3 ms·

> linguistic relativism is a really hot button issue in linguistics, because it obviously correlates with certain ideological worldviews one way or another. I

> linguistic relativism is a really hot button issue in linguistics, because it obviously correlates with certain ideological worldviews one way or another. If you actually look at the data... it's complicated. In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right. Probably there is some symbiotic relationship between the concepts we express in language and the saliency of certain distinctions in our habitual cognition. IOW, it's highly unlikely that the Ancient Greeks didn't perceive the colour blue (much less so that this was caused by their language), but it is possible that the distinction between the colour blue and certain other colours was not seen as as significant as other distinctions (e.g. saturation, brightness). But all this theory ultimately stems from this one expression in Homer about the "wine-red sea" and one can only speculate. If you want a good pop-sci overview of the situation, though still written by a linguist, try Guy Deutscher's "Through the Looking Glass". That said, he does come down a bit more on the pro-relativism side, so you may also want to read the counterarguments in John McWhorther's "The Language Hoax", which I haven't read though.

Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
The book is "Through the Language Glass", which I agree is very good.
- Tainnor 4y ago
  Of course. It's a clear reference to Lewis Carroll, something which I obviously remembered better than the actual title of the book. Thanks for correcting.
Swizec 4y ago
Not having the word for a color, or living in an environment where it doesn’t feel relevant, does impact your ability to distinguish that color. You can still see it, of course, but it takes you measurably longer to perceive. Almost like a form of mild color blindness. Like you have to focus harder to tell colors apart if you don’t have a word for them. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701644104 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701644104
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  It's never been very clear to me that these kind of studies where you measure response time differences (usually measured in tens or hundreds of milliseconds) are really all that insightful, or say all that much about anything meaningful. In this case, the English speakers were actually faster than Russian speakers, and the accuracy was identical, only when "two colours if they fell into different linguistic categories in Russian" were the Russian speakers faster. Plus "English speakers as a group drew nearly the same boundary as did the Russian speakers". In this case it seems like a categorizing problem: it's not that English speakers can't distinguish the colours, it's just that the boundaries of your categories are less clearly defined than in Russian, so it takes a few more brain cycles to select the right category. I think everyone already agrees that some concepts can be easier or harder to express in certain languages (as a simple example, in Dutch there is no word for sibling). I don't really read any support for a "mild colour blindness" in that study.
a1369209993 4y ago
> In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I believe the relevant quote goes something like: "The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously false to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for. The weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously true to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for." (In the context of a formulation where the strong version is that language limitations make certain things impossible to think or express, and the weak version is that language limitations just make certain things difficult or inconvenient to think or express.)
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  You've got some very significant equivocation going on there though. The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that the lack of a familiar term makes things difficult to think. The obvious proof of the weak hypothesis proves that lack of a familiar term makes concepts difficult to express. It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    > It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept. As the quote suggests, it very much is obvious to anyone who has felt the need to coin a new term in order to reduce difficulty in thinking about a concept.

Ichthypresbyter 4y ago

The book is "Through the Language Glass", which I agree is very good.

Tainnor 4y ago
Of course. It's a clear reference to Lewis Carroll, something which I obviously remembered better than the actual title of the book. Thanks for correcting.

Swizec 4y ago

Not having the word for a color, or living in an environment where it doesn’t feel relevant, does impact your ability to distinguish that color. You can still see it, of course, but it takes you measurably longer to perceive. Almost like a form of mild color blindness. Like you have to focus harder to tell colors apart if you don’t have a word for them. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701644104 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701644104

Beltalowda 4y ago
It's never been very clear to me that these kind of studies where you measure response time differences (usually measured in tens or hundreds of milliseconds) are really all that insightful, or say all that much about anything meaningful. In this case, the English speakers were actually faster than Russian speakers, and the accuracy was identical, only when "two colours if they fell into different linguistic categories in Russian" were the Russian speakers faster. Plus "English speakers as a group drew nearly the same boundary as did the Russian speakers". In this case it seems like a categorizing problem: it's not that English speakers can't distinguish the colours, it's just that the boundaries of your categories are less clearly defined than in Russian, so it takes a few more brain cycles to select the right category. I think everyone already agrees that some concepts can be easier or harder to express in certain languages (as a simple example, in Dutch there is no word for sibling). I don't really read any support for a "mild colour blindness" in that study.

a1369209993 4y ago

> In my view, neither the hardcore relativists nor the hardcore universalists are right. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but I believe the relevant quote goes something like: "The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously false to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for. The weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is obviously true to anyone who's ever felt the need to coin a new term to describe something they didn't previously have words for." (In the context of a formulation where the strong version is that language limitations make certain things impossible to think or express, and the weak version is that language limitations just make certain things difficult or inconvenient to think or express.)

thaumasiotes 4y ago
You've got some very significant equivocation going on there though. The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that the lack of a familiar term makes things difficult to think. The obvious proof of the weak hypothesis proves that lack of a familiar term makes concepts difficult to express. It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept.
- a1369209993 4y ago
  > It is not obvious that difficulty in coining a term reflected any difficulty in thinking of the concept. As the quote suggests, it very much is obvious to anyone who has felt the need to coin a new term in order to reduce difficulty in thinking about a concept.