4 ms·
> Wouldn't that prove that language inherently affects cognition, and thus proves linguistic relativism? No, it wouldn't. It's not the language that is affect
by cokernel 13y ago
> Wouldn't that prove that language inherently affects cognition, and thus proves linguistic relativism?
No, it wouldn't. It's not the language that is affecting how the brain works here; it's the other way around. The theory of universal grammar can be viewed in part as an explicit rejection of linguistic relativity.
> I don't think you actually made a point in favor of linguistic relativism, but that was the theme of this whole discussion thread.
I was responding to your comment:
> If I've misunderstood your usage of the phrase "Universal Grammar", I apologize for my ignorance.
I had thought you might be interested in more information on what "universal grammar" is supposed to mean. I was not attempting to take a position on linguistic relativism.
- jgg 13y ago> No, it wouldn't. It's not the language that is affecting how the brain works here; it's the other way around. The theory of universal grammar can be viewed in part as an explicit rejection of linguistic relativity. I thought you said certain parameters were set during language acquisition, which would mean that the language inherently modifies how you think. > I had thought you might be interested in more information on what "universal grammar" is supposed to mean. I was not attempting to take a position on linguistic relativism. I understand, thank you.