There are two types of linguistic relativity: “strong” and “weak”. Usually, when people simply say “linguistic relativity”, they’re talking about the strong view.
In the “strong” view, language limits your thought, perception, etc. You’d be completely unable to understand certain concepts, unless your language has words for them. Nowadays we know it to be false, but in Orwell’s times it was popular, and Orwell was clueless about how languages work, so he used it in 1984 (that’s where Newspeak comes from).
In the “weak” view, language doesn’t dictate your thought or perception, but influences them a bit. It’s probably true, but it’s a rather trivial conclusion.
So, for example. Let’s say there’s some language out there using the exact same word for two different concepts:
unrestricted, unchained, unbound
costless, at no exchange of money
If the strong version was true, a monolingual speaker of said language would be completely unable to tell both concepts apart. But since the weaker version is true, they can do it; it’s just they’ll have a bit of a harder time. (The language from the example is English, by the way. Cue to “free beer” and “free software”.)
I don’t know if I missed it, but I don’t think it’s been disproven. I actually think it’s true still, though maybe not as dramatic as 1984 would say.
For example, IQ tests (in particular old ones, as modern ones try to control for this) are built on a modern western sensibility. However, the way some cultures handle different concepts can be different, and it can measure it poorly.
As an example of this, classic Greek math is built on geometry. Having that basis on math makes solving certain problems significantly easier, but equally it makes some things, like calculus, significantly more difficult. It’s much harder to do abstract math when you’re mind is trained on concrete shapes.
i’m interested–further reading on this?
There are two types of linguistic relativity: “strong” and “weak”. Usually, when people simply say “linguistic relativity”, they’re talking about the strong view.
In the “strong” view, language limits your thought, perception, etc. You’d be completely unable to understand certain concepts, unless your language has words for them. Nowadays we know it to be false, but in Orwell’s times it was popular, and Orwell was clueless about how languages work, so he used it in 1984 (that’s where Newspeak comes from).
In the “weak” view, language doesn’t dictate your thought or perception, but influences them a bit. It’s probably true, but it’s a rather trivial conclusion.
So, for example. Let’s say there’s some language out there using the exact same word for two different concepts:
If the strong version was true, a monolingual speaker of said language would be completely unable to tell both concepts apart. But since the weaker version is true, they can do it; it’s just they’ll have a bit of a harder time. (The language from the example is English, by the way. Cue to “free beer” and “free software”.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
I don’t know if I missed it, but I don’t think it’s been disproven. I actually think it’s true still, though maybe not as dramatic as 1984 would say.
For example, IQ tests (in particular old ones, as modern ones try to control for this) are built on a modern western sensibility. However, the way some cultures handle different concepts can be different, and it can measure it poorly.
As an example of this, classic Greek math is built on geometry. Having that basis on math makes solving certain problems significantly easier, but equally it makes some things, like calculus, significantly more difficult. It’s much harder to do abstract math when you’re mind is trained on concrete shapes.