|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:11 am Post subject: Re: Sapir�Whorf hypothesis |
 |
|
| Woland wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| What do you think? Any good examples from real life that seem to back it up quite well? |
Hi Mith,
working on your MA huh? |
I wish!
Back to the op, here are three constructed languages that were created to a certain extent to evaluate how true the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona
The middle language wasn't made to be learned though so it's not really possible to tell how a person who had grown up with that language would think. There were quite a few Russians that told the author they wanted to learn the language though but found it too hard so he revised it recently to make it easier to pronounce but still similar to the original idea. |
One problem, Mith, is that the learners of these languages are already speakers of another language and their learning is filtered through that. (Indeed, look at how the nature of these languages themselves has been shaped by the linguistic knowledge of their creators.) I don't know if we can talk of an independent effect of any of these languages on consciousness or processing. |
Wouldn't it be best though to have speakers that only have an L1? It's impossible to raise somebody only through one of these constructed languages (since it would be cruel to raise somebody speaking only a language that a few dozen other people at most speak) but the next most virgin territory would be people that only have a single language since with a good enough understanding of the L1 you can more readily see the effects that happen after enough exposure to the L2.
Regarding Korean, like any other language it has its own particular phrases that I sometimes want to use when speaking in English but since they don't really exist I sometimes find myself making up weird phrases like 'not enough leeway' for 여유가 없다 or thinking of my state of mind during the day as how much 정신 I have or don't have. Hm, I don't seem to have 정신, I need to snap out of it. That doesn't make sense. I need a clear mind? Wake up!
I think a language like Ithkuil would have this effect on a person given how much more detailed it is than English or any other language, and people that somehow got used to using it would probably feel like they were speaking in a kind of simple pidgin when reverting back to English. Toki Pona seems to have another kind of effect, where you have such a small vocabulary to draw from that you suddenly become really conscious of what you're actually trying to convey as opposed to just using terms through force of habit.
One other interesting aspect of a language with such a small vocabulary is that when you encounter something like a bird or a tree you're forced to describe it as it was, as opposed to the official name. When you see a spruce then you don't just say "I saw another spruce", you'd have to say something more along the lines of "I saw a tree, dark green, three times my size with sharp points..." - but that state of mind can be achieved without a minimalistic language of course.
And what about that girl in Cambodia that lived in the woods for about two decades? Wouldn't she be one of the rare cases where you could test the hypothesis from a nearly completely blank slate? Her before learning language vs. after learning it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Sapir�Whorf hypothesis |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| What do you think? Any good examples from real life that seem to back it up quite well? |
There has been a lot of interesting work done with Native American languages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've wanted to post a detailed reply for some time, but never seem to have any time to do so. Therefore, the following reply is off the cuff and may contain inaccuracies.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and General Semantics sound plausible, however, I believe them to be completely inaccurate. My major objection stems from the fact that they do not take evolution into account as the principle behind language (and indeed all of human behaviour). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as well as General Semantics, is based on the idea that humans are born as blank slates, and that the environment, which includes the surrounding language, is responsible for the way in which "we dissect nature." This view has been discredited by the likes of Pinker, who stated quite emphatically that thought is not dependent on words (1994:47), and "that there is no scientific evidence that languages dramatically shape their speakers' way of thinking (1994:4 ." In his book "The Language Instinct" he dissects and completely discredits the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as well as General Semantics, by discussing the complete failure to find evidence in support of either hypothesis, while proving convincingly that "mental life goes on independently of particular languages, concepts of freedom and equality will be thinkable even if they are nameless (1994:73)."
Rather than me continuing on at this late hour, I refer you to my intellectual hero, Steven Pinker, who is much more convincing than myself.
"The Language Instinct" (especially Chapter 3: Mentalese) & "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature"
Best wishes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SweetLou
Joined: 26 Sep 2003
Location: mt. bu
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
browneyedgirl
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:24 am Post subject: Re: Sapir�Whorf hypothesis |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| What do you think? Any good examples from real life that seem to back it up quite well? |
In Keres they don't really see time the same way (because of the language) and don't connect time (the past) to people the way Caucasians do.
If I ask a friend who speaks Keres how old their siblings are, they won't know. I used to think it was because they didn't care about their siblings, (LOL) but they couldn't be closer. They just don't see a person as their age (a number) but as whatever stage they are in life (young/old etc.).
I know some Native-Americans (I think it was Navajo, could be wrong) will describe objects by the object's texture before they say the shape, while people who speak mainly English will describe shape and color first, and not mention texture because that isn't as important in English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am surprised that there was a discussion on the Eskimo words for snow,
but no discussion on the Korean words for rice.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's 벼 if it's on the plant, 쌀 if it's off the plant but not cooked, and 밥 if it's cooked.
I know there are others, but I've forgotten them.
.........................................................................
I studied partway through a Loglan textbook and gave up.
I know that there are several ambiguities which Loglan seeks to clear up.
For instance, it seeks to clear up the ambiguity between inclusive and exclusive or.
Does "books or pencils" mean "books and/or pencils" or "books or pencils but not both"?
Loglan has two different conjunctions to remove this ambiguity.
Also, if I send you to the store to buy "hot dogs or hamburgers and steak," do I mean a choice with hot dogs on one hand and the remaining two on the other hand, or do I mean steak plus a choice of the other two.
Loglan clears up that ambiguity also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
I've wanted to post a detailed reply for some time, but never seem to have any time to do so. Therefore, the following reply is off the cuff and may contain inaccuracies.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and General Semantics sound plausible, however, I believe them to be completely inaccurate. My major objection stems from the fact that they do not take evolution into account as the principle behind language (and indeed all of human behaviour). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as well as General Semantics, is based on the idea that humans are born as blank slates, and that the environment, which includes the surrounding language, is responsible for the way in which "we dissect nature." This view has been discredited by the likes of Pinker, who stated quite emphatically that thought is not dependent on words (1994:47), and "that there is no scientific evidence that languages dramatically shape their speakers' way of thinking (1994:4." In his book "The Language Instinct" he dissects and completely discredits the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, as well as General Semantics, by discussing the complete failure to find evidence in support of either hypothesis, while proving convincingly that "mental life goes on independently of particular languages, concepts of freedom and equality will be thinkable even if they are nameless (1994:73)."
Rather than me continuing on at this late hour, I refer you to my intellectual hero, Steven Pinker, who is much more convincing than myself.
"The Language Instinct" (especially Chapter 3: Mentalese) & "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature"
Best wishes. |
I think that the arguments above represent stupidity. Language is a dynamic phenomenon that cannot be described in purely sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, philosophical, or evolutionary terms.
It seems rather naive to totally discredit or completely accept the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. One of the problems with approaching linguistics from a positivistic approach is that it treats language as though it were something in a laboratory where variables can be precisely categorized and controlled. Language in the real world, used by real people, is very messy and difficult to explain. Anybody who has studied spoken discourse would easily discover this in a few minutes of reading.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis seems to present a reasonable argument that there there is a social dimension to language development, but I think you would be hard pressed to find hardcore true believers that view it as the end of all of linguistic explanations. To say that there is no evidence or very little evidence that allows for the hypothesis to have rational warrant or validity seems to be difficult to justify.
Thiuda wrongly portrays the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in all or nothing terms without pointing to more intermediate positions that are take into account other factors and view the hypothesis as a supporting and auxillary. It is precisely these type of pedestrian presentations that are typical of Havard Yardstick wannabe linguistists in this profession that make me want to vomit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Francis-Pax, the fact that you disagree with me is not particularly surprising. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been very popular for decades; I imagine because it is easily understood on the one hand, and representative of the dominant social sciences paradigm on the other. But, before you start calling me names, I suggest you broaden your reading list to include materials from cognitive science, behavioural genetics, and evolutionary psychology. You criticize me, yet your standpoint merely reflects what you have been told by your professors - it shows no evidence of independent thought. Your refutation of my standpoint is rooted in a Weltanschauung that is based on a concept that is outdated, and only slowly coming to grips with the scientific discoveries being made in the natural sciences. The SSSM is being undermined, you would do well to start considering the impact Darwin's dangerous idea is having on linguistics and the other soft-sciences. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, you should at least make yourself familiar with them - regardless of whether they come from Harvard, the University of Birmingham, or any other reputable source.
Start doing some thinking outside of the box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
Francis-Pax, the fact that you disagree with me is not particularly surprising. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been very popular for decades; I imagine because it is easily understood on the one hand, and representative of the dominant social sciences paradigm on the other. But, before you start calling me names, I suggest you broaden your reading list to include materials from cognitive science, behavioural genetics, and evolutionary psychology. You criticize me, yet your standpoint merely reflects what you have been told by your professors - it shows no evidence of independent thought. Your refutation of my standpoint is rooted in a Weltanschauung that is based on a concept that is outdated, and only slowly coming to grips with the scientific discoveries being made in the natural sciences. The SSSM is being undermined, you would do well to start considering the impact Darwin's dangerous idea is having on linguistics and the other soft-sciences. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, you should at least make yourself familiar with them - regardless of whether they come from Harvard, the University of Birmingham, or any other reputable source.
Start doing some thinking outside of the box. |
Your patronizing and condescending response only attacks me by accusing me of not having broadly read on the subject. You did not address any of my points. My viewpoints reflect my beliefs based upon my understanding of the subject material, not �what my professors have told me�.
You don�t know my background or what I have read. Instead of trying to attack me personally, why don�t you address what I wrote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I expect the same courtesy; do not call someone whose standpoint you disagree with 'stupid', and refrain from attempting to label them, especially when you have not familiarized yourself with the literature being discussed. Pax.
I�ll be happy to address the points made in your post. But, before I do, I'd like you to clarify what exactly you meant when you wrote, "Language is a dynamic phenomenon that cannot be described in purely sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, philosophical, or evolutionary terms." That doesn't leave us with much to describe it with, and I'm especially interested in how we can discuss language if not from an evolutionary standpoint. The origin of language lies where exactly? Divine inspiration? Intelligent design?
As to the charge that I'm a positivist; guilty as charged. I believe that the social sciences would be better off if they based their conclusions less on qualitative and more on quantitative data. Of course I understand reality is 'messy', but I believe that with the right theoretical underpinnings social science research can, and should, rely much more on quantitative research methods than they currently do. From my perspective, the current reliance on qualitative research comes from a deep-seated reluctance to accept that human nature is biologically determined, even though conclusions coming from the fields of sociobiology, cognitive science, evolutionary psychology...etc. could do the same for the social sciences as mathematics did for physics; provide an unshakable bedrock on which to build upon. Currently, social science lacks such a solid basis, and is consequently missing �the rich deductive structure of other sciences, in which a few deep principles can generate a wealth of subtle predictions [] (Robert Trivers, from his introduction to Dawkins� The Selfish Gene; 1976).�
As I have stated previously, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is based on an understanding of human nature that does not take into consideration recent developments in the natural sciences. It is, in my opinion, completely obsolete. Any predictive power it may have is beside the point, because the predictions will either turn out to be false, or will be better accounted for through an alternative theory that incorporates findings from sociobiology (and the other sciences previously mentioned). If you have any evidence to the contrary, please lead me out of my ignorance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Francis-Pax
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thiuda wrote: |
I expect the same courtesy; do not call someone whose standpoint you disagree with 'stupid', and refrain from attempting to label them, especially when you have not familiarized yourself with the literature being discussed. Pax.
I�ll be happy to address the points made in your post. But, before I do, I'd like you to clarify what exactly you meant when you wrote, "Language is a dynamic phenomenon that cannot be described in purely sociolinguistic, psycholinguistic, philosophical, or evolutionary terms." That doesn't leave us with much to describe it with, and I'm especially interested in how we can discuss language if not from an evolutionary standpoint. The origin of language lies where exactly? Divine inspiration? Intelligent design?
As to the charge that I'm a positivist; guilty as charged. I believe that the social sciences would be better off if they based their conclusions less on qualitative and more on quantitative data. Of course I understand reality is 'messy', but I believe that with the right theoretical underpinnings social science research can, and should, rely much more on quantitative research methods than they currently do. From my perspective, the current reliance on qualitative research comes from a deep-seated reluctance to accept that human nature is biologically determined, even though conclusions coming from the fields of sociobiology, cognitive science, evolutionary psychology...etc. could do the same for the social sciences as mathematics did for physics; provide an unshakable bedrock on which to build upon. Currently, social science lacks such a solid basis, and is consequently missing �the rich deductive structure of other sciences, in which a few deep principles can generate a wealth of subtle predictions [] (Robert Trivers, from his introduction to Dawkins� The Selfish Gene; 1976).�
As I have stated previously, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is based on an understanding of human nature that does not take into consideration recent developments in the natural sciences. It is, in my opinion, completely obsolete. Any predictive power it may have is beside the point, because the predictions will either turn out to be false, or will be better accounted for through an alternative theory that incorporates findings from sociobiology (and the other sciences previously mentioned). If you have any evidence to the contrary, please lead me out of my ignorance. |
First, biological determinism is a form of reductionism that is far from scientific; in fact, it is a philosophical position within the realm of metaphysics.
Second, a lot of social sciences do use quantitative methods; however, the type of reality that is being quantified is of a much different nature than physical space or time. For example, investigating attitudes or beliefs in a given population is of a much different order than attempting to calculate the dark matter in a black hole. Furthermore, your dismissal of qualitative methods seems to be naive given the fact that there are types of data that is relevant that cannot be easily converted to a numeric value when discussing human beings. I think most social scientists would agree that reliance solely on qualitative methodologies is not a good approach. Again, you seem to paint things is all or nothing terms. You present things in their extreme (or hard forms).
Third, evolutionary science is hardly uncontroversial. There is no unified theory of evolution. A thoroughly reductionist evolutionary perspective (which you seem to advocate) does not seem to be mainstream among the scientific community, and in fact it does seem to be somewhat unscientific given that there is no strong paradigmatic evidence that supports this type of position. I think most people in the know would admit that in anything there is a combination of evolutionary as well as extra-evolutionary factors that contribute to human phenomena. This is the essence of the interplay between nature and nurture.
You seem to think you are scientific, but a lot of your basic claims are actually based upon philosophical presuppositions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| robot wrote: |
The other reason this is a myth is because English has perhaps even more words for snow than do Inuit languages: sleet, slush, flurry, drift, hail, etc...
How about Sapir-Whorf as it relates to Korean? |
Am I missing the point? Why even debate English versus "Eskimo" words for snow. English vocabulary comes from quite a few very cold and snowy places.
So, a colder place should have more words? Don't both environments have most, if not all of the same specific conditions (but they are just more sever in the circumpolar regions)?
If one wants to make a point about how environment influences language, and language influences thinking, why not instead compare the number of words for snow with some isolated tribe in Borneo? (for example)
Korean should also have quite a few words for "snow."
Last edited by nateium on Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
| First, biological determinism is a form of reductionism that is far from scientific; in fact, it is a philosophical position within the realm of metaphysics. |
Sociobiology and by extension biological determinism is not in the realm of metaphysics, it is a branch of the empirical sciences. Sociobiology has been around since the publication of E.O. Wilson's book of the same name in 1975, and is widely accepted in the scientific community, as is, by the way Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene' (Pinker, 2002), another reductionist, biological determinist book you may have heard of.
Now, since you enjoy bandying about such terms like 'determinism' and 'reductionist', why don't you define those terms, and state why exactly you use them in the pejorative sense.
"Evolution is surely most deterministic for those still unaware of it." - Richard Alexander
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
| Second, a lot of social sciences do use quantitative methods; however, the type of reality that is being quantified is of a much different nature than physical space or time. For example, investigating attitudes or beliefs in a given population is of a much different order than attempting to calculate the dark matter in a black hole. Furthermore, your dismissal of qualitative methods seems to be naive given the fact that there are types of data that is relevant that cannot be easily converted to a numeric value when discussing human beings. I think most social scientists would agree that reliance solely on qualitative methodologies is not a good approach. Again, you seem to paint things is all or nothing terms. You present things in their extreme (or hard forms). |
Tell me something I don't know. I do not dismiss the qualitative method, I just do not believe it is very reliable; Margaret Mead and others come to mind. That does not mean it doesn't have its place.
| Francis-Pax wrote: |
| Third, evolutionary science is hardly uncontroversial. There is no unified theory of evolution. A thoroughly reductionist evolutionary perspective (which you seem to advocate) does not seem to be mainstream among the scientific community, and in fact it does seem to be somewhat unscientific given that there is no strong paradigmatic evidence that supports this type of position. I think most people in the know would admit that in anything there is a combination of evolutionary as well as extra-evolutionary factors that contribute to human phenomena. This is the essence of the interplay between nature and nurture. |
Evolutionary science is hardly uncontroversial? Unless you're religious, it is not controversial. Unified theory of evolution? What, you mean there is more than one? No strong paradigmatic evidence that supports my position? What paradigm is biology and a whole slew of other sciences operating under? What are extra-evolutionary facts? Aliens? The flying spaghetti monster?
I think it is time that you and I face the truth of the matter; you're a faith-head and I'm not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is some research on the S-W hypothesis, this one is especially relevant to the OP as it furnishes evidence - apparently quite strong - in favour of it.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: New surprising evidence.
http://cogprints.org/2259/00/swh.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thiuda
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On Nov. 5th, 2007, a 30+ minute interview with Steven Pinker was made available via the Guardian's Science Weekly podcast. In the interview, Pinker speaks about his new book, "The Stuff of Thought," a great read, focusing on linguistic determinism, and...
| Quote: |
| ... how the words we use tell us about the way we think. One of the juicier areas of the book is his discussion on swear words, and that's what we talk about here. We have more of the conversation - where we get into areas such as where we discuss his theory of the language instinct; the science of malapropism; and the evolution of English - as this week's Science Extra. |
You can find the podcast here: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/11/science_weekly_for_november_5.html
Click on Science Extra for the full interview.
Enjoy. |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
