[lit-ideas] Re: The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 13:18:15 -0330
A "bilingual brain"? That sounds like it should be in the same kettle of fish
as
a "box of pizza." A category mistake all the way down.
I would have thought that only human agents can be "bilingual." A human brain
is
not a human agent. Brains have functions but not purposes or ends (think Kant
here, not Aristotle). Human speakers, on the other hand, use language
intentionally and purposively. Therefore no brain can be bilingual.
(Demonstrate with Venn diagrams here.)
Or not? Are we then to believe that when I switch from speaking Russian with my
mother to German with my wife, that the brain is somehow conscious or aware of
which language I am speaking at any particular time? Is a natural language
neurologically marked?
I'm thinking that perhaps W's view that understanding is not a mental process
is
relevant here.
Imagine someone were to say: "My brain is bilingual but no native speaker of
either of those languages ascribes fluency to me." Are we to say: "Not to
worry, brain knows best. Go ahead and apply for that position in Vienna"?
Re gavagai: Is it that neurological science can identify when a person
understands "gavagai" as "undetached rabbit parts," when as "rabbit at a
certain stage of development" and when simply as "rabbit"? My brain can't tell
me what I had for lunch yesterday ...
Returning to his shoveling (snow, that is)
Walter O
P.S. Some people are brainless ... literally. Cat-scans reveal they have no
brain, and yet they are perfectly functional in human terms. (Of course, 97%
of these people are lawyers.)
Quoting Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx:
> In a message dated 1/4/2014 9:52:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
> The so-called Sapir-Whorf (Whorf was Sapir's student; they did not
> collaborate) [theory] has been around for a long time, under the name
> 'linguistic
> relativity.' Most people think it's been thoroughly debunked, although a
> 'weaker version of it' is still around.
>
> My favourite treatment of this is by D. E. Cooper, formerly of Durham, in
> his "Philosophy and the nature of language". He thinks it _has_ been
> debunked.
>
> It may be good to go back to R. B.'s original source about the switch
> Russian-English in bilingual brains. I don't think the Eskimos that the
> Sapir-Whorfians analysed were 'bilingual' in any sense.
>
> I THINK the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis MAY have influenced Quine in his
> indeterminacy of translation thesis, with his "Gavagai" (original native
> American
> utterance of undeterminate 'rabbit' related meaning).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
