The moral case against equity language

Re:The moral case against equity language by ccooffee on Thursday March 02, 2023 @02:30PM (#35000636)

Can you provide sources for "the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is more or less rejected by linguists"? I took a university course in "Philosophy of Language" around 2008 and I was taught in no uncertain terms that language structures thought.

The wikipedia article for Linguistic Relativity[0] states:

> Research has produced positive empirical evidence supporting linguistic relativity, and this hypothesis is provisionally accepted by many modern linguists.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The moral case against equity language by scarmig on Thursday March 02, 2023 @02:50PM (#35000952)

That quote is a relatively recent addition (17 Jan 2023) and isn't well-cited. A longer standing and more objective statement from the article:

> Many different, often contradictory variations of the hypothesis have existed throughout its history.[4] The strong hypothesis of linguistic relativity, now referred to as linguistic determinism, says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. This hypothesis was held by some of the early linguists before World War II.[3] This version is generally agreed to be false by modern linguists.[2]

You can read a reasonable discussion of it here:

https://old.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/6aqsex/how_muc...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The moral case against equity language by ccooffee on Thursday March 02, 2023 @07:09PM (#35003916)

Thank you!

[ Parent | on HN ]