Whorfians at the gate!

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
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:

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:

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
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.

Poor Pinker is in trouble! He's in some controversy with somebody at the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
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.

Hmmm. I think literature has always has a lot of politics in its mix, whether lit crit likes it or not. For example, I was just wondering about fathers in Pride and Prejudice:
1) Mr Bennet (weak, self-deluding, selfish, in effective, cannot even pass on his property)
2) darcy's father (non-existent)
3) Ann deBourgh's father (non-existent)
4) Sir Lucas (bumbling idiot)
5) Bingley's father (non-existent)
6) Mr. Collins (supposedly exemplary and a complete idiot)
7) Mr Wickham's father (the strongest showing, but not just dead, but ruined by his wife)

A world without fathers. Why?
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
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.

I haven't read the article or the book, but it is odd how the Sapir-Whorf thing triggers some useful discussions occasionally. Not that the culture wars would be such an occasion, but -- judging from other times that culture warriors have stooped to tell us what to think about something they have heard that we are thinking about that we should not be thinking about in the way that they have heard that we are -- anyway -- judging from that --
I don't get why it would be languages that would get the rap for showing people think differently than one supposes if one knows nothing about anything much, after all, it is easy to demonstrate that even people speaking the same language can have very different interpretive protocols for all kinds of reasons.
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
11,042
Reaction score
841
Location
Second star on the right and on 'til morning.
Website
atsiko.wordpress.com
Well, the general populace is still kinda enamored of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It's not like it's a dead issue. People are always making variations on the claims in it and publishing papers about them.

Just recently, color perception has been a popular sub-hypothesis area, with people trying to argue you can't see blue if you don't have a word for it.