3 ms·

When I took linguistics classes in school it was summarily brushed off, but here's how Wikipedia summarizes: > The strong version, or linguistic determinism, s

When I took linguistics classes in school it was summarily brushed off, but here's how Wikipedia summarizes: > The strong version, or linguistic determinism, says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists. > The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions. Research on weaker forms has produced positive empirical evidence for a relationship.

coldtea 5y ago
Well, DUH! Did anybody put forward the first version which sounds like a strawman? "language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists" The use of words like "determine" appears to make it look bogus. Whereas "influences" basically means the same thing (in practical terms, strongly influences is just as good as determines).
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Well, based on my own introspection, the strong version looks obviously true to me - so I'm glad someone took time to disprove it. When I read the description, I understand "determines" as in, your thoughts internally work in terms of language processing, so their complexity is limited to the complexity of the language(s) you know. It sounds plausible, but also testable by checking if humans who never learned a language with complex grammar are capable of processing complex concepts.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    For a long time in human history people did not accept the existence of negative numbers; a Greek mathematician couldn't solve x+1=0 for example (this one also has "zero" in it, which also did not exist for some mathematicians). This seems like a decent example for linguistic categories limiting the thinkable categories. Other Greek examples: Zeno's paradoxes, irrational numbers, ...
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >This seems like a decent example for linguistic categories limiting the thinkable categories. As in absolutely limiting them, though? Like the Ancient Greeks, those who invented zero, didn't have it previously in their language, and couldn't do zero-based equations before either.
    - emodendroket 5y ago
      Seems like a bad one. New concepts are given new names, or borrowed names, when they’re introduced. The first guy to come up with zero didn’t speak a language with a word for zero at the time.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >I'm glad someone took time to disprove it What do you think "disprove" means in this context though? E.g. do you think they really settled anything, the way we can prove a math theorem or verify some physical theory to hold (as a predictive model) to the nth degree of precision? >When I read the description, I understand "determines" as in, your thoughts internally work in terms of language processing, so their complexity is limited to the complexity of the language(s) you know. That would mean that developing further language is impossible or even that developing the first languages would be impossible - as those nearly language-less peoples have no means to develop those more complex later concepts. It's not like e.g. Europeans (let's take them as a model of "advanced" language) emerged in nature in fully formed ancient Greek, Latin, English, French, etc. They started with the same or even more "constrained" languages (verbally and conceptually) as any primitive people, and - going back to our forefathers - even language-less.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      > What do you think "disprove" means in this context though? What it means for every scientific hypothesis: it takes infinite amount of evidence to positively prove it, but it takes one counterexample to kill it. +/- the usual uncertainty caveats. > That would mean that developing further language is impossible or even that developing the first languages would be impossible Not necessarily. It would mean that you can't think about some concepts without first extending the language to support them. Languages still could be extended piece by piece.
      - coldtea 5y ago
        >What it means for every scientific hypothesis: it takes infinite amount of evidence to positively prove it, but it takes one counterexample to kill it. +/- the usual uncertainty caveats. Only in such soft sciences you can "prove" any number of competing hypothesis, and have fractions arguing about them for decades or centuries. And whether a "counter example" is valid and "kills" a theory, will be a matter of interpretation and endlessly debated as well. >It would mean that you can't think about some concepts without first extending the language to support them. Languages still could be extended piece by piece. If you can always extend a language to new concepts, the language is not limiting in the strong SWH sense. If it was it would be impossible to reach those concepts from a reduced set of concepts.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  > Well, DUH! Did anybody put forward the first version which sounds like a strawman? A lot of proto-linguistic (I say proto because linguistics want a real discipline yet) thought in the '50s-'60s did actually believe this. It was the informal basis for teaching lots of colonized peoples Western languages. It was the basis for the book 1984's Newspeak. It was also the hypothesis that motivated the creation of the Loglan (predecessor to the more well known, but still obscure, language Lojban) language. That you find this to be a strawman argument is a good testament to how widespread the knowledge of its disproval has become. N.B. I also think in the pop programming language world (e.g. Twitter rants) that a lot of folks genuinely believe something similar to Strong Sapir-Whorf, at least as applied to programming languages.
  - ScottBurson 5y ago
    Having actually worked with James Cooke Brown on Loglan (I wrote the first Yacc grammar for it), I have to say my recollection is that Jim's view was more tentative and nuanced than you've made it sound. While we certainly enjoyed finding things that seemed easier to say in Loglan than English, I don't recall him ever suggesting that there might be a thought that a non-Loglan speaker couldn't think. I think it would be fairer to say that he was convinced that Whorfian effects were strong enough that there would be value in engineering a language to take advantage of them. But while value is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, I would say this hypothesis has not held up well either.
    - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
      Thanks. My understanding was that Loglan was simply a mechanism to play around with the Sapir-Whorf theory among humans, but thanks for the additional context/correction.

coldtea 5y ago

Well, DUH! Did anybody put forward the first version which sounds like a strawman? "language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists" The use of words like "determine" appears to make it look bogus. Whereas "influences" basically means the same thing (in practical terms, strongly influences is just as good as determines).

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Well, based on my own introspection, the strong version looks obviously true to me - so I'm glad someone took time to disprove it. When I read the description, I understand "determines" as in, your thoughts internally work in terms of language processing, so their complexity is limited to the complexity of the language(s) you know. It sounds plausible, but also testable by checking if humans who never learned a language with complex grammar are capable of processing complex concepts.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  For a long time in human history people did not accept the existence of negative numbers; a Greek mathematician couldn't solve x+1=0 for example (this one also has "zero" in it, which also did not exist for some mathematicians). This seems like a decent example for linguistic categories limiting the thinkable categories. Other Greek examples: Zeno's paradoxes, irrational numbers, ...
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >This seems like a decent example for linguistic categories limiting the thinkable categories. As in absolutely limiting them, though? Like the Ancient Greeks, those who invented zero, didn't have it previously in their language, and couldn't do zero-based equations before either.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    Seems like a bad one. New concepts are given new names, or borrowed names, when they’re introduced. The first guy to come up with zero didn’t speak a language with a word for zero at the time.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >I'm glad someone took time to disprove it What do you think "disprove" means in this context though? E.g. do you think they really settled anything, the way we can prove a math theorem or verify some physical theory to hold (as a predictive model) to the nth degree of precision? >When I read the description, I understand "determines" as in, your thoughts internally work in terms of language processing, so their complexity is limited to the complexity of the language(s) you know. That would mean that developing further language is impossible or even that developing the first languages would be impossible - as those nearly language-less peoples have no means to develop those more complex later concepts. It's not like e.g. Europeans (let's take them as a model of "advanced" language) emerged in nature in fully formed ancient Greek, Latin, English, French, etc. They started with the same or even more "constrained" languages (verbally and conceptually) as any primitive people, and - going back to our forefathers - even language-less.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    > What do you think "disprove" means in this context though? What it means for every scientific hypothesis: it takes infinite amount of evidence to positively prove it, but it takes one counterexample to kill it. +/- the usual uncertainty caveats. > That would mean that developing further language is impossible or even that developing the first languages would be impossible Not necessarily. It would mean that you can't think about some concepts without first extending the language to support them. Languages still could be extended piece by piece.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >What it means for every scientific hypothesis: it takes infinite amount of evidence to positively prove it, but it takes one counterexample to kill it. +/- the usual uncertainty caveats. Only in such soft sciences you can "prove" any number of competing hypothesis, and have fractions arguing about them for decades or centuries. And whether a "counter example" is valid and "kills" a theory, will be a matter of interpretation and endlessly debated as well. >It would mean that you can't think about some concepts without first extending the language to support them. Languages still could be extended piece by piece. If you can always extend a language to new concepts, the language is not limiting in the strong SWH sense. If it was it would be impossible to reach those concepts from a reduced set of concepts.
Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> Well, DUH! Did anybody put forward the first version which sounds like a strawman? A lot of proto-linguistic (I say proto because linguistics want a real discipline yet) thought in the '50s-'60s did actually believe this. It was the informal basis for teaching lots of colonized peoples Western languages. It was the basis for the book 1984's Newspeak. It was also the hypothesis that motivated the creation of the Loglan (predecessor to the more well known, but still obscure, language Lojban) language. That you find this to be a strawman argument is a good testament to how widespread the knowledge of its disproval has become. N.B. I also think in the pop programming language world (e.g. Twitter rants) that a lot of folks genuinely believe something similar to Strong Sapir-Whorf, at least as applied to programming languages.
- ScottBurson 5y ago
  Having actually worked with James Cooke Brown on Loglan (I wrote the first Yacc grammar for it), I have to say my recollection is that Jim's view was more tentative and nuanced than you've made it sound. While we certainly enjoyed finding things that seemed easier to say in Loglan than English, I don't recall him ever suggesting that there might be a thought that a non-Loglan speaker couldn't think. I think it would be fairer to say that he was convinced that Whorfian effects were strong enough that there would be value in engineering a language to take advantage of them. But while value is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, I would say this hypothesis has not held up well either.
  - Karrot_Kream 5y ago
    Thanks. My understanding was that Loglan was simply a mechanism to play around with the Sapir-Whorf theory among humans, but thanks for the additional context/correction.