Do words change what we see?
Russian has two words for blue. Do its speakers tell those blues apart faster? Maybe, a little.
- Key study
- Winawer et al., PNAS, 2007
- Effect size
- Real but modest
Linguistic relativity is the idea that the language you speak shapes how you think. Its strong form, that words decide what you can see, is wrong: people without a word for blue still see blue. The live question is the weak form. Do color words nudge perception at the edges?
The best evidence comes from blues. Russian has no single everyday word for blue. Light blues are goluboy and dark blues are siniy, as separate as pink and red are in English. In a 2007 study, Jonathan Winawer and colleagues showed Russian speakers three blue squares and asked which two matched. They were faster when the two blues fell on opposite sides of the goluboy/siniy line. English speakers showed no such edge.
Two details make the result convincing and keep it honest. The advantage vanished when Russian speakers silently rehearsed a string of digits, which ties up the verbal system, but not during a spatial task. So the word helps live, in the moment. And the effect is modest: a small speed gain, largest on hard comparisons. A careful 2020 repeat of the experiment found no speed advantage at the goluboy/siniy line at all, so the effect may be smaller or less reliable than first reported. It isn't a different visual world: the eyes themselves (how eyes see color) work the same in every language.
That's the bet behind learning more color names: a word like Teal or Periwinkle gives you a handle, and practice with feedback sharpens the eye. You may have seen a viral TV clip about a tribe that 'couldn't see blue'. It was misreported, so skip it. The real research, from Berlin and Kay onward, is quieter and more interesting.
Swatches
- Goluboy · light blue
- Siniy · dark blue
Colors
Sources
- Winawer, J. et al. (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. PNAS 104(19): 7780–7785.
- Regier, T. & Kay, P. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13(10): 439–446.
- Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the Language Glass. Metropolitan Books.
Hex values are screen approximations. Every page lists its sources.