Does English Hide Parts of Reality? | Hibiscus Teach Academic

Start talking

You hear “We have decided.” Are you included in “we”? Invent two situations where the ambiguity matters. Would forcing every speaker to specify inclusion improve communication?

Distinctions English does not always require

Watch for: Which features make particular information explicit or obligatory?

Academic Vocabulary

Read the meanings and examples before watching.

clusivity

A distinction between “we including you” and “we excluding you”.

mark clusivity

Marking clusivity could prevent an invitation from sounding like a decision already made without you.

evidentiality

Grammatical marking of how information is known or obtained.

mark evidentiality

Evidentiality can distinguish what a speaker witnessed from what they heard reported.

grammatical category

A distinction represented systematically in a language’s grammar.

an obligatory grammatical category

An obligatory grammatical category requires a choice even when the speaker considers it unimportant.

absolute direction

Direction expressed through fixed bearings rather than the speaker’s left or right.

use absolute direction

A fixed bearing can remain stable when the person giving directions turns around.

Original source

Fantastic Features We Don’t Have in the English Language · Tom Scott / Tom Scott · Source and credit

Clip A quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then check and read the feedback.

1. Clusivity clarifies…whether a speaker is older than the listener.whether an event occurred before yesterday.whether the addressee belongs to the group meant by “we”.

2. Evidential marking concerns…the number of people mentioned in a sentence.whether the speaker finds a fact morally acceptable.the source or basis of the speaker’s information.

3. Absolute-direction expressions differ from left and right because they…always require a visible written map.change whenever the speaker turns around.refer to fixed bearings rather than the speaker’s orientation.

4. The discussion of time-independent expression raises the possibility of…having no concept of earlier and later events.being unable to describe when anything happened.not making the same tense distinctions English normally requires.

5. English can communicate several of these distinctions by…adding wording or relying on context.forbidding speakers from considering the distinction.creating an entirely new alphabet before speaking.

6. The comparison is most accurately read as showing…a ranking of peoples by intelligence.that English speakers cannot learn unfamiliar concepts.different ways languages package information.

Grammar in a minuteC1–C2 · Obligation versus possibility

Have to marks necessity; can marks possibility. The distinction is central to describing grammatical requirements.

English speakers can specify their source, but they do not always have to mark it grammatically.

Original practice

You say: Explain a feature of a language you know using can and have to precisely.

Useful English

Original practice. Say your response before opening a model.

The language requires speakers to specify…, whereas…

Explain a structural contrast.

You say: Contrast an inclusive/exclusive we distinction with English.

One possible response

The language requires speakers to specify whether the listener is included, whereas English often leaves that to context.

That is a difference in grammatical obligation, not…

Prevent an overstatement.

You say: Someone says English lacks a marker, so its speakers lack the concept.

One possible response

That is a difference in grammatical obligation, not proof that English speakers cannot understand the concept.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Which feature would you add to English, and which conversation would it improve?
Help me start
Demonstrate the before-and-after wording.
One possible response
Clusivity would help when a manager says “we need to change”. It could show whether the manager accepts a share of the work.
Take it further: When might a speaker prefer the ambiguity?
C2 challenge
Explain a social cost as well as an informational benefit of obligatory precision.
Would evidential marking make people more truthful?
Help me start
Separate declaring a source from proving it.
One possible response
It could make the basis of a claim more visible, but a speaker might still misrepresent the source.
Take it further: What additional safeguard would truthfulness require?
C2 challenge
Distinguish a linguistic affordance from a behavioural guarantee.
Would constant use of fixed directions change what you attend to?
Help me start
Offer a hypothesis and a way to test it.
One possible response
It might encourage attention to bearings in daily tasks, but we would need to distinguish language use from environment and training.
Take it further: What comparison would help separate those explanations?
C2 challenge
Propose a test without assuming that language is the sole cause.

Where one colour becomes another

Watch for: Do names divide experience, or determine everything a person can perceive?

Academic Vocabulary

Read the meanings and examples before watching.

categorisation

Grouping things according to perceived or chosen similarities.

linguistic categorisation

Linguistic categorisation may put shades together that another language names separately.

lexical distinction

A contrast made through separate words.

make a lexical distinction

A missing lexical distinction does not by itself prove a missing visual ability.

linguistic relativity

The idea that language can influence habitual thought or attention.

a claim about linguistic relativity

A claim about linguistic relativity needs evidence for the kind and size of the influence.

perceptual discrimination

The ability to notice a difference between sensory inputs.

test perceptual discrimination

Naming two colours differently is not the same task as testing perceptual discrimination.

Original source

All The Colours, Including Grue: How Languages See Colours Differently · Tom Scott / Tom Scott · Source and credit

Clip B quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then check and read the feedback.

1. The example “grue” refers to…a colour category spanning areas English calls green and blue.a colour that only one group’s eyes can detect.a universal replacement for every colour term.

2. Different colour vocabularies show that…the physical spectrum changes with the language spoken.languages need not divide the spectrum at identical boundaries.every named category corresponds to a sharp natural border.

3. A single term covering two English categories does not, by itself, prove…that vocabulary can group several shades together.that speakers can use that term in conversation.that speakers cannot see differences within that category.

4. Why does the speaker compare Russian’s two basic blue terms with English “red” and “pink”?To show that Russian speakers see colours that English speakers cannot detect.To show that English also gives separate basic names to colours that another system could group together.To establish that all colour categories have identical natural boundaries.

5. The broader linguistic point is that familiar English categories…must be incorrect whenever another language differs.are not the only possible way to organise colour terms.can never change through time or use.

6. The most cautious conclusion is that…speakers can see only colours they have single words for.language differences have no possible relation to attention.language can make some distinctions more routine without proving an absolute limit on perception.

Grammar in a minuteC1–C2 · Not necessarily: blocking an invalid inference

Not necessarily denies that a conclusion must follow; it does not assert that the opposite is true.

A shared colour word does not necessarily imply identical perception.

Original practice

You say: Challenge a strong language claim using not necessarily without replacing it with an opposite absolute.

Useful English

Original practice. Say your response before opening a model.

We should separate the naming task from…

Clarify a measurement.

You say: Someone draws a conclusion about eyesight from different labels.

One possible response

We should separate the naming task from the ability to discriminate between two shades.

That would be evidence of an influence, not a demonstration that…

Calibrate a research inference.

You say: A trained group responds faster to familiar colour categories. Qualify the result.

One possible response

That would be evidence of an influence, not a demonstration that language determines everything the group can perceive.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Could learning a new label make you notice something you previously overlooked?
Help me start
Use an example without claiming the object was invisible.
One possible response
Learning terms for musical sounds can direct attention to differences that were already audible. Noticing and sensory capacity are different.
Take it further: What evidence would show a lasting rather than temporary change?
C2 challenge
Distinguish attention, memory and perception as possible explanations.
What would a fair experiment on colour categories need to control?
Help me start
Consider the task, lighting, training and comparison groups.
One possible response
It should avoid confusing label familiarity with visual discrimination and keep the physical stimuli comparable.
Take it further: What would a positive result still leave unresolved?
C2 challenge
Design a result that could count against your preferred explanation.
Does translation necessarily lose meaning?
Help me start
Distinguish brevity from expressibility.
One possible response
A compact marker may require a longer explanation in another language. That is a cost, but not automatically total untranslatability.
Take it further: Which kind of meaning is hardest to preserve in a short exchange?
C2 challenge
Explain a trade-off between linguistic economy, social implication and explicit detail.

Mastery: use your English

Mastery: 6 questions

Original cases. Choose, then explain one answer aloud.

1. A speaker says “we, including you”. This shows English…must include the listener whenever we is used.cannot communicate the distinction at all.can express clusivity without a mandatory single marker.

2. A language marks reported information. A speaker could still…be logically incapable of lying.guarantee the report is independently confirmed.misrepresent the source or report a mistaken account.

3. Two shades share a word but are easily distinguished visually. This separates…language learning from the possibility of communication.lexical categorisation from perceptual discrimination.the physical spectrum from all human sensation.

4. Faster responses after training could reflect…practice or attention as well as a language-related effect.a result that needs no comparison condition.proof of an unchangeable perceptual barrier.

5. “No single word means no concept” mistakes…two equivalent definitions of knowledge.the meaning of a word for its printed length only.lexical economy for conceptual possibility.

6. A balanced account of linguistic relativity would ask…which influence occurs, in which task, and with what evidence.which language produces the most intelligent people.whether every difference proves total determination.

Grammar masteryC1–C2 · Qualification with while

While can acknowledge one fact while limiting what follows from it.

While the labels differ, the speakers may still discriminate the same shades.

Original practice

You say: Acknowledge a real difference while limiting its implications.

Critical Thinking: Add one feature to English

Which ambiguity would the feature resolve?
What would making it obligatory cost?

Original design discussion: propose one optional new grammatical feature for an imagined English variety. Demonstrate two spoken exchanges with it, then decide whether it should be optional or obligatory.

Open only your own role. Share its information by speaking, without showing the card.

Private Role A

Language designer: choose clusivity, evidentiality or a direction convention. Explain a practical benefit and demonstrate the intended meaning without inventing claims about a real language.

Private Role B

Sceptical user: test an inconvenient case. Ask whether the distinction is knowable, socially welcome or burdensome. Offer a revision rather than simply rejecting change.

Demonstrate the old ambiguity and your new version.
Test a difficult case.
Agree whether the feature should be optional.
Revise the claim after the new evidence.

What a strong response does

Explain the category accurately.
Distinguish can from must.
Acknowledge a social cost.
Avoid claiming a word creates the only possible thought.

Help me start

“The feature would make ___ explicit, but speakers might prefer…”

One possible exchange

Designer: An inclusive and exclusive we would clarify who must act.

User: It might also force a manager to exclude someone openly when tact matters.

Designer: Then optional marking may preserve flexibility.

User: And we should describe it as a communication tool, not a cure for ambiguous intentions.

New information: try again

New fictional trial result: users understand the distinction but often choose not to mark it in delicate conversations. Does that show the feature failed, or that the design goal needs revision?

On my own

Take both roles aloud. Pause between them, challenge your first answer and end with a decision that addresses the strongest objection.

One last thought

Complete aloud: “Not having a single word for ___ does not prove ___.”

One-minute takeaway

Choose one answer. Then explain your choice in one sentence aloud.

Start talking

Distinctions English does not always require

Useful English

Where one colour becomes another

Useful English

Mastery: use your English

Critical Thinking: Add one feature to English

One last thought

One-minute takeaway

Practice audio