[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 11:40 PM 12/7/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >I doubt it. Antiwhorfianism is normally a rejection of the idea that > >language determines or constrains how we think, not what we say > > The concept that what we say is unrelated to what we think (or how we think > for that matter) seems mind-bogglingly wrong, which is probably why SWH is > accepted by assumption by most people who presume that language structure > determines what we say I don't mean this as cattiness, but "the concept that what we say is unrelated to what we think (or how we think for that matter)" is not implicit in what I said and is not something I can imagine anybody entertaining. A prime problem of whorfian discussions in linguistics is exemplified here: vagueness about what a pro-whorfian believes, and strawman versions of antiwhorfian positions.
If language structure determines or constrains what we say, and if what we say is closely related to what we think, then language determines or constrains what we think.
I have not come across anybody who believes that language structure determines everything we say, or anybody who believes that language structure determines nothing we say. So it can't be true that "SWH is accepted by assumption by most people who presume that language structure determines what we say".
It doesn't have to be everything/nothing. If it is even close to either extreme however, then a well-designed SW test should give a clear result.
> >Also, the idea that (in possibly trivial ways) language enables > >certain thoughts is not very controversial > > The question Loglan/Lojban tries to resolve is whether language > restrictions LIMIT certain thoughts (makes them more difficult if not > unthinkable) This has the virtue of being clear and conceivably testable if some methodology could be found. And thankfully it is the interesting and nontrivial version of whorfianism. That said, the Loglan chapter by JCB and the two documents compiled by you don't shed much light on how Lojban will try to resolve the question.
Which two?
Furthermore, I get the impression that our local 'SWists', i.e. xod, is more interested in how Lojban might broaden mental horizons, not narrow them...
That is a removal of restrictions, which should therefore result in measureable gains is some sort of mental facility that are less common, or less easily achieved by a control group that does not use Lojban.
At one point I suggested fluent Lojbanists vs. people fluent in some other moderately difficult second language, in a test of thinking-out-of-the-box creativity/problem solving, or labelling emotions, or the old standby of "logical thinking". The exact nature of these tests I can't describe, but they seem like the sorts of things that psychologists could come up with tests for. We'd have to see a pretty strong effect to be sure that it is due to the language, and not to the personalities, but once you get SOME publishable results you have a chance to get funding to refine the test.
lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org