Talk:Linguistic relativity

Was Whorf an "amateur"?

Prior to 5 May 2009, the page included this sentence:

This debunking has been made most famously by linguist Geoffrey Pullum; in an essay titled "The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax", he attributes the origin of the story largely to amateur linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf and suggests that Whorf's observations in this respect are trivial.

On 5 May, an anonymous user removed the word amateur, with the explanation, "Whorf was prof of anthropolgy, not an amatur [sic]." I undid that edit, with the explanation, "Whorf actually was an amateur linguist, never employed as a professor." User:Maunus reverted my edit, with the explanation:

revert - noone says that you need tenure to be a linguist. whorf studied with Sapir and has made groundbreaking contibutions to linguistics- he was NOT an amateur and calling him so is wildly unfair [sic]

Although it's a minor detail, I've brought the issue here to seek consensus.

In terms of profession, B.L. Whorf was employed by the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. He was never employed as a professor of anthropology nor did he earn a living as a linguist (Carroll 1956). On the other hand, he was rather prolific as a linguist, producing respected work on Mayan hieroglyphs in addition to his better known but more controversial work on linguistic relativity. It might be noted that authors who are critical, even dismissive of Whorf and especially the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis are among those who point out his amateur status. Since the standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, however, it should also be pointed out that the a-word as it appears here is a paraphrase of work by Pullum that uses it.

So, was Whorf an amateur linguist? Does it matter? Cnilep (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Being a linguist is not a proffesional term, there is no requirement in order to be called a linguist one must earn his living through practicing linguistics. Nor is there even a requirement that one should have studied linguistics - most early linguists studied languages or literature, since that was before a field of linguistics had emerged. Benjamin Lee Whorf did study linguistics, and his proffessor was one of the most influential lingustists in the history of the discipine: Edward Sapir. He carried out field work on several native american languages ncluding Nahuatl and Hopi. Furthermore he published in linguistics journals, practiced histoprical comparative linguistics, being among the first to make a comprehensive genetic classification of north american indian languages, even having sound laws in Uto-Aztecan named after him, and being among the most influential (if controversial) figures in cognitive and anthropolgical linguistics - there can be no question that he was a full fledged linguist on par with any practicing linguist (pace Sapir) in his days. It i also false to say that he neve lectured or did research at a univeristy: "In 1936, Whorf was appointed Honorary Research Fellow in Anthropology at Yale. In 1937, Yale awarded him the Sterling Fellowship. He was a Lecturer in Anthropology from 1937 through 1938, when he began having serious health problems." The main reason that he was never given tenure at a university was the fact that started practicng linguistics late in his life and died in his early forties. Labelling him as "amateur" because of earning a living as a chemical engineer can only be seen as a low blow to his integrity as a practicer of linguistics. The same argument would earn graduate students publishing in linguistics the title "amateur" linguist. And the same argument might exclude Franz Boas from the title of anthropologist sine he was a doctor of physics. Look at the number of sources for Whorfs status as a real linguist in the Benjamin Lee Whorf article and then ask yor self what does labelling Whorf as "amateur" contribute to the article on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Certainly not a neutral point of view on the topic. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the word "amateur". It no longer strictly carries the meaning of "unpaid" and often, especially in relation to scientific and academic issues, carries the meaning of "untrained" or "unqualified". While Whorf was "untenured" as a linguist, he was paid, and he most certainly was well-trained and qualified. Adding the word "amateur" to a scientist's description is highly POV in current English usage since "amateur biologist" covers most of the Creation Science crowd and is highly pejorative. Let's not put Whorf in a class with the purveyors of religious certitude about science. "Amateur" is POV in today's scientific vocabulary. (Taivo (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

The consensus seems to be that calling Whorf (or other scientists) "amateur" implies a lack of authority or skill; the adjective should therefore be avoided. Cnilep (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Avoidance is just as unscientific as uncritically quoting some source. I think the solution to this 'amateur' problem is to acknowledge that Whorf is deemed an amateur by some, but to put in a well-chosen rebuttal. I propose to replace

Whorf's detractors such as Eric Lenneberg, etc.

with

Whorf has been criticized by many, often pointing to his 'amateur' status, insinuating that he was unqualified and could thereby be dismissed. However, his not having a degree in linguistics cannot be taken to mean that he was linguistically incompetent. Indeed, John Lucy writes "despite his 'amateur' status, Whorf's work in linguistics was and still is recognized as being of superb professional quality by linguists". Still, detractors such as Eric Lenneberg, etc.

(with proper footnote, of course) However, I feel that this replacement might disrupt the flow of the section. Any comments? Hpvpp (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No comments so change implemented. Hpvpp (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not, but superb professional quality is def. not how Hopi linguist Ekkart Malotki would put ist. Mlotki and Armin Geertz are much kinder towards the amateur etnologist and linguist Henry Voth.--Radh (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

trivia section pulled

Does the article at least mention that ideas like this SWH have been extensively explored in fiction? Debresser (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. But should. I'd especially recommend mention of The Languages of Pao by Jack Vance which, as stated in the lead to the article about it on Wikipedia, is all about an experiment involving SWH. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There could be a section on the way the hypothesis has inspired ventures in literature. Just not in the form of a list of trivia mentioning any an all occurrences of anything close to linguistic relativity in fiction. It would have to be a wellreferenced section tied up with the rest of the article's structure. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I have also added a mention of the hypothesis influence on arts in the lead.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that the "fictional presence" section at least exists on the talk page as I don't know if you can discuss a concept like Linguistic Relativity without looking at the vast body of literature that explored the concept. As a side note, a large portion of the field hypnotism is base on the implications of Linguistic Relativity (change their words, change their lives.) Malcolm b anderson (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)malcolm_b_anderson

"Fictional presence" section was split off to Experimental languages. Hpvpp (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Fictional presence

• H.P. Lovecraft's short story "The Unnamable" (1923) explores the idea of whether or not someone can conceptualize something which cannot be described by any name.
• Ayn Rand's novel Anthem (1938) presents a collectivist dystopia where the word "I" is banned, and any that use it are put to death.
• In Jorge Luis Borges's Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius (1940) the author discovers references in books to a universe of idealistic individuals whose language lacks the concept of nouns and has other peculiarities that shapes their idealism. As the story progresses the books become more and better known to the world at large, their philosophy starts influencing the real world, and Earth becomes the ideal world described in the books.
• George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) is a striking example of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity in fiction, in which a language known as Newspeak has trimmed and supplanted Modern English. In this case, Orwell says that if humans cannot form the words to express the ideas underlying a revolution, then they cannot revolt. All of the theory of Newspeak is aimed at eliminating such words. For example, bad has been replaced by ungood, and the concept of freedom has been eliminated over time. According to Nineteen Eighty-Four's appendix on Newspeak, the result of the adoption of the language would be that "a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
• In Robert A. Heinlein's novella Gulf (1949), the characters are taught an artificial language which allows them to think logically and concisely by removing the "false to fact" linguistic constructs of existing languages.
• Jack Vance's science fiction novel The Languages of Pao (1958) centers on an experiment in modeling a civilization by tweaking its language. The masterbrain behind this experiment, Lord Palafor, says in chapter 9: "We must alter the mental framework of the Paonese people, which is most easily achieved by altering the language." His son, Finisterle, says in chapter 11 to a class of linguists in training: "every language impresses a certain world-view upon the mind."
• In Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land (1961), Valentine Michael Smith is able to do things that most other humans can't do, and is unable to explain any of this in English. However, once others learn Martian, they start to be able to do these things; those concepts could only be explained in Martian.
• In Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea series (beginning with "The Word of Unbinding," 1964, and A Wizard of Earthsea, 1968), an ancient language (known as the Old Speech) exists in which every object has one and only one true name. In the mythology of the world, this is the language in which the world was spoken into existence; it is still spoken by magicians and dragons. Aside from the special case of dragons, it is not possible to lie in this language.
• A similar language system is used in Christopher Paolini's Inheritance trilogy (2002), in which a language exists known only as "the ancient language", spoken mainly by elves and magic-users. It is impossible to directly lie in this language (though it is possible to tell misleading truths, or in some cases use metaphor). While most characters in the novels believe that magic is only possible through speaking this language (and thus, can only cast spells which perform actions they can express), it is revealed in Eldest that the language is spoken only to keep spells under control, and magic can be used through thought, though this requires a great deal of focus to achieve the desired effect.
• In Frank Herbert's science fiction novel Dune (1965) and its sequels, the Principle of Linguistic Relativity first appears when Lady Jessica (who has extensive linguistic training) encounters the Fremen, the native people of Dune. She is shocked by the "violence" of their language, as she believes their word choices and language structure reflect a culture of enormous violence. Similarly, earlier in the novel, her late husband, Duke Leto, muses on how the nature of Imperial society is betrayed by "the precise delineations for treacherous death" in its language, the use of highly specific terms to describe different methods for delivering poison.
• Samuel R. Delany's novel Babel-17 (1966) is centered on a fictional language that denies its speakers independent thought, forcing them to think purely logical thoughts. This language is used as a weapon of war, because it is supposed to convert everyone who learns it to a traitor. In the novel, the language Babel-17 is likened to computer programming languages that do not allow errors or imprecise statements.
• Robert Silverberg's novel A Time of Changes (1971) describes a society where the first person singular is considered an obscenity.
• Ursula K. Le Guin's novel The Dispossessed (1974) takes place partly on a world with an anarcho-communist society whose constructed language contains little means for expressing possessive relationships, among other features.
• D.D.Storm's novel Mud/Aurora (1981) describes a society divided in three classes speaking three different languages, designed to allow survival on a hostile, deserted world of a wrecked starship's crew and their descendants. The long-forgotten ship's linguist hid the true history of their world within the language spoken by the descendants of the commanding officers, the Sah.
• Gene Wolfe's novel The Citadel of the Autarch (1983, part of The Book of the New Sun) presents a counter-example to the SWH: one of the characters (an Ascian) speaks entirely in slogans, but is able to express deep and subtle meanings via context. The narrator, Severian, after hearing the Ascian speak, remarks that "The Ascian seemed to speak only in sentences he had learned by rote, though until he used each for the first time we had never heard them . . . Second, I learned how difficult it is to eliminate the urge for expression. The people of Ascia were reduced to speaking only with their masters' voice; but they had made of it a new tongue, and I had no doubt, after hearing the Ascian, that by it he could express whatever thought he wished."
• Linguist Suzette Haden Elgin's science fiction novel Native Tongue (1984) describes a patriarchal society in which the overriding priority of the oppressed women is the secret development of a "feminist" language, Láadan, to aid them in throwing off their shackles. Elgin has written extensively in defense of the "weak" form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (which she prefers to call the "linguistic relativity hypothesis"), including a book titled The Language Imperative
• In Iain M. Banks's science fiction series, the Culture (1987 onward) has a shared language, Marain. The Culture believes (or perhaps has proved, or else actively made true) the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that language affects society, and Marain was designed to exploit this effect. A related comment is made by the narrator in The Player of Games regarding gender-specific pronouns in English. Marain is also regarded as an aesthetically pleasing language.
• In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Darmok" (1991), the story hangs on the universal translator's inability to deal with "The Children of Tamar"'s metaphorical language.
• Neal Stephenson's novel Snow Crash (1992) revolves around the notion that the Sumerian language was a programming language for the human brain. According to characters in the book, the goddess Asherah is the personification of a linguistic virus similar to a computer virus. The god Enki created a counter program which he calls a nam-shub that caused all of humanity to speak different tongues as a protection against Asherah.
• In Ted Chiang's "The Story of Your Life," (1998) language directly determines thought. Learning the written language used by alien visitors to the Earth allows the person who learns the language to think in a different way, in which the past and future are illusions of conventional thought. This allows people who understand the language to see their entire life as a single unchangeable action, from past to future.

·Maunus·ƛ· 02:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Fictional presence" section split off to Experimental languages.

Hpvpp (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Hypothesis" actually constructed by Lenneberg et alia

The article currently reads (under the sub-heading "Eric Lenneberg"), "Since neither Sapir nor Whorf had ever stated the hypothesis in formal terms, he [Lenneberg] formulated one based on a condensation of the different expressions of the notion of linguistic relativity in their works."

This implies that Sapir and Whorf considered the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" as an hypothesis. In fact, though (as the article states) each assumed linguistic relativity as axiomatic and not as a hypothesis. (See, for example, Michael Silverstein or J.B. Carroll, or indeed the rest of the article for references.) I think this is an important point that needs to be archived here on the talk page: During the lifetimes of Sapir and Whorf, there was nothing called "the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis". I am therefore restoring something closer to the previous wording. Cnilep (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See Stigler's law of eponymy. Pawyilee (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The section originally attributed the two versions of the hypothesis to Brown 1976, but a closer reading of the paper does not support that. The section also incorrectly assumes that the experiment was done by Lenneberg 1953. In fact, that paper only previews the later publication of Brown & Lenneberg 1954. It is also the latter paper which firstly formulated the two versions of the hypothesis, although not as they are commonly known which is why I have kept the quote from Brown 1976. --Hpvpp (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename Article?

I suggest that we rename the article to Linguistic relativity or Principle of Linguistic relativity. The first reason for this change is that it is as we know a misnomer. The second is that while the name Sapir-Whorf hypothesis may be better known to layfolk it is no longer referred to like that by those working with it - in newer studies it is almost invariably referred to as linguistoic relativity, examples are books like [1], [2], [3] and [4].·Maunus·ƛ· 16:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently (in early April, IIRC) I merged three pages - Linguistic relativity hypothesis, Principle of linguistic relativity, and Linguistic relativism - into this one. The reason I chose Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as the merger target was simply because it had slightly better content than any of those three. I have no objection to renaming the page, but please ensure that all of the redirects are updated if you do.

On a more substantive note, I agree that the terms relativism and linguistic relativity seem to be more frequent in the linguistic literature than Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is. There is also the problem of defining what "the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" means, since neither Sapir nor Whorf used the term, and Lenneberg suggested two versions. Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Article now moved to Linguistic relativity, basis this discussion & request. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll begin changing all the redirects tomorrow.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

'K. I see one of those industrious bots we have nowadays has already ploughed through fixing up the double-redirects - at least I think it got 'em all, hv not checked too hard tho'. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

lead too long

I disagree that the lead is too long. The requirement of the lead is that it contains a condensation of all the information that is in the articles sections, there is no maximum length. The article is currently 44kbs and it is a work in progress and I will include more sections - it will probably end around 70-80kb - this means that according to WP:LEAD#Length the lead is allowed to be three or four paragraphs long. Also many other articles and FA's (e.g.Nahuatl and Mayan languages) have leads that are as long or longer. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

WP says nothing about the length of the paragraphs. Please await consensus before you reinsert the tag.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm here. I didn't notice this note here before, or I would not have put the tag back without discussing it. Sorry.

As to the point. I have no problem with 4 paragraphs, but they are very long. Yes, the article isn't short either, but these leads are disproportionaly long. You can always find an article with a longer lead, but I do see a lot of articles, so it's not as though I'm making this up. Would you care to ask some other editors for their opinion? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if other editors agree that it is too long they are welcome to add to the discussion. A consensus will of course be respected. Otherwise they are welcome to edit the lead and remove material or change phrasings that can shorten the lead while still complying with the criteria for summary style leads.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I invited three editors I know, perhaps you do the same. Take into consideration that the references and sources take up part of the article's size, so the lead in relation to the netto text is quite large. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider also that it is work in progress and I estimate the content of the article to be double sized within the month. I won't invite anyone, but if your friends agree with you, then I think you should rather help trimming the lead than merely marring the article by tagging it.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the lead especially long. It doesn't seems to be out of scale to many other Wikipedia pages, based purely on my impressions after scanning several Special:Random articles. As Maunus suggests, though, the page is undergoing major revisions. Crisper prose is, I think, always welcome. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors Debresser invited to take a look at the "lead too long" issue. The length seems fine per Wikipedia:Lead section but it sure is complicated. I see a core issue in that it's so heavily salted with linguistic nomenclature that I have no idea what this theory is about. After reading the first couple of sentences I also started thinking "isn't this part of cognitive linguistics and/or anthropological linguistics? The lead fails to show how linguistic relativity fits into the study of linguistics though the article has a section has a section dedicated to cognitive linguistics.

I reread the lead several times, and the article a couple of times. My confusion keeps getting deeper as I still can't figure out what this particular theory is about nor when it was developed. The linguistic anthropology article seems to contain a summary but contains information that either conflicts with this article or is not highlighted in this article.

• That the linguistic relativity principle was developed by Franz Boas in ???? and, before him, by a long line of European thinkers from Vico to Herder to Humboldt). (Boas' own article does not mention his role and FWIW, Whorf's own article claims he and Edward Sapir developed the theory.)
• That the term Sapir–Whorf hypothesis was invented by Harry Hoijer in ???? (maybe 1954). Hoijer was one of Sapir's students. As a result, linguistic relativity came to be associated with Sapir and Whorf. (Hoijer's own article does not mention his role in the theory thought mentions he was a student of Sapir).

This is material, if true, and supported by RS, that should be in the article and summarized in the lead.

One other comment concerns the end of the third paragraph. "... was seen as completely discredited" is a pretty strong term and yet is not backed up in the article and also fails to show who sees this hypothesis or principle as without credibility. I suspect this language comes from academics firing grapeshot at one another.

I see that editors are hard at work on the article body and so the lead can be redone once the article body stabilizes. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree and I had vocied concerns at User:Cnilep's page that I had focused too much on the history part and negelected describing what the principle/hypothesis actually is about: I will take steps to rremedy this within the next weeks. You are right that Hoijer was the first to use the term sapir-whorf hypothesis. Boas' role in the development is not in fact as important as it is often made out to be - he often spoke out against the stronger versions of the hypothesis in fact. His role consisted mainly in bringing the german ideas from herder, wundt and humboldt to the Americas. Actually even the supporters of linguistic relativity agree that the idea was SEEN as discredited in the period from 1960 to ca. 1990 when Chomsky rule the world of linguistics - that doesn't mean that they think it WAS in fact rightfully discredited - maybe this point needs to be clarified. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit shortens the lead section primarily by placing an 'Introduction' section header after the first paragraph. (It also removes two maintenance tags, though I'm not sure if the maintenance called for still needs to be performed?) In light of the foregoing (albeit somewhat dated) discussion, does this seem appropriate? I suggest that the change at least needs to be discussed on this page. Cnilep (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My involvement wasn't prompted by the cleanup-tag and I am still working on the article (even if slowly) so it doesn't really matter (to me). As they say: it will all come out in the wash.

Hpvpp (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Improvements are certainly welcome and if the lead can be made shorter while still including the necessary information that is an improvement.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who made the referenced edit, and I was invited to comment here. I have seen long introductions on Wikipedia articles in the past (and by long introductions I mean more than one paragraph). I am probably out of touch with what the norm for an intro is on Wikipedia, but I strongly believe that if you can't introduce a short article in four sentences or less, then you need to figure out a way to better articulate it.

In the case of this article, I looked at the intro and felt that the first sentence adequately describes the article. I could find no other sentences in the intro that could improve the clarity of that single sentence, in the spirit of "what, in a nutshell, is this article about?" Compare this with the Biology article, which also uses a single sentence to introduce the article. The remainder of its header is devoted to referrals to sub-branches of biology.

My edit had the additional benefit of moving the Table of Contents to a position where, regardless of your display setting, you should still be able to see it without scrolling. Robertwharvey (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Maunus reverting Robertwharvey's edit and I agree with Robertwharvey's comment that "if you can't introduce a short article in four sentences or less, then you need to figure out a way to better articulate it." IMHO, even if it does not comply with WP:LEAD, it is at least better than it was. I believe that Maunus revert should be undone, but that the "cleanup" should be put back. There are still a number of unaddressed complaints. Hpvpp (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the lead can be improved but this is not an improvement. It is directly against the Manual of Style which tells us exactly what a lead should be like. It clearly states that leads of long articles can be asl long as four paragraphs. You will not be able to find any featured articles with a lead of just four sentences because it is simply against wikipedia policy to have such short leads - the lead should be able to stand on its own as a short summary of the article. IF you choose to shorten the lead that drastically you will be faced with haviong to expoand it iof the article is ever nominated for Good Article or Featured Article status because those articles must comply with the manual of style and WP:LEAD. I am not going to revert again but I suggest that any changes made be grounded in wikipedia policy and not just in personal opinion about "what an article should be like"·Maunus·ƛ· 06:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This was my concern; whatever aesthetic or informational strengths a short lead may have, WP:LEAD specifically states, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article" (emphasis added). I agree with Maunus that it is best to comply with WP:LEAD. Arguments about the virtues of short introductory overviews might best be held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lead section). Cnilep (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The style guidelines should only be followed if they can improve the article. If you can't improve the article by following the guidelines, then you need to do something different; see Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules, and Wikipedia:Common Sense. I would suggest to you that the current heading is clearly not an improvement over the single sentence heading with an introduction. Don't confuse article improvement with legalistic guideline interpretations. Robertwharvey (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is simply not an improvement. It makes the lead not serve its purpose as a summary that can possibly stand alone. Don't confuse article improvement with imposing your own idiosyncratic ideas about what articles should be like.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Robertwharvey is correct to note that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I admire his boldness. But in my opinion the central tenet of Wikipedia is consensus. Baldly stating that versions one doesn't like are "clearly not an improvement" seems to underplay that value. WP:LEAD is not simply a legalistic guideline; it is distilled from discussions and represents consensus. Of course it can be changed, if there is consensus to do so. Of course individual articles can diverge from guidelines if (according to consensus) this improves the article. In this case, two editors assert that the shorter lead is an improvement and two disagree - a classic "no consensus" outcome. There is nothing self-evident here; you will need to argue the virtues of proposed changes. Cnilep (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: I am not an expert on this article's subject matter, but I do have strong opinions about what I consider good writing and bad. So the following paragraph is my sincere effort at providing a quick fix, while satisfying everyone's sensibilities. The paragraphs that follow it are the original opinionated point of view that I wrote, and it is just an opinion, so take it as you will. You have been warned.

My quick fix: Looking at the header as it exists right now, I think you would be fine by just including the first three paragraphs. These three paragraphs do a fine job of summarizing the article. Compare with Biology. The remaining paragraphs of the header belong more properly in the body of the article.

ORIGINAL OPINIONATED TEXT FOLLOWS:

Alright, well if you're really sincere about improving the article you need to remove a large portion of the minutiae that is in the heading. The heading needs to tell a casual reader (like me) what the article is about, and why it is significant. Nothing more. You can do that in significantly less prose than what you have now. I noticed that someone has already added more text to the header. That's not the solution. The solution is to condense it. Keep it four paragraphs, if you like, but those four paragraphs must be brutally and succinctly focused on introducing the article in brief, and nothing more. Think primarily about describing the words, "Linguistic Relativity." Model your intro like an abstract for a research paper. There are research papers that are ten pages long that are effectively described in one abstract paragraph, and there are research papers that are a hundred pages long that use less, more focused text in their abstract than the header in this article.

Remember, casual readers like me are also reading this encyclopedia, not just eggheads. The header should answer my question, "Should I continue reading?" I fell asleep before I got to the fourth paragraph. Robertwharvey (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at condensation shaving of some 787 bytes. Feel free to continue improving. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I like this better. Kudos for the improvements. Robertwharvey (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I see two problems here: consensus and intended audience. And these two impact each other.

(i) Consensus is effectively amongst editors and not amongst those who are knowledgeable on the topic. Moreover, it can neither be assumed that all those who are knowledgeable have read the article nor that those who have actually agree by not expressing disagreement.

(ii) Intended audience is a function of the level of esotericness of the topic which is reflected in the requirement that the first sentence of the lead be a declarative sentence stating the 'what' (=essence) and the 'why' (=justification) of the article. And note here that while WP:LEAD is very explicit about the first sentence, it glosses over the rest. This means that editors are effectively given ample leeway to style the article as they see fit which serves to broach the topic and gets the article off the ground. More esoteric material can be accommodated later in more narrowly defined sub-articles, if necessary.

The consequence is that the quality of the article tends to reflect both the topical knowledge of the editors as well as their ability to envisage their audience. However, the article must satisfy both the layperson and the expert. Therefore, note that WP:LEAD explicitly says "If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition" and I would like to point out that a proper definition is superior to a summary, in principle, with the attendant benefit that the lead can be significantly reduced and still stay wholly within the scope of WP:LEAD.

Therefore, given that the topic of this article is amenable to definition and also given that this article is still in development, there was virtue in Robertwharvey's edit simply because it is easier to enhance a concise text than to pare down a verbose one. As it stands now, the lead is still too long. (And as an aside, getting the article right should take precedence over getting it to "featured status".)

Hpvpp (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Still not convinced, I have been presented with no compelling reason that the lead of this article should be treated differently from topics such as General relativity or String theory in what concerns the MOS and the requirements of WP:LEAD. Maybe your questions about consensus are answered here.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

General Relativity and String Theory are arguably far weightier subjects than this article, and probably warrant a longer introduction than this article does. Robertwharvey (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of anything, now that there is the Apture Add-on (e.g. here for Firefox), it is worthwhile to ensure that the first paragraph of the lead properly introduces the article. Which, of course, suggests having a short lead, followed by an Overview section. Do you all agree? Hpvpp (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, Overview sections are discouraged by the MOS. And it is more important that the lead gives an adequate summary of the article than to provide particular functionalities for users of particular software.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Like Maunus, I do not agree that a short lead and an overview section are warranted. Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Completeness and compliance with WP policy take precedence over any browser plug in or other means of accessing the page. Cnilep (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Then how about reworking the first para into a concise definition of the topic. The idea is that the first paragraph of the lead be able to stand alone. I have actually proposed this at the MoS here. Hpvpp (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be good to have a succinct definition as the first paragraph. Some of the ideas in the first two paragraphs come close to that, but they also include some other elements. A tighter definition would probably be a good improvement. Cnilep (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hpvpp (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your change to the definition. Linguistic relativity does not limit itself to semantics. Differences in grammar and especially in usage are equally relevant. I think you should change "semantic structure" to just "language" and I also think there has to be a mention that it holds the existence of differences in semantics to contribute to differences in how the world is conceptualized and perceived.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a leaf from Matthews, 1997, The concise Oxford dictionary of linguistics, OUP: "the semantic structure of the language which a person speaks either determines or limits the ways in which they are able to form conceptions of the world they live in." And "semantics" he simply defines as "the study of meaning". And as broadly as Bloomfield used it to include grammar. Thus, semantics concerns not just symbols and expressions, but also the particular structure of expressions. For example, there is a difference between having time-before-place (eg Dutch "we morgen naar Parijs") and place-before-time (eg English "we are going to Paris tomorrow"). Re: the "differences", I thought that was obvious from "the ways in which" and re: "perceived", I would say that that is implicit in "conceptualized". (I have added world view to clarify.) I think there is value in being concise, but I won't insist on it. Hpvpp (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, Hpvpp, but I also take Maunus's that semantics has a specialized usage as the name of a subfield, as well as the general sense of "meaning-making". Plus, as language is only half as many words as semantic structure I don't think the change Maunus suggests threatens conciseness. Cnilep (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, deleting "semantic structure of" impoverishes the definition. Also, "semantics" has more than two interpretations (see semantics) and the article is not even presented as a linguistic one. Moreover, this is not about "language", but about the unthinking/uncritical use of language. Sapir: "Language and our thought-grooves are inextricably interrelated, are, in a sense, one and the same" (1921 p. 217) and Whorf: "habitual assumptions", e.g. his gasoline drums. Just having "language" in the definition hides this crucial information and if we were to shorten the definition we would need to say a lot more in order to put across all that. But the aim is to educate the reader and I am not a teacher so if you can improve it, please do so. Hpvpp (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

removing semantic - it is actually redundant and probably serves mostly to confuse the lay reader (summary from edit by Maunus moved here for discussion by Hpvpp (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

I have reverted your revert. You didn't have consensus to include it in the first place. You were bold and included I disagreed and reverted. now we discuss and find out how best to phrase the definition. Most of the definitions of linguistic relativity do not use the word "semantic", removing the word does not make the definition less accurate or less concise. I see no reason to include it.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have said that I do not think removing the word "semantic" is a detriment. Let me go further and say that I think it is a slight improvement, since it avoids a potential ambiguity without sacrificing any vital information. Cnilep (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall not go into an edit-war, but I would like to point out that rather than making a bold edit, I came here first to seek consensus. Then, after Cnilep's comment that a more concise definition would be an improvement, I waited six days for Maunus (or anybody else) to comment. He didn't, so I assumed I had consensus and I rewrote the first para. Then Maunus disagreed about me using 'semantic structure' and a discussion ensued which I see as the D-part of the BRD cycle. However, he did not take part, but simply removed the 'semantic' without comment here which is why I reverted his edit and placed the summary here, because summaries are not visible here and can therefore not reckoned to be part of the discussion.

Concerning the word 'semantic', I think it is important to use it because in essence the principle is about the meaning that people attach to any given instance of language use. Hpvpp (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic relativity is not just about "the meaning that people attach to any given sentence in language use". Much more so it is about the ways in which the habitual use of particular linguistic structures influence cognition - the semantics is a very small part of most formulations of linguistic relativity. Also: You interpret my lack of response as consent? I had not been presented with anything to consent to before you introduced the actual writing. Cnilep's agreement that something more concise was welcome was also not a carte blanche agreeing in advance with anything you might write. If you had presented the proposal here before boldly inserting it then I wouldn't have had to revert and we could have preceded directly to discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall not argue this any further. Hpvpp (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"Much more so it is about the ways in which the habitual use of particular linguistic structures influence cognition -" Indeed. Thank you. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Including "semantic" makes the definition too narrow. There are more facets to the "structure of language" than semantics. Syntactic differences, such as word order (e.g. Subject Verb Object, or Object Subject Verb, and so on) don't make a difference to how speakers conceptualize the world? Of course they do. Is the T–V distinction syntactic, semantic, or a bit of both? From that article: "Though English has no syntactic T–V distinction, there are semantic analogues, such as whether to address someone by first or last name (or using sir and ma'am)." Such a structural difference, not limited to semantics in all lantuages, affects the way people conceptualize their social environment. Does Whorf use the word "semantic" in a definition or statement of "his" hypothesis? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In my choice of definition I let myself be guided by the anthropology template on the article. Thus, the meaning of ‘semantic’ is broad and therefore includes grammar as Bloomfield held and as I mentioned in my post earlier. Also, you guys appear to be taking a static view as grounded in some particular language (hearer perspective) while I take the dynamic view as grounded in the individual speech-event (speaker perspective). But that is fine and it doesn’t make much difference to the article anyway so I won’t argue this any further.

For an alternative definition, how about this one?

"postulates that the structure of language informs the structure of the world as conceived by speakers of a particular language" (Allan, K.: 2007, The Western classical tradition in linguistics, Equinox: London, p. 13)

Hpvpp (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for adding the 'Lead too long' tag to the article without checking the talk page; I obviously would have seen this long discussion and would have thought twice. As a bit of background, I was reading the wikipedia article on Pinker's The Language Instinct which says "language has a heavy influence on a person's possible range of thoughts (the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis)". I followed the link, and (in my initial estimation) found that the lead section was not nearly as simple as that, and seemed to be unnecessarily dry and long. After I was directed to this article I re-read the lead and find it to be better than my initial estimate. I still think it could be simplified, with much of the condensed out (say by removing the second paragraph). I do not claim to be a wikipedia expert, or an expert on this subject, that's just my two bits. If you want to remove the maintenance tag, I will not complain. Sanpitch (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do to condense it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Davidson

Donald Davidson's critique of the notion has had an enormous influence on 20th century analytic philosophy. Shouldn't there be a mention? Agent Cooper (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

it should probably be in a section on the notion in philosophy of language - I am not up to deal with the philosophical implications just the linguistic ones. Please add a section if you feel up to it I would put it after the current status section - I Imagine it should feature Wittgenstein prominently and probably also opponents like Hilary Putnam.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. When reading only the caption of the article, the name Wittgenstein already popped up in my head.

79.228.190.178 (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to indicate my agreement with the suggestion that there at least be some reference to Davidson's "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme" in this article. There need not be a separate heading, but the question of whether conceptual schemes are definable via non-translatability is important, and this article seems to me incomplete with no mention of it. Thanks. WH 170.63.96.108 (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.63.96.108 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I recently wrote the article on Benjamin Lee Whorf and reread Davidson for that purpose, (also Max Black) made a similar critique in 1959 - and Lenneberg also made the same argument. They should definitely be mentioned and are also mentioned in some works on Linguistic relativity. I think that generally their arguments are considered to be wrong by relativists, since the linguistic relativity does not preclude the possibility of translation. We could make a section on the question of conceptual schemes and translaiton in analytical philosophy and include Quine, Putnam, Davidson and Wittgenstein.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Inter-wiki links to other languages

A bot, User:Synthebot, has removed links to cs:Sapir-Whorfova hypotéza, cs:Jazykový relativismus, ja:サピア＝ウォーフの仮説, and ja:言語的相対論. This seems to be an error. The Japanese pages are "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" and "Linguistic relativity" and they seem to cover some of the ground covered here, though each is smaller than this article, and this one now has more history than philosophy. I don't read Czech, but based on the cognate names, I assume those pages are similar. Would someone else like to double-check my impression before I roll back the edits? Cnilep (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Malotki and the universalist-relativist duality

I'm a historian of science, not a linguist, but as I read Malotki's Hopi Time I see it as a strong critique of Whorf's assertion that "the Hopi language ... contain[s] no words, grammatical forms, constructions or expressions that refer directly to what we call 'time'" but not as advocating the universalist position. Although Malotki maintained that time is a universal -- "a fundamental experience conceptualized by every human mind" (p. 630) he also noted that "their sense of time, or the role that time plays in their lives and culture, does not correspond to ours" (p. 632). He concluded by leaving the big question of whether "the handling of time should vary greatly for speakers of different languages" to others to consider. A hint of where Malotki stands is his favorable comment on Ronald Langacker's presentation of a "continuous gradation of theoretical positions in regard to the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis" (p. 1).

Given the abundance of specifically Hopi temporal conceptions Malotki documents in his book, he seems to be more a soft relativist than a universalist. The article's dualistic structure doesn't allow place for such middle positions, and so wrongly (IMHO) places Malotki among the universalists.

At a minimum, the discussion of Malotki's important contributions should be moved from the section on the universalist period where it presently resides. Preferably, the article's dualistic structure should be reconsidered.

I'd appreciate some comments on these suggestions from people who are more widely read in linguistics.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the section about the universalist period includes malotki for several reasons - He worked in the period where this was the dominant paradigm. He actively tried to disprove notions (strong) of linguistic just like the universalists did. And his results have been widely publicized by universalists as being strong proof for their viewpoints and against whorf's.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is another early extensive Malotki study, on Hopi space. Both books simply pulverize Whorf's ideas about Hopi, but are very measured in tone. In some more recent essays Malotki highlights Whorf's incompetence and he is angry that people simply ignore his findings and continue to treat Whorf's views on Hopi as sacred text. Malotki has a point there, but on the other hand Whorf's knowledge or ignorance of any single language need not mean anything for his basic philosophical ideas about language and thinking.--Radh (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just read the weblink (Moonhawk something). The idea to critizise Malotki when you only have seen a Video is good fun, but perhaps: not quiet a cigar? Will try to find his essays on Whorf.--Radh (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

2 German contributions

1.) An early statement of Helmut Gipper's on Sapir-Whorf in his:

• Bausteine zur Sprachinhaltsforschung, Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann, Düsseldorf, 1963, esp. chapter 5 on pages 297-366.

Gipper later published (and I guess revised his ideas on Whorf somewhat):

• Gibt es ein sprachliches Relativitätsprinzip?, Fischer, Frankfurt am Main, 1972.

Gipper (1919-2005) was a pupil of Leo Weisgerber, the leading German linguist of his time and not only the Nazi WP tells you about, and the teacher of Malotki. I think, he was pretty much unique among German linguists of the time in his knowledge of (and tolerance for) anglo-american philosophy. He also is not dogmatic at all, which makes it a bit difficult to notice his own judgements. 2.: Rüdiger Vaas' essay (chapter 6, pp. 187-275, on Native American languages) in a pretty basic book on "Indianer";

• Günther Stoll and Rüdiger Vaas: Spurensuche im Indianerland, Hirzel, Stuttgart, Leipzig, 2001.

But this essay is not simple-minded, excellent bibliography (p.271-275).--Radh (talk) 11:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

information entropy

Does anybody know of any work relating Sapir-Whorf to information entropy? What I'm looking at is the problem of translation and the fact that just like with rumor and urban legend, the farther you get from the original work the more the information decays. A translation is inaccurate because no two languages share the same concepts 100%, and you lose efficiency when you translate because no matter how many notes you put in, readers will miss some of them. Thanks. 4.249.3.221 (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Charges of 'POV'

Two sets of changes made on 21 July by User:Arxack are marked as responses to "serious NPOV problems". I take the fact that at least one regular editor of this page, User:Rjanag, made a subsequent edit without changing the substance of Arxack's edits to indicate some level of support for the changes. In contrast, I see the changes as introducing more problems than they solve. I removed two occurrences of the word "professional", reasoning that the consensus (above) to not call Whorf an amateur implies consensus not to contrast his work with that of "professionals" who criticize him. References to Pinker and Pullum have also been pared down in the recent past, though it now seems that we may need to re-visit that consensus. Also, some of the specific language added (e.g. that Whorf's description of Inuit "was wrong in every respect imaginable") seem unduly inflammatory and may betray a biased point of view. I have no idea what relation the (unsourced) reference to Jeff Buckley has to linguistic relativity. Cnilep (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My subsequent edit doesn't mean I support or oppose the additions; to be honest, I didn't really look at them closely. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked a bit closer. Here is a comparison of revisions, and below are my thoughts about each change:

1. Most of the changes in the first paragraph are cosmetic, shuffling words around and stuff; I don't have a preference either way. The addition of "professional" was unnecessary and has already been reverted. The only major thing is the addition of For example, it is impossible to determine how somebody perceives the world except through language.. This, I think, is unreferenced, scientifically questionable, and its relevance to the preceding and following sentences is unclear. I'd say remove it.
2. The next paragraph, changed has later been shown to be a misrepresentation to was wrong in every respect imaginable. This is pretty unnecessary and over-the-top language, and probably POV...I'd say revert to the earlier wording.
3. Next paragraph: added as a fire inspector . I don't think "as a fire inspector" is necessary (it's just a minor detail), but the addition of a footnote is nice. Also added the sentence Steven Pinker in the Language Instinct ridiculed this example, claiming that this was a failing of human sight rather than language. ... needs a reference and needs to be toned down (for example, "criticized" rather than "ridiculed"), but other than that I think it's relevant and a good addition, if it's accurate (I haven't read Language Instinct myself).
4. Addition of A reprint of this volume was among Jeff Buckley's few possessions when he died. : unnecessary trivia. Whorf's book is influential and well-known, so we don't need to grapple for notability with bits of trivia like this.
5. Tweak to the sentence Today researchers no longer disagree over whether language influences thought, now the fundamental question is "What would it mean for language to influence thought?". To be honest, I find this whole thing highly questionable, and think it needs to be removed; I don't think all the people in my department, for example, would agree with this. That being said, it is sort of an intro to the rest of the section, so something would need to be put up in this sentence's place. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The last change was a change of meaning - todays researchers in linguistic relativity don't ask whether language influences thought but How it does. Even Pinker admits this in the stuff of thought. It is also sourceable to the introduction of books like "rethinking linguistic relativity" and many other books. With all due respect Rjanag might the fact that researchers in your department might not agree with the notion that the question now is "how language influences thought" have to do with them not actually researching linguistic relativity. Nearly the only linguists actively pursuing studies of linguistic relativity are those at the Max Planck institute of Psycholinguistics - and they certainly ascribe to this view.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re y our last question, it's certainly possible. Although I feel I have read some things lately that basically say "while the sapir-whorf hypothesis may still be possible, there has not yet been any reliable experimental evidence for or against it." In any case, I'm not an expert on this, but perhaps a more neutral wording would be something along the lines of "the focus of linguistic relativity studies today has shifted from asking whether language influences thought to how language might do so." That wording more or less expresses the same thing, but without being so overtly for or against either viewpoint. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, start by reading "Evidence for linguistic relativity" edited by Dirven and Verspoor. Even steven Pinker says that language obviously influences language - he just doesn't find it to influence language in any "interesting way". Therefore i don't think a wording such as "how it might influence" is accurate it does the queestion is how and whether it is enough for anyone to care about it. Moving on: The user who made the POV accusations has stated that what he knows about linguistic relativity comes from "the language instinct". The "language instinct" is of course the book most hostile to linguistic relativity and does not represent the main stream view - and even Pinker has had to moderate his viewpoints in his most recent works - now stating that he rejects linguistic relativity mostly because he doesn't find it interesting. I think the viewpoints of Pinker and his criticisms of special points of Whorf's arguments are already represented. but if there is a consensus we can make them more salient - or even add a section dedicated to the different points of criticism against linguistic relativity. However gratuitously introducing derogatory language or inventing distinctions between Whorf and proffesional linguists is not the correct way to fix any neutrality issues.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the concern. Yeah, that was late at night and some of it should be justly reverted. Before I edited it, the section read like it was written by a Whorf devotee with a degree in flashy academic prose, which I was trying to reduce. I am certainly biased against Whorf, but the point I should have made is that linguists don't consider his formulation of lingusitic relativity when they address the issue today. Arxack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

I wrote it, I am glad you find my prose flashy. Whorf didn't make any formulation of the hypothesis - that is what the article is trying to state. He just provided some vague ideas and anecdotal evidence, his real importance was in being the first to noticing that it might be an observable phenomenon.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's say that. Arxack (talk) 03:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

newsweek article

Just came across this: http://www.newsweek.com/id/205985

I had always been taught that this topic was considered bogus but who knows. Feel free to use the reference if it's good for anything. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

dead link

Lucy, John A. (1997). "Linguistic Relativity". Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291–312. http://www.russian.pomona.edu/harves/LucyREVIEWONLinguisticRela.pdf.

I have removed the URL from that item. Unfortunately, the Annual Review of Anthropology is available on-line only with a paid subscription, so the bibliographic item will have to stand without a URL. Cnilep (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cut down the fictional references

There are too many of them and many seem too trite (I do not feel immediately up to the task of judging relative worthiness myself).

I note in particular that the concept of a magical language with a "true" name allowing the control of e.g. a human or an element is far too widespread in both literature and historical societies for the inclusion of more than a small representative sample of works to be justifiable. 94.220.251.231 (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed several items that were least relevant to this article. The fact is that science fiction writers find the concept and its implications fascinating, and continue to explore them at length. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fictional presence" section split off to Experimental languages.

Hpvpp (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

External links to Boroditsky

There are now two external links to papers by Lera Boroditsky, and if memory serves there were more in the past. Perhaps a link to Professor Boroditsky's faculty page at Stanford (here) would be better. What do others think? Cnilep (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this may be a better link. Cnilep (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Origins in the lead

Taking from the featured article on the Philosophy of mind, I think the lead needs more of a broad, holistic denotation in approaching the subject.

One line in particular - "The idea originated in the German national romantic thought of the early 19th century where language was seen as the expression of the spirit of a nation, as put particularly by Wilhelm von Humboldt" - literally attributes the idea to von Humboldt. This is a very strong assertion to be made when in all likelihood the idea in and of itself could have first been realized outside of 19th century Germany.

If someone more familiar with the subject could address this, please and thank you. --Jay(Talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It could have and perhaps did so (Renaissance Humanism?; Vico?), but it is nevertheless usually attributed to Humboldt and Herder. But see: User: Mark Kupper's detailed entry above--Radh (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Benjamin Lee Whorf

I have removed a photograph of Benjamin Lee Whorf from this article pending discussion here. I have two objections to the photograph's use.

1. The file is a non-free image, copyrighted by Benjamin Lee Whorf Papers, Manuscripts & Archives, Yale University Library. It is currently used on the page Benjamin Lee Whorf under fair use. Although use here might be allowable under fair use, the same argument may not apply. Specifically, fair use on the page Benjamin Lee Whorf is asserted "To illustrate the subject in question". Whorf is not specifically the subject of this page.
2. In a related vein, although Whorf is probably the scholar most associated with linguistic relativity, others (e.g. Lucy, Humbolt, Sapir, even Lenneberg) have made important contributions to understanding the concept. Therefore including a photo of Whorf and no other scholars might be seen as undue emphasis.

Instead, it may be desirable to include the {{Linguistics}} template on the page. Cnilep (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

+1 --LCE(LCE talk contribs) 10:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Artificial languages / Fictional presence (redux)

An IP user added the following two sentences. To me they read more like the bullet points that tend to comprise less-discriminate lists than considered additions. What do others think?

Yukihiro Matsumoto (Matz), creator of Ruby (programming language), on O'Reilly Open Source Convention (2003) said that one of his inspirations for developing the language was a science-fiction book named Babel-17, which is based on Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis <ref>The Power and Philosofy of Ruby (or how to create babel-17): http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/oscon2003/mgp00001.html</ref>

Dave Astels, on "A new look at Test-Driven Development", mentions Saphir-Whorf Hipothesis and, based on his theories, creates a new vocabulary for tests on his methodology "Behaviour Driven Development" <ref>A new look at Test-Driven Development: http://techblog.daveastels.com/files/BDD_Intro.pdf</ref>

By the same token, it might be time to look again at the subsection "Fictional presence" to ensure that the examples there are appropriate and illustrative, rather than simply a collection of various users' favorite works. (See also #trivia section pulled, above.) Cnilep (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By my cheap cheerful assessment, zooming out and looking at the color of the page, the fictional presence section is one of the bulkier ones on the page, if not the bulkiest. It looks bigger than the references, bigger than the section on Whorf, and bigger than the section on empirical research, which seem to be the other main contenders for biggest section. I'm willing to call that unbalanced, and undue weight; drastic pruning seems to be in order. If it continues growing persistently despite that, it might make sense to keep only a very short list, and split the rest out into a sub-article. That would keep this article to a readable size, and perhaps be easier to patrol. As of today, this article is 55 kilobytes, towards the large side of the range for convenient browsing. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have previously removed the entire section pr WP:TRIVIA only to have it inserted again with no further justification being made for its inclusion. I am not against tyhe inclusion a well written analysis of the influence of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity in fiction - but that is clearly not what this is. This is a list of any work of scienfiction that ever speculated on the relation between thought and language. Actually I think that at the least only those works where reliable sources confirm that they have a relation to linguistic relativity should be included. I do think for example that it is original research to say that the sapir whorf hypothesis has anything to do with Orwell's Newspeak without a reliable source describing the exact relation.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the three examples with the least connection to the subject matter. There's no escaping the fact that this is one of the best known hypotheses in linguistics to the lay reader, and that this is due to the attention which has been drawn to it by SF works from Orwell to Elgin. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is no escaping that the sapir/whorf hypothesis is famous because of its appearance in sci-fi then it shouldn't be too difficult to find scholarly sources corroborating that those works of science fiction actually has any relation to the hypothesis? Also that would make it easy to write up an actual analysis of the hypothesis' use in sci-fi instead of just a list of trivia.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Like User:Manus, I doubt that the hypotheses is known because of sf novels. Newspeak is Basic english as far as I know. P.S. But strangely enough googgle has tons of stuff on Whorf-Orwell.--Radh (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to express doubt (I can only say that I don't know the hypothesis from sci-fi, but I am hardly representative) - I just think that providing sources would be the right way to show that it is the case.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fictional presence" section split off to Experimental languages.

Hpvpp (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This is still happening as of now. I just pulled a statement from the experimental, i.e. conlang section to the effect that "work" in that area was done in science fiction. Nothing you can do I think but keep deleting it or protect the article. It's a funny thing because the conlangs would be considered short of being first rate linguistic scholarship on the one hand and on the other things like Klingon are in fact (unserious) conlangs. The distinction between a serious conlang like Esperanto or Lojban which does constitute somekina scholarship and the other which is the antithesis of that is clear. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

cleanup

The introduction is much too long and very confusing, especially for general readers. In addition, the article seems to provide proof that debunks the entire Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or at least the major examples that it's based on but doesn't say so in the introduction.

In addition, the article seems to provide support for claims that color terminology is more complex in some languages without pointing out that this contradicts what was said about the number of Inuit words for snow, for example. --Espoo (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article does not provide proof either validating or debunking the hypothesis of linguistic relativity because the topic is much too complex to be validated or debunked by any single study. As the article tries to describe there are currently two camps one that believes linguistic relativity is real and interesting and which is studying the nature of the interrelatedness between language and thought and one camp which does not believe that language exerts any significant influence on cognitive processes.There are studies supporting and contradicting both camps and the most well supported viewpoint presently is one that acknowledges some degree of linguistic influence on at least some kinds of cognitive processes. The lead describes the nature of the debate but does not claim any side of the argument to have been debunked, although to the main writer (myself) it does seem that currently the camp that is in favour of a nuanced version of linguistic relativity is in the lead and that both the anti-relativists and those in favour of the strict version of the hypothesis (linguistic determinism) are a bit behind in the research. Also the color terminology research has no bearing on the eskimo words for snow debate they are two independent issues - linking them would be synthesis. If you find the lead to be too long you are welcome to see if you can make it shorter while still conforming to WP:LEAD, but I would urge you to start by getting a good overview of the debate and the relevant literature as this is a debate where many still base their opinions on too few and too old sources. Whorf is no longer the main proponent of linguistic relativity and debunking his examples does not damage the hypothesis although some people (e.g. Pinker) seem to think so. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask other editors if there is a general feeling that cleanup is needed - in which case it would be helpful to make a specific list of how the article needs to be cleaned up, or whether most editors think a cleanup is not needed in which case we can remove the tag.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't see a great need for clean-up. If others think that rewrites are necessary, the points that I imagine need to be addressed are to stress that Sapir and Whorf never had a hypothesis (as is spelled out in footnote one), and that despite some linguists treating relativity as a bete noir (to paraphrase George Lakoff), no hypothesis has been "disproven" and there is no general consensus on the nature of linguistic relativity. (This is explained throughout the page, but it keeps coming up on this talk page). Cnilep (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs form an adequate lead. The last three paragraphs of the current lead would be better merged into the top section of "History". Between the first two and the last three, there is no middle. ;-) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than a cleanup, this article needs a rethink to make it cohere with other articles. There are quite a few threads here, but the overall pattern is language and thought. I propose we need to

(i) split off and summarize here (a) Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and (b) fictional languages,

(ii) review (a) this article and (b) linguistic determinism and summarize them to language and thought,

(iii) write a history section for language and thought (starting with the Sophists and Plato's Cratylus) and

(iv) summarize language and thought to philosophy of language (making use of what is already there).

I would like to help with the history section (basing it on Arika Okrent's book http://inthelandofinventedlanguages.com/), but that might take a while, because I haven't even started reading the book yet. Hpvpp (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is the best book to work from - why not use on of the multitude of books written by linguists researching linguistic relativity? And why do you keep talking about "sapir-whorf hypothesis" as if it exists? This is about the concept of linguistic relativity which has been wrongly characterised as the "sapir-whorf" hypothesis mainly by the detractors of the hypothesis of linguistic relativity. Also I don't think coherence between articles in itself is an objective - what I am interesting in knowing is if anyone think this article should be written differently and in which way so that we can get down to business and do it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Hpvpp. I can tell that you really care about this issue. But honestly I think it's a terrible suggestion. Structuring discussion of linguistic relativity around the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis on one hand and fictional languages on the other (with or without splitting) would be like structuring discussion of Special relativity around electrodyanmics on one hand and fictional space ships on the other. Yes, notions of linguistic relativity have been important in some sectors of speculative fiction, just as notions of faster-that-light travel have been in others. That does not mean that fiction plays a comparably important role in the philosophy of language nor in physics. As Maunus says, this article is, and ought to be, about the linguistic and philosophical treatment of various notions of linguistic relativity, not about their uptake in fiction, among creators of constructed languages, or in other creative applications.

A history of scholarship on language and thought may or may not be useful. I wonder (a) if it would serve as the sort of basic encyclopedic need of this project, or might it be better suited to some sister project such as Wikiversity or Wikibooks; and (b) whether such a history would be possible without original research via synthesis. In any case, it would be neither a replacement for this article nor a subsection of it, but a broader category that includes it. Cnilep (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I do care about the topic and I think it is one of the most important ones in linguistics. I also think that the article's lead is too long and that it is messy in part. (As has been commented on before.) Partly this would seem to be the result of different editors putting in different bits of information, but there also errors in grammar and style. However, before setting out to fix all that I really do believe that the article needs to be re-thought. Specifically, there needs to be a much clearer statement of what the article is about, briefly in the lead and more elaborately in a Definition-section. There the reader should be able to find a formulation of the current consensus of what specifically the relation between thought and language is supposed to be, together with alternative formulations. Then a History-section, a Current research-section and a Criticism-section, followed by Notes, etc. (Thus, I am not at all suggesting to structure the discussion of linguistic relativity around the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the fictional languages.)

To be sure, there is no such thing as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but the reason I proposed to split off and summarize it anyway is simply because (i) there are many people out there who still use the term, (ii) a great deal of research has nominally been done in response to it and (iii) a considerable portion of the article itself reads as a ‘rise and fall’ of the hypothesis. The virtue of splitting that off is, firstly, that it acknowledges that the confusion has been (and still is) rather widespread and, secondly, that it allows the article to become more concise. (Which should automatically result in a shorter lead and less mess.)

The fictional languages are interesting in themselves, but not germane to this article.

Concerning the coherence of articles, I submit that it is of great importance to Wikipedia. Without it, we run the risk of ending up with a collection of stained-glass windows rather than a vista of integrated knowledge. Hpvpp (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. I wrote much of the article body in response to earlier versions which took the anti-relativist viewpoint as expresed by Pinker as fact and didn't treat any of the advances made in studies of Linguistic relativity made since 1980. That is why I focused on the history of the development of the concept. I may have lost sight of the "definition" part but actually I think it is near impossible to describe what the current consensus is because realy there isn't any. The Universalists like Pinker think the hypothesis is dead and buried with only a few weirdos trying deperately to keep it alive. Those few weirdos however include many of the top figures of cognitive and functional linguistics - basically all those who are interested in cognitive and social aspects of language use - like Stephen Levinson, William Hanks, Melissa Bowerman, Sydney Lamb - and according to those weirdos linguistic relativity, defined as influence from linguistic structures and habitual language use on cognitive patterns is a fact that needs to be studied. I don't think we will win by separating "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" from "Linguistic relativity" in my opinion it is the same thing called two different things by the two different camps - S-W hypothesis is simply a pejorative way to say "hypothesis of linguistic relativity". I agree that constructed languages are given an immense amount of undue weight - they should be split off to Constructed languages and linguistic relativity. I do think it is a very good idea to state clearly what is the historic use of "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" (who used it, when and why) and why "Linguistic relativity" is a better name for it - I don't think we need to split the topics to do this though. As for the errors of style and grammar that I am sure I have made many of, I strongly encourage you to correct them all.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's do this in small steps. My thinking is that the more we can split off the easier it will be come to craft a reasonable definition. Have a look at the template I created as an improved version for the Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate at User:Hpvpp/Sandbox with a test page at User:Hpvpp/Sandbox/testcases. The idea is that anyone can edit the summary wherever they find it, but they are then first directed to the template which gives them all the relevant information for using the template and appropriate warnings to be careful in editing and take into account the various contexts within which the template is used. (When implemented, the spurious references to my sandbox won't be there, of course.)

Hpvpp (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I have done some research and I have decided that the summary issue is larger than I can handle. Please see my RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Proposal_for_a_new_template_and_/Sum_summary_pages.

Hpvpp (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The RfC being rejected, I have withdrawn the proposal so that I can now help with improving the article. I fixed some easy bits, but any major work needs to be discussed first.

Hpvpp (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have split off the "Fictional presence" section to Experimental languages. It was undone by User:Orangemike because he found the material in the new page to be "Unsourced; full of original research; fork from linguistic relativity". I have reverted the edit, because

• All relevant content was found here and on other pages so therefore neither unsourced nor original research apply
• the page is not a content fork because (i) it expands on linguistic relativity and (ii) that page is too big already
• the page is not a POV fork

What next in cleaning up?

Hpvpp (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with splitting off that content.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the split is warranted on the basis of page size and relevance, and does not comprise a POV fork. The page Experimental languages will still need to comply with Wikipedia policies on original research, verifiability, reliable sources, etc. but those facts do not affect the appropriateness of the split. Cnilep (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

naive or nativistic?

In "History/Presenst status" there is this fragment "Current studies of linguistic relativity are neither marked by the naivistic approach to exotic linguistic structures" Should this be "naive" or "nativistic"?

Hpvpp (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

naive.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

done (but why didn't you?) Hpvpp (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I must have had something else to do.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Was Hebrew (Aramaic ) or English the 1 tongue or one language from ....?

My question is a thought provoking one. How can we have so many languages in the world? I noticed that many languages are derived from Latin which has its roots from Greek. Its interesting to know that these languages share commonality in some ways such as Spanish, French, Italian, German and Portuguese. If these languages have a commonality, then it is not impossible to assume that many years ago before literature - there was 1 tongue or one language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1meBERMUDA (talk • contribs) 17:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My question is a thought provoking one. How can we have so many languages in the world? I noticed that many languages are derived from Latin which has its roots from Greek. Its interesting to know that these languages share commonality in some ways such as Spanish, French, Italian, German and Portuguese. If these languages have a commonality, then it is not impossible to assume that many years ago before literature. Was Hebrew (Aramaic ) or English the 1 tongue or one language from the beginning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1meBERMUDA (talk • contribs) 17:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that this page is for for discussing improvements to the Linguistic relativity article, not for discussion of general linguistic questions. Cnilep (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Gender

The article should say something about recent research into grammatical gender, showing that depending on the gender used in their mother tongue speakers will associate nouns with masculine or feminine characteristics; e.g. a bridge as 'strong' vs 'elegant'. Ben Finn (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation against Alfred Bloom

The following rebuttal to Alfred Bloom's hypothesis could be mentioned after it:

Science and civilisation in China by Joseph Needham, Christoph Harbsmeier, chapter Language and Logic, page 116, however, gives examples of counterfactuals in Chinese from the text Lun Heng by Wang Chhung circa C.E. 83 and the text Chuang Tzu and cites Harbsmeier 1981 for over 50 more examples.

See also Reasoning countetfactually in Chinese: Are there any obstacles? by LISA GARBERN LIU, which discusses experimental evidence that modern Chinese speakers have no difficulty with counterfactuals.

Bayle Shanks (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with losing the Sapir-Whorf redirect

Sure, the term "Sapir-Whorf" hypothesis is a misnomer, but all the same known to a great many people and should therefore have its own page with reasons why it's a misnomer as well as a history of the use of the term. And of course a brief section explaining what it is all about and referring the reader to this article. I have been wanting to create such a page for a long time, but I haven't had the time to do it. Still, I intend to do so eventually (if no one else does it before then). Hpvpp (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We haven't lost any redirects in the article namespace. I just moved the article page to the MediaWiki talk namespace in order to import an old edit from the Nostalgia Wikipedia, an old copy of the Wikipedia database. When I moved it back to the original title, I did it without the redirect because there is no need for random redirects from the MediaWiki talk namespace. Graham87 08:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Not that I understand what happened, but okay then. (One of these days I will learn more about how this all works.) Hpvpp (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed section: Linguistic relativity and bilingualism

I have placed a template on the section 'Linguistic relativity and bilingualism' to seek help in checking its accuracy. Although the section boasts a dozen citations, most of the potentially controversial claims are cited to work by one of two authors, Vivian Cook or Benedetta Bassetti.

I am particularly skeptical of the claim that Cook and Bassetti's own 2010 volume was the first book to deal with relativity and bilingualism. Since the section cites a journal article from 1961 on the topic, I wonder if there really was a gap of 50 years before book-length work was published. And even if there was, if no one felt the lack of such a volume, is it really that significant that most of the earlier work was in journals or chapters? I know, for example, that students in my own school's psychology department were studying bilingualism and color perception during the early 2000s; I assume they were drawing on an older literature.

Rather than simply marking that claim as dubious, I am asking for a check of the whole section since another author earlier marked the first paragraph as needing verification. Also, I noticed the section when yet a third editor removed (what was apparently) an external link to Cook and Bassetti's publisher from the section's text. Cnilep (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not competent to comment on that section myself - but I think that if you feel it is imbalanced that you just go ahead and trim it, it already seems to alot undue weight to one corner of the topic that hasn't received that much attention.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of my own concern that the section is dubious and Maunus's suggestion that it gives undue weight to one area, I have removed the section and summarized its uncontroversial content under the existing sub-section 'Present status'. I also moved most of its references (though not the individual chapters cited from Cook & Bassetti 2010) to the References section. Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is sufficient substance here to either split off this stuff or merge it with Cognitive advantages to bilingualism or Metalinguistic awareness. The subsection "Fishman's 'Whorfianism of the third kind'" could then go there as well with perhaps other bits and pieces (which would serve to make the article more concise). Lastly, I think the summary would fit better under a (subsection of) "Cognitive linguistics" rather than "Present status". Hpvpp (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have no objection to someone moving or changing what I wrote, and obviously if the portions I removed can be useful in other articles, they can be retrieved from the page history. Cnilep (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Search for neuroscience related references

I wonder why the article doesn't contain a single mention or hint of references investigating the subject with functional MRI or theoretically, with respect to cognition frameworks.

Dmlled (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how one would design such an investigation at all, and I have never read of any studies doing it. If you know some that are directly aimed at the topic of linguistic relativity please do present them here.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This open access review article may help: Chen et al. Cultural neurolinguistics. Prog Brain Res. 2009;178:159-71. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that looks great. I'm looking forward to reading that!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good secondary source which is spot on topic and fills a gap, I think. Some of the individual studies are fascinating (a personal favourite [5][6]). Incidentally, that review comes from a theme issue; fortunately the key article for us is open access via PubMed Central (though not via Elsevier!). —MistyMorn (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What to Believe?

"The early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward Sapir also embraced the idea. Sapir's student Benjamin Lee Whorf came to be seen as the primary proponent as a result of his published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behavior. Harry Hoijer, one of Sapir's students, introduced the term "Sapir–Whorf hypothesis",[1] albeit infelicitously due to Sapir's non-involvement with the idea"

So the very same paragraph claims that Sapir embraced this idea but was not involved with it! GeneCallahan (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, & so I modified this sentence to make it clearer that the idea is associated in some forms with early 20c American Anthropology "founded" by them, but not stemming from Boas & Sapir in particular. It is correct that Sapir actually did not subscribe to or express belief in what is now known as the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis." While there are occasional moments in his writings that can lend some credence to the idea, there are many more very clear and direct statements on his part (specifically with regard on the one hand to the similar cultures but entirely unrelated and often dissimilar languages of California Native Americans, and on the other to the similar and/or related languages but dissimilar cultures of other Californian groups) against most forms of linguistic relativity. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally I trace the lineage through Boas' paper on Alternating sounds back to the German psychophycisists and on to Sapirs work on the psychological reality of the phoneme. I think the phoneme principle is the best and clearest example of linguistic relativity (I've never understood how universalists could reject linguistic relativity while adopting the phonemic principle wholesale) - and clearly the main inspiration for Whorf.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Kudos for Excellent Work

At one time this article was a very sad sight indeed. Today it is a model of what Wikipedia can and should be, and provides a very thorough and very neutral overview of a very important and at times controversial topic that rivals and in some case exceeds the comprehensiveness found in some of the source documents it cites, many of which (rightly, as argumentative essays) take one side or the other of the controversy. Thank you to everyone who has worked on it. I will not hesitate to recommend it to colleagues and students as the best first stop in learning about the topic. Wichitalineman (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (also on behalf of the many other contributors)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Expansions and Brushups for GA review

I do condone the nomination for GA, but I feel that there is a few small things that we should address before the reviewer steps in. HEre is a list of my ideas:

1. Standardize references. We have some texts referenced with full refs in the notes and others with short refs. I think there is a need of pagenumbers in some cases, and also we need to decide on whether to use the harv-ref linking option or just standard short refs.
2. There is some info in the lead that is not in the body (e.g. the en passant remark about Stuart Chase, his role should be describe in the section on Whorf - perhaps also more mention of Hoijer 's influence.) (Also using Penny Lee's 1996 book more would be a great improvement)
3. In the empirical studies there should be mentioned other strands of research than color terminology - recent studies have focused on spatial language and cognition (especially from the Max Planck institute), and other studies by Lera Boroditsky have suggested that attitudes towards things and peoples are affected by grammatical gender differences, and another recent study argued that bilingual peoples attitudes towards others was influenced by the languager they spoke at the time (i.e. they tended to have different attitudes and opinions when interviewed in one language than when interviewed in another).
4. The relation to philosophical and psychological debates about the role of language in concept formation (Nietzsche, Putnam, Quine, Davidson, Wittgenstein, Vygotsky, Piaget (Eve Danziger's study of relativity in Mopan Maya kinship terminology), Wundt.
5. A better summary of Pinker's critique and critiques of his critique (since this is very well known in the general public))
6. A better description of the background in German psychophysics (including Boas and Sapir's work on the phoneme principle).

These additions would make for a truly excellent and comprehensive article I think. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Currently, a balanced view . . . ."

A sentence that was in the lead was multiply dubious and contentious: "Currently, a balanced view is held by most linguists . . . ." First, it is unlikely that most linguists have a definite view on linguistic relativism. Second, the term 'balanced view' is subjective, vague, and often congratulatory of one's own school of thought. Third, the two claims are unsubstantiated. Although this sentence was sandwiched between two others that both cited Koerner (2000:17), that source, that very page, does not contain the claims contained in this sentence. Therefore, I deleted it.

In fact, this whole article seems just a tad too subjective; it's contains lots of personal findings verging on speculation. That would be fine in a "real" encyclopedia, but in this one, we err in the opposite direction. Subjective judgements can be inserted if explicitly hedged. Dale Chock (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, User:Maunus, read Koerner (2000:17). Indeed, the phrase 'balanced view' does not appear anywhere in that book. Granted, it is ambiguous whether the 'balanced view' sentence is meant to be sourced to this page; but if it is not, then it has no citation at all, not even a wrong one. Dale Chock (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to engage with you more, you are the epitome of a WP:DICK and nothing good will come from me beginning to discuss with. I will simply wait untill reasonable people come around and revert your crap. BTW: I have mentioned your antics here at ANI in the thread you have already established for yourself. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"principle" or not?

I object to the locution, "principle of linguistic relativity" because it is my understanding that in science (and contemporary linguistics has pretensions to being a science) a principle is something that is well established by scientific research; that is proven. Editor Cnilep emphasizes the assertion that Whorf's claim was not a hypothesis. Well, something that is neither hypothesis or principle is dogma. I even inserted the word 'dogma' as a replacement for 'principle' in one instance. Dale Chock (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• but Linguistics is a social science, not a hard science, and "principle" does not have this meaning here. It is widely referred to this way (and as hypothesis or theory) in the profession, and Wikipedia reflects the way things are done, not how some of us think they should be done. The article makes it clear that the hypotheses are objects of great controversy. "Dogma"--a view that is accepted beyond question and potentially beyond fact by one or more people--is completely inappropriate, as there are few hard-core believers in the principle as it's described here, and fewer still who would suggest it should be beyond the realm of empirical testing or conceptual argumentation. Wichitalineman (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Due weight for Malotki on Whorf, and for the Sapir-Whorf era generally

Although Malotki's refutation of Whorf is cited, and is well described as "monumental", the treatment appears to minimize its importance: Malotki's Hopi Time "challenged" Whorf's account of Hopi grammar. But as Radh wrote here in August 2009, Malotki "pulverized" Whorf's account. Malotki should be excerpted here more. It matters little that Whorf was not a dilettante in linguistics generally, since he was all wet regarding Hopi grammar. The article seems to give due weight to pre-Sapir-Whorf and post-Sapir-Whorf, but too much weight to Sapir-Whorf. Dale Chock (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. Malotki's work is massive and important. It needs to be discussed much more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

For some reason studies of linguistic relativity do not use Malotki's work alot. Critics simply cite it obliquely as "Malotki oproved Whorf wrong", never going into details about the different claims of Whorf anf Malotki and how they relate to eachother. Relativists tend to dismiss Malotki saying either that he misrepresented Whorf or that he caught Whorf on minor details that don't invalidate the concept. I don't think malotki's weight in the literature on Linguistic Relativity merits a detailed discussion on this already very large page. The literature on color and spatiality is much more important and much more widely discussed in relation to linguistic relativity. I do think that we should have a separate article on Hope time that describes both Whorf's and Malotki's views in greater detail as well as subsequent ways they have been critiqued and used.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-sexist language

Isn't this the theoretical base of non-sexist language and political correctness? I see no mention of these concepts in the article. --Error (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Arguably, but I don't know of any literature that treats it as such.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Malotki study is more than just claiming universal properties of mind

Some one edited the Malotki entry into a minimal mention of his work as a universalist study (as opposed to relativism). But I think it is an important point in addition that Malotki shows where Whorf made specific errors. For exmaple Whorf claimed that Hopi cannot understand time like English speakers can. That is they do not cognize time as English speakers do, and because of this they have no passed tense (nor time metaphors and figures of speech). Malotki however finds no evidence to support that, and he used modern speakers and historical documents and archeological data to show that Whorf was blinded by an ideological cultural relativism. It does not follow from this that linguistic relativism is impossible or that Malotki thinks so. What follows is that Whorf's poor scientific education, methodological flaws and lack of fluency in Hopi obscured and complicated everything.88.114.154.216 (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Whorf did not claim that Hopi speakers cannot understand time as English speakers do. He claimed that they generally don't. Malotki was blinded by an ideological generative universalism which made him misread Whorf and disprove a strawman claim. Also your charascterization fo Whorfs education and skill as a linguist is ridiculously wrong, as a cursory reading of his biography can tell you. Linguists then considered him among the best of his time, and those linguists who work with relations between cultural and linguistic diversity still do. Those who believe in cognitive and linguistic universals don't, but they don't get a better case by smearing Whorf's reputation as a scientist. Malotki is an excellent scholar and someone who has actually done a lot of great work on language diversity, but he was educated into a universalist tradition which makes him apparently unable to read what Whorf actually wrote. His findings on Hopi time are monumental and important, but they do not disprove Whorfs claims, or even engage with them at a fundamental level. He is refuting a claim that noone has made. Read Leavitt 2010, Linguistic Relativities, and Penny Lee's 1996 the Whorf Theory Complex about this. Also read the critique in Dinwoodie, David W. (2006). "Time and the Individual in Native North America". In Sergei Kan. New Perspectives on Native North America: Cultures, Histories, And Representations. U of Nebraska. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. So Whorf says:

I find it gratuitous to assume that Hopi who knows only the Hopi language and the cultural ideas of his own society has the same notions, often suppoused to be intuitions. of time and space that we have, and that are generally asumed to be universal. In particular, he has no general notion or intuition of time as a smooth flowing continuum in which everything in the universe proceeds at equal rate, out of a future, through the present, into a past (p 57 in Collected papers ed Carroll 1956)

I think it's fair to say that Malotki's material seriously cast a doubt upon statements like this. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so necessarily no, that depends on you one choose to operationalize the quote. The problem with Whorf's statements is that they are vague and can be read generously or strictly. I think it is fair to say that it has been definitively shown that different groups habituallty do conceptualize time in ways different to the average Englishman, and that in this sense Whorf was probably right. I think that Malotki shows that the Hopi do think and speak about time, and that they do so in ways that are neither entirely different nor entirely similar to the ways an average Englishman speaks of time, so in that sense Malotki is right. Malotki's central claim is that there is a single universal way of conceptualizing time as divided into past-present-future, and that Hopi speakers simply conflate past and present and contrast that against the future. I think that claim is highly questionable since in my way of viewing things that difference (between English past-non-past and Hopi future non-future) would be expected have certain linguistic and cognitive ramifications, at least in the ways in the habitual use of language and thought. I do play with the idea of reading Malotki's own Hopi texts (which are excellent material) in order to try to analyze the discursive and textual functions of time in Hopi. Malotki himself focuses quite singularly on the grammatical rather than semantic and textual meanings of tense, and I suspect reading his texts with an open mind might give interesting insights. But that remains to be done.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Anyway the points the Malotki make should be discussed more. He also says that Hopi does have past tense. I don't have refs currently at hand, but IIRC Whorf did claim that Hopi lacked past tense. I always personally never thought of Malotki as a universalist, in the sense that, say, Pinker definetly is one. Rahter, he just showed that the Whorfian account was a mess and needed revision (which was done later). Malotki might have written in the golden age of universalism, but he makes points in his work that are relevant to Whorf relation to the field of linguistic relativism nevertheless, and therefore Malotki's work should be discussed more extensively IMO.88.114.154.216 (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to start work on Hopi time with me? I think that would be a great article for Wikipedia to have.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to, but I will be out of town for the rest of the week, so I cannot contribute untill later. Also I need to register.88.114.154.216 (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is also fair to say that Whorf thought that time perception was different in different cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

yes, and I think there is good reason to think that that ios in fact the case.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

If you mean that it is the case the Whorf thought so, then I have no disagreement. However, if the above means that you think that time perception is different in different cultures, then I would say that the scientific consensus is not that. I'm not saying what it is, but it is not that. And because this is an encyclopedia, this should be stated88.114.154.216 (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean both. I don't think there is a scientific (or philosophical) consensus against this idea in fact (or in favor of it). Also I think that the fact that we have different views on this will be useful for constructing a broad and neutral view of the topic.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Failed to verify Lucy 1997 Malotki claim

A just checked a ref that Maunus added. The sentence claims states "Universalist scholars such as Steven Pinker often see Malotki's study as a final refutation of Whorf's claim about Hopi, whereas relativist scholars such as John A Lucy and Penny Lee have criticized Malotki's study for mischaracterizing Whorf's claims and for forcing Hopi grammar into a pregiven model of analysis that doesn't fit the data" then refers to "Lucy 1997". The article does not even mention Malotki. I'm removing it. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 06:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally the above refers to Lucy 1992a. I only have access to a similarly titled book from 1996, which does not have such a claim. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Lucy 1997 is is chapter in Rethinking linguistic relativity - I forgot to add that to the bibliography. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC))

Ooops, it was 1996, and 1992b instead of 1992a. I added the references from memory, I should have checked first. I've added the page numbers.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly does this Pinker guy claim that Malotki is a final refuationtion?88.114.154.216 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll find the page where he cites Malotki as evidence for Whorf's lingustic incompetence and lack of Hopi knowledge. It is in KLanguage Instinct, and probably also in Stuff of Thought.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I would suspect that it is in Language instinct. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, in Stuff of thought he goes into detail on tense and cognition, but he only cites Malotki in a footnote. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Creationism

I've removed the link to the institute of creation research because it is not a reliable source for Whorf's biography (it is a reliable source for how creationists have represented him, but they have even portrayed Stephen Jay Gould as a kind of crypto-creationist). While Whorf's alleged creationsm is repeated in some reputable sources, It has been well established (among others by John E Joseph who have read the materials in the Yale Whorf collection including the treatise against evolution which has indeed survived) that Whorf was not a Christian creationist but rather had a much more complex relation to both science and spirituality, which he mostly explored through theosophy. His early interest in old testament Hebrew also appears to have been more cabbalistic and inspired by reading Fabre D'olivet than Christian in nature. Indeed it appears that even Whorf's father was interested in theosophy and not particularly devout.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

But then again the institutes article cites verbatim other sources that are reliable, even Whorf's own work. Also the article on Wikipeida on Whorf states his connection to creationism, which is understandable as his argument in the pamphlets is that there has to have been a deginer/creater. Once again it is possible to go into philosophical nit-picking on what is and what is not creationism, but the main point is that he apparently became interested in language and world views because of his own mystical inclination. His argument essentially is that evolutionary theory is poor science because complex objects have to bee designed. So, it is fair to say that he is not "anti-evolutionist" because of any given reason, but because he is "creationist". 88.114.154.216 (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is wrong, they cite Stuart Chase and it alludes to the supposedly lost treatise "why I have discarded evolution". Using the word creationist implies to most people Christian creationist and that does not reflect what we know about Whorf's religious views. Please read Joseph's detailed account of Whorf's spiritual views based on actually reading Whorf's religious papers. I don't know how you can summarize the main argument of a treatise that you haven't read, and which hasn't been read by the person who summarized it to you. having read Whorf's paper "Why I have Discarded Evolution" John Joseph writes that this manuscript is almost pure Madame Blavatsky based on the anti-evolutionist thinking in "The Secret Doctrine". He also writes that this only characterizes his early thinking (he wrote this paper when he was around 20), his later thinking being Darwinian. Describing him simply as "creationist" will entirely misrepresent the complex issue of Whorf's spiritual and scientific views and it will not add much to the description of the topic of this article since it is mostly of biographical interest. (When I refer to Joseph here it is his "From Whitney to Whorf" pages 75 and 98) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article on Whorf at Wikipedia actually cites the same article that you removed. It is apparently published in a scientific journal of some unknown quality. It also cites Lakoff who apparently has called Whorf a creationist also. What to do? 88.114.154.216 (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it cites it because I wrote that article, but it cites it as an example of how people have interpreted his work as Christain inspired. It then goes into detail about how subsequent scholarship has found that characterization to be inaccurate.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Another scholar who has claimed that Whorf's interest in language was mostly fueled by fundamentalist christianity and anti-science leanings is Peter Rollins, whose writings on Whorf have mostly been either ignored or criticized by serious scholarship. IN other words it has been the case that scholars have considered christianity to be the moving factor behind Whorf's interest in linguistic relativity, but it isn't any more, because it doesn't seem to align with the facts. This is something that it makes sense to go into some detail about in the Whorf article, not in this article which is about the hypothesis/principle not about Whorf's background or beliefs.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it is important to notice that he had an a priori motivation to see "other cultures" as competition for "Western" culture (i.e ideological cultural relativism). That he was a creationist is perhaps not important for the history of linguistic relativism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.154.216 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a much easier point to make, because then we can simply point to the many scholars who see him as exoticizing non-western culture and exaggerating the differences. Cultural relativism and an ideological approach tha elevates the merits of non-western cultures is an integral part of the Humboldt-Boas legacy and not necessarily something we would have to explain specifically in the case of Whorf.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• In fact I think that this article perhaps should spend less time describing the particular biographies of the involved and rather focus on arguments and examples. I think the History section (particularly the subsection on Whorf) could probably be considerably shortened, and the empirical research section correspondingly expanded.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is true, I haven't got to that point yet. I don't have much free time... 88.114.154.216 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Expanding universalism section?

I would like to expand a bit on the universalism part in this article. But how should it be done? Currently this entry does not give a very good idea about what is behind universalistic theories of languages. Should some of these ideas be included or should this entry just link to another entry which discusses the issue? Currently this entry reads as if Kay & Berlin's research were central to universalist theories. Most (if not all) universalist linguistic/anthropological theories are not based on Berlin & Kay, however. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

On Daniel Everett

Some one reverted an edit that I included, and they did this without discussion, which I shoud ad is against Wikipedia:Reverting guidelines! Anyway, the problem is that currently the article doesn't cite high quality references against Everett's research. These, however, exist, and the work is in progress. The article as is reads as though Everett's work were not controversial, which is really far form the truth. I don't want to be the sole person to add content that questions Everett's findings, so pleas, instead of reverting the additions, help me to find more sources and write the passage so that it shows that Everett's findings are novel, but controversial. Even people that oppose Universal Grammar (such as Esa Itkonen, who has written against it for nearly 30 years) have states that Everett's work is sensationalistic and untrue (see http://users.utu.fi/eitkonen/joulu2008-7.pdf if you happen to speak Finnish). 88.114.154.216 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The page you link to reads (in relevant part), "revert a good faith edit only after careful consideration. You might want to discuss the matter on the article talk page, but this is not obligatory." And later, "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up" (emphasis in original). The relevant standard is also known as the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

As it happens, I did consider carefully. I have every confidence that your edits were offered in good faith. But I also know that there has been considerable discussion of the controversies surrounding Professor Everett's publications here over the past few years. In my considered opinion, the peer-reviewed and published work currently cited is more reliable and more relevant than letters to newspapers or email lists, notwithstanding the considerable controversies that remain. I do agree that it is reasonable to include some published counter-arguments, but ideally the arguments on both sides of the controversy should come from equally rigorously vetted sources. Cnilep (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Most people would yet agree that it would be absolutely fallacious to cite Everett's without mentioning the massive criticism that it was evoked. Peer-reviewed and published work is better than other stuff, but seeing as how the points are made specialists on a specialist list, the are admissible, even news articles are admissible so why not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.69.84 (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

The article as a whole--especially the "External Links" section--seems to be highly biased in favor of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis jʌʃ t̪ʊlsjan 23:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)