3 ms·

The best argument for preserving endangered languages, ironically, is the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--which linguists flatly reject. Given how ho

by tomjm 9y ago

The best argument for preserving endangered languages, ironically, is the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis--which linguists flatly reject. Given how hostile most of them are (if Pullum and his gang on Language Log are anything to go by) to even the soft Whorfianism of Boroditsky et al., it's quite galling that these same linguists, who assert the absolute fungibility of human languages, also stress the vital importance of preserving each and every one of them. And given that linguists use as an insult the term "prescriptivist"[1] for anyone who wishes to preserve or establish particular linguistic usages--even if for wholly benevolent reasons, such as the removal of inconsistencies for the benefit of non-native speakers--how can they then go and support efforts to actually increase the number of speakers of some dying tongue? Isn't that awfully prescriptivist of them, dictating not just how others should use a particular language, but even which languages they should be speaking? [1] http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?cat=5

gizmo686 9y ago
If the vast majority of experts in a field of study reject some hypothesis in that field; it is a good indication that that hypothesis is likely wrong. The linguistics' reasoning for wanting to preserve language is largly selfish; their job is to study language, and the loss of language is an irreplaceable (on the scale of human lifetime) loss of data that will fundamentally limit our ability to understand human language in general. The linked article explicitly is not arguing for saving dying languages (which it views as a lost cause), but rather for studying them while they are still alive. Doing at least this should be non-controversial to the extent that one values the study of linguistics. Also, not that it is relevent to the article, but even if people are speaking a language by conscious choice to preserve it, does not mean that that language use becomes invalid. As an extreme example, take modern Hebrew. Even though it was brought to life through explicit choice, it is still a valid language for study, because children have grown up exposed to it as their native language. If children are exposed to a language like system as their native language, they will learn it as a human language, and from how those children speak, a linguist can learn about human language in general.

by tomjm 9y ago

gizmo686 9y ago

If the vast majority of experts in a field of study reject some hypothesis in that field; it is a good indication that that hypothesis is likely wrong. The linguistics' reasoning for wanting to preserve language is largly selfish; their job is to study language, and the loss of language is an irreplaceable (on the scale of human lifetime) loss of data that will fundamentally limit our ability to understand human language in general. The linked article explicitly is not arguing for saving dying languages (which it views as a lost cause), but rather for studying them while they are still alive. Doing at least this should be non-controversial to the extent that one values the study of linguistics. Also, not that it is relevent to the article, but even if people are speaking a language by conscious choice to preserve it, does not mean that that language use becomes invalid. As an extreme example, take modern Hebrew. Even though it was brought to life through explicit choice, it is still a valid language for study, because children have grown up exposed to it as their native language. If children are exposed to a language like system as their native language, they will learn it as a human language, and from how those children speak, a linguist can learn about human language in general.