Linguistic Relativism and the Expression of Basic Theoretical Rationality in Inuktitut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper begins by stressing the importance of distinguishing between linguistic relativity, whose reality is hardly debatable, and linguistic relativism, which ultimately holds that language communities are locked within their own worldview, hence their own notions of truth. It then rejects linguistic relativism by asserting the existence of a universal core of theoretical rationality comprised at the very least of the logical principles of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle. It goes on to show how this theoretical rationality manifests itself in the lexicon of a language that differs greatly from English: Inuktitut spoken by Inuit of Nunavik (Arctic Quebec). The definitions provided by Taamusi Qumaq for three words relating to critical thought are translated for the first time. Other quotes give examples of theoretical rationality in actual usage. Finally, the paper asks why logic as such is accorded little value in the culture Inuktitut expresses. The suggested answer follows Jack Goody, who holds that a long written tradition is required for the rules of formal logic to take hold in language practices. Writing is not just a transcription of the spoken word; it is an intellectual technology that impacts the way speakers use their language.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".