language may take many words to say what another language says in a single word, but in the end the circumlocution can make the point". Some critics believed that language could affect culture which is why many cultures don't "cross-diffuse", they believe that it could be considered a hypothesis that language affects culture instead of thought.
Other critics believe "The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is alive and well." Others agree with this and even back it up by responding to it with "I’m surprised this is not a well accepted fact." Some linguists such as Grace, Chandler, and Campbell believe that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis isn't true in its strongest form, but they do feel that it is applicable in certain situations. Chandler admits that language influences thought but doesn't believe that it determines thought. The supporters of this position recognize the value of the Sapir-Whorf theory despite finding critical errors in its makeup. "Terwilliger and his supporters believe that it is difficult to critically analyze the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis because Benjamin Whorf was broad in his definitions, leaving excessive opportunity for interpretation. Terwilliger feels that the hypothesis must be clearly defined before it can be proven or disproven. Terwilliger sees many contradictions within the hypothesis that are caused by incomplete definition. He points to examples that support the hypothesis, but he is equally adept at finding examples that show that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis isn't applicable to all situations."
In conclusion, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is composed of two parts, the strong part and the weaker part. There is evidence supporting both parts so the debate about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis will likely continue to be a struggle between opposing viewpoints. This debate will probably never be settled because the hypothesis can be interpreted in many ways.
Resources: