Principia Discordia > Discordia en Espanol

Gender Neutral Spanich, etc.

<< < (21/21)

rong:
aha - linguistic determinism.  I didn't know it had a name, but that certainly fits the bill. 

although I think it may be a factor in explaining some behaviors, simply trying to find illustrative examples is proving difficult enough to rule out the plausibility altogether.

how many exceptions can a rule have before it is no longer a rule?

Cain:
There is a "soft" version of linguistic determinism, called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In short, this argues that linguistic categories can influence, but do not necessarily drive outcomes. And the thing is, we can of course think of counterexamples. The infamous one is that the Inuit have 3 different words for snow, obviously because they deal with snow more than us down south and so need different words to describe the different qualities of snow they encounter. But just because English doesn't have three different "snow" words doesn't mean that people don't modify "snow" with other descriptions, to achieve the same effect as these three words have.

It's a problematic distinction, especially when considering how language evolves.

rong:

--- Quote from: Cain on May 18, 2020, 02:02:28 pm ---There is a "soft" version of linguistic determinism, called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In short, this argues that linguistic categories can influence, but do not necessarily drive outcomes. And the thing is, we can of course think of counterexamples. The infamous one is that the Inuit have 3 different words for snow, obviously because they deal with snow more than us down south and so need different words to describe the different qualities of snow they encounter. But just because English doesn't have three different "snow" words doesn't mean that people don't modify "snow" with other descriptions, to achieve the same effect as these three words have.

It's a problematic distinction, especially when considering how language evolves.

--- End quote ---

there should be a word for this concept:  linguinfluence?  languence?  influage?  langfluistic?  I think I like the first 2 better.

altered:
The only pretty solid evidence I have found of something like SWH goes the opposite direction: itís easier to discuss something that words encompass; if you need to discuss a novel idea you name it. Language grows in the directions the speakers find most important. And this seems like an iron clad hypothesis, given the existence of jargon, slang and portmanteaus. The inverse is senseless.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version