When the theory of linguistic relativity was first developed in the 1920s, it suggested that language places limits on what we are capable of understanding and conceptualizing. That hypothesis has been rejected in favor of another: language does not restrain us, but rather creates categorical patterns of focus. For example, in Spanish, it’s impossible to render the sentence, “My friend is coming over,” without specifying the gender of that friend. People, as well as objects, are inextricably linked to gender. Since both are prominent features of any language, gender thus becomes a categorical focus for speakers of Spanish. Similarly, in English, all sentences are produced with a time marker. I either have to say, “My friend came over,” “My friend is here,” or “My friend is coming over.” In Chinese, and other languages that mark time not with tense changes but with time phrases, such as ‘yesterday,’ ‘in an hour,’ or ‘next year,’ the topic of time can just as easily be included as excluded from a conversation.
In the same way, color is a category that is used in varying degrees to classify experience and perception. In languages such as English, which uses all 11 basic color terms, color seems to be more central to our experience. Compare that to speakers of languages like Mursi or Yele, where color terminology does not exist despite speakers’ ability to see different colors. Language, it’s becoming clearer, affects where our attention is drawn to, not what we are able to perceive, understand, or conceptualize.