{ "model": { "rank": 6520, "code": "thing-q179677", "model_id": "vr.tr.sapir-whorf-hypothesis", "name": "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to identify a Sapir-Whorf claim, assess the evidence for its proposed language-thought relationship, and determine which interpretations or applications that evidence permits.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q179677/", "tier": 2, "score": 60, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 60, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q179677", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q179677", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T15:02:35Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.00678844, "turns": 1, "seconds": 40.7, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 80.4, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07c63-44c6-7512-82f8-301e0d25e373\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Sapir-Whorf hypothesis\nRegistry id: vr.tr.sapir-whorf-hypothesis\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q179677", "registryId": "vr.tr.sapir-whorf-hypothesis", "name": "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q179677/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.sapir-whorf-hypothesis", "name": "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to identify a Sapir-Whorf claim, assess the evidence for its proposed language-thought relationship, and determine which interpretations or applications that evidence permits.", "definition": "The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the claim that the grammatical and lexical categories of a language systematically constrain or bias the thought, perception, and memory of its speakers, ranging from a strong (and now largely rejected) linguistic-determinist reading to a weaker, empirically investigated linguistic-relativist reading.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the formulation, boundaries, proposed mechanisms, evidential state, and warranted use of claims grouped under the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, while preserving distinctions between linguistic determinism and more limited linguistic relativity.", "in_scope": [ "Precisely formulated claims about how language influences or constrains thought", "Distinctions between deterministic, probabilistic, habitual, and task-dependent interpretations", "Proposed links between particular linguistic features and specified cognitive outcomes", "Evidence that distinguishes linguistic influence from cultural, environmental, and experimental alternatives", "Limits on generalisation across languages, speakers, cognitive domains, and tasks" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Complete descriptions of the languages or grammatical systems being compared", "General models of cognition, perception, memory, or reasoning", "Comprehensive accounts of culture and its transmission", "Language acquisition and bilingual development except where they test a specified claim", "Translation quality and lexical equivalence except where they bear on a specified cognitive prediction", "Biographies and complete intellectual histories of associated researchers" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A qualifying claim specifies a direction from linguistic structure or use to a cognitive outcome; a language difference alone is insufficient.", "The model distinguishes a claim that language makes a thought unavailable from one that changes its likelihood, accessibility, speed, or habitual use.", "A claim about thought must identify evidence beyond differences in the words participants produce, or explain why a verbal measure validly measures the proposed cognitive outcome.", "Cross-language differences must be assessed against cultural and environmental explanations before being treated as evidence of linguistic influence.", "Absence of a single-word translation does not by itself establish absence of the corresponding concept." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Claim strength", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Deterministic constraint; probabilistic influence; habitual attention; task-dependent effect; unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Determines what evidence would support the claim and what counterexample would challenge it." }, { "name": "Linguistic predictor", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links the claim to a specified lexical distinction, grammatical category, construction, discourse practice, or pattern of language use", "why_it_matters": "Prevents the label of a language from substituting for an identified explanatory feature." }, { "name": "Cognitive target", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Perception; attention; categorisation; memory; spatial representation; temporal representation; reasoning; other explicitly defined target", "why_it_matters": "Bounds the claim to the mental operation actually proposed or measured." }, { "name": "Effect magnitude", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Outcome-specific units or a named standardised effect measure, with uncertainty and comparison condition; unknown when unmeasured", "why_it_matters": "Separates detectable differences from claims about substantial cognitive constraints." }, { "name": "Effect persistence", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "During language use; immediate carryover; sustained beyond the task; mixed; untested", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes temporary linguistic mediation from a proposed enduring cognitive pattern." }, { "name": "Speaker and language context", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to participants' language repertoires, proficiency, acquisition history, current language use, and relevant cultural context", "why_it_matters": "Avoids assuming that all speakers assigned to a language group have equivalent linguistic experience." }, { "name": "Evidence assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; provisionally supported within stated bounds; mixed; challenged; insufficiently testable", "why_it_matters": "Makes the assessment conditional on a particular claim and evidence set rather than assigning one verdict to the entire hypothesis family." }, { "name": "Alternative explanations", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to specified cultural, ecological, educational, measurement, sampling, and task-related explanations and their assessment", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether an observed difference warrants a causal interpretation." } ], "affordances": [ "Translate an invocation of Sapir-Whorf into a bounded, testable language-thought claim.", "Compare competing formulations without merging determinism with limited linguistic influence.", "Connect each prediction to relevant evidence, counterevidence, and unresolved alternatives.", "Identify observations or experiments that could distinguish proposed mechanisms.", "Restrict summaries and applications to the speakers, cognitive outcomes, and conditions actually supported.", "Revise a claim's evidential state when new findings or methodological criticisms become available." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "sep-relativity", "title": "The Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis", "url": "", "what_it_supports": "Specialist definition of the hypothesis as the claim that language structures constrain or influence thought; the strong vs weak distinction; relation to Sapir and Whorf.", "url_status": "dead" }, { "id": "britannica-swh", "title": "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis", "url": "https://www.britannica.com/science/culture/Language-and-culture", "what_it_supports": "Standard encyclopedia framing of linguistic relativity and the names of Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "wikidata-q199778", "title": "linguistic relativity (Q199778)", "url": "", "what_it_supports": "Canonical identifier, aliases (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis), and neighbouring concepts in knowledge-organization practice.", "url_status": "dead" }, { "id": "boroditsky-how-language", "title": "How Language Shapes Thought", "url": "https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-language-shapes-thought/", "what_it_supports": "Contemporary experimental (neo-Whorfian) uses: color, space, time, gender, and agency effects as the main empirical varieties people distinguish.", "url_status": "live" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "claim-formulation", "name": "Language-thought claim formulation", "description": "Records exactly which interpretation of Sapir-Whorf is being evaluated.", "rationale": "The umbrella name cannot carry a single evidential verdict when its formulations make different predictions.", "layers": [ { "id": "influence-and-constraint", "name": "Influence and constraint", "description": "Separates changes in cognitive tendency from limits on cognitive possibility.", "findings": [ { "id": "strength-of-dependence", "name": "Strength of dependence", "description": "Records whether language is proposed to determine, bias, facilitate, or temporarily mediate the target operation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this formulation claim that a thought is impossible, less likely, slower, or less habitually attended to?", "kind": "definition", "id": "strength-of-dependence-q01" }, { "text": "What observation would count against this exact strength of claim?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "strength-of-dependence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "formulation-provenance", "name": "Formulation provenance", "description": "Distinguishes an attributed formulation from later interpretations and popular restatements.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-and-reconstruction", "name": "Attribution and reconstruction", "description": "Records the source of the claim and any interpretive steps used to make it testable.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which read source states this formulation, and is the wording a quotation, paraphrase, or later reconstruction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-and-reconstruction-q01" }, { "text": "Which commitments belong to that source, and which were added by subsequent researchers or commentators?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-and-reconstruction-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "linguistic-and-cognitive-targets", "name": "Linguistic and cognitive targets", "description": "Connects an identified feature of language to an operationally defined aspect of thought.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish a specific explanatory claim from an undifferentiated comparison between language communities.", "layers": [ { "id": "linguistic-contrast", "name": "Linguistic contrast", "description": "Records the linguistic distinction and speakers' actual exposure to it.", "findings": [ { "id": "feature-and-use", "name": "Feature and use", "description": "Specifies whether the proposed influence arises from available expressions, obligatory distinctions, or recurring usage.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which lexical, grammatical, or usage contrast is proposed to matter, and is it obligatory or optional in the relevant context?", "kind": "definition", "id": "feature-and-use-q01" }, { "text": "How is participants' knowledge or use of this distinction established rather than inferred from their language label?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "feature-and-use-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "cognitive-outcome", "name": "Cognitive outcome", "description": "Separates the proposed mental operation from the response used to observe it.", "findings": [ { "id": "thought-versus-report", "name": "Thought versus report", "description": "Records what a task establishes about cognition beyond naming or describing an answer.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which cognitive operation is targeted, and what observable result would indicate a change in that operation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "thought-versus-report-q01" }, { "text": "Could the observed difference arise entirely from naming, translation, or response selection?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "thought-versus-report-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "mechanisms-and-timescales", "name": "Mechanisms and timescales", "description": "Records how and when the proposed linguistic influence operates.", "rationale": "Immediate use of language and sustained effects of linguistic experience require different predictions and tests.", "layers": [ { "id": "online-linguistic-mediation", "name": "Language use during cognition", "description": "Examines whether task performance depends on language activated during the task.", "findings": [ { "id": "concurrent-language-role", "name": "Concurrent language role", "description": "Records proposed contributions from labels, inner speech, instructions, or the language of testing.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the proposed effect require naming, inner speech, or activation of a particular language during the task?", "kind": "definition", "id": "concurrent-language-role-q01" }, { "text": "What comparison could test that requirement while accounting for the extra demands introduced by interference or language switching?", "kind": "action", "id": "concurrent-language-role-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "experience-and-persistence", "name": "Experience and persistence", "description": "Examines whether repeated linguistic experience is proposed to produce a lasting cognitive tendency.", "findings": [ { "id": "durability-and-change", "name": "Durability and change", "description": "Records predicted persistence and responsiveness to learning or changes in language use.", "questions": [ { "text": "Over what interval and outside which immediate language tasks is the effect predicted to persist?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "durability-and-change-q01" }, { "text": "What longitudinal, training, or within-speaker evidence could distinguish sustained change from short-lived task adaptation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "durability-and-change-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "causal-evidence", "name": "Causal evidence for linguistic influence", "description": "Assesses whether observations distinguish a language effect from competing explanations.", "rationale": "Differences between language groups do not alone identify language as the cause of cognitive differences.", "layers": [ { "id": "comparisons-and-confounds", "name": "Comparisons and confounds", "description": "Records what varies alongside the proposed linguistic predictor.", "findings": [ { "id": "identifying-language-contribution", "name": "Identifying the contribution of language", "description": "Connects each study design to the alternative explanations it can and cannot address.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which cultural, ecological, educational, or sampling differences could explain the result independently of the proposed linguistic feature?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "identifying-language-contribution-q01" }, { "text": "Which comparison or intervention separates the linguistic predictor from these alternatives, and what remains uncontrolled?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "identifying-language-contribution-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "robustness-and-counterevidence", "name": "Robustness and counterevidence", "description": "Records convergence, disagreement, and uncertainty across relevant tests.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-evidence-assessment", "name": "Bounded evidence assessment", "description": "Assesses the specified claim using effect estimates, methodological limitations, replications, and contrary results.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which read studies support or challenge the same prediction, and how comparable are their tasks and participant groups?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "bounded-evidence-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "What do effect sizes and uncertainty intervals permit an agent to conclude, including where null results are inconclusive?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "bounded-evidence-assessment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "generalisation-and-use", "name": "Generalisation and warranted use", "description": "Sets the boundaries of interpretation and downstream application.", "rationale": "A bounded cognitive effect must not become an unsupported claim about everything speakers can think or understand.", "layers": [ { "id": "population-and-domain-boundaries", "name": "Population and domain boundaries", "description": "Limits transfer across speakers, language contexts, and cognitive domains.", "findings": [ { "id": "transfer-limits", "name": "Transfer limits", "description": "Records which extensions have evidence and which remain hypotheses.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the evidence extend to different proficiency levels, multilingual speakers, or contexts of language use?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "transfer-limits-q01" }, { "text": "What additional evidence would justify extending this result to another cognitive domain or everyday behaviour?", "kind": "action", "id": "transfer-limits-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-application", "name": "Interpretation and application", "description": "Determines what an agent may infer, communicate, or propose from the assessed claim.", "findings": [ { "id": "permitted-inferences", "name": "Permitted inferences", "description": "Records defensible summaries and conditions for testing practical applications.", "questions": [ { "text": "How can the result be stated without turning an average task difference into a claim about every speaker's cognitive capacities?", "kind": "action", "id": "permitted-inferences-q01" }, { "text": "What direct evidence is needed before using this claim to change terminology, instruction, translation practice, or interface language?", "kind": "action", "id": "permitted-inferences-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "strong linguistic determinism (language determines thought)", "weak linguistic relativity (language influences thought and perception)", "lexical-semantic relativity (vocabulary and categorization effects)", "grammatical relativity (morphosyntax shaping cognition, e.g. tense, evidentiality, gender)", "neo-Whorfian / experimental linguistic relativity (lab and field tests of specific cognitive effects)", "universalist counter-position (language as a window onto shared cognition rather than a constraint)" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Wikidata", "value_or_pattern": "Q199778", "note": "Item linguistic relativity; also used as the identifier for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as an alias." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Cited in linguistics, cognitive science, and anthropology as the umbrella for experiments on color naming, spatial frames of reference, grammatical gender, and event construal.", "Used in language-teaching, translation, and intercultural-communication training as a caution that categories do not map one-to-one across languages.", "Invoked in public and popular science (often loosely) to claim that a language 'has no word for X' and therefore its speakers cannot think X.", "A standing foil in debates over linguistic universals, innateness, and the design of controlled vocabularies and ontologies." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "color-term discrimination / memory accuracy difference between language groups", "typical_range": "small but reliable group differences on categorical-perception tasks; effect sizes often modest (d often < 0.5 in replication-era work)", "unit": "dimensionless (accuracy, reaction time in ms, or Cohen's d)" }, { "quantity": "spatial-frame preference (relative vs absolute)", "typical_range": "near-categorical community preference in some languages (e.g. Tzeltal absolute vs Dutch relative) versus mixed individual strategies in others", "unit": "proportion of responses / community" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Strong determinism is empirically unsupported: speakers can think about distinctions their language does not grammatically encode.", "Popular 'no word for X' arguments over-read lexical gaps as cognitive impossibilities.", "Whorf's Hopi-time claims were later shown to rest on incomplete linguistic description.", "Confounding language with culture, literacy, or task instructions produces false 'relativity' effects.", "Policy or educational misuse: treating a language as cognitively deficient rather than as a different coding system." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "In Anglophone linguistics the label 'Sapir-Whorf hypothesis' is common in textbooks and popular writing; research papers more often say 'linguistic relativity'.", "German-language scholarship often uses sprachliche Relativität / Relativitätstheorie der Sprache and treats Humboldt as a precursor more explicitly than U.S. sources.", "French usage prefers relativité linguistique; 'hypothèse Sapir-Whorf' is the popular calque.", "Neither Sapir nor Whorf formulated a single named 'hypothesis'; the bundling is a mid-20th-century reception, especially after Brown & Lenneberg and later textbook transmission." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "name": "linguistic determinism", "difference": "Determinism is the strong reading (language makes some thoughts impossible); the hypothesis as used today usually names a weaker influence claim that can be tested and is often only partly confirmed." }, { "name": "linguistic universals / Universal Grammar", "difference": "Universalist programs predict shared constraints on possible languages and thoughts; relativity predicts systematic between-language cognitive differences. They conflict only where a claimed effect would violate a proposed universal." }, { "name": "Humboldtian inner-form of language", "difference": "Humboldt's innere Sprachform is a 19th-century philosophical claim about language as world-disclosure; Sapir-Whorf is the 20th-century empirical research program that inherited that intuition." }, { "name": "labeling / verbal-interference effects in psychology", "difference": "Short-term effects of naming on perception or memory in a single language are processing effects; relativity requires a between-language (or between-coding) contrast." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which historically attributed formulations and contemporary operationalisations should anchor the model's claim categories?", "For which specified linguistic features and cognitive outcomes does evidence withstand the strongest relevant alternative explanations?", "Which reported effects persist beyond immediate linguistic mediation, and how can that persistence be tested convincingly?", "How do multilingual experience, proficiency, and changing language use alter the boundaries of particular claims?", "What evidence supports transferring laboratory effects to everyday reasoning or practical language interventions?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "discipline or field of knowledge", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to identify a Sapir-Whorf claim, assess the evidence for its proposed language-thought relationship, and determine which interpretations or applications that evidence permits.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 60 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 60 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from another, and a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "content-and-access", "name": "Content, encoding and access", "description": "What a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis says, how it is encoded and who may read it.", "rationale": "An informational thing carries content that can be copied, versioned and withheld, none of which its physical carrier explains.", "layers": [ { "id": "content-and-encoding", "name": "Content and encoding", "description": "The content itself, its format and its language.", "findings": [ { "id": "content-and-format", "name": "Content, format and language", "description": "What a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the content of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the content of a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-rights", "name": "Access, rights and retention", "description": "Who may read, copy or change it, and for how long it is kept.", "findings": [ { "id": "access-rules", "name": "Access rules and retention", "description": "The permissions attached to a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about access to a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once access to a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-and-method", "name": "Subject matter and method", "description": "What Sapir-Whorf hypothesis studies and how it establishes anything.", "rationale": "A field is identified by its questions and its methods, and those are what distinguish it from the fields next to it.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject", "name": "Subject matter", "description": "The questions it takes as its own.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-record", "name": "Questions and objects of study", "description": "What it is about, stated so a neighbouring field can be told apart.", "questions": [ { "id": "subject-record-q01", "text": "What questions and objects does Sapir-Whorf hypothesis take as its own?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "subject-record-q02", "text": "Which questions does it share with a neighbouring field, and who claims them?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "method", "name": "Method and evidence", "description": "How claims are established and what counts as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-record", "name": "Methods and standards of evidence", "description": "The methods used and what they are taken to establish.", "questions": [ { "id": "method-record-q01", "text": "By what methods does Sapir-Whorf hypothesis establish claims, and what counts as sufficient evidence?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "method-record-q02", "text": "What kind of claim can this field not settle, and where should an agent look instead?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutions-and-classification", "name": "Institutions and classification", "description": "Where Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is practised and how catalogues place it.", "rationale": "The institutional footprint is the evidence that a field exists as a field rather than as a topic.", "layers": [ { "id": "institutions", "name": "Institutional markers", "description": "Societies, journals, degrees and departments.", "findings": [ { "id": "institution-record", "name": "Bodies and venues", "description": "Where the field organises itself.", "questions": [ { "id": "institution-record-q01", "text": "Which societies, journals or degrees mark Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as an established field?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "institution-record-q02", "text": "What would show that it is emerging or dissolving rather than established?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification", "name": "Classification schemes", "description": "Where library and research classifications put it.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-record", "name": "Codes and their disagreements", "description": "The classification codes that place it, and where they differ.", "questions": [ { "id": "classification-record-q01", "text": "Which classification schemes place Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, under what codes?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "classification-record-q02", "text": "Where do those schemes disagree about its scope?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }