Final answer:
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also known as linguistic relativity, posits that language influences thought, which is contrary to the statement provided. If a language lacks a word for a concept, such as 'ambivalent,' its speakers might not readily recognize or understand that concept as someone who has a word for it does.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement in question is false; according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language plays a significant role in shaping our thoughts and perceptions. This concept, known as linguistic relativity, suggests that without a word for a particular experience, like "ambivalent," people may not recognize or understand the experience in that specific manner. The hypothesis argues that our understanding of reality is tightly intertwined with the language we speak, which has embedded cultural meanings and distinctions. Hence, the words in our language contribute to how we conceptualize and understand our experiences.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is often discussed in the context of how different languages shape the thought processes of their speakers. One example provided by Benjamin Whorf was the comparison between how English speakers and speakers of the Native American language Hopi conceptualize time. English divides time into countable units, potentially influencing its speakers to think of time in a quantifiable manner, whereas Hopi may not create the same divisions, leading to a different perception of time.
While the hypothesis has evolved over time, and some find it too deterministic, it remains a significant theory in the field of linguistic anthropology, suggesting that the structure of a language affects its speakers' cognition and worldview.