3 ms·

I take a medium-strong form of S-W. It makes sense in the connectionist model (which I also take a medium-strong interpretation). The strongest form says that

I take a medium-strong form of S-W. It makes sense in the connectionist model (which I also take a medium-strong interpretation). The strongest form says that concepts in one language are completely alien to another, such that if you don't know the concepts in one language, you cannot perceive them. This is obviously false. However, as related concepts are evoked by spread-activation, it is completely plausible that one language allows more efficient retrieval of certain concepts, such that very strong biases result. The famous example of the many Inuit words for snow comes to mind. It is true that a non-Inuit speaker is able to discern between different kinds of snow, but the language guides the mind in terms of where to look for details. Without this guide, it is easy to get lost and confused. Here's the familiar example for hackers: code in C/Basic/Pascal for a while, and switch to Python/Ruby (or vice versa). After you get used to the target language, and look back at the code right after the switch, you'll notice that a lot of programming constructs are out-of-place and "counterintuitive." This is, so to speak, Sapir-Whorf "at work." This is also why when LISPers say that you should learn lisp, because it will make you a better programmer, they are correct. :)

bd 18y ago
Wasn't Inuit snow words story just an urban legend? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
- whacked_new 18y ago
  My fault for not confirming the veracity of that story in particular, but I was using it as an illustration of accessibility to concepts in different language, independent of its truth. I just supposed that this story is widely known, but I could have (perhaps should have) easily used another example. There are several words in Chinese that describe taste without direct English translations that I know of (it is harder to sustain these ideas nowadays, given the quickness of word-borrowing like "umami"). One of them is "fish stink," which really isn't fish stink. A strong S-W will say the concept is inaccessible to the non-Chinese speaker, and, of course, that isn't true. In fact you don't even need to cross language boundaries to see the same effect: layman versus technical terminology reveals analogous differences in "perception." Me not knowing the name of industry colors does not mean I cannot perceive these colors (let's assume a single-sex population), but I will gladly group together large groups of colors into single words.
pfedor 18y ago
The comparison with programming languages is extremely misleading, because, unlike natural languages, programming languages do differ in the expressive power. An algorithm coded in Haskell or Lisp may well be 5x less code than an equivalent thing in C or Java. On the other hand, when a text is translated from one natural language to another the result is typically of the same length and typically there's even an almost one-to-one mapping between individual sentences. To anyone interested in the relations between the language and thinking, I recommend an excellent book "The Stuff of Thought" by Steven Pinker. One chapter is devoted to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, more specifically, to debunking it.
- litewulf 18y ago
  This is probably more a function of the fact that languages change over time, so if a common task is hard to talk about, new forms will appear that make it easier. Programming languages see very little change (and even rarer are ambiguity or "non backwards compatible" changes introduced.) Stuff like this is why I became interested in PL theory in the first place actually.
- whacked_new 18y ago
  Two things: again, I don't espouse the strongest form of Sapir Whorf. The interpretation of differences in speed of access to concepts, based on spread-activation, however, is solid. When I learned Sapir Whorf we were given the original interpretation and a brief of how it has been reinterpreted more recently -- but it still goes by the name of Sapir Whorf. I am not making a case for the possibility of expression. I am make a case for the salience of expressions in different languages. It should be easy to show this: take two languages and find two words of identical meaning, and measure the response speed to comprehension of these words. All other things equal, the higher-frequency word will be accessed faster. Hence, if one culture says Apple more than Orange, Apple is more salient in the former culture. You will then expect more efficient access to Apple-related concepts. Second, what makes you think that natural languages do not differ in expressive power? Certain things are more easily said in one language than another, just as some constructs may be easier to represent in one language or another, although they may be able to create the same results. I also don't know where you get the "typically the same length" from. Stephen Pinker wrote about the relative length of English in one of his books. I don't remember which he was comparing to, but English is longer. Pinker explained this along the lines of English being more "fault tolerant" due to more "redundancy" (my words).
litewulf 18y ago
I suggest you read the wikipedia article. Theres a pretty good summary of its current status. "well, dub it has some effect, but it doesn't make certain thought impossible" A better example is that some languages have more words for color, and thus people are able to differentiate between slightly different more shades. Though I'd argue thats more a function of training than the mere existence of more word.

bd 18y ago

Wasn't Inuit snow words story just an urban legend? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

whacked_new 18y ago
My fault for not confirming the veracity of that story in particular, but I was using it as an illustration of accessibility to concepts in different language, independent of its truth. I just supposed that this story is widely known, but I could have (perhaps should have) easily used another example. There are several words in Chinese that describe taste without direct English translations that I know of (it is harder to sustain these ideas nowadays, given the quickness of word-borrowing like "umami"). One of them is "fish stink," which really isn't fish stink. A strong S-W will say the concept is inaccessible to the non-Chinese speaker, and, of course, that isn't true. In fact you don't even need to cross language boundaries to see the same effect: layman versus technical terminology reveals analogous differences in "perception." Me not knowing the name of industry colors does not mean I cannot perceive these colors (let's assume a single-sex population), but I will gladly group together large groups of colors into single words.

pfedor 18y ago

The comparison with programming languages is extremely misleading, because, unlike natural languages, programming languages do differ in the expressive power. An algorithm coded in Haskell or Lisp may well be 5x less code than an equivalent thing in C or Java. On the other hand, when a text is translated from one natural language to another the result is typically of the same length and typically there's even an almost one-to-one mapping between individual sentences. To anyone interested in the relations between the language and thinking, I recommend an excellent book "The Stuff of Thought" by Steven Pinker. One chapter is devoted to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, more specifically, to debunking it.

litewulf 18y ago
This is probably more a function of the fact that languages change over time, so if a common task is hard to talk about, new forms will appear that make it easier. Programming languages see very little change (and even rarer are ambiguity or "non backwards compatible" changes introduced.) Stuff like this is why I became interested in PL theory in the first place actually.
whacked_new 18y ago
Two things: again, I don't espouse the strongest form of Sapir Whorf. The interpretation of differences in speed of access to concepts, based on spread-activation, however, is solid. When I learned Sapir Whorf we were given the original interpretation and a brief of how it has been reinterpreted more recently -- but it still goes by the name of Sapir Whorf. I am not making a case for the possibility of expression. I am make a case for the salience of expressions in different languages. It should be easy to show this: take two languages and find two words of identical meaning, and measure the response speed to comprehension of these words. All other things equal, the higher-frequency word will be accessed faster. Hence, if one culture says Apple more than Orange, Apple is more salient in the former culture. You will then expect more efficient access to Apple-related concepts. Second, what makes you think that natural languages do not differ in expressive power? Certain things are more easily said in one language than another, just as some constructs may be easier to represent in one language or another, although they may be able to create the same results. I also don't know where you get the "typically the same length" from. Stephen Pinker wrote about the relative length of English in one of his books. I don't remember which he was comparing to, but English is longer. Pinker explained this along the lines of English being more "fault tolerant" due to more "redundancy" (my words).

litewulf 18y ago

I suggest you read the wikipedia article. Theres a pretty good summary of its current status. "well, dub it has some effect, but it doesn't make certain thought impossible" A better example is that some languages have more words for color, and thus people are able to differentiate between slightly different more shades. Though I'd argue thats more a function of training than the mere existence of more word.