Linguistic relativism and determinism

The most-cited error. Candidates put the strong claim under the wrong label, or define both with the same verb — "language affects thought" for each, which is one sentence twice. Fix with the word inside the name: determinism determines (therefore cannot); relativism influences (therefore harder). Verb first, consequence second.

Why Level 3 was rare on the extended item. The answer recounts the Dani and Boroditsky accurately, but never says what either does to the theory. Description is AO1; it becomes AO3 only as an argument. Add a so-line: Dani — the thought exists without the word, contradicting determinism; Boroditsky — how time is pictured differs, as relativism predicts.

Scenarios tempt everyday facts, not the theory. Told a man cannot distinguish two shades, candidates say colour-blind — his eyes, not his vocabulary. Asked why two firms time meetings differently, they write time zones and business hours, not the horizontal versus vertical view of time. Test: would it hold if both spoke one language?

A quieter swap: relativism defined as "when language does not fully determine thought." That names no property of its own — only what relativism is not — so it cannot earn the distinguishing mark. Give positive content instead: different languages lead speakers to notice and remember different things.

Two determinist myths. No word, so you cannot see it: false — seeing uses the visual system, not vocabulary, and the Dani distinguish colours they cannot name; relativism only says a named colour is easier to remember. Many words for snow: word counts depend on how you count, and a specialist vocabulary shows the distinction came first, the word second.

Three evaluation slips. Boroditsky is a difference in tendency, never that a group cannot — so it backs relativism, not determinism, which needs impossibility. The Dani result kills the strong version only, leaving the weak one standing. The pair is not true-or-false but one claim at two strengths: strong version ruled out, modest one supported.

Boroditsky is routinely written up as proof of determinism — it is not. Both groups can picture time either way, so nothing was shown impossible, only a tendency. Determinism claims impossibility, and only evidence of impossibility could support it — there is none. Any finding of the form these speakers tend to... supports relativism, nothing stronger.