Pinker makes some really good arguments against Whorf’s rather sloppy and downright dishonest scholarship. However, I think that he is putting too much emphasis on what we say, and forgetting about the way in which we say it. In other words, Pinker’s analysis is a little too 1984, when it needs to be a bit more A Brave New World.
Neil Postman, one of my favorite media theorists, uses the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas as an example of the effects linguistic structure can have on a person’s attention span. According to Postman, the audience of Lincoln and Douglas was more than willing to attend multi-hour debates, not because they we’re more intelligent than today’s public, but because they were used to it:
Both the speakers and their audience were habituated to a kind of oratory that may be described as literary. For all the hoopla and socializing surrounding the event, the speakers had little to offer, and audiences little to expect, but language. And the language that was offered was clearly modeled on the style of the written word. (Postman 48)
Although Postman chiefly concerns himself with the effects media has on human communication, I think many of the same phenomena observed in his field are relevant to Pinker’s point. If the way we say something has no effect on human cognition, then why do modern American seem so much more impatient than their 19th Century brethren?
In his essay, Pinker remarks that, “The discussions that assume that language determines thought carry on only by a collective suspension of disbelief.” I happen to agree with this statement, but only as long as “determines” is defined according to the strictest of definitions. Language may not determine thought, but it can influence thought.
I can’t make a poem, but I can make a story:
Deutscher, Pinker, Sapir, and Whorf walk into a bar.
The bartender asks them what they would like to drink.
Deutscher frowns, “but, what direction is the drink coming from?” He asks.
Pinker, who had been standing next to Whorf, nudges the man at his side, “Aren’t you glad we thought up a word for alcohol, Whorfy?”
A disgruntled Whorf frowns at him, “But Sapir said-“
“Don’t bring me into this one too, Whorf!” Cries Sapir.
Wow. These articles kind of made my head hurt. A lot.
I really enjoyed "Since there is no evidence that any language forbids its speakers to think anything, we must look in an entirely different direction to discover how our mother tongue really does shape our experience of the world." I really like this. It contradicts the idea that whatever language we speak shapes the way we think, which is how it affects the way we see the world. I don't like this idea. I feel like the way we view the world is determined by something more than our language; such as experiences or something deeper like that.
Pinker just understands me. I wrote a paper in High School about Newspeak and how it will overrun our language in the future. But it is not this day! But it is we, English Majors, who must preserve it! I bid you stand, men of the west! (If you don’t get the reference, I don’t know if we can be friends). Pinker and Deutscher (taking from Whorf’s ideals) raise excellent points. Although a little far reaching at times, I thought it was very interesting. Just how the Linguists in the movie we watched were so interested in the base 12 numerical system of the language they were studying, they realized how important it was to preserve other languages because another language can open doors to people that we didn’t even know existed. These articles reiterated just how important language and cultural diversity is. (hint hint: NO national language!) I like that these articles points out that people may think differently as a result of their language. The world would be boring if everyone thought the same way. I think that diversity in thinking is a thing we should strive to preserve. *And what the hell about the Eskimos and not having many different words for snow?! My life is a lie...did we not talk about this in class?
Wow! These articles really made me think. I was completely surprised when both authors came right out and disagreed with the Sapir-Whorf theory. It seemed like both authors had the most problem with Whorf. I feel stupid to be quite honest. I can't believe I've been a part of the unthinking masses simply going along with what I read somewhere or heard from this person or that person. I do feel genuinely enlightened though.
The most interesting part of the two articles to me was Deutscher's comments about the Guugu Yimithirr language and others like it. The examples he gave of the little boy going to an unfamiliar village to learn dance and not knowing how to communicate with his instructor and of the man who was turned around multiple times in a dark room and was still able to correctly identify his cardinal directions were so intriguing to me. I live in a very egocentric world where I do not have to use cardinal directions in every conversation, and sometimes I don’t even have to use them on a daily basis.
I especially liked the fact that pointing at oneself being a part of a culture like the Guugu Yimithirr doesn’t mean that people should recognize the physical body behind the finger but rather what is beyond the body. While I am no longer a subscriber to Whorf’s theory, I do think that cultural values and language are tied together in a peculiar way. I am no psycholinguist, so I won’t dare to comment on this relationship, but I think that the two go hand-in-hand.
I learned one of the most interesting concepts in this class so far from the Deutscher response article. I see how your mother tongue doesn't force you to think a certain way, but instead it obliges. I also see this with men and women. I get entirely different questions about my day from my mom then I do from Bristow. My mother will ask "What did you learn?" usually first whereas Bristow will ask "What did you do?" I see this as that most women are concerned with a deeper emotional level. However, men are concerned more with the concrete things. That's just what I day dreamed right after reading the article. P.S. Charlynn gets an A in my book for her story.
I found the part on feminism to be very interesting. How he talked about that some feminists blame sexist thinking on sexist language. I had never thought about this concept before but it does make a lot of since. The use of he to define a general person can lead to some confusion when you do not know who a person is generally speaking about. Even in social and political discourse words are determining thoughts. It goes back to how women and men ask questions differently based on what they are hoping to get from the answer. They have different interests. He questions whether or not the government is manipulating people’s minds by using words like pacification which means bombing, revenue enhancement meaning taxes, and nonretention meaning firing. All of these words meanings would be more intimidating to people and ultimialty cause a bigger reaction than what they do now.
Maybe I am just a control freak, but I have a problem with anybody telling me that the way I think is controlled by anything outside of my own reasoning. With that being said, I find it interesting how language can influence certain thoughts and concepts. While I have to agree that language influences our thoughts, I could never say that we are restricted by it. As Pinker points out, thought is not a language as we perceive it, but is independent in and of itself. Perceptions and the understanding of concepts are developed through experience and interaction. Deutscher’s portion about the Guugu Yimithirr language should proves that language is only a representation of concepts, and while the spatial understanding differs from English to Guugu Yimithirr, both languages are just as capable in giving someone directions or articulating the position of an object in space. The understanding is different, but the concept is the same. What I still find interesting, though, is the way Deutscher described the gender differences in language. I would like to find a study that investigates the literal effects of gender nouns on architectural designs. Deutscher asks, “Did the opposite genders of “bridge” in German and Spanish, for example, have an effect o the designs of bridges in Spain and Germany?” I would like to know, and, if this is true, how does that fit in the grand scope of language vs. thought. Whatever the outcome, one this is certain to me: a bridge is still a bridge.
Pinker makes some really good arguments against Whorf’s rather sloppy and downright dishonest scholarship. However, I think that he is putting too much emphasis on what we say, and forgetting about the way in which we say it. In other words, Pinker’s analysis is a little too 1984, when it needs to be a bit more A Brave New World.
ReplyDeleteNeil Postman, one of my favorite media theorists, uses the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas as an example of the effects linguistic structure can have on a person’s attention span. According to Postman, the audience of Lincoln and Douglas was more than willing to attend multi-hour debates, not because they we’re more intelligent than today’s public, but because they were used to it:
Both the speakers and their audience were habituated to a kind of oratory that may be described as literary. For all the hoopla and socializing surrounding the event, the speakers had little to offer, and audiences little to expect, but language. And the language that was offered was clearly modeled on the style of the written word. (Postman 48)
Although Postman chiefly concerns himself with the effects media has on human communication, I think many of the same phenomena observed in his field are relevant to Pinker’s point. If the way we say something has no effect on human cognition, then why do modern American seem so much more impatient than their 19th Century brethren?
In his essay, Pinker remarks that, “The discussions that assume that language determines thought carry on only by a collective suspension of disbelief.” I happen to agree with this statement, but only as long as “determines” is defined according to the strictest of definitions. Language may not determine thought, but it can influence thought.
I can’t make a poem, but I can make a story:
Deutscher, Pinker, Sapir, and Whorf walk into a bar.
The bartender asks them what they would like to drink.
Deutscher frowns, “but, what direction is the drink coming from?” He asks.
Pinker, who had been standing next to Whorf, nudges the man at his side, “Aren’t you glad we thought up a word for alcohol, Whorfy?”
A disgruntled Whorf frowns at him, “But Sapir said-“
“Don’t bring me into this one too, Whorf!” Cries Sapir.
Wow. These articles kind of made my head hurt. A lot.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed "Since there is no evidence that any language forbids its speakers to think anything, we must look in an entirely different direction to discover how our mother tongue really does shape our experience of the world." I really like this. It contradicts the idea that whatever language we speak shapes the way we think, which is how it affects the way we see the world. I don't like this idea. I feel like the way we view the world is determined by something more than our language; such as experiences or something deeper like that.
Pinker just understands me. I wrote a paper in High School about Newspeak and how it will overrun our language in the future. But it is not this day! But it is we, English Majors, who must preserve it! I bid you stand, men of the west! (If you don’t get the reference, I don’t know if we can be friends).
ReplyDeletePinker and Deutscher (taking from Whorf’s ideals) raise excellent points. Although a little far reaching at times, I thought it was very interesting. Just how the Linguists in the movie we watched were so interested in the base 12 numerical system of the language they were studying, they realized how important it was to preserve other languages because another language can open doors to people that we didn’t even know existed. These articles reiterated just how important language and cultural diversity is. (hint hint: NO national language!)
I like that these articles points out that people may think differently as a result of their language. The world would be boring if everyone thought the same way. I think that diversity in thinking is a thing we should strive to preserve.
*And what the hell about the Eskimos and not having many different words for snow?! My life is a lie...did we not talk about this in class?
-Tori Watson
Wow! These articles really made me think. I was completely surprised when both authors came right out and disagreed with the Sapir-Whorf theory. It seemed like both authors had the most problem with Whorf. I feel stupid to be quite honest. I can't believe I've been a part of the unthinking masses simply going along with what I read somewhere or heard from this person or that person. I do feel genuinely enlightened though.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting part of the two articles to me was Deutscher's comments about the Guugu Yimithirr language and others like it. The examples he gave of the little boy going to an unfamiliar village to learn dance and not knowing how to communicate with his instructor and of the man who was turned around multiple times in a dark room and was still able to correctly identify his cardinal directions were so intriguing to me. I live in a very egocentric world where I do not have to use cardinal directions in every conversation, and sometimes I don’t even have to use them on a daily basis.
I especially liked the fact that pointing at oneself being a part of a culture like the Guugu Yimithirr doesn’t mean that people should recognize the physical body behind the finger but rather what is beyond the body. While I am no longer a subscriber to Whorf’s theory, I do think that cultural values and language are tied together in a peculiar way. I am no psycholinguist, so I won’t dare to comment on this relationship, but I think that the two go hand-in-hand.
-Emily Davis
I learned one of the most interesting concepts in this class so far from the Deutscher response article. I see how your mother tongue doesn't force you to think a certain way, but instead it obliges. I also see this with men and women. I get entirely different questions about my day from my mom then I do from Bristow. My mother will ask "What did you learn?" usually first whereas Bristow will ask "What did you do?" I see this as that most women are concerned with a deeper emotional level. However, men are concerned more with the concrete things. That's just what I day dreamed right after reading the article.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Charlynn gets an A in my book for her story.
I found the part on feminism to be very interesting. How he talked about that some feminists blame sexist thinking on sexist language. I had never thought about this concept before but it does make a lot of since. The use of he to define a general person can lead to some confusion when you do not know who a person is generally speaking about. Even in social and political discourse words are determining thoughts. It goes back to how women and men ask questions differently based on what they are hoping to get from the answer. They have different interests. He questions whether or not the government is manipulating people’s minds by using words like pacification which means bombing, revenue enhancement meaning taxes, and nonretention meaning firing. All of these words meanings would be more intimidating to people and ultimialty cause a bigger reaction than what they do now.
ReplyDeleteKayci Snider
Maybe I am just a control freak, but I have a problem with anybody telling me that the way I think is controlled by anything outside of my own reasoning. With that being said, I find it interesting how language can influence certain thoughts and concepts. While I have to agree that language influences our thoughts, I could never say that we are restricted by it. As Pinker points out, thought is not a language as we perceive it, but is independent in and of itself. Perceptions and the understanding of concepts are developed through experience and interaction.
ReplyDeleteDeutscher’s portion about the Guugu Yimithirr language should proves that language is only a representation of concepts, and while the spatial understanding differs from English to Guugu Yimithirr, both languages are just as capable in giving someone directions or articulating the position of an object in space. The understanding is different, but the concept is the same. What I still find interesting, though, is the way Deutscher described the gender differences in language. I would like to find a study that investigates the literal effects of gender nouns on architectural designs. Deutscher asks, “Did the opposite genders of “bridge” in German and Spanish, for example, have an effect o the designs of bridges in Spain and Germany?” I would like to know, and, if this is true, how does that fit in the grand scope of language vs. thought. Whatever the outcome, one this is certain to me: a bridge is still a bridge.