this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2025
20 points (100.0% liked)

Linguistics

751 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

Everyone is welcome here: from laypeople to professionals, Historical linguists to discourse analysts, structuralists to generativists.

Rules:

  1. Instance rules apply.
  2. Be reasonable, constructive, and conductive to discussion.
  3. Stay on-topic, specially for more divisive subjects. And avoid unnecessary mentioning topics and individuals prone to derail the discussion.
  4. Post sources when reasonable to do so. And when sharing links to paywalled content, provide either a short summary of the content or a freely accessible archive link.
  5. Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
  6. Have fun!

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 9 points 2 months ago

Good article. I'll mostly nitpick, and add further info.

That 1.5 billion number is a red herring. It's mostly non-native speakers, using English as a lingua franca. However, the impact of your native language over your thinking is clearly bigger than the one of some lingua franca; as such these numbers here are more relevant.

And for most part you don't see stable communities shifting their language into a lingua franca. Most of the time they do it because their government explicitly or implicitly backs up another language - i.e. a "national language".

But Macron et al. won't mention that, right? Of course he won't; because once you acknowledge that national languages are the problem, specially when associated with a colonial past, then French is part of the problem alongside English. (Plus quite a few other languages.)

What if language is less like a yoke than like a wind, nudging us in various directions?

That's a great way to phrase it.

And, really, strong Sapir-Whorf (language dictates thought) is so blatantly false that it isn't even interesting any more. The moderate/"weak" hypothesis, more aligned with what Whorf himself said, is likely true - and we should be studying how and when it is true.