Talk:Linguistic relativity/Archive 3

Political Correctness and "NoOR".
The article cites Hill & Mannheim 1992:

"As Jane Hill and Bruce Mannheim write: Yet, just as the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire the "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis" is neither consistent with the writings of Sapir and Whorf, nor a hypothesis"

This "quote", notwithstanding the accuracy of the observation it contains, ironically points to a significant fact, namely that the Holy Roman Empire has a page on Wiki whereas that for the "Sapir–Whorf hypothesis" has been disappeared.

Part of the reason pages such as the one on the Holy Roman Empire remain on wiki, despite Voltaire's comment (apparently unattributed by Hill and Mannheim), is that the label is and has been for a significant period, in widespread and common usage.

The darkly comical absurdity of the disappearing of the Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis is evidenced by the fact that it is cited throughout the article, and it is cited throughout the article as it is routinely cited in 3rd party sources. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes (my emphasis):

"This view (Linguistic Relativity) is sometimes called the Whorf-hypothesis or the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, after the linguists who made it famous. But the label linguistic relativity, which is more common today, has the advantage that makes it easier to separate the hypothesis from the details of Whorf's views, which are an endless subject of exegetical dispute (Gumperz and Levinson, 1996, contains a sampling of recent literature on the hypothesis)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The point is not that this article should be renamed "in honour of Whorf and sapir", but that there should remain a page on Wiki that addresses the "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis", and that this should be in addition to the generalist one on the field of Linguistic Realtivity. In this way the the endless "exegetical dispute" to which the Stanford Encyclopedia refers would avoided while at the same time maintaining the historical reality. It would obviate the misguided application of "political correctness" and historical massaging.

The bottom line is that this disappearing (aka mergeing, redirection, etc) is an example of Original Research within a meta-context. Original Research

''"includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.". ''

As sources cited throughout the article cite the "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis" and as the label: "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis" from the start became the most visible origin of what is currently referred to as the field of Linguistic Relativity, the position that it was not or is not a reality, in the same way as Voltaire (accurately) characterised the Holy Roman Empire, is therefore one of OR, but also more importantly a matter of irrelevance. The pertinent fact is that the label: "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis", refers to something that had a 160 year history and a considerable impact on a number in fields.

Logically, the page "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis" should be reinstated; the detailed history of the field (from 1820 - 1980's) should be located there (as imo should the "exegetical dispute"); and this article should and could then be left to focus on the modern field. The term may be a misnomer, as the term Holy Roman Empire, or the United Kingdom come to that, but it is THE label for itself, whatever that might be. I do not believe it is the role of Wiki to engage in a form of |Newspeak

---LookingGlass (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are wrong and the reasoning is flawed. The label Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is not the commonname - the label had a short history from the late 1950s to the 1990s when it was replaced in all of the non-polemic literature with "linguistic relativity". It was not the name used by Sapir or Whorf, and it is not the name used by contemporary researchers. It is nonsense to say that it is OR since there are copious sources saying that S/W is falling out of use and being replaced with LR. Even the stanford encyclopedia you yourself quote. There is no Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that is separate from linguistic relativity, so it makes no sense what so ever to split the pages because there would be no content in the SW page (because there is no SW hypothesis), or it would be a POV-fork since those who use the term are almost entirely those who don't believe the hypothesis.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel you are confusing "common" with "specialist", and understanding what is common in specialist literature as being the same as that which is commonplace. The Standford is a reliable source for the view that the label Sapir Whorf is appropriate, not for the entire field of Linguistic relativity, but for that substantial part of its history which brought it to prominence.  The disappearing act on Wiki is relatively recent, and imo says more about the political orientation of wiki than it does of the field in question.  My suggestion was/is "broad church".  There seems no benefit in taking a more doctrinal position.  LookingGlass (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The stanford encyclopedia writes " But the label linguistic relativity, which is more common today,..". Your own source contyradicts you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, this is precisely what I am saying: the term linguistic relativity is the label now used for the field in order to distinguish it from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. LookingGlass (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a misunderstanding. Linguistic relativity was what Whorf himself called the principle, and the reason it is now used is because it is seen to more accurately represent his and Sapirs ideas. It is also not what the stanford encyclopedia says, it says it is now the more common name for what was previously called S+W. You are simply wrong in your belief that they are separate things, and there isnt a single source that supports such an idea. Even Pinker acknowledges that "linguistic relativity" refers to the same principle as S-W hypothesis, he just disagrees about what the idea is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to build 'my' case for me Maunus:- "Even Pinker acknowledges that 'linguistic relativity' refers to the same principle as S-W hypothesis, he just disagrees about what the idea is.". I have never contested the term Linguistic Relativity, only that the S-W hypothesis is a particular hypothesis and that because of this and because of its significance (in bringing the 'field' to prominence for one thing) it merits an article addressing it alone rather than being disappeared/subsumed into what is (now) considered to be something perhaps different and larger. I contest that doing this would obviate the need for the Linguistic Realtivity article to both deal with S-W in detail whuile at the same time striving to differentiate itself from it. LookingGlass (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Whaqt you say makes no sense. It is two words for the same thing, one used originally by detractors and one used by proponents. The latter usage has today become the most common. That is all and that determines why we have a single article with the name it has.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you are clearly mistaken. The "Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis" is not a hypothesis. It is a label sometimes applied particularly to strains of thought (most often non-scholarly reflections of that thought in popular writing or imagination) also known as "linguistic determinism", and at other times applied to linguistic relativity generally. It is not "a particular hypothesis [that] merits an article addressing it alone". Even if it were the specific label for a particular element of linguistic relativity (which it manifestly is not), that would not necessarily suggest that there need be separate articles on the general idea and a particular version of it. See, for example Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary, which explains that different labels for the same thing should usually be treated in a single article.
 * We have covered this point already: there is a page entitled the Holy Roman Empire here on Wiki. Etc etc. Wiki is a general resource not a specialist piece of OR. LookingGlass (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, I am personally offended at your continued use of the word disappeared. I assume that it is not your intention to downplay the significance of secret abduction and imprisonment of people, nor to accuse Wikipedia editors of equally heinous actions. I would appreciate it, though, if you would henceforth be more careful in using this term. Cnilep (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to the term "los desaparecidos", generally translated into English as "the disappeared", but more correctly as "the disappeared ones". The article you cite is on Forced Disappearance, a recent legal term that, as far as I know, emerged long after the Spanish term was in common use throughout South America.  Differences between English and Spanish grammars create a minor challenge for translation which might have tripped you up.  I did not use the term as a noun (eg "the disappeared one") but as a transitive verb.  However, as you have always understood my usage perfectly, your: "on a separate note" addendum re los desaparecidos sounds like a cynical exploitation.  The form I used was simply decriptive.  If the political attempt to reverse engineer history is offensive then the usage is perjorative. A rose by any other name ...  LookingGlass (talk) 07:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not making sense. The transitive verb to dissappear someone refers specifically to the political forced dissappearances. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This dialogue of the deaf is ironic considering the topic. PERHAPS further clarification would help, but I doubt it: the "correct" translation would actually be "the ones WHO HAVE DISAPPEARED", as the literal translation is not possible in English.  Because the transitiv-isation of the verb is used to refer to South American political disappearances is a matter of correlation not origination nor causation.  Nor does it mean that the word is now the property of those who us it in this way any more than it does with any other word.  Not only is language a living thing but it is the stuff of metaphor.  Your insistance on PC policing here too demonstrates admirably what led to my starting this thread.  I understand your discomfort with alternatives but that doesn't disappear them. LookingGlass (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]
 * If your contention is that there should be on Wikipedia a link to Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis that contains the information described on this page and notes that it is popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis... there is. That's what redirects do. You may wish to review /Archive 1 along with other sections of the archives for rationale if you are thinking of proposing a page move.


 * By the way, the suggestion that these ideas have been known as 'Sapir–Whorf' throughout "a 160 year history" seems suspect to me, given that Benjamin Lee Whorf was born less than 120 years ago and published most of his scholarship in this area only about 80 years ago. Sapir's work appears somewhat earlier, but beginning only about 100 years ago. Cnilep (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not clear where you require clarification on my "suggestion", only that you seem to have misunderstood it. My suggestion was much broader than a rename (and redirects can achieve a number of ends).  As for your "btw" re duration, that is a ballpark figure, taken from the lifespan of the idea (from the 1850s to present) rather than that of the name of the idea as it was then made popular.  To clarify further: before Sapir/Whorf there was the idea but not the name, obviously.  However, and again to reiterate the Stanford: "the hypothesis came to prominence though the work of Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf".  LookingGlass (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This whole section of the article is opinionated and it isn't professionally worded. A good way to change this is to take the information and to start wording it in a neutral way so it is more informative. Also, adding citations will help back up claims. Akapoor1 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Which section do you mean, ? The text that started this discussion (in 2013!) has long since been removed. I believe the objection was to the article title, not any particular section of the article. Cnilep (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you mean this very section of the talk page; i.e. the section where you and I are currently writing, which was started by LookingGlass in 2013. Is that it? Talk pages are distinct from articles (at least as most Wikipedia editors understand their function). As a discussion of various editors' preferred version of the article Linguistic relativity, it is indeed opinionated – but necessarily so. Please let me know if I'm still misunderstanding your comment. Cnilep (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Newspeak in 1984
I was wondering if the language invented by the oppressors of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" to control their subjects is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in this article. 181.169.107.70 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in the section on artificial languages.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional pop culture references
I was surprised to see only the film Arrival referenced here. Should there not also be links to Babel-17, Snow Crash, Embassytown, and perhaps others? Grisamentum (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would strongly argue against including any pop culture references unless they are supported by a link to a reliable source that explicitly establishes the connectoin between the pop culture work and the concept of linguistic relativity. I will check if "Arrival" is included with such a source, and if it is not I will remove it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The film Arrival is the biggest popular culture boost to linguistics ever. [citation needed] Given that Sapir-Whorf redirects here, it is my position that to utterly ignore it will confuse readers and do more harm than good in terms of it remaining out of the article. Adding a pop culture section at the end is trivial, but it acknowledges the connection to the greater cultural whole, namely a blockbuster cerebral science fiction film, among many others which also should be incorporated with references. This is a tiny addition to an already fine article; its presence does nothing to diminish the value of the article. Given the reviews and ratings of Arrival, it is going to be a major film award contender, and will rake in a great deal of money at the box office. The film is a slight departure from Chiang's short story in interesting ways, but the central value of naming the premise of linguistic relativity should not be whitewashed out of the article itself. Wikipedia has always prided itself on being the place people turn to as a reference in the first instance. I implore you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.--Brad Patrick (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I could read the first source you added which mentions the Sapir Whorf hypothesis in relation to the movie. I think your crystalball overstates this particular movies significance for linguistics - and how it performs at the box office or awards has no bearings on whether it makes sense to include it here. But Now it at least has a source that justifies inclusion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

broken links
the "external links" section has 2 broken links: "language and thought" + "effects of grammatical gender on human thought" (supposedly a PDF).104.249.227.210 (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

criticism
shouldn't there be a criticism section, like with pretty much all other articles?

As this wiki currently stands, people viewing it, more recently thanks to the movie Arrival, will read it and think it's fact. Even a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopi_time_controversy would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.221.168 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact according to our policy most other articles should do as this article does and integrate the criticism into the description of the topic. There is a link to Hopi time controversy in the section on Whorf. Why do you think readers will think it is "fact"? I cannot see how one can read the history section and come to the conclusion that this has not been a controversial field of study, and that many linguists have considered it to be debunked at diffeent points in time, while others have continued to work on different versions of the hypothesis - often finding supportive evidence.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In fact, it's common Wikipedia practice to separate the intial claims of a theory and its further development from criticisms of the theory, for systematic and didactic reasons and such of clarity, as well as as making it obvious already in the table of contents that an article subject is either controversial or that criticism exists. And speaking of which, the lead of this article should mention upfront that the hypothesis is controversial, not least of all because the 20th century version was based on insufficient and anecdotal second-hand data on Hopi languages, and Whorf's assumptions based upon this anecdotal second-hand data was thoroughly discredited afterwards as the Hopi languages do exhibit manifold patent manifestations of classic human concepts of time.


 * In fact, the entire hypothesis is rooted in semi-esoteric, one-sided German romanticism and German idealism (both being offshoots of Luther's Protestant Innerlichkeit which took root particularly in Germany in compensation for the lack of a democratic revolution, resulting in political and real-world powerlessness of the beourgois individual) where human mind and language rule over time, space, and matter in almost complete omnipotence, not unlike magical thinking and the Scientological belief in an omnipotent "Thetan" soul to be unlocked so humans could supposedly rule over time, space, and matter again. Marx grouped this way of thinking (Innerlichkeit, German idealism, German rationalism, German romanticism) together as the typical, reactionary counter-Enlightenment of German Ideology of which Adorno later said in his The Jargon of Authenticity that its apogee prior to 1945 was found in Heidegger. Adorno's successors have described how this German Ideology survived post-1945 due to the strong admiration on behalf of post-war French (post-)structuralists such as Derida, Deleuze, and Foucault for Heidegger (a fact which also heavily t(a)inted their hence incorrect understanding of Freud), and these (post-)structuralists in turn influenced post-modernist thinkers such as Butler in whose thinking the hypothesis of linguistic relativity (aka either the supposed omnipotent rule of language and mind over time, space, and matter, or the claim that language and mind would be all that exists and/or is knowable in our universe) is pivotal. It's no coincidence that certain currently popular fantasy interpretations of quantum mechanics ascribe a similar supposed omnipotence to mind and consciousness over time, space, and matter ("consciousness causes collapse", "non-locality", Wigner's friend, etc.) as do (post-)structuralists, post-modernists, and Scientologists, the latter with their belief in a supposed human "Thetan" soul, since at the end of the day, they're all rooted in magical thinking and German Ideology.


 * Lastly, the fact that French post-war intellectuals took a liking to Heidegger's brand of German Ideology is also why American analytical philosophers have created this false label of supposedly "continental" philosophy, when the real and original dichotomy is between Western-European materialism/empiricism/pragmatism and Central-European Innerlichkeit/idealism/rationalism/romanticism, both of which, when on their own, lead to particular and dangerous forms of essentialism where people basically confuse first (i. e. physical) nature and second (i. e. cultural) nature by projecting one upon the other. This dichotomy and one-sidedness of each was successfully dissolved by means of Marx's dialectical materialism and materialist critique of ideology, Freud's theory of Id, ego, and super-ego as social products, and partly Nietzsche's perspectivist critique of epistemology. --2003:71:4E49:1759:657F:9E79:EF9C:3F95 (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not an interpretation that is found in the literature about this topic, except for the earlier connection to German romanticism through Humboldt and Herder - which is included in the article The claim that Whorf's data is second hand is false, as is the idea that the current field of studies rests upon the validity of his examples. There is plenty of description of the various criticisms in the history section, including the (in my opinion erroneous) view that Malotki's work on Hopi time demonstrated the invalidity of Whorf's claims or of linguistic relativity in general.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, where are your sources that falsify Deutscher's assertion that Whorf's data was second-hand, minimal, and anecdotal? And why do you think it would be called Whorf hypothesis if not for the fact that his work is paramount in it? If such a supposed revolution has taken place within recent developments of the hypothesis as to marginalize his foundations to it, there would be as little point to call it that name as there would be in still referring to relativistic physics as "Newtonian". And you didn't address the issues of proper systematicness, didactic method, and clarity, and the fact that the lead must acknowledge upfront if an article subject is controversial. Lastly, is there a reason why criticisms may be excluded if they pertain to groups as well as outspokenly to an article subject even if only in passing, simply because the article subject feels it doesn't belong in that critiqued group that it's accused to be a part of? If that was the case, an article such as continental philosophy wouldn't even exist. A better reason to exclude such criticisms would be that the sources are not available in English, but I doubt that to be sufficient for exclusion. Basically, the critique of the hypothesis I've outlined is that of contemporary Critical Theory philosophers, even if all the sources I can give you would be German essays and recorded lectures by Critical Theory professors and scholars such as Roger Behrens, Lars Quadfasel, Alex Gruber, Magnus Klaue, Korina Korecky, Martin Dornis, and Manfred Dahlmann. --2003:71:4E49:1759:657F:9E79:EF9C:3F95 (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Deutscher's unfortunate article is one large misunderstanding, he apparently has neither read Whorf or most of the literature about Whorf - it seems that he himself has his views second hand from Pinker. The sources that falsify it are already in the article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Again: Where are your sources? I'm quoting mine, so far all you've done is that you either make original claims or, at outmost, resort to primary sources (or rather, your personal interpretation of them). --2003:71:4E49:1759:657F:9E79:EF9C:3F95 (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Deutscher is your only source? Lectures by German scholars will be relevant once they are published and form part of the general literature about linguistic relativity. There are literally dozens of sources refuting Deutscher's view of Whorf and his summary of the debates and investigations about linguistic relativity. They are cited in the article already in the descriptions of Whorf and of the post-Whorfian (or perhaps rather neo-Whorfian) developments. Deutescher's view of Whorf is grounded in the research between 1970 and 1990 when it was the general belief that lingiustic relativity had been finally debunked, as the article describes this changed from the end of the 1990s and is no longer the main view (except perhaps among generative linguists and some psychologists in the Pinkerian tradition).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You've obviously read so many sources on Deutscher that you've never realized that we're not talking about "a pre-1990 article" but about a 2011 book, Through the Language Glass. And again, I'm naming my sources, while you only make personal, original claims. Another source would be science journalist Dieter E. Zimmer who in his tertiary review on the Whorf debate concludes that the majority of linguists consider the hypothesis to be pretentious and bordering upon superstituous, or Radegundis Stolze, who in his 2005 book Übersetzungstheorien considers the hypothesis throroughly debunked, or rather says that all attempts to prove it on an empirical base so far have failed miserably. Not to mention Malotki's statements about Whorf's insufficient data as the basis to his flawed hypothesis, but with Malotki, you at least seem to admit that all you have to counter him is your personal opinion. --2003:71:4E49:1759:657F:9E79:EF9C:3F95 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that Deutscher's book is from 2011, but it does not represent the current scholarly views of Whorf or linguistic relativity, neither does a random science journalsut who apparently also is not well-versed in the literature. You need to read the literature that is linked from this article which show the wealth of scientific studies since 1997.You are referring to popular science type books, not works by scientists who actually work in the field. I would suggest you start with Leavitt's book also from 2011, which summarizes the developments in the first decade of this century which Deutscher ignores. (Leavitt, John (2011), Linguistic Relativities: Language Diversity and Modern Thought, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press). You can also read this blog in response to Deutscher by the then president of the Society for Linguistic Anthropology (the academic discipline that actually does studies in this topic, together with psycholinguistics) - it contains a large list of references to literature that contradicts Deutscher. Here is another blog by a linguistic anthropologist responding to Deutscher. And here is another review of the book (though not by a lingiustic anthropologist). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bilingual speakers experience time differently, study finds
In the study, Professor Bylund and Professor Athanasopoulos asked Spanish-Swedish bilinguals to estimate how much time had passed while watching either a line growing across a screen or a container being filled.

At the same time, participants were prompted with either the word ‘duración’ (the Spanish word for duration) or ‘tid’ (the Swedish word for duration).

The results were clear-cut.

When watching containers filling up and prompted by the Spanish prompt word, bilinguals based their time estimates of how full the containers were, perceiving time as volume. They were unaffected by the lines growing on screens.

Conversely, when given the Swedish prompt word, bilinguals suddenly switched their behaviour, with their time estimates becoming influenced by the distance the lines had travelled, but not by how much the containers had filled.

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/articles/2017/language-shapes-how-the-brain-perceives-time/

Laitr Keiows (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Sapir's position on linguistic determinism
I'm wondering about the source of #16 on Sapir's position on linguistic determinism. The source clearly cites the words of linguist Morris Swadesh and not Sapir. Correct me if I'm wrong, I still have a lot to learn about this subject. Observence (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the source referred to is: E. Sapir & M. Swadesh (1946) American Indian Grammatical Categories . That paper was footnote 16 in January 2018. The paper is co-authored by Sapir and Swadesh. Cnilep (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Nazi usage before and during WWII
A large portion of the book Linguistics and the Third Reich by Christopher Hutton is devoted to the topic of the origins of Linguistic Relativity and Nazi Germany. I think it's worth a mention. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Linguistic relativity
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Linguistic relativity's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "stanford": From Jacques Derrida: Lawlor, Leonard. "Jacques Derrida". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. plato.stanford.edu. November 22, 2006; last modified October 6, 2016. Retrieved 20 May 2017. From Bertrand Russell: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Bertrand Russell", 1 May 2003 From J. L. Austin:  From Taoism:  From Relativism:  From Paul Grice:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Political notion?
The article says that "There is controversy whether this a scientific hypothesis or more of a political notion". The single source only states that "Many linguists, including Noam Chomsky, contend that language in the sense we ordinary think of it, in the sense that people in Germany speak German, is a historical or social or political notion, rather than a scientific one." It is not talking about linguistic relativity in this quote, only about how we perceive language. Is there something I'm missing?--Megaman en m (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree; that seems to me like a misunderstanding of the source. The source seems to be saying that the piece will elide possible differences between language as a cognitive notion and various languages as historical/social/political ones. It does not seem to me to suggest that linguistic relativity is a political notion. Cnilep (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's how I felt. I went ahead and deleted it.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

math as a language
It would be nice to reference some discussion of how this relates to math. Math is often, and literally, referred to as a language. And that language clearly enables proficient users to think in undeniably different and powerful ways than less ~functional languages do. It seems it would be the ultimate example... whether people feel capable thinking quantitatively and logically, vs. whether they believe that thoughts must be understood and expressed as emotional impressions, etc.
 * This article is specific to linguistics. I believe your point is valid but I do not see it fitting into this article. Beach drifter (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Mathematical notation has been of interest to linguists long before programming languages were, and it still is (e.g. http://eprints.sztaki.hu/7913/1/Kornai_1762289_ny.pdf)
 * The differences in conceptual capability of different notations is a classic (old) discussion, but I don't know where or how it has *best* been merged into the discussion of “Linguistic Relativity” (p.49 in the above reference doesn’t go deep). Other editors might know, so I just raised it for consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.5.72.176 (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

De facto Talk
The following comments are included in maintenance tags in the article and related edit comments. I am copying them here, as they seem to constitute de facto Talk page contributions.

"Another question is whether language is a tool for representing and referring to objects in the world, or whether it is a system used to construct mental representations that can be communicated."


 * what is the relevance of this in the local context? Is this a true dichotomy? —Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs) 05:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes!
 * In the last section of the philosophy segment I answered yes to the questions posed in May of 2017. The relevance in the local context is that this dilemma is directly linked to the meaning of words - it is prescient in addressing whether words directly relate to objects in the world or whether they merely address conceptions that pick out those objects. It's a bit more complicated than just a dilemma. See: Naive Semantic Theory vs Russel/Frege vs Kripe's "Naming and Necessity" —184.145.52.255 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When I think about an object I generally consider the word for the object in parallel to the characteristics of the object relevant at the time. When I communicate about the object I use the word as a short and convenient way to bring to the other person's conscious awareness the characteristics I would expect them to associate with the word. Sometimes there is sufficient overlap in the characteristics I am considering relevant at the time and what the other thinks about when they hear the word for useful communication to occur. For more precise communication it is often necessary to use more words, but sometimes more words just cause more confusion. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The foregoing was moved here by Cnilep (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Examples added by 98.219.247.4
An anonymous editor from IP 98.219.247.4 added examples and discussion with a series of edits on 2-3 December 2020. At least one of the examples added appears to be a close paraphrase of an online source.


 * ScienceStruck.com: Hence, if a Hopi speaker witnesses an insect flying near an aviator, while looking at an airplane, she would claim to have seen the same thing (word) thrice, whereas an English speaker would describe it as seeing three different things.


 * text added to Wikipedia: He explained that if a native Hopi language speaker were to see an insect fly by an aviator who was getting into an airplane, they would claim to have seen the same thing, three times. For an English speaker however, those are three very distinct things and are represented by different words.

This type of close paraphrase, with essentially the same message and only a few words changed, risks violating the copyright of the original source (though a certain amount of paraphrase may be acceptable with proper attribution). I therefore reverted the whole series of edits. Please take care if re-adding the information in order to avoid copyright violation. Cnilep (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Planned Revisions
Hello all. I'm writing to communicate some revisions I plan to make as part of an academic course. Here is my plan: Please inform me of any concerns. -Anxiouspoet (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarify in lead paragraph linguistic relativity vs. linguistic determinism vs. Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, i.e., that these are labels that have been debated/meant different things throughout this theory's history.
 * Revise lead more generally for clarity; move most of Background section to lead.
 * Reorganize most of the article, using the History section as a frame. This would involve folding the Empirical Research section into the History section. The History heading would disappear and all subheads would become headings. I will leave the Other Domains section untouched.
 * Add needed citations.
 * Clarify and/or remove jargon.
 * Remove irrelevant information (ex. extraneous biographical info on Whorf and the like).
 * Remember that the lead should not be too long and that everything in the lead should also be in the body (the lead summarizes material in the body). I am not sure I agree with folding empirical research into history. What is the reason you would do that? Also why have no subheadings?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also: I would encourage using Leavitt's recent book as the main source - it really is the best one for a history of the questions. Some other recent work like Caleb Everett's are perhaps better at summarizing the experimental work. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestions and comments. In my evaluation of the article, I found that a lot of information was repeated in more than one section (e.g., the spatial categories example under "Rethinking Linguistic Relativity" and under "Domain-Centered" empirical research). Often, an explanation was incomplete (and confusing) in one section and more clear in another. Folding the Empirical Research section into the History section would eliminate these redundancies. My goal is to make the article more accessible and easier to read. Long sections and subsections can be daunting, and the history section dominates the article. With regard to the lead, I found the current iteration excessively jargon-y and difficult to understand, while the Background section is more clear. I think I can revise the lead effectively using the Background section without making it too long. Again, all the information in the background section was repeated later in the History section. I hope this clears everything up, but let me know if not. What are your thoughts? -Anxiouspoet (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Avoiding repetition is certainly a good idea. But I do think there is value to describing the history of the question and the current paradigm of empirical inquiry in separate sections - though of course there is also a historical progression to that. It might make sense to workshop some ideas for a structure here on the talkpaghe before undertaking a major revision? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * True, the article could be improved, but it needs kep a conventional structure. Thanks for Leavitt who makes the point in his Introduction that discussions around the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis have been historically disconnected, adding in a footnote: "Noteworthy exceptions are Parmentier (1985), which re-places linguistic relativity in a succinct history of revolts against succeeding dominant schools, and Schlesinger (1991). Haugen (1987), for his part, cites this history to identify Whorf with romanticism: “Whorf’s one-sided view of the language–thought relationship was not original with him. the general disregard of European linguistic thought by many American linguists in the 1940s kept them from realizing that these views had been debated by European linguists for some two centuries … [M]en of the Enlightenment were inclined to think of reason as prior to language, making language a mere vehicle of thought … coincident with and as a part of the development of literary romanticism, the emphasis shifted towards the priority of language over thought.”"
 * Here we see linguistic relativity as an anti-rationalist and anti-modernist trend in 19th century humanities, labelled romanticism due to its faith in the "spirit"; and this tradition was continued by the American descriptivists. Haugen regards the two models as antithetical. Rationalism considers language arising from thought while romanticism considers thought as arising from language. Weidorje (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Read on through, Leavitt's book and you'll see that Haugen's dichotomy is unfortunately too simplistic, and misrepresents the last 40 years of Linguistic relativity studies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm cooking. Was there a loop model of language <--> culture? I suppose that would have been Wilhelm Wundt. Weidorje (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Whorf pretty explicitly formulated the relation as a loop model with ongoing mutual influence between the language and culture.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now I'm confused because I wrote nonsense as I wasn't focused. I meant: is there a loop model of language <--> thought, so that language forms human subjectivity, and human subjectivity forms language? Weidorje (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is the basic idea of how modern studies of linguistic relativity see the relation (language being one aspect shaping subjectivity). It has early roots with Vygotsky, and Wittgenstein as much as with Whorf.5.186.121.123 (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would make sense. If Leavitt finds Whorf's idea was fundamentally original, I'd like to see a citation. Weidorje (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That was me editing logged out. Just read Leavitt, it's really good. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Britz16. Peer reviewers: Britz16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)