What Whorf Got Right — and What Everyone Got Wrong: A Relational-Ontology Re-Reading of the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis

Introduction

It is impossible to discuss language and experience without confronting the spectre of the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis, a cluster of ideas that has been praised as visionary, dismissed as mystical, and misrepresented with equal enthusiasm from every side.

The reason for this confusion is simple:

Whorf lacked a theory of meaning. His critics lacked a theory of reality.

This post offers a corrective.

Drawing on Hallidayan systemic functional linguistics and relational ontology, we can reclaim what Whorf saw — and replace the metaphysics that trapped him (and everyone after him) in a false debate.

This is not a revision.

It is a reframing.

A new ontology, in which Whorf finally lands where he belongs.

---

1. What Whorf Actually Saw (Before Anyone Buried It)

Whorf’s core observation was neither exotic nor mystical:

Different languages pattern experience differently, and those patterns matter.

Not because they distort a pre-given world.

Not because they imprison thought.

But because they shape the ways experience is brought into being as experience.

Whorf never had the metalanguage to articulate this cleanly.

He gestured toward “habitual thought” and “the background phenomena of linguistic systems,” but lacked:

• a stratified model of meaning

• a functional theory of grammar

• a non-representational ontology

• a semiotics of actualisation

In short, he saw the phenomenon but lacked the theory.

What he noticed is exactly what our lattice model predicts:

• different process typologies → different event ontologies

• different participant systems → different individuation logics

• different circumstantial grammars → different temporal/spatial embeddings

• different relational grammars → different theories of interdependence

• different modal/evidential systems → different epistemic stances

Whorf felt this.

We can formalise it.

---

2. What Everyone Got Wrong (A Polemic in Three Moves)

(a) Determinism: a phantom nobody needed

Whorf’s readers accused him of saying language determines thought.

He didn’t.

He said languages pattern possible construals of experience.

But because they assumed a pre-linguistic world, they imagined language as a filter.

This is empirically false and metaphysically incoherent.

(b) Filtering metaphysics: the fatal assumption

Both Whorf’s fans and critics held the same mistaken belief:

There is a reality “over there” and language “labels” or “organises” it.

Once you assume this, the only debate is:

• Does language distort reality?

• Or merely influence cognition?

From a relational ontology:

Wrong question. Wrong metaphysics. Wrong debate.

Language does not filter.

Language actualises.

(c) Exoticising Indigenous languages

Whorf’s examples (Hopi, Nahuatl) were treated as curiosities, reinforcing a colonial habit:

non-European languages as anomalies rather than coherent semiotic systems.

This error dissolves when we use Halliday’s canonical model:

• every language is a complete theory of experience

• every grammar is a functional ontology

• no language is “primitive” or “mystical”

• all languages actualise potential along the same ideational dimensions

Whorf was trying to say this — with 1930s tools.

We can finally say it properly.

---

3. The Relational-Ontology Re-Reading: Why Whorf Was Basically Right

3.1 Meaning = Reality

From our stance:

• there is no pre-linguistic, unconstrued reality

• phenomena exist only as semiotically actualised construals

• different languages enact different cuts across potential

Thus:

Whorf’s “linguistic relativity” is simply ontology-specific actualisation.

Not mental categories.

Not filters.

Not constraints.

Cuts.

Perspective actualisations.

3.2 Languages as Semiotic Lattices

SFL gives Whorf the metalanguage he lacked:

• process types = event ontology

• participant roles = individuation ontology

• circumstances = spatiotemporal ontology

• relations = interdependence ontology

• modality/evidentiality = epistemic ontology

Each language makes different distinctions along these clines.

Whorf intuited this.

We can map it.

3.3 Pluralism Without Relativism

Unlike classic Whorfianism:

• We do not say languages distort reality.

• We do not say languages determine cognition.

• We do not say languages are incommensurable worlds.

We say:

Languages are systematic ways of actualising potential experience.

There is no neutral, unconstrued ontology beneath them.

Therefore:

Difference ≠ distortion.

Difference = ontological productivity.

Whorf was right to insist on difference;

he lacked the ontology to avoid relativism.

We provide that ontology.

---

4. A Clean Formulation: Whorf 2.0 via Relational Ontology + SFL

Here is the formulation Whorf needed:

Every language is a semiotic ontology: a lattice of distinctions that actualises potential experience along patterned dimensions of process, participant, circumstance, relation, and modality.

These patterned construals shape how phenomena become phenomena.

Not because languages filter reality, but because reality is only ever actualised through meaning.

Therefore:

• No more determinism.

• No more relativism.

• No more exoticisation.

• No more “linguistic categories” as mental modules.

Just semiotic systems doing what semiotic systems do:

actualising the field of potential in different, coherent ways.

---

5. Conclusion: Whorf’s Insight, Our Ontology

Whorf saw that:

• languages differ systematically

• those differences matter

• they shape how experience is brought forth

He lacked:

• a theory of meaning

• a relational ontology

• a functional grammar

• a stratified semiotic model

We give him all four.

Thus:

What Whorf got right:

Languages shape the actualisation of experience.

What everyone got wrong:

Everything else.