Whorfian Linguistic Determinism and the Search for �Indo-Europeans�

[Guest guest]

But what of Bhartrihari, who I understand it asserts that the sounds a

langauge invokes are the key to our consciousness. see for instance

 

http://www.indicstudies.us/Mathematics/Biographies/Bhartrihari.html

 

, " mkelkar2003 " <mayureshkelkar wrote:

>

> " But while we all know when drawing on common sense that thoughts can't be

pushed around by words, many people hold the opposite belief when they

intellectualize. The idea that the language people speak controls how they

think�is a recurring theme in intellectual life. It was popular among

twentieth-century behaviorist, who wanted to replace airy-fairy notions like

" beliefs " with concrete responses like words, whether spoken in public or

muttered silently. In the form of the Whorfian or Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (named

after the linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf), it was a

staple of courses on language through the early 1970's by which time it had

penetrated the popular consciousness as well. (While writing this book, I

(Pinker) had to stop telling people that it was about " language and thought "

because they all assumed it was about how language SHAPED thought�the only

relation between the two that occurred to them.). The cognitive evolution in

psychology, which made the study of pure thought possible, and a number of

studies showing meager effects of language on concepts, appeared to kill the

hypothesis by the 1990s', and I gave it an obituary in my book The Language

Instinct (Pinker 2007, p. 124, parentheses and emphasis in the original).

> " The nagging problem with Linguistic Determinism is that the many ways in

which language might be related to thought tend to get blurred together, and

banal observations are often sexed up as radical discoveries (Pinker 2007, p.

125). "

> " As it happens the words for snow in languages like Yupik and Intuit are

probably no more numerous than in English (it depends on how you count), but

that hardly matters. The idea that Eskimos pay more attention to varieties of

snow BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE WORDS FOR IT is so topsy-turvy (can you think of ANY

OTHER REASON why Eskimos might pay attention to snow?) that it's hard to believe

it would be taken seriously were it not for the feeling of cleverness it affords

at having transcended common sense. Not only does a Whorfian explanation of

Eskimo words for snow reverse cause and effect, but it exaggerates the depth of

cognitive difference between the peoples involved in the first place. As

Newsweek noted, even if an Eskimo typically does pay more attention to varieties

of snow, all it would take is a shovelful of slush to get a non-Eskimo to notice

the differences (Pinker 2007, pp. 125-126, parentheses and emphasis in the

original). "

> " The stock of words in a language reflects the kinds of things its speakers

deal with in their lives and hence think about. This, of course is a

non-Whorfian interpretation of the Eskimo-snow factoid. The Whorfian

interpretation is a classic example of the fallacy of confusing correlation with

causation. In the case of varieties of snow and words for snow, not only did

the snow come first, but when people change their attention to snow, they change

their words as the result. That's how meteorologists, skiers, and New

Englanders coin new expressions for the stuff, whether in circumlocutions (wet

snow, sticky snow) or in neologisms (hard pack, powder, dusting, flurries).

Presumably it didn't happen the other way around�that vocabulary show-offs

coined new words for snow, then took up skiing or weather forecasting because

they were intrigued by their own coinages (Pinker 2007, p. 127). "

> Comment: Whorfian Determinism is very much alive in Indo-European linguistics

when they try to locate the original " Indo-European " speakers based on

reconstructed words for horse, wheel and the chariot. People pay more

attention to weather forecasts these days because they don't want their cars to

get stuck in snow; not because the English language itself originated in snow

capped mountains! The misleading and racially charged corollary of Whorfianism

is that Eskimos are too dumb to notice water in its various states of

precipitation. So they have a different word for each one.

> Pinker, Steven (2007). The stuff of thought: language as a window into human

nature. London, England: Viking Penguin. ISBN: 978-0-670-06327-7

> M. Kelkar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Koslaji,Thanks for the attachment. However as regards the date of Vartrihari I have some reservations. I think that chronologically Vartrihari was reigning before the Satavahana king Hala, altough their kingdoms were different.Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa Re: Whorfian Linguistic Determinism and the Search for �Indo-Europeans� Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 9:05 AM

 

But what of Bhartrihari, who I understand it asserts that the sounds a langauge invokes are the key to our consciousness. see for instance

 

http://www.indicstu dies.us/Mathemat ics/Biographies/ Bhartrihari. html

 

, "mkelkar2003" <mayureshkelkar@ ...> wrote:

>

> "But while we all know when drawing on common sense that thoughts can't be pushed around by words, many people hold the opposite belief when they intellectualize. The idea that the language people speak controls how they think�is a recurring theme in intellectual life. It was popular among twentieth-century behaviorist, who wanted to replace airy-fairy notions like "beliefs" with concrete responses like words, whether spoken in public or muttered silently. In the form of the Whorfian or Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (named after the linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf), it was a staple of courses on language through the early 1970's by which time it had penetrated the popular consciousness as well. (While writing this book, I (Pinker) had to stop telling people that it was about "language and thought" because they all assumed it was about how language SHAPED thought�the only relation between the two that occurred to

them.). The cognitive evolution in psychology, which made the study of pure thought possible, and a number of studies showing meager effects of language on concepts, appeared to kill the hypothesis by the 1990s', and I gave it an obituary in my book The Language Instinct (Pinker 2007, p. 124, parentheses and emphasis in the original).

> "The nagging problem with Linguistic Determinism is that the many ways in which language might be related to thought tend to get blurred together, and banal observations are often sexed up as radical discoveries (Pinker 2007, p. 125)."

> "As it happens the words for snow in languages like Yupik and Intuit are probably no more numerous than in English (it depends on how you count), but that hardly matters. The idea that Eskimos pay more attention to varieties of snow BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE WORDS FOR IT is so topsy-turvy (can you think of ANY OTHER REASON why Eskimos might pay attention to snow?) that it's hard to believe it would be taken seriously were it not for the feeling of cleverness it affords at having transcended common sense. Not only does a Whorfian explanation of Eskimo words for snow reverse cause and effect, but it exaggerates the depth of cognitive difference between the peoples involved in the first place. As Newsweek noted, even if an Eskimo typically does pay more attention to varieties of snow, all it would take is a shovelful of slush to get a non-Eskimo to notice the differences (Pinker 2007, pp. 125-126, parentheses and emphasis in the original)."

> "The stock of words in a language reflects the kinds of things its speakers deal with in their lives and hence think about. This, of course is a non-Whorfian interpretation of the Eskimo-snow factoid. The Whorfian interpretation is a classic example of the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. In the case of varieties of snow and words for snow, not only did the snow come first, but when people change their attention to snow, they change their words as the result. That's how meteorologists, skiers, and New Englanders coin new expressions for the stuff, whether in circumlocutions (wet snow, sticky snow) or in neologisms (hard pack, powder, dusting, flurries). Presumably it didn't happen the other way around�that vocabulary show-offs coined new words for snow, then took up skiing or weather forecasting because they were intrigued by their own coinages (Pinker 2007, p. 127)."

> Comment: Whorfian Determinism is very much alive in Indo-European linguistics when they try to locate the original "Indo-European" speakers based on reconstructed words for horse, wheel and the chariot. People pay more attention to weather forecasts these days because they don't want their cars to get stuck in snow; not because the English language itself originated in snow capped mountains! The misleading and racially charged corollary of Whorfianism is that Eskimos are too dumb to notice water in its various states of precipitation. So they have a different word for each one.

> Pinker, Steven (2007). The stuff of thought: language as a window into human nature. London, England: Viking Penguin. ISBN: 978-0-670-06327- 7

> M. Kelkar

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunilji, i agree with you that there is a problem with chronology, that remains to be resolved, but i was referring to the content of Pinkers sttatement that the laNGUAGE IN  which you make an assertion or express a thought is not relevant. My point was that such a viewpoint doesnt  agree with the fundamental premise of Bhartrihari. It behooves those who who make such statements to explain why they dont agree with the opposite view point with adequate examples.

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Koslaji,Thanks for the attachment. However as regards the date of Vartrihari I have some reservations. I think that chronologically Vartrihari was reigning before the Satavahana king Hala, altough their kingdoms were different.

Regards,Sunil K. Bhattacharjya--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa wrote:

Kaushal Vepa <Kosla.Vepa Re: Whorfian Linguistic Determinism and the Search for �Indo-Europeans�

Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 9:05 AM

 

But what of Bhartrihari, who I understand it asserts that the sounds a langauge invokes are the key to our consciousness. see for instance

 

http://www.indicstu dies.us/Mathemat ics/Biographies/ Bhartrihari. html

 

, " mkelkar2003 " <mayureshkelkar@ ...> wrote:

>

> " But while we all know when drawing on common sense that thoughts can't be pushed around by words, many people hold the opposite belief when they intellectualize. The idea that the language people speak controls how they think�is a recurring theme in intellectual life. It was popular among twentieth-century behaviorist, who wanted to replace airy-fairy notions like " beliefs " with concrete responses like words, whether spoken in public or muttered silently. In the form of the Whorfian or Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (named after the linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf), it was a staple of courses on language through the early 1970's by which time it had penetrated the popular consciousness as well. (While writing this book, I (Pinker) had to stop telling people that it was about " language and thought " because they all assumed it was about how language SHAPED thought�the only relation between the two that occurred to

them.). The cognitive evolution in psychology, which made the study of pure thought possible, and a number of studies showing meager effects of language on concepts, appeared to kill the hypothesis by the 1990s', and I gave it an obituary in my book The Language Instinct (Pinker 2007, p. 124, parentheses and emphasis in the original).

> " The nagging problem with Linguistic Determinism is that the many ways in which language might be related to thought tend to get blurred together, and banal observations are often sexed up as radical discoveries (Pinker 2007, p. 125). "

> " As it happens the words for snow in languages like Yupik and Intuit are probably no more numerous than in English (it depends on how you count), but that hardly matters. The idea that Eskimos pay more attention to varieties of snow BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE WORDS FOR IT is so topsy-turvy (can you think of ANY OTHER REASON why Eskimos might pay attention to snow?) that it's hard to believe it would be taken seriously were it not for the feeling of cleverness it affords at having transcended common sense. Not only does a Whorfian explanation of Eskimo words for snow reverse cause and effect, but it exaggerates the depth of cognitive difference between the peoples involved in the first place. As Newsweek noted, even if an Eskimo typically does pay more attention to varieties of snow, all it would take is a shovelful of slush to get a non-Eskimo to notice the differences (Pinker 2007, pp. 125-126, parentheses and emphasis in the original). "

> " The stock of words in a language reflects the kinds of things its speakers deal with in their lives and hence think about. This, of course is a non-Whorfian interpretation of the Eskimo-snow factoid. The Whorfian interpretation is a classic example of the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. In the case of varieties of snow and words for snow, not only did the snow come first, but when people change their attention to snow, they change their words as the result. That's how meteorologists, skiers, and New Englanders coin new expressions for the stuff, whether in circumlocutions (wet snow, sticky snow) or in neologisms (hard pack, powder, dusting, flurries). Presumably it didn't happen the other way around�that vocabulary show-offs coined new words for snow, then took up skiing or weather forecasting because they were intrigued by their own coinages (Pinker 2007, p. 127). "

> Comment: Whorfian Determinism is very much alive in Indo-European linguistics when they try to locate the original " Indo-European " speakers based on reconstructed words for horse, wheel and the chariot. People pay more attention to weather forecasts these days because they don't want their cars to get stuck in snow; not because the English language itself originated in snow capped mountains! The misleading and racially charged corollary of Whorfianism is that Eskimos are too dumb to notice water in its various states of precipitation. So they have a different word for each one.

> Pinker, Steven (2007). The stuff of thought: language as a window into human nature. London, England: Viking Penguin. ISBN: 978-0-670-06327- 7

> M. Kelkar

>

 

 

 

 

 

-- पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤£à¤®à¤¿à¤¤à¤¿à¤µà¥à¤°à¥à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤®à¤¾à¤–à¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤•à¥‹à¤¦à¤¾à¤¹à¤°à¤£à¤‚ धरà¥à¤®à¤¾à¤°à¥à¤¥à¤¶à¤¾à¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤°à¤‚ चेतीतिहासः।Kosla VepaIndic studies Foundation948 Happy Valley Rd., Pleasanton, Ca 94566.USA indicstudies.us/icih_conf

webmaster925-271-4528 mobile:925-998-2529

[Guest guest]

, " Kaushal Vepa " <Kosla.Vepa wrote:

>

> But what of Bhartrihari, who I understand it asserts that the sounds a

langauge invokes are the key to our consciousness. see for instance

>

> http://www.indicstudies.us/Mathematics/Biographies/Bhartrihari.html

 

From the above link:

 

" It is thus language as a fundamentally ontological principle that accounts for

how we are able to conceptualize and communicate the awareness of objects. The

metaphysical notion of shabda Brahman posits the unity of all existence as the

foundation for all linguistically designated individual phenomena. "

 

Thus awareness comes FIRST before it is communicated or it can be communicated.

Brahman can be only be experienced not caught by seneses or their objects.

Bhartrihari and Pinker are saying the same thing.

 

M. Kelkar