5 ms·

I've also often wondered if the language one thinks in has any effect on cognition or the "efficiency" of thought (if that even makes sense).

by tkahn6 16y ago

alan-crowe 16y ago
I've tried, briefly, to firm-up the idea in "Sapir-Whorf meets coding theory" http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/10/8848/5161 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/10/8848/5161
wheels 16y ago
That's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and has largely fallen out of favor in modern (Chomskyan, universal grammar) linguistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  Yes, although most people who talk about the SWH don't actually quote what was originally said. The Wikipedia article is pretty good, but should be regarded as a starting point rather than as definitive. There is still some dispute over some of the related issues. I know some linguists who separate SWH from "Linguistic relativity." It is clear that there are ideas we can have without necessarily having the language to express them, but similarly, in groups with fluent polyglots the language in use shifts regularly according to the subject/topic. It seems clear that polyglots will prefer one language over another, and that seems to be correlated with the subject, but research in this subject is hard, and clear, unambiguous and uncontroversial results are rare.
- phuff 16y ago
  And modern, Chomskyan, universal grammar linguistics has fallen out of favor among most post-modern linguists everywhere outside of Boston ;)
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
ars 16y ago
Yes, but the difference is not the language, but the words. The complexity of the words. A single word can hold a large amount of meaning, but to the brain that single word uses the same "storage" and any other word. So by having many complex words a person can think more "efficiently". This is why many fields have jargon - the jargon helps the thinking process, by essentially acting like file compression - you compress an entire concept into a single word, and you can now think about some big complicated thing by using a single word. This is also why language have so MANY words. English has something like half a million of them. Yet it would be totally possible to replace the vast majority of them with simpler, but more, words. But doing so has drawbacks to thinking ability.
- stck 16y ago
  Drawbacks? The difference could also be positive. Think of toki pona, an artificial language with only 123 words and their compounds. http://en.tokipona.org/wiki/What_is_Toki_Pona%3F http://en.tokipona.org/wiki/What_is_Toki_Pona%3F When you see a bug, you a bug, whether it's a cockroach or a spider. Thinking becomes clearer and simpler (or so they say).

I've also often wondered if the language one thinks in has any effect on cognition or the "efficiency" of thought (if that even makes sense).

by tkahn6 16y ago

I've also often wondered if the language one thinks in has any effect on cognition or the "efficiency" of thought (if that even makes sense).

alan-crowe 16y ago

I've tried, briefly, to firm-up the idea in "Sapir-Whorf meets coding theory" http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/10/8848/5161 http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/10/8848/5161

wheels 16y ago

That's called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and has largely fallen out of favor in modern (Chomskyan, universal grammar) linguistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Yes, although most people who talk about the SWH don't actually quote what was originally said. The Wikipedia article is pretty good, but should be regarded as a starting point rather than as definitive. There is still some dispute over some of the related issues. I know some linguists who separate SWH from "Linguistic relativity." It is clear that there are ideas we can have without necessarily having the language to express them, but similarly, in groups with fluent polyglots the language in use shifts regularly according to the subject/topic. It seems clear that polyglots will prefer one language over another, and that seems to be correlated with the subject, but research in this subject is hard, and clear, unambiguous and uncontroversial results are rare.
phuff 16y ago
And modern, Chomskyan, universal grammar linguistics has fallen out of favor among most post-modern linguists everywhere outside of Boston ;)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

ars 16y ago

Yes, but the difference is not the language, but the words. The complexity of the words. A single word can hold a large amount of meaning, but to the brain that single word uses the same "storage" and any other word. So by having many complex words a person can think more "efficiently". This is why many fields have jargon - the jargon helps the thinking process, by essentially acting like file compression - you compress an entire concept into a single word, and you can now think about some big complicated thing by using a single word. This is also why language have so MANY words. English has something like half a million of them. Yet it would be totally possible to replace the vast majority of them with simpler, but more, words. But doing so has drawbacks to thinking ability.

stck 16y ago
Drawbacks? The difference could also be positive. Think of toki pona, an artificial language with only 123 words and their compounds. http://en.tokipona.org/wiki/What_is_Toki_Pona%3F http://en.tokipona.org/wiki/What_is_Toki_Pona%3F When you see a bug, you a bug, whether it's a cockroach or a spider. Thinking becomes clearer and simpler (or so they say).