- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,698
- Reaction score
- 1,539
- Location
- The City Different
- Website
- www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
Literary criticism doesn't get involved in politics much, but a recent review in the Times Literary Supplement shows how odd the culture wars can become. (It might be behind a paywall -- let me know if you'd like a copy.)
We've discussed from time to time the linguistic concept known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, named after a couple of Yale linguists in the 1930s. Medievalist describes the gist of it:
Apparently the dusty, old theory has recently ruffled some feathers, apparently since it can be seen as a stalking horse for that evil "cultural relativism." The TLS article is a review of a book called The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language. The author is affiliated with the rightish/libertarianish Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. It appears his problem is that if people think of the world in different ways because of differences in language, if we are the stuff of which language is made, then one person's view is as valid as another's. And that simply won't do.
The author, John McWhorter, calls his book a "manifesto" aimed at "neo-Whorfians," in particular a recent book by Guy Deutscher about how the world looks different in other languages. McWhorter is not a linguist, and the linguist TLS reviewer skewers him pretty effectively for his lack of understanding.
I found the essay interesting because I am fascinated by how we think thoughts, which after all are based upon nothing more than chemical exchanges between brain cells. But it seems silly to make linguistic debates from decades ago into a cry to man the barricades of embattled culture.
For anybody interested in reading more about this sort of thing I recommend taking a look at Steven Pinker's recent book (2007) The Stuff of Thought.
We've discussed from time to time the linguistic concept known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, named after a couple of Yale linguists in the 1930s. Medievalist describes the gist of it:
Medievalist said:• Linguistic Diversity: Languages, especially members of quite different language families, differ in important ways from one another.
• Linguistic Influence on Thought: The structure and lexicon of one's language influences how one perceives and conceptualizes the world, and they do so in a systematic way.
Together these two claims suggest that speakers of very different languages think about the world in very different ways.
Apparently the dusty, old theory has recently ruffled some feathers, apparently since it can be seen as a stalking horse for that evil "cultural relativism." The TLS article is a review of a book called The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language. The author is affiliated with the rightish/libertarianish Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. It appears his problem is that if people think of the world in different ways because of differences in language, if we are the stuff of which language is made, then one person's view is as valid as another's. And that simply won't do.
The author, John McWhorter, calls his book a "manifesto" aimed at "neo-Whorfians," in particular a recent book by Guy Deutscher about how the world looks different in other languages. McWhorter is not a linguist, and the linguist TLS reviewer skewers him pretty effectively for his lack of understanding.
I found the essay interesting because I am fascinated by how we think thoughts, which after all are based upon nothing more than chemical exchanges between brain cells. But it seems silly to make linguistic debates from decades ago into a cry to man the barricades of embattled culture.
For anybody interested in reading more about this sort of thing I recommend taking a look at Steven Pinker's recent book (2007) The Stuff of Thought.
Last edited: