Linguistics

[hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm]

Ok... I am an enourmous language geek. I can think of nothing more amusing than discussing the semantic implications of the use of ergativity in a polysynthetic language system. As such, I would love to discuss with you, my fellow Cunning Linguists, current issues in modern linguistic theory, and hopefully get schooled in some of the finer points of this liberal yet hard science.

Topic 1: Do you belive the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, and why?

I personally am inclined to believe that while language can ultimately determine ease of articulaion with respect to specific ideas, it can by no means prevent individual thoughts from occuring, no matter how hard they are to express, ergot, language does not ultimately determine thought processes, it merely gives them a proto-shape that can be defied by the clarity of a non-verbal idea.

Arguments?

[fernweh]

Ah! A fellow cunning linguist!
Well, my take on linguistic determinism is this: I agree that language can't prevent individual thoughts from occuring, and that all it can do is help articulate certain ideas, but just think about how important it is to have a conceptual vocabulary for dealing with the world...

Lemme point you to the Brown and Lenneberg study (there have a bunch of experiments like this, but it's a good example).
In the experiment, people were shown a series of cards of different colors and then asked to put them in the order they saw them. Some of the subjects were English or Spanish speakers, and some of the subjects only spoke languages without words for seperate hues of colors (ie, one word for red, no "light red", no "dark red", no "maroon", no "pink", just one word for "red"). The study, and most of the studies like it, showed that people who already had words for "light blue" or "dark blue" were far more able to tell the difference between the two, and differentiate between which color they had seen.

See, a "proto-shape" sure can be less powerful than a non-verbal idea, but with a linguistic and lexical armature to support your non-verbal ideas, they become verbal ideas capable of being communicated and abstracted more.

Just my $0.02 though

[tecoyah]

Describe to me, the four dimentional universe. Should you prove capable of this exercise, you will have given credence to one side of this debate. Should you fail, the other.

[Deominous]

We live in a three dimensional universe.
One of our routine ponders is:

Do we have free choice - or -
Are we predestined to do everything we do.

the answer to this question lies in the fourth dimension:

Yes we do.

Complex problems typically become simpler in a higher dimension.

[CSflim]

Originally posted by Deominous
We live in a three dimensional universe.
One of our routine ponders is:

Do we have free choice - or -
Are we predestined to do everything we do.

the answer to this question lies in the fourth dimension:

Yes we do.

Complex problems typically become simpler in a higher dimension.

What are you talking about?

[fernweh]

What's with the whole dimension question, Tecoyah? Is the idea that we can't picture a four-dimensional universe because we don't have the words? Or do you think we can picture it even though we can't describe it?

[asaris]

Of course we can describe a four-dimensional universe. We may have to use the language of mathematics to do so, but doesn't that count?

[rsl12]

dunno what the theory is, but if it's what I THINK it is:

jokes are the key piece of evidence. Of course, you can explain an untranslatable joke that originates in from a different language, but you won't make somebody laugh with your explanation. Unless you have a funny face.

Joyce's Ulysses, with all its word play, has recently been published in Chinese. It took like 20 years fo the translator to come up with the edition. How much of the meaning do you think got translated? I'd guess no more than 25%. But I can't read chinese so I'll never know.

However, if you're talking mundane day-to-day thinking (including technical discussion in all fields, recipes, how-to booklets), I don't see any language as limiting the possiblities of thinking. It's when you start talking about words that affect emotions (poetry, jokes, insults) that you have limitations. or so i think. The meaning has to be taken quickly and immediately for it to have its full effect, and long drawn-out explanations dilute that effect.

[hiredgun]

hmm, i know very little about linguistics, so ignore me if i suck.

but with tests such as the one fernweh described, or the stuff rsl12 was talking about... isn't it just as possible that people form languages based on their thought patterns, rather than vice versa?

for example, perhaps certain societies don't have words for similar colors BECAUSE they don't differentiate between them, rather than the other way around. the same goes for jokes, and literature... the ideas that can be expressed in a given language could be a product of those ideas instead of something that transforms them?

or perhaps its a combination of both. could the languages and the ideas interact in complex ways?

[Yakk]

I don't know much about Linguistics, but I know something about Mathematics.

A good and large chunk of the advances in Mathematics came about because people improved the "Language of Mathematics". Simularly, by thinking in "Mathematics", concepts that are extremely difficult in English (and I assume other languages) become simple.

When you have concepts that are built up out of layers and layers of other concepts, having the linguistic tools (Mathematical language) makes dealing with them much easier. And at some level, it might make it possible.

You could argue that, as the concepts appeared, the language extended. But this isn't what happened: for centuries, people limped along using horrible mathematical language. Eventually, the language used for the concept got neater and clearer, the concept became more understood, and other concepts where built up over it: which came first, I cannot say.

A concrete example: indo-arabic numbers.
32 being 10 * 30 + 1 * 2
Decimals
32.7 being 10*30 + 1 * 2 + 7 * 1/10.
Fractions
3/10
Subtraction
7 - 3 = 4
Using symbols rather than words
saying "take 7 and increase the value by 3 to get a result" vs "7+3".
Variables
x=2+3
Negative numbers
3 - 7 = -4
Numbers detatched from distance or other concrete examples
3 units vs "a length three times longer than the base length in question"

All of the above where revolutionary in their time, and had massive power to change the ability of people to do math.

Many other examples exist higher up in Mathematics. I restricted myself to things you'd be exposed to from a high school education.

PS:
MCMXII * IX = what?
MCMXII / IX = what?
do it without using indo-arabic numbers. Heh.