Also try bad translator….it illustrates an interesting point…

For example, the idea of language and culture being connected to how people perform on psychometric tests. The broader concept illustrates the point that people of various backgrounds can be equally capable but this might not be reflected in measurement due to cultural and linguistic biases in how the test is constructed or conducted. Something that can occur even if internal validity of the is quite high. Cronbach’s alpha doesn’t measure external validity, after all :)

Nonetheless, a concept like time is pretty important to how cultures organise themselves. So although the language may not prevent the conception of that version of time, it can be intricately connected to how the society behaves – the culture is impacted, not the basic capacity to conceive.

Nor is it even mentioned in the original article! :P

It seems to make a lot of prima facie sense, but it’s really hard to test empirically; some people want to use it to make sweeping claims that can’t be supported with hard evidence, while others want to dismiss it entirely as pseudoscience or complete nonsense; and people’s opinions of it seem to have little to do with the findings of experimental research, and everything to do with how well it fits into their own worldview.

I’ve heard lots of critics – including many professional linguists – dismiss the idea of linguistic relativity as something that has been completely discredited. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, it hasn’t actually been falsified by experimental research; it has simply been overshadowed by competing theoretical perspectives within linguistics – most notably the theories of Noam Chomsky, which are incompatible with Sapir-Whorf. Obviously, if you assume that Chomsky is right, you have to conclude that Sapir-Whorf is wrong. But Chomsky’s theories, though popular within the fields of linguistics and cognitive science, have not been proven, and have even been strongly criticized by a number of linguists and cognitive scientists (here, for example). Moreover, not all linguists and cognitive scientists dismiss Sapir-Whorf; and some (like Lera Boroditsky) are doing empirical research on linguistic relativity, and are finding evidence that language does shape thought processes in interesting ways.

It appears that there is some truth in the premise of linguistic relativity; though the effects are subtle. The fact that some have overstated the degree to which language shapes thought does not justify the overreaction of dismissing Sapir-Whorf out of hand. Unless one is dogmatically committed to Chomsky, I can see no reason why one wouldn’t at least entertain the premise of linguistic relativity long enough to see if there is any empirical evidence to support it. Anyone who suggests that it is nonsense without offering a shred of hard evidence to back up this claim is not speaking as a scientist, but as a partisan. In science we do not worship at the altar of authority. The truth of a statement is not established by the credentials of the person who said it, but by the logic and evidence cited in support of that statement. So, for those of you who insist that Sapir-Whorf is wrong, how about citing some well-designed, peer-reviewed, empirical research to back up that assertion, rather than trying to impress us with your academic qualifications, or insulting us by insisting that we’re too stupid to understand how language works.

However, instead of saying the language you speak alters the way that you perceive the world, I would say the language you speak influences the construction of personal identity and the experience of self.

I think the Irish examples support that hypothesis.

Sorry if I’m not making any sense. And are there any transcripts for any sessions? CWA sound awesome.

My son is on the autism spectrum, hence he tends to interpret language literally. He also has attentional problems.

When told to pay attention he always resisted, because, as he explained to me recently “that means there is a cost”. He then described that cost in terms of personal loss: loss of the ideas he would come up with when his mind was freely wandering, or loss of the progress he would make on the subject he wanted to focus on (rather than what the teachers/lecturers wanted him to focus on).

Later after some thought I drew on my memories of French from my school days. I said to him the French say “fait attention”, which translates as “make attention”. Straight away he saw the issue differently, and seems to be much better able to make attention in all aspects of his life.

What made the difference seems to be where each turn of phrase (yes I am an amateur) locates attention: paying it (if you take that literally) locates attention outside of yourself, whereas making it locates it within yourself.

Oh and by the way my eyes each see colours somwewhat differently. I have three versions of each shade of blue: left, right and both eyes together. Take that, hippie-haters :P

I noticed that with a deaf girl that I used to meet in my old chatroom (it was a private room for a group of Tolkien fans). Of course she typed like everybody else… but she was just so straigthforward with her statements and questions (e.g. direct comments about one’s sex life, LOL) that it made for some awkward moments.
I always assumed that she had never learned to use the social “politeness veneer” that is so natural for most to use – at least in a chatroom with friends and acquaintances that maybe we don’t know _that_ well, and who are expecting to share light conversation about books, food and the like! It was weird but it also kept it interesting :-P

Regarding the relationship between languages and perception, I have a feeling that the picture is much more complex… And fwiw, in Spanish we have a way of saying “I’m hungry” (Estoy hambrienta), but we use “I have hunger” (Tengo hambre) except in very formal or literary language.

You can’t speak a foreign language by just translating things.
You need to learn about the foreign culture, in order to communicate.

Language can’t merely be described as technology.
It is also a storage method for fluid cultural and historical context, ideas and images.
You can’t speak, sign or write without hearing the echos of the people who came before you.

If you want something a bit more in-depth than the Wikipedia article, I’d suggest as a good primer the introductory chapter of Language in Mind, by Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow (link: big ol’ pdf). There are papers in this book from the whole spectrum of current scientific thinking on linguistic relativity, so you know the editors don’t have a particular bone to pick, other than the general confusion surrounding this issue.

Another interesting perspective is that, even if all language does is provide labels for categories via words, this can still affect surprisingly low-level perceptual processes. See, for instance, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011452 [pdf] and doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.009 [pdf].

You guys think that because you USE language you UNDERSTAND language.

And you seem to think that, because you can type, you have something to say.

“Currently a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors”. Wow, you’d never have thunk that was the current consensus from the polarised rantings on this thread. Get a grip, people.

Let’s say a woman is very sad and goes in to see a psychologist. She says, “I am sad.”

“Aha,” says the therapist. “Instead of saying ‘I am sad,’ I would like you to say, from now on, ‘sadness is upon me.’ Why? Because when you say I am sad, you are relating very deeply to your sadness, the same way you relate deeply to your name, for example. But when you say sadness is upon me, the sadness can be thought of as more superficial, like clothes you put on and take off.”

This type of psycho-therapy happens and it may or may not be bull shit. I am submitting the example as either a cause or an effect of Sapir-Whorf thinking trickling into the popular culture.

Here’s another phenomenon I think pervades in the popular mythology:

Let’s say I am a native English speaker and I learn Spanish. When I speak Spanish, I feel a different attitude. I feel like a different part of myself is expressed.

Popular culture suggests my feelings when speaking Spanish come strictly from the language interacting with my vocal apparatus (including the brain).

But the linguists here would suggest otherwise, right? That the difference in feeling when going from one language to another has more to do with a range of cultural phenomenon beyond strictly the language?

Is Sapir-Whorf empirically testable?

Perhaps he confuses language and drugs:

You guys think that because you USE drugs you UNDERSTAND drugs.

Or pain, even:

You guys think that because you SUFFER pain you UNDERSTAND pain.

Or life….

You guys think that because you LIVE you UNDERSTAND life.

I love language….but “understand” it?…well….more like “understudy” it, maybe.

Um, there are 65 comments here. Whom are you addressing? Everyone? Just yourself?

And then, rather than proving your point with argument, you just rattle off a bunch of inept comparisons. “Just like a monkey doesn’t understand his monkey sounds, you don’t understand your human sounds, you amateur!”

I don’t know where you got your degree in theoretical linguistics, but if your comment gives even a hint of the intellectual rigor required by the program you went through, I wouldn’t be surprised if your classes were routinely held in a van.

I mean, if you lack the words, what are you going to say?

Language is quintessentially social, whatever “quintessentially” may mean….no wait that’s not quite right, is it?

My o my but I am a silly bunt sometimes.

_that’s_what sapir-whorf’s all about…and i think it is exemplified by the uniphonic languages such as spanish: if there’s_ONE_WAY_to say something, it predisposes an authoritarian mindset:-( just take a look @ the history of latin america…& it was the_spanish_inquisition, after all;-)

the perception of a culture is embedded in it’s language- this includes slang (in which this is obvious). if so, the macro&root language also has these embedded perceptions-but become more and more archaic as diverse slang becomes prevalent language, thus a new macro perception becomes embedded.

talking in the third person causes a change- you can grasp the meaning but the change is obviously there. “I am jack’s wasted life” is different then “I’ve wasted my life” though the meaning is the same- fightclub exaggerated but elaborated the psychological changes that occur using different language. if these changes didn’t occur poetry wouldn’t be distinctive from literature

I have yet to meet a German who could not differentiate between “Ich verdiene 1000 Euro im Monat ” ( I make 1000 Euros a month) and “Ich verdiene eine bessere Behandlung” (I deserve better treatment), for example. Certainly many more do not clearly distingush between “Furcht” (fear) und “Angst” (well, angst :-) )