A less technical argument is that, for example, Platonists, anti-Platonists, Gnostics, and who know what else, could all explain themselves in Greek. So Greek doesn't tell you much about them.
Above, which ends the article, needs wikifying or removal.
It also reminds me of the idea that some things cannot be translated adequately, because there are ideas which can only be understood in the original language. The Koran is apparently an example of this, if not the chief one. --Ed Poor
This article seems quite anti-SWH, and examples in it are really bad. --
Taw
- I got here from feminism, so maybe the author was anti-feminist. I thought the article looked okay, so maybe I have unconscious anti-feminist bias. Feel free to neutralize it. --Ed Poor
I reread the article to see if it had changed recently, but it's pretty stable and pretty much as I remember it, which is quite good (if I must say so, having originated most of it). I simply don't see the anti-SW bias you do: it does--correctly--report that the hypothesis is generally discredited by modern linguists, mostly due to Chomsky's influence. That's simply a fact about modern linguistics. If anything, I think the article goes out of its way to be fair to pro-SW arguments by pointing out that weaker versions have been demonstrated.
Which examples, specifically, do you think are bad and how could they be improved? Don't just tell me they're bad--point me to better ones. If it's the pro-SW examples, then you'll have to settle for them, because there aren't any better ones--that's one reason why it's generally discredited. The anti-SW example is the simplest one to explain and lets the user use his personal experience to understand the idea; I think it's very good. In short, I don't find your criticism here specific enough to make any actual change. --LDC
Agreed, so moved the last paragraph here
In the area of Biblical Studies, the idea that ideas expressed in the Bible could be derived from study of the mechanics of the languages used (Greek and Hebrew) was (and is) influential, but was dismantled by James Barr (Semantics of Biblical Language, 1961; Biblical Words for Time, 1969). A less technical argument is that, for example, Platonists, anti-Platonists, Gnostics, and who know what else, could all explain themselves in Greek. So Greek doesn't tell you much about them.
(I didn't do this paragraph, but I didn't object to it so much that I wanted to delete it. Perhaps if its author can better explain its relevance...) --LDC
Is SWC transitive? for example, if I am to understand that language constrains your idea pool, then does that mean that you CANNOT have an idea that your language cannot express? Thats been demonstrated to be wrong, but that just proves the thoery doesn't go both ways, right? The way I read it, it said that language constrains the ideas you can have. So, to say that I've come up with ideas that I cannot express says nothing as to whether or not my language prevented me from not having certain ideas _at all_. additionally, since there is not a 1:1 relationship between phrases and ideas, a plausible explanation as to why we have ideas that are not immediately expressable is because other areas of the language allowed that field of thought to be generally conceptualized but not commonly linguistically expressed. The wikipedia is not for argument I understand, but I thought of this immediately, so am I wrong or do other people believe something like this?
--Alan D
- I have strong reasons for believing what you said, but I cannot put them into words :-) --Ed Poor
Thanks, Alan, for the better critique. You're absolutely right that if someone like you (a generally educated English-speaking adult) finds it hard to understand something as written here or if it seems to you that something is left out, then it is quite reasonable to ask whether the article presents the subject well. Let me see if I can do better: The word "transitive" you use above means something that doesn't make any sense in context you use it, so I'm going to assume you meant something else. The rest of the question seems to me that you're simply confusing
weak versions with stronger absolutes. The absolute version of SW, that language
constrains (i.e., puts absolute limits on) thought is indeed saying that one literally cannot have a thought that isn't expressible in one's language. This is plainly false, and while the example given may not be a rigorous refutation of that, it is intended as a demonstration that someone should be able to relate to. Weaker versions of SW say that one's native language
influences thought to some degree, which is almost certainly true. The
degree to which it is true is a matter of some debate: comtemporary linguists believe that while it is not zero, it is very close to zero. The only good examples of where language choice definitely influences thought so far discovered are the color-name study and the sign-language study. But those two small effects aren't really enough to counter the Chomskian contention that SW effects are practically inconsequential.
In short, the SWH is itself a vague idea in many forms, and so descriptions and discussions of it are going to couched in vague, qualititative terms. We're not talking about math or physics here, but it is reasonable science to put forth the hypothesis and test it as has been done. It's also a subject that's been talked about a lot, so it deserves clear treatment. --LDC
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)