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

Linguistics

592 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to the community about the science of human Language!

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

Rules:

  1. Stay on-topic. Specially for more divisive subjects.
  2. Post sources whenever reasonable to do so.
  3. Avoid crack theories and pseudoscientific claims.
  4. Have fun!

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week 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.