|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bertrand
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 293
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| This is a ridiculous suggestion and draws on (the dismissed) notion of 'linguistic determinism', viz., the strong version of the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bnix
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 645
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:24 am Post subject: Whorf-Sapir |
|
|
One of the major objections(if not THE major objection) against the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis was that it was not provable.On the other hand,to my knowledge,no one has ever DISPROVED it, either.We are talking about linguistics here,not physics.
Then of course,that onetime linguistic maven Chomsky(still faddish in certain linguistic backwaters) supposedly recanted some of his original drivel,too.Of course, maybe he was more politically correct(well,to some people,at least) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertrand
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 293
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 3:33 am Post subject: Re: Whorf-Sapir |
|
|
| bnix wrote: |
| One of the major objections(if not THE major objection) against the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis was that it was not provable. |
It was certainly thought not to be refutable; at least not to the standards called for by, say, Popperian philosophy. BTW, it's the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis. In fact, a moment's thought will show you it is refutable and is pure rubbish (though I don't have the time or the energy to explain this to someone with no background in this area; it would take too long! [/quote]
| bnix wrote: |
| On the other hand,to my knowledge,no one has ever DISPROVED it, either. |
The key term here is "to my knowledge". A somewhat embarrasing lack of knowledge of the relevant area.
| bnix wrote: |
| We are talking about linguistics here,not physics. |
Both of which apply theoretical stances against empirical data, yes. BTW, it's not linguistics as such, but rather anthropological linguistics or linguistic anthropology.
| bnix wrote: |
| Then of course,that onetime linguistic maven Chomsky(still faddish in certain linguistic backwaters) |
Yes, he is still 'the father of modern linguisitcs', yes. Generative grammar is hardly a "linguistic backwater" and Avram Noam Chomksy is the most widely quoted author on the planet and ranks 6th (or 7th, I forget and have no time to check my non-mental notes) on the list of the top ten quoted writers or writings (such as Plato, the Bible) of all time. Making stupid and ill-informed comments about matters in which you are not versed makes you appear quite silly and immature.
| bnix wrote: |
| supposedly recanted some of his original drivel,too. |
First, what is the reference for the "original drivel"? As an author of an introductory text to Chomsky's particular flavour of linguistics I can say that he has never commented upon or examined the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis. It is mentioned in passing in:
Chomsky, N. (2000) New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (sorry, can't recall the page number off the top of my head - it's been a long time)
as an example of just how far off the mark it is possible to go.
Second, what is the reference to this retraction? Or are you merely repeating something you have over heard and do not understand? You are, of course, doing the latter as there are no such references! (Though I think you are referring to 'the Minimalist Program' which adopts as a central premise of its syntax that all derivations are answerable only to bare output conditions; there is no LF, no PF, no transformations, no DS, no SS, just derivation by phase with the notions of 'merge' and 'crash'. What's the point? You have no idea what I am on about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bnix
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 645
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:06 am Post subject: Sigh..... |
|
|
How do you know I do "not have the background"?Although admittedly I have never written a preface or whatever you say you have written for one of Chomsky's works.Not really worth arguing about,although I AM a bit curious about some of your statements, such as Chomsky being the most often quoted author on the planet.Have some reference to back that one up?
Again(yawn!!!)...nobody probably really cares, anyway...so as far as I am concerned...a "dead thread"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertrand
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 293
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:20 am Post subject: Re: Sigh..... |
|
|
| bnix wrote: |
| How do you know I do "not have the background"? |
From the way you write (incorrectly and in a typical undergraduate way) your messages.
| bnix wrote: |
| Although admittedly I have never written a preface or whatever you say you have written for one of Chomsky's works. |
I said an introductory text; that is not a prefix.
Not really worth arguing about,although I AM a bit curious about some of your statements, such as Chomsky being the most often quoted author on the planet.Have some reference to back that one up?
[/quote]
Yes, this often surprises people! People usually say 'Noam who?' (!) For an informal introduction, try:
http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v9p381y1986.pdf
Such tables are produced from the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, so just look that up to get your proof. Although he is placed 6th or 7th, he is the only person on the list who is currently alive. For general methodology as regards the use of this list, try:
http://www.languageinindia.com/march2001/sharadaindexing.html
For a more in depth analysis of why he has the position he has, check out Barsky's Noam Chomsky: a life of dissent. For a more informal insight, flick through the footnotes of Pinker's The language instinct. Remember that he [Chomsky] often publishes in linguistics, political economy, media analysis, psychology, mathematics, information theory, philosophy, and believe it or not, in electronics journals!
A friend of mine recently posted the follwing on the web:
Chomsky is Citation Champ
Many authors may wonder if anyone is paying attention to what they write. Professor Noam Chomsky, MIT's preeminent linguistics authority, doesn't have that problem. Recent research on citations in three different citation indices show that Professor Chomsky is one of the most cited individuals in works published in the past 20 years.
In fact, his 3,874 citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index between 1980 and 1992 make him the most cited living person in that period and the eight most cited source overall -- just behind famed psychiatrist Sigmund Freud and just ahead of philosopher Georg Hegel.
Indeed, Professor Chomsky is in illustrious company. The top ten cited sources during the period were:
1. Marx
2. Lenin
3. Shakespeare
4. Aristotle
5. The Bible
6. Plato
7. Freud
8. Chomsky
9. Hegel
10. Cicero.
But that isn't all. From 1972 to 1992, Professor Chomsky was cited 7,449 times in the Social Science Citation Index -- likely the greatest number of times for a living person there as well, although the research into those numbers isn't complete. In addition, from 1974 to 1992 he was cited 1,619 times in the Science Citation Index.
"What it means is that he is very widely read across disciplines and that his work is used by researchers across disciplines," said Theresa A. Tobin, the Humanities Librarian who checked the numbers. "In fact," she added, "it seems that you can't write a paper without citing Noam Chomsky."
Of course, the number of citations does not prove someone right. This becomes obvious by taking a look at the other names mentioned. It just proves that what Chomsky had to say was considered very important for Arts and Humanities papers accross disciplines.
Hope this helps! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 158
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:22 pm Post subject: Bertrand the "scholar".... |
|
|
| You attack bnix, a hell of a more experienced ESL teacher than you'll likely ever be, and then you confuse "preface" w/ "prefix"? You are a cunning linguist, eh? Well, you are a Chomsky groupie in your slavish worship, a la a "cult of personality" , that Chomsky loves as he secretly sneers at those fools that worship him. He- one of the greatest intellectual frauds of the 20th C. And yes,by that outdated source, he's in "illustrious company":Marx & Lenin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PanamaTeacher
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 278
Location: Panama
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bertrand,
You said:
| Quote: |
| As an author of an introductory text to Chomsky's particular flavour of linguistics I can say that he has never commented upon or examined the Sapir/Whorf Hypothesis. |
In fact, Chomsky wrote:
| Quote: |
Chomsky's Rebuttal of Whorf:
Noam Chomsky's Preface to Adam Schaff, Language and Cognition, McGraw Hill, 1973. Translated from Polish.
CHOMSKY:
The hypothesis1 of linguistic relativity as formulated particularly by Whorf2, discussed here at length, is one that has given rise to much interesting thought and speculation.
Many of the inadequacies in Whorf's formulation are sketched here; there are others that deserve more prominence than they have received.3
Whorf argues that the structure of language4 plays a role in determining a world-view,5 and supports his argument by contrasting the6 world-view characteristic of speakers of Standard Average European (SAE) with that of speakers of various American Indian languages. As Schaff notes, the hypothesis practically rests on the treatment of the categories of time and space7 in Hopi.
The category of space is similar in Hopi to SAE,8 but the Hopi, Whorf argues, do not have our intuition of TIME as a smooth flowing continuum, with a past, present, and future, in our sense.9 The basis for this distinct world-view is provided by the categories of their language,10 which does not formally provide the past-present-future analysis of verb forms, as in SAE.11
Against this it has been argued that Whorf gives no evidence for a difference in linguistic structure, but, rather, begs the question by postulating the difference on the basis of the difference in the formal structure of Hopi and SAE.12 Here, then, is a point where further research might be proposed, perhaps along lines that Schaff suggests, to bridge the gap in the argument.
But there is, after all, a much more fundamental defect in Whorf's argument, namely, that his description of SAE is incorrect.13 In English, for example,14 there is no structural basis for the past-present-future world view that Whorf attributes, quite correctly, to SAE speakers.15
Rather, a formal analysis of English structure would show a past-present distinction, a set of aspects (perfect and progressive), and a class of models, one of which happens to be used to express future tense (among other devices that serve this purpose). Approaching English from a Whorfian point of view16 we would conclude that an English speaker has no concept of time as a doubly infinite line, he himself occupying the position of a point moving constantly from past to future, but rather he conceives of time in terms of a basic dichotomy between what is past and what is not yet past, in terms of an aspectual system of a subtle sort, and in terms of a superimposed and independent system of modalities involving possibility, permission, ability, necessity, obligation, future (the latter not being distinguished in any special way). The conclusion is absurd, which simply goes to show that our concept of time is not determined by the linguistic categories,17 in any detectable way, but is rather quite independent of them. If this is true of speakers of English, why not of speakers of Hopi?
From consideration of these matters one is led to several conclusions. First, the investigation of linguistic relativity presupposes an exact analysis of linguistic structure of a sort that is not available for SAE, let alone for American Indian languages.18 This is no quibble over tenth-order effects. Even an excellent linguist like Whorf was able to misconceive the nature of such a basic part of English structure as the system of verbal auxiliaries. What is more, it might yet turn out that Whorf's quite naive conclusion about English is actually correct. That is, further research might, in fact, show that at a deeper level of analysis than can be realized today, there is a past-present-future system underlying the formal structure outlined in the preceding paragraph.19 I see no indication that this is true, but it would not be a very great surprise. If it turned out that Whorf is correct, this would further substantiate my feeling that studies of linguistic relativity are entirely premature, since his correct guess would have been based on no evidence of substance and no defensible formal analysis of English structure.20 |
You later said:
| Quote: |
| the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis. In fact, a moment's thought will show you it is refutable and is pure rubbish (though I don't have the time or the energy to explain this to someone with no background in this area; it would take too long! |
I'm curious as to why you think it is pure rubbish. As Chomsky says, Whorf argues that the structure of language plays a role in determining a world-view. Since Chomsky believes in an innate universal grammar, of course, he would contradict Whorf. Are you saying that Chomsky is absolutely correct and Whorf is absolutely wrong? If so, on what basis. Be patient with me if I sound foolish, but I am always anxious to hear things from people who seems as assured as you do.
Thanks Bertrand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bnix
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 645
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 11:26 pm Post subject: Message to Moseley(and Bertrand) |
|
|
Well,thanks for the defense,Moseley. A true gentleman.That is meant as a compliment.
Bertrand, if Noam Chomsky is your hero,that is fine with me.But apparently you seek to defend him(at least partially) by insulting me.Sure, I make typos on the board,just like everyone else, and sometimes I do not "vet" my posts carefully enough before posting.After all, we are talking about a discussion forum here, not high literature. That comment about my "undergraduate"writing...is a little amusing.Actually,I do not feel insulted at all.
For all I  know you might be a very eminent linguist who likes to check out Dave's Cafe.Are you? Or are you just some Chomsky groupie(I
should have known my original post would flush out at least one)
But hey,that is okay.If you like the man and his work, I respect your opinion.I have just one question(and this is not even a flame).
Did anyone ever empirically prove any of Chomsky's "theories", including all of that transformational grammar gibberish?  If not...they remain just that...theories...correct?
As for all of those citatations.Okay,I am willing to concede he is oft-quoted or whatever.But that does not,in itself,prove any of his theories.
And (yawnnn)....I do not want to get involved in a flame over this one.For one thing,I think a flame over this one would be fruitless.So, if Noam is your role model, defend him to your heart's content. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmb
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 8397
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Isn't Chomsky often misused in EFL? Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't most of his work based on the aquisition of L1? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xnihil
Joined: 06 May 2003
Posts: 92
Location: Egypt
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2003 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then of course,that onetime linguistic maven Chomsky(still faddish in certain linguistic backwaters) supposedly recanted some of his original drivel,too. |
I've heard this rumor as well, ie, that Chomsky has recanted substantive parts of his early theories on generative grammar, but have been unable to verify it. I've also heard that so-called Chomskyites, who have their own academic careers and reputations dangling alongside of him, are somewhat non-plussed (to say the least) about this.
Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor (and provide the source)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PanamaTeacher
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 278
Location: Panama
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Joined: 19 Jan 2003
Posts: 9138
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bertrand,
Chomsky may be famous for his imaginative speculation on language and the human mind ('does grammar precede a human's conceptualisation of the world or not, that's the question!'), but I bet, Bertrand, you have not really read Ludwig Wittgenstein. If you had, you would know his most famous quote, here in his own mother tongue:
"Es gibt immer Fachidioten. Das sind Leute, die das Wort des Meisters im eigenen Munde drehen und es dann ausspucken als Fachweisheit und sich selber schmuecken mit dem nicht ganz bescheidenen Hinweis, gerade mal Herrn Studienrat Sowieso zitiert zu haben!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PanamaTeacher
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 278
Location: Panama
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah! you tell him roger (by the way could you translate that for me) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
guest of Japan
Joined: 28 Feb 2003
Posts: 1601
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scientifically, wouldn't an unproven theory just be a hypothosis? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
