Re: OT: Helen Keller & Whorf-Sapir

There was an article in the new scientist (I think) saying they'd tested
English babies (that didn't speak properly yet) getting them to group
similar items together, where the relevant similarity was loose v tight
containment (which is a distinction that you almost have to make in
Korean but not in English), and then English adults I think, and they
found that the babies performed much better at grouping them together
correctly than the adults. I might be getting some of the details
confused.. they might have tested Korean people too... This seems
relevant to the question since they were suggesting that all people are
capable of making the same distinctions, but the language they speak
guides them to give more thought etc to certain notions rather than
others. So I guess they were arguing that their experiment supported the
weak form not the strong form, that language guides (to a certain
degree) but doesn't limit thought.
 The problem I see with your question though is that no one experiences
the world in the same way anyway, so deviation from a "standard" view
wouldn't be abnormal even for a speaking person. Your question about how
she percieves the world is just as futile as my question about how you
percieve it... you can't describe your perception properly, and I doubt
if you could I would understand, because your whole world view is made
up of a lifetime of experiences. It's similar to the old problem about
colours.. we both agree what red is, but how do I know your red is the
same as mine? What if the way you see red is how I see blue? etc.

>Caleb said:
>
>
>>The other day, on the way to work, I was listening to NPR, and caught
>>the tail end of an article about Helen Keller. This got me thinking
>>about the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis. Now I don't claim to be a linguist,
>>so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that this basically says
>>that one's language defines the way we see the world. If this is the
>>case, then I wonder what Helen Keller's perception of the world would
>>have been before learning to communicate.
>>
>>1) One possibility, I suppose, could be that she came up with her own
>>sort of internal 'language', completely different and independent of
>>English and unrelated to spoken words. It would have to be
>>a 'language' based on touch, texture, and motion, rather than
>>abstract words. But it would also suggest that language is an
>>inherent part of the human mind, and that the human mind is capable
>>of creating language without needing to be taught it.
>>
>>2) OTOH, if the mind weren't capable of creating its own language,
>>then Helen Keller would have been language-less, and would not have
>>had any way of interpreting the world or interacting with it
>>(according to Whorf Sapir).
>>
>>3) Since 2 is apparently false (Helen Keller was capable of
>>interacting, albeit rudely, with the world), assumming the truth of
>>Whorf-Sapir seems to imply the truth of 1)
>>
>>
>
>
>Another option is to entertain the possibility that the Sapir-Whorf
>hypothesis does not actually hold in its strong form.
>
>
>-- Mark
>
>
>

Reply