5 ms·

I think instead of chiding people who use English as a second language "poorly", we should look at their mistakes for what they are - the influence of another l

I think instead of chiding people who use English as a second language "poorly", we should look at their mistakes for what they are - the influence of another language - and see if we can't incorporate the ideas that caused them into English, if the ideas are good. Newspeak isn't fiction, languages really do shape how you think. We should continue evolving English to be suitable for expressing more modes of thought.

dorchadas 8y ago
> we should look at their mistakes for what they are - the influence of another language - and see if we can't incorporate the ideas that caused them into English, if the ideas are good. Except it doesn't work like that. Languages change because native speakers change them, not because some grammatical body adopts things and tries to force it on everyone. > Newspeak isn't fiction, languages really do shape how you think. Yes, it is fiction, and no, languages do not shape how you think. This is known as linguistic relativity [1] and it's strong form has been _thoroughly_ debunked, whereas the weak form is highly skeptical, with most arguments coming from Lera Boroditsky, who fails to control for several factors and also hasn't yet published her famous study on the matter (which was set to be published roughly 16 years ago). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  >Except it doesn't work like that. Languages change because native speakers change them, not because some grammatical body adopts things and tries to force it on everyone. I'm not suggesting an institution should do this. I'm suggesting individuals do this. >Yes, it is fiction, and no, languages do not shape how you think I have anecdotal experience in thinking differently in different experiences, which doesn't say much for anyone else but makes me personally skeptical of your assertion. I don't think I would count this as "_thouroughly_ debunked", more like "extensively debated". I also don't put much faith in unpublished studies. Regardless, my main point stands even without invoking linguistic relativity.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    There are literally no mainstream linguists that support linguistic determinism, the 'strong' form of linguistic relativity. [1] That much is 100% true; sure, you see articles about it pop up from time to time, but they're often not written by linguists, and are often quickly debunked. As to the 'unpublished studies', that one was by Boroditsky, one of the, if not the, main proponents for the weak form of linguistic relativity. But, your anecdotal experience doesn't really count for much when comparing it to the studies that have been done on it. Anecdotally, I know someone who didn't believe General Relativity to be true; that doesn't make it any less true. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism

dorchadas 8y ago

> we should look at their mistakes for what they are - the influence of another language - and see if we can't incorporate the ideas that caused them into English, if the ideas are good. Except it doesn't work like that. Languages change because native speakers change them, not because some grammatical body adopts things and tries to force it on everyone. > Newspeak isn't fiction, languages really do shape how you think. Yes, it is fiction, and no, languages do not shape how you think. This is known as linguistic relativity [1] and it's strong form has been _thoroughly_ debunked, whereas the weak form is highly skeptical, with most arguments coming from Lera Boroditsky, who fails to control for several factors and also hasn't yet published her famous study on the matter (which was set to be published roughly 16 years ago). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
>Except it doesn't work like that. Languages change because native speakers change them, not because some grammatical body adopts things and tries to force it on everyone. I'm not suggesting an institution should do this. I'm suggesting individuals do this. >Yes, it is fiction, and no, languages do not shape how you think I have anecdotal experience in thinking differently in different experiences, which doesn't say much for anyone else but makes me personally skeptical of your assertion. I don't think I would count this as "_thouroughly_ debunked", more like "extensively debated". I also don't put much faith in unpublished studies. Regardless, my main point stands even without invoking linguistic relativity.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  There are literally no mainstream linguists that support linguistic determinism, the 'strong' form of linguistic relativity. [1] That much is 100% true; sure, you see articles about it pop up from time to time, but they're often not written by linguists, and are often quickly debunked. As to the 'unpublished studies', that one was by Boroditsky, one of the, if not the, main proponents for the weak form of linguistic relativity. But, your anecdotal experience doesn't really count for much when comparing it to the studies that have been done on it. Anecdotally, I know someone who didn't believe General Relativity to be true; that doesn't make it any less true. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_determinism