3 ms·

If I read the article correctly the author says he came to believe the idea of language defining/affecting worldview is false or at least unproven.

gumby 12y ago
I think you read that correctly but I think he is being glib or expressed this poorly (McWorter is a serious linguist so I am surprised by his statement). The example he gave was a straw man. There is good and disturbing work on how language affects decision making (see, or example Lera Boroditsky). In some languages, like, English, you're more likely to say "he dropped the glass and broke it" while in others, like Spanish and Hindi, you're more likely to say "the glass fell and broke", or even "she had the glass and it fell and it broke". So what? Well if you use these formulations in a controlled trial in a single language (e.g. in English: split a group in two and describe a scene to one in an agentive and the other a non-agentive way they end up with completely different views of responsibility, guilt etc). Yes you could in theory do all this work in one language (like Lakoff) but you might not even know that it could be interesting. There are lots of interesting examples. This kind of stuff can be useful in uncovering (or exploiting) propaganda / advertising, but also decision making in science, law etc. And language is one of our few tools for investigating operating brains since setting breakpoints in brains is frowned upon. To what degree do these differences really affect culture? Who knows (yet?). I find a full Sapir-Whorf cultural-determinism-from-language very hard to take seriously, but in the small at least it seems pretty likely and who knows how fundamental it is? It needs research. Plus it's fun. My wife, kid and I use three different languages together even in the house, depending on context or whom we're talking about, or what we want to say or just by whimsy. We listen to different kinds of music depending on mood too. People don't live in a world of fordist Gadgrinds!
- mnl 12y ago
  This. My native language is Spain's Spanish and one of the things that shocked me about the Anglo worldview (when I was proficient enough to realise it) is the fact that things do happen because of a grammatical agent all the time (BTW, worldview comes from Weltanschauung, it's actually nice having German around). This makes intentional any unintentional action for all intents and purposes. Then you start to understand the preposterous plots in some movies, e.g. as a result of an accident someone dies, then it comes consequent revenge because someone "killed" them, no matter any hopeless "but it was an accident!". You can imagine the moral and political implications, and the friction between cultures as well. I guess you can't translate grammar... or even grasp the alternatives without learning another language. And then there are the terms/concepts/ideas particular of a language or their lack thereof. I learnt from a Borges essay, Ancient Germanic Literatures, about the Ulfilas/Wulfila Bible. As I don't have the English translation of this book (and there's no excerpt in Google Books), I'll try to translate Borges (but not his semicolons) myself: "The Gothic Bible is the oldest monument of the Germanic Languages. Wulfila had to overcome vast difficulties; the Bible more than a book, is a literature; to reproduce that literature, sometimes complex and abstruse, in a warriors and sheperds dialect is a job that would look impossible a priori. Wulfila achieved it with pluck and sometimes with sharp wit. As is natural, he lavished barbarisms and neologisms on it; he had to civilise the language. It holds surprises for the reader. It is written in The Mark Gospel (VIII, 36): "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (translator's note: KJV). Wulfila translates world (cosmos, order, in the original) as beautiful house (t/n: fairhvu). Centuries later, Anglo-Saxons would translate world as woruld [wereald, age of Man], that sets human time against the infinite duration of divinity. The concepts of cosmos and world were quite abstract for the simple Germanic peoples."

gumby 12y ago

I think you read that correctly but I think he is being glib or expressed this poorly (McWorter is a serious linguist so I am surprised by his statement). The example he gave was a straw man. There is good and disturbing work on how language affects decision making (see, or example Lera Boroditsky). In some languages, like, English, you're more likely to say "he dropped the glass and broke it" while in others, like Spanish and Hindi, you're more likely to say "the glass fell and broke", or even "she had the glass and it fell and it broke". So what? Well if you use these formulations in a controlled trial in a single language (e.g. in English: split a group in two and describe a scene to one in an agentive and the other a non-agentive way they end up with completely different views of responsibility, guilt etc). Yes you could in theory do all this work in one language (like Lakoff) but you might not even know that it could be interesting. There are lots of interesting examples. This kind of stuff can be useful in uncovering (or exploiting) propaganda / advertising, but also decision making in science, law etc. And language is one of our few tools for investigating operating brains since setting breakpoints in brains is frowned upon. To what degree do these differences really affect culture? Who knows (yet?). I find a full Sapir-Whorf cultural-determinism-from-language very hard to take seriously, but in the small at least it seems pretty likely and who knows how fundamental it is? It needs research. Plus it's fun. My wife, kid and I use three different languages together even in the house, depending on context or whom we're talking about, or what we want to say or just by whimsy. We listen to different kinds of music depending on mood too. People don't live in a world of fordist Gadgrinds!

mnl 12y ago
This. My native language is Spain's Spanish and one of the things that shocked me about the Anglo worldview (when I was proficient enough to realise it) is the fact that things do happen because of a grammatical agent all the time (BTW, worldview comes from Weltanschauung, it's actually nice having German around). This makes intentional any unintentional action for all intents and purposes. Then you start to understand the preposterous plots in some movies, e.g. as a result of an accident someone dies, then it comes consequent revenge because someone "killed" them, no matter any hopeless "but it was an accident!". You can imagine the moral and political implications, and the friction between cultures as well. I guess you can't translate grammar... or even grasp the alternatives without learning another language. And then there are the terms/concepts/ideas particular of a language or their lack thereof. I learnt from a Borges essay, Ancient Germanic Literatures, about the Ulfilas/Wulfila Bible. As I don't have the English translation of this book (and there's no excerpt in Google Books), I'll try to translate Borges (but not his semicolons) myself: "The Gothic Bible is the oldest monument of the Germanic Languages. Wulfila had to overcome vast difficulties; the Bible more than a book, is a literature; to reproduce that literature, sometimes complex and abstruse, in a warriors and sheperds dialect is a job that would look impossible a priori. Wulfila achieved it with pluck and sometimes with sharp wit. As is natural, he lavished barbarisms and neologisms on it; he had to civilise the language. It holds surprises for the reader. It is written in The Mark Gospel (VIII, 36): "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" (translator's note: KJV). Wulfila translates world (cosmos, order, in the original) as beautiful house (t/n: fairhvu). Centuries later, Anglo-Saxons would translate world as woruld [wereald, age of Man], that sets human time against the infinite duration of divinity. The concepts of cosmos and world were quite abstract for the simple Germanic peoples."