Re: [xmca] FW: NYTimes.com: Does Your Language Shape How You Think?

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

So lets focus on the good part. Sorry I go hung up on the opening rhetoric.
I tire of peope literally "making news" by trashing their progenitors. Very
popular way to get a career started but generally not a great way to learn
how to supercede your progenitors.
The topic is certainly important. Might even have something to do with the
nature of thinking and speech!
mike

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Vera John-Steiner <vygotsky@unm.edu>wrote:

> Hi Larry,
>
> I agree with Mike that the Whorf article in the N.Y. Times is overblown (in
> terms of Whorf's claims) and it does not give named credit to the new wave
> of researchers, including Lucy, Boroditsky and others. But focus on the
> relationsip of  language and thought is a welcome
> topic for public discussion,and a useful one for xmca.
> Vera
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Purss" <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> To: <lchcmike@gmail.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 1:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] FW: NYTimes.com: Does Your Language Shape How You
> Think?
>
>
>  Mike
>> As my previous post mentioned this "pop psycholinquistics" way of
>> explaining
>> phenomena I found intriguing.  What do you see as the fundamental error in
>> this line of thinking.
>> Specifically on the position he articulates on "orientation in space" and
>> "landscapes" Do you question the basic premise that one cultural group
>> could
>> habitually orient by egocentric references to "my" body" while other
>> cultural groups habitually orient by cardinal coordinates.
>> If these "facts" can be empirically established then what would be a
>> better,
>> more coherent way to explain these habitual ways of responding to
>> landsapes?
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:40 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Peter-- This article seemed like pop psycholinguistics to me. The
>>> "trauma"
>>> of whorf?
>>>
>>> There is a lot of work, call it "neo-whorfian" on relations between
>>> language
>>> and thought. The recent writings of John Lucy come to mind, but many
>>> others
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 6:16 AM, smago <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1283000763-rynkTFk68LNetdkYjfAi8Q
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > xmca mailing list
>>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca