Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address

1. Strong Version

1.1. Linguistic Determinism

1.1.1. Thoughts and behaviour are determined by language

1.1.2. Language you speak determines how you interpret the world around you

1.1.3. "No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality "The worlds in which different societies live are different worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached"

2. Weak Version: More Accepted

2.1. Linguistic Relativity

2.1.1. The way we see the world may be influenced by the kind of language we use Language heavily influences thought Language does not influence thought Disputes Language partially influences thought Concept of codability

2.1.2. Differences Emphasizes potential for thinking to be influenced rather than unavoidably determined Two-way process: the kind of language we used in also influenced by the way we see the world Accepts that any influence is ascribed not to language, but to the use within a language of one variety rather than another, i.e sociolect Underscores the social context of language use rather than to purely linguistic considerations

3. Critiques

3.1. Unable to make assertions about reality because of doubting one's own ability to correctly describe reality

3.2. Lack of empirical support: only language nuances used to prove vast differences between language and then expecting readers to infer those difference in thoughts and behaviour

3.3. Danger of inescapable circularity: We observe that languages differ and conclude that the thought of their speakers also differ, but the only evidence is that their thoughts differ because of the language they use

4. Examples

4.1. Gasoline drums Vs. EMPTY Gasoline drums

4.1.1. People's interpretation of the linguistic sign EMPTY influenced their perception of these drums as being safer than their FULL counterparts, and obscured the fact that they still contained explosive vapour

4.2. WALK-AWAY SAFE nuclear plants

4.2.1. Members of public: 'People living nearby could walk rather than run, from the area in the event of an accident"

4.2.2. Technical community: A plant which can automatically shut itself down if necessary