#Sapir-Whorf theory

[pilcrowtudinous]

fandom joys, like descending into a super academic and conceptual discussion about linguistic relativity and the impact of universal translators on it... all on a wlw ship oriented discord server. (and then i go and do dumb shit like this to tickle myself)

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Natural Language

The philosophy of natural language is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature, origins, and use of language as it is naturally spoken and understood by human beings. It involves the study of how language functions in communication, the relationship between language and thought, the structure and meaning of linguistic expressions, and the role of context in understanding meaning. This field intersects with linguistics, cognitive science, logic, and semiotics, aiming to understand both the abstract properties of language and its practical use in everyday life.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Natural Language:

Meaning and Reference:

Semantics: One of the central concerns of the philosophy of natural language is the study of meaning, known as semantics. Philosophers explore how words and sentences convey meaning, how meaning is structured, and how language relates to the world.

Reference: Reference is the relationship between linguistic expressions and the objects or entities they refer to in the world. Philosophers like Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam have contributed to understanding how names, descriptions, and other expressions refer to things in the world.

Pragmatics:

Context and Meaning: Pragmatics deals with how context influences the interpretation of language. It examines how speakers use language in different contexts and how listeners infer meaning based on context, intentions, and social norms.

Speech Acts: Philosophers such as J.L. Austin and John Searle have explored how utterances can do more than convey information—they can perform actions, such as making promises, giving orders, or asking questions.

Syntax and Grammar:

Structure of Language: Syntax is the study of the rules and principles that govern the structure of sentences in natural languages. Philosophers and linguists investigate how words are combined to form meaningful sentences and how these structures relate to meaning.

Universal Grammar: The concept of universal grammar, proposed by Noam Chomsky, suggests that the ability to acquire language is innate to humans and that there are underlying grammatical principles common to all languages.

Language and Thought:

Linguistic Relativity: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that the structure of a language influences how its speakers perceive and think about the world. Philosophers debate the extent to which language shapes thought and whether different languages lead to different cognitive processes.

Conceptual Frameworks: Language is often seen as providing the conceptual framework through which we interpret the world. Philosophers examine how language structures our understanding of reality and whether it limits or expands our cognitive abilities.

Philosophy of Meaning:

Theories of Meaning: Various theories of meaning have been proposed in the philosophy of language, including:

Descriptivist Theories: These suggest that the meaning of a word or phrase is equivalent to a description associated with it.

Causal Theories: These argue that meaning is determined by a causal relationship between words and the things they refer to.

Use Theories: Inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein, these theories claim that the meaning of a word is determined by its use in the language.

Language and Reality:

Metaphysical Implications: Philosophers explore how language relates to reality, including how linguistic structures might reflect or distort our understanding of the world. This involves questions about whether language mirrors reality or if it plays a role in constructing our experience of reality.

Ontology of Language: This concerns the nature of the entities that linguistic expressions refer to, such as whether abstract objects (like numbers or properties) exist independently of language.

Communication and Interpretation:

Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts. Philosophers in this tradition, such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, explore how understanding is achieved in communication and how meaning is negotiated between speakers and listeners.

Ambiguity and Vagueness: Natural language often contains ambiguity and vagueness, where words or sentences can have multiple interpretations. Philosophers study how these features affect communication and understanding.

Language and Social Interaction:

Language as a Social Phenomenon: Language is inherently social, and its use is governed by social norms and conventions. Philosophers study how language functions in social contexts, how power dynamics influence language, and how language can both reflect and shape social structures.

Language Games: Wittgenstein introduced the concept of "language games" to describe how the meaning of words is tied to their use in specific forms of life or social practices. This concept emphasizes the diversity of language use and the idea that meaning is context-dependent.

Evolution of Language:

Origins of Language: Philosophers and cognitive scientists explore how language evolved in humans, the relationship between language and other forms of communication in animals, and the cognitive capacities required for language.

Language Change: Natural languages are dynamic and constantly evolving. Philosophers study how languages change over time and what this reveals about the nature of meaning and communication.

Critique of Language:

Deconstruction: Philosophers like Jacques Derrida have critiqued traditional notions of language and meaning, arguing that language is inherently unstable and that meaning is always deferred, never fully present or fixed.

Critical Theory: In the tradition of critical theory, philosophers analyze how language can perpetuate power structures, ideologies, and social inequalities, and how it can be used to resist and challenge these forces.

The philosophy of natural language offers a rich and complex exploration of how language functions, how it relates to thought and reality, and how it shapes human interaction and understanding. By examining the nature of meaning, reference, context, and the social dimensions of language, philosophers aim to uncover the fundamental principles that govern linguistic communication and the role of language in human life.

[insightfultake]

How Language Behaves: A Journey Through Communication, Thought, and Identity

Language is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. From the earliest cave paintings to the complex digital communications of today, language is both the medium and the mirror through which we understand the world and express our thoughts, emotions, and ideas. Yet, language is not a static entity. It evolves, adapts, and behaves in ways that reflect the shifting currents of culture, society, and individual consciousness. This article explores how language behaves—its structure, its impact on thought, and its role in shaping both identity and society...read more

[multiplekittens]

Book ask: 11

Ty for asking!!! Most of the books I read aren't new releases, so for the sake of an operational definition I'm gonna answer with the oldest book I gave five stars: Babel-17, by Samuel R. "Chip" Delany! It was the first book I read by him and I definitely want to read more, I was very impressed

[metamatar]

3, 12 and 14 for the book asks :)

3. What were your top five books of the year?

The Traitor Baru Cormorant by Seth Dickinson, Reinventing Revolution by Gail Omvedt, In Theory by Aijaz Ahmed, The Structure of Scientific Revolution by Thomas Kuhn and maybe Harrow the Ninth bc it changed my mind on how interesting the Locked Tomb could be.

12. Any books that disappointed you?

Babel-17 by Sameul Delany, I expected deeper worldbuilding, better poetry and less fantasy misogyny. Maybe I'm harsh on Sapir Whorf. Camus' The Stranger was both boring and also very poor at the commentary it was attempting about Arab men and Algeria, it is somewhat racist tbh. I HATED LADY CHATTERLEY'S LOVER SO MUCH IT WAS SO FASCIST AND BARELY A NOVEL AND NOBODY EVER BRINGS THAT UP SOMEHOW? apparently I forgot I read that book this year it should also be in my most disliked books.

14. What books do you want to finish before the year is over?

I want to finish Romila Thapar's Indian History Textbooks and the last Baru Cormorant before the year is over.

[transsexualism]

hello! long time follower here :) I just wanted to ask if you have any nice resources on translation... if everything goes well, I'm starting a degree in translation and interpretation later this year, and I wanna be a little caught up on the topic :)) no pressure tho!

hi bestie ! this will heavily depend on what your source language is seeing as successful translation depends not only on your knowledge of the language itself, but also your understanding of the two different cultures and therefore ability to find equivalence between them. i would recommend meaning across cultures by eugene nida and something on linguistic relativity aka the sapir-whorf hypothesis (looking up just now, the anthropology of language by h ottenheimer looks promising if basic but i havent actually read it so i cant vouch for it). this is the key linguistic theory that is the foundation of translation as a general field. also i found the culture code by clotaire rapaille just now in recommended reading for my cultural linguistics class, which may be insightful

im unable to rec anything on methodology or specific aspects of translation as a process, partly because as i said it will greatly vary depending on the source language and partly because im not taught in english and therefore most of the resources im familiar with arent in english either fjdjdjdj

i hope it turns out well !!! im excited for you

[theboombutton]

Do you have any linguistics book recommendations for laymen please pleaseeeee I'm desperate

If you want an introduction to linguistics, I highly recommend picking up the textbook for your local university's LING 101 class, rather than a book specifically directed at laypeople.

On top of the usual problems with popular science books - the commonness of quackery in the genre, the reliance on intuition, the forced and flaccid tone of profundity that especially ramps up at the end of every chapter - popular linguistics books in particular are rife with political implications. Linguistics is both a cultural and a psychological topic, which makes it easy for anyone with an agenda (or even no agenda, just underlying bigotry) to write a book and get their ideological fingers up into readers' brains in ways that are sometimes subtle.

Consider the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the idea that the language(s) a person speaks changes the kinds of thoughts they're likely to have. That sounds reasonable, right? If someone asked you to think of a plant, you'd probably pick a plant you had a word for. And by the same principle, maybe people who speak a language without a future tense have a harder time conceptualizing the future! This is the kind of intuitive-but-profound-seeming observation/speculation that pop science books love.

It was also a big part of the rationalization/justification for the Indian residential school system and the suppression of Native languages.

(Also technically English doesn't have a future tense, but no one ever mentions that in the context of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis because the entire point of the thing is to exoticize non-European languages for fun and profit.)

These sorts of just-so stories found in pop linguistics books have profound political implications about mental or cultural diffences (read: usually inferiority) of those who speak languages foreign to the the audience, and more often than you'd think they bypass the bigotry bullshit detectors of otherwise well-intentioned readers - because of the informative tone of the work, the intuitive sense it makes for a language to change the way people think, and above all, "It can't be racist, it's about their language, not their race!"

A textbook can make these errors too, of course - the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis does come up in many introductory textbooks. The difference is that 1. a textbook is far more likely to mention that a given idea is "controversial" or "disputed," since unlike pop science they don't need to keep up the tone of mind-blowing profundity to make sales; and 2. since these sorts of bullshit cognitive linguistics theories are fully in the realm of "wouldn't it be interesting if", there's just not enough to say about any one of them to take up more than a page or two in a book that actually needs to contain information.

So yeah tl;dr just pick up a LING 101 textbook. There'll probably be less bigotry, and you'll actually learn about linguistics instead of the author's pseudoprofound wank.

[stirringwinds]

ngl one thing that makes me really weak for Nedpan is the thought of them being mutually fluent in each other’s languages. precisely because dutch and japanese are so different structurally; there’s so much more effort you have to put in, than if you’re learning within the same language family. and in 1853, when perry’s ships arrive, the americans historically had to use a english-dutch-japanese translation chain to talk to the japanese. 

i feel like dutch was probably the first european language Kiku really made the effort to learn properly because of Jan; like he might’ve picked up a smattering of portuguese but lol, the 1540s—1599 is a lot of ‘political instability at home, too busy being a warlord and also tried to invade korea and then china and failed and died’, compared to the comparative peace of later isolationism. also, portuguese imperial ventures had already begun in the asia-pacific (Macau); Port probably became fluent in at least one chinese dialect (Cantonese, probably) which Kiku would know from centuries of contact with Yao. that ends up being the convenient bridge language. but he’s got a lot more impetus to learn Dutch if he wants to really understand Jan on his own terms. besides dutch studies/rangaku, there were samurai houses whose job was to specialise as dutch interpreters in nagasaki during the isolationist period. 

for Jan, i see him becoming fluent not only with japanese speech, but the writing and even the more archaic, complicated classical japanese. it starts with him crashing ashore with scurvy in that 1600 shipwreck on De Liefde, and facing the uneasy dynamic with the portuguese jesuit missionaries (whom could serve as useful interpreters but also tried to convince tokugawa ieyasu to execute the dutch crew as pirates lol). so that’s what first makes him try to learn Japanese. like damn, it’s easy to take language for granted until you’re tossed in a place where suddenly you’re robbed of the power to make yourself directly understood on a fundamental level. there’s always a potential loss of meaning, expression and intimacy when you have to go through an interpreter. so for Jan, i think it starts out being about practicality—but when you become more and more fluent in a language and then you’re delving into the poems, classics and philosophy of another culture? it becomes something intensely intimate. and just combined with the sapir-whorf theory (the language you speak influences how you think and see the world), it’s poetic! just all ‘we learned each other’s language and culture and therefore each other’. 

[morhath]

hey I saw your tags on that one simpsons linguistics post and like legit curious... what's linguistic relativity? (this is assuming you'd wanna talk about it; if not feel free to tell me to google it 👍)

as much as I love a good rant sadly I have a migraine on top of COVID so I am not up for one right now, so yeah, I recommend looking it up to get The Full Info, the wikipedia page is pretty good

it's also known as the sapir-whorf hypothesis but that's inaccurate

there's a strong version ("language super controls how you think") and a weak version ("language influences how you think a little bit") and as you may be able to guess the strong version is almost definitely wrong while there's decent evidence for the weak version

the basic points of my Entire Rant are:

honestly I'm still a lil suspicious of the weaker version at times/at least suspicious of how it's interpreted

I would like to confiscate the strong version from sff authors for at least twenty years. no more linguistic relativity for you. you can't use it anymore. I'm so tired. Ted Chiang you get an exception because Story of Your Life (short story that was the basis for the movie "Arrival") is very good even if it is scientifically inaccurate. but I think it's overdone, frankly often stupid, and playing into public perception of this kind of stuff which is a problem because...

so much racism all the time (this is a huge part of the previous two points) (I cannot overstate how much racism I encounter with this stuff) (primarily in non-linguistics spaces but still) (I've even fallen for it when I was younger and just interested in linguistics but hadn't studied it yet) (it's so pervasive and so many people believe this shit) (obvi you can't just Take This Theory Away b/c people are being racist about it but I really don't love how people generally talk about/use it)

giant disclaimer tho that this is not really My Area of linguistics so I am BASICALLY a layperson here

also the full rant involves exploding babies and [other main interesting bit redacted because it occurs to me there's a possibility for some sort of paper or talk there actually and I keep SAYING I want to return to the cold and unloving arms of academia]

[connordhm]

The way in which your native language changes your way of thinking is a subject I've always really enjoyed thinking about. I would almost say knowing that everything we give a name to is completely arbitrary helps me calm down at times. It helps you look at the bigger picture, and the occasional expanding of your cognitive lens is always nice. Chapter 2 from Salkeld's book touches on this idea a lot, such as recognizing that the word "dog" is obviously not a naturally occurring conclusion to the naming of said animal, or recognizing that the name a language gives to an object in now way defines or gives meaning to that object. Language is only trying to explain life.

This article, "The Influence Of Language On the Perception Of The World", focused on a fairly stark theory known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, or linguistic relativity, which theorizes that people are directly obstructed or locked into a specific world view based on their mother tongue. While this theory has been mostly deemed false by modern day linguists, a more shallow version of this idea that our thoughts and perceptions are still altered by our language, but not permanently obfuscated is seen as much more possible.

In my opinion these two pieces share a lot of similarities, while one may be more empirical than the other, they both showcase the idea of language's significance on both the way things are portrayed, and how we perceive them.

[wanderlinguachronicles]

Exploring the Tapestry of Words: Delving into Linguistic Anthropology 🗣️🌍

Greetings, fellow linguistic adventurers and curious minds! Lately, my insatiable curiosity has led me down a fascinating path – the realm of linguistic anthropology. As I navigate this rich terrain, I find myself in awe of the intricate connections between language, thought, and the societies that shape us.

The Dance of Language and Thought:

Imagine language as a bridge that connects the realms of thought and communication. Linguistic anthropology unveils the symbiotic relationship between language and our cognitive processes. How we structure words, construct sentences, and convey meaning reflects the nuanced way we perceive the world around us.

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:

One of the captivating theories within linguistic anthropology is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This intriguing concept suggests that the language we use shapes our perception and understanding of reality. In other words, the words we have at our disposal influence how we think, conceptualize, and categorize our experiences.

Language's Impact on Society:

Zooming out to a societal level, language becomes a vessel for cultural transmission and cohesion. Every word, phrase, and dialect carries within it the echoes of the collective wisdom, history, and shared values of a community. Through language, we bind ourselves to the legacies of those who came before us and pave the way for future generations.

Linguistic Relativity:

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis introduces two perspectives: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. The former posits that language entirely shapes our thoughts, limiting us to what can be expressed in our words. The latter suggests that language influences our thoughts but doesn't necessarily determine them, leaving room for cross-cultural comparisons and shared human experiences.

A Linguistic Tapestry of Cultures:

As a linguist, I'm captivated by the idea that every language paints a unique portrait of a culture's worldview. Through the lens of linguistic anthropology, I explore how languages adapt to societal changes, how they reflect power dynamics, and how they mirror cultural shifts, all while influencing how we relate to one another.

In the realm of linguistic anthropology, I find a tapestry woven with the threads of language, thought, and society. Each thread contributes to the intricate patterns that shape our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. With every word we speak and every thought we ponder, we engage in a dance that reflects the essence of who we are.

So, fellow linguistic explorers, let us journey together through the realms of language and culture, unveiling the stories that words whisper and the societies they reflect.

With linguistic wonder and anthropological curiosity,

Lada 🗣️📚🌟

[notesoncrocs]

linguistics is fake (but languages aren't)

it's five a.m. and i'm putting off my final paper (see previous post). i guess my classes this semester have impacted me more than i realized, like it or not, because i'm sitting on the couch thinking about linguistics.

linguistics is fake. you've heard me say this many times, but it's so fake. there are no theories, only hypotheses, because there's no way to prove that anything in that field is real. they cling onto these concepts -- that chomsky stuff, that universal language bullshit -- with a death grip because there hasn't been anything better to come along and disprove them. the kind of person to dedicate their life to the study of linguistics is exactly the kind of person you would imagine: one of those leftover "well actually" kids who never grew out of that phase.

i'm being too mean. but anyway. the one thing i learned that i like in laboratory of psycholinguistics: the study of non-english languages and how they differ from the english language. i liked the one paper we read about people in the amazonia who use a one-two-many system of counting. i liked what my friend jonathan told me, about people in papua new guinea who use a base-37 system of counting that starts with their fingers, then knuckles, wrist, elbow, all the way up to their nose, which is 15, and then reflected all the way down the other arm. i liked the research topic we chose about how color adjectives are used differently in english and spanish to refer to objects, and the implication that we see the world differently depending on the languages we speak (and think in).

i was told after my project and presentation that there is apparently "very little evidence" to support the sapir-whorf hypothesis (linguistic relativity/determinism, that language influences/determines a person's thought), but honestly all you have to do is be bilingual (or just observe a bilingual person) to believe in it. growing up i had two personalities: one for school where i spoke english (when i did work up the nerve to speak), and one for home where i spoke chinese (and suddenly lost all social anxiety).

i don't think that divide ever fully goes away. i still talk to my sister in this funny mixture of chinese and english (we call it chinglish) and i speak to my parents mostly in chinese. when my parents speak chinese (especially in their respective dialects) they change, too — they're funnier, more relaxed, less filtered. they don't have to perform the labor of translating what they want to say in their minds.

it's a little funny that what i got out of this semester-long college psycholinguistics class is the same as if i had just listened to what my parents had been saying all my life. learning and keeping chinese is important. learning languages, really, is important. how can i hope to maintain connections with the people i love if i can't value what they value, can't think how they think, and can't speak the language they speak?

now that the semester's winding down i definitely want to take the time to practice spanish and chinese for this summer. i'll try to practice here sometimes! me gusta leer sobre las aventuras de @emill-lirios, y quiero leer un libro en español después de los examenes. 还有，这个暑假，我想读一读中文的文章，提高我的中文。下个学期我有点想修一门中文课。希望有一天我能读下来我外公写的诗。

goodnight -- the sun is rising and i have to go back and write my paper. here's a picture of callie sleeping <3

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Frame of Reference

The concept of a frame of reference is pivotal in various fields, from physics to linguistics, and it also has significant philosophical implications. In philosophy, a frame of reference generally refers to the perspective or context through which individuals interpret and understand the world. This concept is crucial for discussions about perception, cognition, and relativism.

Understanding Frame of Reference

A frame of reference can be seen as a set of assumptions, beliefs, and values that shape how we perceive and interpret reality. It includes:

Perceptual Frames: The sensory and cognitive processes that influence how we experience the world.

Cultural Frames: The shared beliefs, practices, and values of a particular group that shape members' perspectives.

Conceptual Frames: The underlying theoretical and methodological assumptions that guide scientific and philosophical inquiry.

Key Questions and Issues

Subjectivity and Objectivity: One of the central issues is the tension between subjective and objective frames of reference. While subjective frames are influenced by personal experiences and biases, objective frames aim to provide a neutral and universally applicable perspective. The challenge lies in reconciling these two aspects.

Relativism: The concept of a frame of reference is closely linked to relativism, the idea that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, but only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. Cultural relativism, for example, asserts that beliefs and practices are best understood within their own cultural context.

Language and Interpretation: In linguistics and the philosophy of language, frames of reference are crucial for understanding how meaning is constructed and communicated. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, for instance, suggests that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition.

Scientific Paradigms: In the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigm shifts" highlights how scientific frames of reference evolve over time. A paradigm shift occurs when the dominant scientific framework is replaced by a new one, fundamentally altering the way phenomena are understood.

Epistemology: Frames of reference are essential in epistemology, the study of knowledge. They influence what we consider to be knowledge, how we justify beliefs, and what methodologies we use to acquire knowledge. Different epistemological frameworks, such as empiricism and rationalism, offer distinct ways of understanding the world.

Ethics and Morality: Ethical frames of reference guide moral judgments and actions. Different ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, provide various frameworks for determining what is right or wrong.

Philosophical Implications

Perspectivism: Acknowledging that our understanding is always from a particular perspective can lead to a more tolerant and open-minded approach to different viewpoints. Friedrich Nietzsche's perspectivism, for instance, argues that there are many possible perspectives from which truth can be viewed, each of which can be valid.

Critical Theory: Critical theorists examine how social, economic, and political power structures influence frames of reference. They aim to uncover and challenge the underlying assumptions that perpetuate inequality and injustice.

Hermeneutics: The study of interpretation, especially of texts, involves understanding the frames of reference of both the author and the reader. Hermeneutics explores how context, history, and preconceptions shape our understanding.

The philosophy of frame of reference explores the various contexts and perspectives that shape our interpretation of the world. It is a multifaceted concept with implications for subjectivity, relativism, language, science, epistemology, and ethics. By examining and understanding these frames, we can gain a deeper insight into the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality.

[anshupunreddy]

For my note, I wrote lyrics from “Your Song” by Elton John because it’s a great romantic song and I think everyone should be reminded that people are thankful for them to be in this world.

Attendance Prompt

“The BCC’s assumption was that the confusion was due to ignorant English-speakers not realizing that taupe and mole were different words for the same thing. Marry and Paul were rather more thorough. They set out on an expedition around the zoological museums of the United States and France to look at foreign specimens from the genus Talpa, to determine whether there was a logical reason for using both terms” (p. 257)

I chose this quote because I respect the extreme and diligent efforts of Maerz and Paul for trying to universalize definitions of color. I also thought the quote was interesting because it reminded me of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis I learned in a psychology class. This theory suggests that language influences its speakers perception of the world. This made me wonder whether people of different cultures may perceive colors differently depending on whether they have more words for different shades of color.

[conlangcrab]

#46

A philosophical language without gender. Like completely without it.

I had and have an opinion on this, that since gender in made up bullshit then instead of deepening and trying to include every possible gender out of the infinite number, we should get rid of it completely. Gender roles would soon seize to be due to strong Sapir-Whorf theory. Gender dysphoria would decrease to being purely body dysphoria.

[thursdayisbetterthanfriday]

The shape of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

One of the great things about having more time is the opportunity to read more research papers. This one, which was recently released by the Max Planck Institute is beautiful.

Linguists, or people familiar with language study, might be familiar with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. For everyone else, it can be (overly) simplified to:

The language someone speaks can affect the way people think about reality

It was proposed in the 20th century by two very prominent linguists, who didn’t have the experimental neurological evidence but used theories based on behavioural observations. For Edward Saphir, it was the anthropological study of Native American languages which were rapidly disappearing from the continent over the course of the 20th century.

Now, neuroscience is catching up. Max Planck Institute effectively found evidence that the language we speak shapes the connectivity in our brains that may underlie the way we think.

The researchers took MRT scans of people who spoke two different kinds of languages (Indo-European morphosyntactically complex language {ie. German} and a Semitic root-based language {ie. Arabic}) and found that the respective German and Arabic speakers brain's language networks had specifically adapted to each language. 

Now, this isn’t definitive proof of Sapir-Whorf by any means, and the study is limited to only looking at two types of languages (amongst other limitations), but it’s a promising bit of evidence which could shape our understanding of how language informs our view of the world. Press release: https://www.cbs.mpg.de/2113362/20231603?c=2482 Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811923001015