I believe linguistic relativity and Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis are the usual names for this idea. I also believe it’s been mostly discredited in linguistic circles, but it’s been a while since I talked about it with a linguist, so you should do your own research.
Thank you! I tend to remember ideas better than their names. (And linguistic relativity is a horrible name for that idea, IMHO.)
A quick glance around the internet suggests that Sapir and Whorf’s versions of the theory—that language affects thought, but doesn’t strictly determine it—enjoys moderate empirical support and continuing professional support. The stronger variants, broadly linguistic determinism, seem to be largely discredited.
I believe linguistic relativity and Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis are the usual names for this idea. I also believe it’s been mostly discredited in linguistic circles, but it’s been a while since I talked about it with a linguist, so you should do your own research.
Thank you! I tend to remember ideas better than their names. (And linguistic relativity is a horrible name for that idea, IMHO.)
A quick glance around the internet suggests that Sapir and Whorf’s versions of the theory—that language affects thought, but doesn’t strictly determine it—enjoys moderate empirical support and continuing professional support. The stronger variants, broadly linguistic determinism, seem to be largely discredited.