#the sapir-whorf hypothesis

[theboombutton]

Do you have any linguistics book recommendations for laymen please pleaseeeee I'm desperate

If you want an introduction to linguistics, I highly recommend picking up the textbook for your local university's LING 101 class, rather than a book specifically directed at laypeople.

On top of the usual problems with popular science books - the commonness of quackery in the genre, the reliance on intuition, the forced and flaccid tone of profundity that especially ramps up at the end of every chapter - popular linguistics books in particular are rife with political implications. Linguistics is both a cultural and a psychological topic, which makes it easy for anyone with an agenda (or even no agenda, just underlying bigotry) to write a book and get their ideological fingers up into readers' brains in ways that are sometimes subtle.

Consider the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, the idea that the language(s) a person speaks changes the kinds of thoughts they're likely to have. That sounds reasonable, right? If someone asked you to think of a plant, you'd probably pick a plant you had a word for. And by the same principle, maybe people who speak a language without a future tense have a harder time conceptualizing the future! This is the kind of intuitive-but-profound-seeming observation/speculation that pop science books love.

It was also a big part of the rationalization/justification for the Indian residential school system and the suppression of Native languages.

(Also technically English doesn't have a future tense, but no one ever mentions that in the context of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis because the entire point of the thing is to exoticize non-European languages for fun and profit.)

These sorts of just-so stories found in pop linguistics books have profound political implications about mental or cultural diffences (read: usually inferiority) of those who speak languages foreign to the the audience, and more often than you'd think they bypass the bigotry bullshit detectors of otherwise well-intentioned readers - because of the informative tone of the work, the intuitive sense it makes for a language to change the way people think, and above all, "It can't be racist, it's about their language, not their race!"

A textbook can make these errors too, of course - the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis does come up in many introductory textbooks. The difference is that 1. a textbook is far more likely to mention that a given idea is "controversial" or "disputed," since unlike pop science they don't need to keep up the tone of mind-blowing profundity to make sales; and 2. since these sorts of bullshit cognitive linguistics theories are fully in the realm of "wouldn't it be interesting if", there's just not enough to say about any one of them to take up more than a page or two in a book that actually needs to contain information.

So yeah tl;dr just pick up a LING 101 textbook. There'll probably be less bigotry, and you'll actually learn about linguistics instead of the author's pseudoprofound wank.

[victusinveritas]

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Natural Language

The philosophy of natural language is a branch of philosophy that explores the nature, origins, and use of language as it is naturally spoken and understood by human beings. It involves the study of how language functions in communication, the relationship between language and thought, the structure and meaning of linguistic expressions, and the role of context in understanding meaning. This field intersects with linguistics, cognitive science, logic, and semiotics, aiming to understand both the abstract properties of language and its practical use in everyday life.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Natural Language:

Meaning and Reference:

Semantics: One of the central concerns of the philosophy of natural language is the study of meaning, known as semantics. Philosophers explore how words and sentences convey meaning, how meaning is structured, and how language relates to the world.

Reference: Reference is the relationship between linguistic expressions and the objects or entities they refer to in the world. Philosophers like Saul Kripke and Hilary Putnam have contributed to understanding how names, descriptions, and other expressions refer to things in the world.

Pragmatics:

Context and Meaning: Pragmatics deals with how context influences the interpretation of language. It examines how speakers use language in different contexts and how listeners infer meaning based on context, intentions, and social norms.

Speech Acts: Philosophers such as J.L. Austin and John Searle have explored how utterances can do more than convey information—they can perform actions, such as making promises, giving orders, or asking questions.

Syntax and Grammar:

Structure of Language: Syntax is the study of the rules and principles that govern the structure of sentences in natural languages. Philosophers and linguists investigate how words are combined to form meaningful sentences and how these structures relate to meaning.

Universal Grammar: The concept of universal grammar, proposed by Noam Chomsky, suggests that the ability to acquire language is innate to humans and that there are underlying grammatical principles common to all languages.

Language and Thought:

Linguistic Relativity: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that the structure of a language influences how its speakers perceive and think about the world. Philosophers debate the extent to which language shapes thought and whether different languages lead to different cognitive processes.

Conceptual Frameworks: Language is often seen as providing the conceptual framework through which we interpret the world. Philosophers examine how language structures our understanding of reality and whether it limits or expands our cognitive abilities.

Philosophy of Meaning:

Theories of Meaning: Various theories of meaning have been proposed in the philosophy of language, including:

Descriptivist Theories: These suggest that the meaning of a word or phrase is equivalent to a description associated with it.

Causal Theories: These argue that meaning is determined by a causal relationship between words and the things they refer to.

Use Theories: Inspired by Ludwig Wittgenstein, these theories claim that the meaning of a word is determined by its use in the language.

Language and Reality:

Metaphysical Implications: Philosophers explore how language relates to reality, including how linguistic structures might reflect or distort our understanding of the world. This involves questions about whether language mirrors reality or if it plays a role in constructing our experience of reality.

Ontology of Language: This concerns the nature of the entities that linguistic expressions refer to, such as whether abstract objects (like numbers or properties) exist independently of language.

Communication and Interpretation:

Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation, particularly of texts. Philosophers in this tradition, such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, explore how understanding is achieved in communication and how meaning is negotiated between speakers and listeners.

Ambiguity and Vagueness: Natural language often contains ambiguity and vagueness, where words or sentences can have multiple interpretations. Philosophers study how these features affect communication and understanding.

Language and Social Interaction:

Language as a Social Phenomenon: Language is inherently social, and its use is governed by social norms and conventions. Philosophers study how language functions in social contexts, how power dynamics influence language, and how language can both reflect and shape social structures.

Language Games: Wittgenstein introduced the concept of "language games" to describe how the meaning of words is tied to their use in specific forms of life or social practices. This concept emphasizes the diversity of language use and the idea that meaning is context-dependent.

Evolution of Language:

Origins of Language: Philosophers and cognitive scientists explore how language evolved in humans, the relationship between language and other forms of communication in animals, and the cognitive capacities required for language.

Language Change: Natural languages are dynamic and constantly evolving. Philosophers study how languages change over time and what this reveals about the nature of meaning and communication.

Critique of Language:

Deconstruction: Philosophers like Jacques Derrida have critiqued traditional notions of language and meaning, arguing that language is inherently unstable and that meaning is always deferred, never fully present or fixed.

Critical Theory: In the tradition of critical theory, philosophers analyze how language can perpetuate power structures, ideologies, and social inequalities, and how it can be used to resist and challenge these forces.

The philosophy of natural language offers a rich and complex exploration of how language functions, how it relates to thought and reality, and how it shapes human interaction and understanding. By examining the nature of meaning, reference, context, and the social dimensions of language, philosophers aim to uncover the fundamental principles that govern linguistic communication and the role of language in human life.

[waywordsstudio]

3 Word Review: “Babel-17” by Samuel R. Delany -

Fascinating sf yarn from a master world-builder on how our language might be manipulated against us.

[drlinguo]

Today, Benjamin Lee Whorf would have turned 127.

Here a podcast on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Enjoy!

[murderballadeer]

worst inside joke i have is that every time i come across a mention of linguistic relativity in stuff i read for anthro and linguistics classes i screenshot it and send it to my friend with the caption "sapir whorf hypothesis jumpscare"

[tower-of-hana]

Sapir-Whorf discourse is just twitter discourse for linguists. They even make up guys (hard Sapir-Whorfists) to get mad at.

[conundrumoftime]

New fic!

Title: Softest of Tongues

Fandom: Lord of the Rings (and a bit of Silmarillion, but mostly it's set in the Third Age).

Rating: M

Length: 7800 words

Pairing: Galadriel/Celeborn

Summary: Canon-compliant. Galadriel and Celeborn over the years of the Third Age.

Sample: 

There are ways to express the difference between ‘you wanted’ and ‘I wish you wanted’ in Quenya by adding the right affix. In Sindarin you must change the sounds of the verb itself, the feeling soaking into the substance of the word. What is the lenited form of grief, he thinks. What is the right declension for a yearning without a name.

Note: I have been working on this one on and off for AGES and I'm really happy with how it turned out. It ended up being much more about language and the differences between Quenya and Sindarin than I thought it would and as a result - well, WHO KNEW that AO3 had a character limit for author's notes. Not me! But I do now.

This is also the first new LOTR fic that I have written since 2005. Pls remember next time you fear tnat an AO3 author has abandoned writing, sometimes we just go dormant for 18 years like a species of cicada.

[caprice-nisei-enjoyer]

I saw The Host (2006), which kind of surprised me with how effective it was as a horror films and a tragedy. Now if I can just make it to both Barbie and Oppenheimer I can speedrun unlocking shrimp emotions

[instantpansies]

Me Taking a Communications Class with a Bunch of People who Don't Know Linguistics feat. Some of the Worst Takes on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis I've Ever Heard

[egharcourt]

Now and then I revisit Cantonese (my first language) romantic pop songs whenever I feel like it, which I just did, and whoa. The rich lyricism and descriptiveness never fail to captivate me every time. I wish I could translate it fully, but there's a lot of nuance in a single Cantonese sentence that can't be replicated in English. Maybe that's why the emotion of love has always been a visual thing to me that I can never quite put into words in writing, granted that all my works are written in English.

Nothing tugs at your heartstrings like love songs in your native tongue. I guess.

[tragedykery]

believe it or not but assigning morality to phones/phonemes isn’t the haha quirky little joke you think it is!

[omegaphilosophia]

Language, Thought, and Reality: The Interplay of Human Understanding

Language is more than a mere tool for communication; it's a fundamental element of human cognition that significantly shapes our perception of reality. The intricate relationship between language, thought, and reality has intrigued philosophers, linguists, and cognitive scientists for centuries. This intricate interplay not only influences how we express our ideas but also defines the very nature of our thoughts and, by extension, the way we perceive the world.

Language as a Lens to Reality

One of the most influential ideas in this realm is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which posits that the structure and vocabulary of a language can mold and constrain the way its speakers think about the world. This concept comes in two flavors: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism. Linguistic determinism suggests that language entirely determines the way we think, limiting our thoughts to what is expressible in our language. Linguistic relativism, on the other hand, holds that language influences thought but doesn't strictly determine it.

Consider, for instance, the linguistic distinction between colors. Languages vary in how they categorize and label colors. Some have more words for different shades of blue, while others may combine colors that speakers of different languages consider distinct. This variation can affect how people perceive and categorize colors. If a language doesn't have a distinct word for a certain shade, its speakers may be less likely to perceive it as a separate entity. In this way, language can serve as a lens through which we view and define our reality.

The Mind's Toolkit: Language and Concepts

Language, in its complexity, provides us with a toolkit for understanding and categorizing the world. Words are not just labels but also containers of meaning and concepts. They define boundaries, allowing us to separate, categorize, and convey information. The very presence of specific words in a language implies the importance of these distinctions to its speakers.

Furthermore, the structural components of a language, such as syntax and grammar, govern how ideas are connected and expressed. They provide a blueprint for how concepts are related within the realm of thought. Thus, language helps us not only to classify the world but also to construct our understanding of it.

The Cultural Dimension

It's important to recognize that language isn't just an individual phenomenon. It is deeply entwined with culture. The language a person speaks is often a reflection of their cultural background and can encompass shared beliefs, values, and worldviews. Cultural linguistics explores how a language's unique features emerge from and influence the culture it is embedded in.

Beyond Language

While the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the study of linguistic relativity highlight the significance of language in shaping thought and reality, they are not without controversy. Critics argue that thought and perception are not solely dictated by language. Concepts like non-verbal communication, universal human experiences, and innate cognitive structures challenge the idea of linguistic determinism.

In the grand scheme of philosophy, the relationship between language, thought, and reality remains an open question. Language undoubtedly plays a vital role in shaping our perception of the world, but its extent and limits continue to be topics of philosophical inquiry.

As we ponder the intricate connection between language, thought, and reality, we gain insight into the profound ways in which human beings engage with and understand the world. This philosophical exploration enriches our understanding of the human experience and broadens the horizons of cognitive science, linguistics, and cultural studies.

[thursdayisbetterthanfriday]

The shape of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

One of the great things about having more time is the opportunity to read more research papers. This one, which was recently released by the Max Planck Institute is beautiful.

Linguists, or people familiar with language study, might be familiar with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. For everyone else, it can be (overly) simplified to:

The language someone speaks can affect the way people think about reality

It was proposed in the 20th century by two very prominent linguists, who didn’t have the experimental neurological evidence but used theories based on behavioural observations. For Edward Saphir, it was the anthropological study of Native American languages which were rapidly disappearing from the continent over the course of the 20th century.

Now, neuroscience is catching up. Max Planck Institute effectively found evidence that the language we speak shapes the connectivity in our brains that may underlie the way we think.

The researchers took MRT scans of people who spoke two different kinds of languages (Indo-European morphosyntactically complex language {ie. German} and a Semitic root-based language {ie. Arabic}) and found that the respective German and Arabic speakers brain's language networks had specifically adapted to each language. 

Now, this isn’t definitive proof of Sapir-Whorf by any means, and the study is limited to only looking at two types of languages (amongst other limitations), but it’s a promising bit of evidence which could shape our understanding of how language informs our view of the world. Press release: https://www.cbs.mpg.de/2113362/20231603?c=2482 Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811923001015

[softgrungeprophet]

i think a lot of people (irl, on here, anywhere) could benefit from taking a linguistics 101 class tbh

[murderballadeer]

why is instagram suddenly showing me all these posts that are critical of specifically noam chomsky, a thinker whose work i know next to nothing about