Re: OT: Helen Keller & Whorf-Sapir
| From: | Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Saturday, August 14, 2004, 13:09 |
|---|
Hallo!
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:33:00 -0700,
Samuel Rivier <samuelriv@...> wrote:
> >Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 20:20:01 -0500
> >From: "Mark P. Line" <mark@...>
> >Subject: Re: OT: Helen Keller & Whorf-Sapir
>
> [...]
>
> >Another option is to entertain the possibility that
> >the Sapir-Whorf
> >hypothesis does not actually hold in its strong form.
Yep.
> >
> >-- Mark
>
> Or my own hypothesis, which I held throughout my
> Cultural Linguistics class, much to my professor's
> dismay, which is that Sapir and Whorf are dumbasses
> and language has little to no influence on thought.
I wouldn't call Sapir a dumbass; Whorf is another matter.
(But even about Whorf I better stay silent because I am not
a professional linguist, only a bloody amateur.)
I also wouldn't say that language has *no* influence on thought;
I think it does indeed influence thought, but only to some degree.
Language is only one of many different things that influence thought,
and in no way dominant; and the influence cuts both ways - thought
also influences language.
Just my two cents worth.
Greetings,
Jörg.
Replies