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

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the summary, Larry. Very useful.

I would still be cautious about the following conclusion based on the times
article:
In the past 23 years, since this chapter was written, Whorf's models of
linquistic relativity may have been refuted by empirical research, and his
synchronic comparative-interpretive approach found objectionable [not
historical-developmental]  However, the term "HABITS of mind" is a notion
from Whorf that may be productively explored.

Just be careful of the premise. There has been responsible, empirical work
that the authors interpret as support for specific Whorfian claims.

I was not trying to claim that Whorf got everything right. I was objecting
to the trumpeting of his perfidy as a prelude to patting oneself on the back
as a reasonable rhetorical mode.  The "eskimos have umptyump words for snow"
talk is now taken as an urban myth," and various alternatives to the
"strong" form of whorf's idea have knocked on hard, if not knocked over. But
broad refutation combined with a convincing alternative?

By odd coincidence i got a note from John L last night, an announcement that
he is starting a new electronic journal on the *Frontiers of Cultural Psych
(!)

mike*

On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike and Vera
> I followed your recommendations to read Lucy and so I googled his website
> and located an "older" [1987] chapter he authored with James Wertsch titled
> "Vygotsky and Whorf: A Comparative Analysis." in the edited book "Social and
> Functional Approaches to Language and Thought".  Mike, I'm aware you
> suggested reading Lucy's RECENT writings, so if he has changed his position
> and become more critical of Whorf's ideas I would appreciate a suggestion
> for more recent writings.
>
> I'm also cognizant of the criticisms and "trauma" Mike has alerted me to be
> aware of in reflecting on Whorf's theories. With that caution in mind, I
> would like to summarize the points that Lucy and Wertsch recommended for
> future research in their 1987 chapter.
>
> Whorf's approach to the relation between thought and language was based on
> 3 assumptions:
> 1) The relation was concerned with large scale patterns of thought
> 2)concerned with HABITUAL thought
> 3)concerned with conceptual thought rather than perception.
>
> These assumptions led Whorf to adopt a synchronic, comparative-interpretive
> approach in his attempt to understand the role of language in human
> thought.  This approach contrasts with Vygotsky's diachronic,
> historical-developmental approach.  Now in 1987, Lucy and Wertsch comment
> that these two approaches, though very different, in many ways COMPLEMENT,
> rather than contradict each other. They state "It is this complementarity
> that is most suggestive for future research.... Future research on the
> significance of language for thought will profit from a creative
> integration  of important features from both approaches.  (p.84)
>
> Lucy and Wertsch suggest 3 implications of an integrated approach.
>
> 1) One implication of an integrated approach is that the use of language in
> thought provides certain advantages but also entails certain costs.
> Socially shared generalizations constitute a set of SPECIFIC classifications
> of experience, and the specificity sets a certain direction to HABITUAL
> thought that is extraordinarily difficult to surmount, in essence a
> linquistic relativity.  A unified approach would recognize the potential
> advantages recognized by Vygotsky and the costs emphasized by Whorf.
>
> 2) A second implication of an integrated approach is that any linquistic
> relativity should increase during development. Early "lower" intellectual
> activity should be relatively free of linquistic influences. As the child
> develops true concepts which are abstract and have SYSTEMATIC internal
> relations to one another, the way of organizing experience characteristic of
> the language should become even more apparent.
>
> 3) A third implication of an integrated approach is that there may be
> general historical changes in the USES of language.  Those modes of thought
> (ie scientific) which use or rely on language forms most heavily are exactly
> those forms which will be most bound by language.  Whorf by focusing on
> form-meaning STRUCTURES as interpretive devices was led to minimize the
> significant HISTORICAL evolution of the uses of language in thought.  If, as
> Vygotsky suggests, there is a general development in the way language is
> used in thought - more systematic, more explicit reliance on language in
> modern society - it will not only produce new, perhaps more sophisticated
> TYPES of conceptual forms, but it may also amplify the IMPACT OF THE
> PARTICULAR interpretive forms of the languages involved. Thus, layered over
> a general linquistic relativity based on the shaping force of language,
> would be a second more specific level of relativity grounded in the cultural
> RELIANCE on and, ultimately, REIFICATION of specific grammatical and lexical
> forms, characteristic of modern Western societies. Whorf recognized the
> potential for such an amplification of using language when he criticized the
> human tendency to make a provisional analysis of reality and then regard it
> as final. He emphasized that "Western culture has gone farthest hear,
> farthest in determining thoroughness of provisional analysis, and farthest
> in determination to regard it as final" (1956, p.263 as quoted in Lucy and
> Wertsch P.85)
>
> Mike, in 1987, it seems Lucy and Wertsch saw  the complementary value of
> trying to integrate Vygotsky's diachronic historical-developmental model of
> the interplay of language and thought in generating verbal thinking with
> Whorf's synchronic comparative-interpretive approach. In the past 23 years,
> since this chapter was written, Whorf's models of linquistic relativity may
> have been refuted by empirical research, and his synchronic
> comparative-interpretive approach found objectionable [not
> historical-developmental]  However, the term "HABITS of mind" is a notion
> from Whorf that may be productively explored.
>
> In the New York article the concrete example of how a person orients in
> space, which was contrasted as either referencing the "embodied self" or
> "external coordinates" is an intriguing abductive conjecture. I don't know
> if these contrasting "habits" of mind are a speculative conjecture, or is
> this difference a "fact"?  If it is a fact, established empirically, then it
> is a surprising fact that  needs to be explained.  Orienting to landscapes
> seems to include sensory, motor, perceptual, and conceptual aspects and both
> higher and lower cognitive processes are implicated.  This surprising "fact"
> leads to questions of the interplay of language and thought.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:30 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca