If it helps you to view language this way, then I think that’s great. But you should also recognize that yours is not a universal understanding of what’s connoted by this grammatical structure.
I really sympathize with chronic pain, as I also suffer chronic pain. But for me, I don’t think changing the words I use would really help me.
And that’s completely ok if it doesn’t help you, I don’t mean to invalidate your own experience. I was using a personal anecdote to show how language can influence thought, though there are better examples- like the Australian Aboriginal tribal languages that lack words for “left” and “right” and refer to everything relative to cardinal directions. As a result, they have impeccable senses of direction.
Or another example, linguistic relativity in colours (ie. Languages without a word for a colour like pink might have trouble distinguishing pink from red).
And if reframing words wasn’t helpful for some people, there wouldn’t be Narrative Therapy centres still running.
But you should also recognize that yours is not a universal understanding of what’s connoted by this grammatical structure.
What does this even mean?
Are you really telling a person with chronic pain that they don’t understand their coping mechanisms? That they shouldn’t do it because you don’t like it?
No, I’m not saying that. I think I clearly indicated that I approve of your coping mechanism with the my first sentence, “I think that’s great.” I meant that genuinely.
I’m saying I don’t think your coping mechanism reflects a deep linguistic truth.
That’s okay, it doesn’t need to be linguistically precise to help with pain. If it works as a coping mechanism for you, it might work for others. But because I don’t think it reflects a deep linguistic truth, I don’t think this coping mechanism is likely to be widely useful for everyone with chronic pain, and I don’t think this is likely to be helpful for many non-chronic-pain-havers to better understand chronic pain. Or perhaps it might help some people understand better, but if one’s not clear that this is a coping mechanism that helps psychologically, and instead presented as linguistic fact, I think it will actually be on net harmful to the credibility of people with chronic pain.
Okay, so I guess part of where we differ is that I completely reject the idea of ‘linguistic truth’. To me, there is no one singular way to communicate that is ‘correct’, all behavior is a form of communication and language is descriptive and not prescriptive. It’s inherently subjective and not objective.
I also do the reframing to help with my mental health problems, and don’t think about it as linguistic fact, I’m just looking for different words to describe the same feeling, but choosing my words based on connotation. It’s almost super-linguistic, in that it’s about the meta understanding and not the dictionary definition.
instead presented as linguistic fact, I think it will actually be on net harmful to the credibility of people with chronic pain.
There is no such thing as a ‘linguistic fact’, what meta meaning words have will change based on geographical location.
If it helps you to view language this way, then I think that’s great. But you should also recognize that yours is not a universal understanding of what’s connoted by this grammatical structure.
I really sympathize with chronic pain, as I also suffer chronic pain. But for me, I don’t think changing the words I use would really help me.
And that’s completely ok if it doesn’t help you, I don’t mean to invalidate your own experience. I was using a personal anecdote to show how language can influence thought, though there are better examples- like the Australian Aboriginal tribal languages that lack words for “left” and “right” and refer to everything relative to cardinal directions. As a result, they have impeccable senses of direction.
Or another example, linguistic relativity in colours (ie. Languages without a word for a colour like pink might have trouble distinguishing pink from red).
And if reframing words wasn’t helpful for some people, there wouldn’t be Narrative Therapy centres still running.
What does this even mean?
Are you really telling a person with chronic pain that they don’t understand their coping mechanisms? That they shouldn’t do it because you don’t like it?
No, I’m not saying that. I think I clearly indicated that I approve of your coping mechanism with the my first sentence, “I think that’s great.” I meant that genuinely.
I’m saying I don’t think your coping mechanism reflects a deep linguistic truth.
That’s okay, it doesn’t need to be linguistically precise to help with pain. If it works as a coping mechanism for you, it might work for others. But because I don’t think it reflects a deep linguistic truth, I don’t think this coping mechanism is likely to be widely useful for everyone with chronic pain, and I don’t think this is likely to be helpful for many non-chronic-pain-havers to better understand chronic pain. Or perhaps it might help some people understand better, but if one’s not clear that this is a coping mechanism that helps psychologically, and instead presented as linguistic fact, I think it will actually be on net harmful to the credibility of people with chronic pain.
Okay, so I guess part of where we differ is that I completely reject the idea of ‘linguistic truth’. To me, there is no one singular way to communicate that is ‘correct’, all behavior is a form of communication and language is descriptive and not prescriptive. It’s inherently subjective and not objective.
I also do the reframing to help with my mental health problems, and don’t think about it as linguistic fact, I’m just looking for different words to describe the same feeling, but choosing my words based on connotation. It’s almost super-linguistic, in that it’s about the meta understanding and not the dictionary definition.
There is no such thing as a ‘linguistic fact’, what meta meaning words have will change based on geographical location.