There's a similar idea that I've heard since about 2010 about subtly-influencing differences in how a human language appears to impact cognition. > Spanish and

There's a similar idea that I've heard since about 2010 about subtly-influencing differences in how a human language appears to impact cognition. > Spanish and Japanese speakers couldn't remember the agents of accidental events as adeptly as English speakers could. Why? In Spanish and Japanese, the agent of causality is dropped: "The vase broke itself," rather than "John broke the vase." [0] Here's a figure from the article: https://web.archive.org/web/20210319233610/https://www.economist.com/img/b/640/480/90/sites/default/files/fausey-1.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20210319233610/https://www.econo... The difference between "crash" (there's likely a human agent) and "accident" (there is no human agent) seems to be the same. On the other hand, in my experience from editing the professional writing of colleagues, there's often subtle implications from the chose of words. We tend to have so many different options in English, but two words never really mean the same thing because each carries different connotations either from history or from usage. Yet many readers aren't quite aware of those implications. I'm not sure if the implication does not exist for them, or if they are simply not aware of how it might colour their perception. [0] "Lost in translation?", The Economist, 2010-07-29, https://www.economist.com/johnson/2010/07/29/lost-in-translation https://www.economist.com/johnson/2010/07/29/lost-in-transla...