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 think that’s a different issue. Their childish and individualistic views over freedom don’t seem to be caused by the word itself, or can mean both “costlessness” and “freedom”. They look more like failure to notice freedom is a gradation (you can have more or less of it) instead of a binary (you either have it, or you don’t).
I wonder if it isn’t due to Cold War times propaganda. Something like “you either have freedom or you don’t. We have it, our enemies don’t.”
They also seem to have a really hard time understanding the basic principle of civility, that sometimes one’s freedoms enter in conflict with another’s.
I’m sure the cold war plays a part, yeah. But the word itself has kind of become an empty signifier for generic “conservative American-ness” divorced from the actual meaning of the word. (See: referring to imperial measures as “Freedom Units”)
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”.)
Given how confused Americans are about “freedom,” even the weak version isn’t to be taken lightly
I think that’s a different issue. Their childish and individualistic views over freedom don’t seem to be caused by the word itself, or can mean both “costlessness” and “freedom”. They look more like failure to notice freedom is a gradation (you can have more or less of it) instead of a binary (you either have it, or you don’t).
I wonder if it isn’t due to Cold War times propaganda. Something like “you either have freedom or you don’t. We have it, our enemies don’t.”
They also seem to have a really hard time understanding the basic principle of civility, that sometimes one’s freedoms enter in conflict with another’s.
I’m sure the cold war plays a part, yeah. But the word itself has kind of become an empty signifier for generic “conservative American-ness” divorced from the actual meaning of the word. (See: referring to imperial measures as “Freedom Units”)