3 ms·
The current common stance of linguists is that the SWH doesn't hold for human languages. I personally disagree, but I haven't done the formal experiments to con
by RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
The current common stance of linguists is that the SWH doesn't hold for human languages. I personally disagree, but I haven't done the formal experiments to confirm my informal belief.
- xiaoma 16y agoThat was true 20 years ago, today not so much. The strongest of the original Sapir-Whorf claims don't hold up, but the weaker ones do. See Lera Boroditsky's work in particular. She's been publishing on this topic for at least 10 years. Most of the good stuff requires a library (or paying), but heres an edge article from a year and a half ago: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_in... Boroditsky, L. (2003). Linguistic relativity. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 917–922). London, England: Macmillan. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers' conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22.
- steveklabnik 16y agoThanks guys. Funny that I'm still learning about it in college, then...