On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, kelley wrote:
> At 02:08 PM 12/4/00 -0500, Gregory Geboski wrote:
>
> --No. The old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Right up there with the ether theory
> in physics, just more hardy.
>
> for debunking sapir-whorf and the great eskimo language hoax:
> http://cpsr.org/cpsr/lists/rre/Eskimo_words_for_snow
> http://www.urbanlegends.com/language/eskimo_words_for_snow_derby.html
>
>
[massive snippage]
Yes, the whole Eskimo-words-for-snow-thing is lame. But does one disconfirming example mean the the sapir-whorf hypothesis is incorrect?
Consider, for instance, research on counterfactual reasoning (If I had wings, I would be able to fly). Native English speakers perform better than native Chinese speakers on these counterfactual reasoning tasks. Why? Counterfactuals are very awkward to express in Chinese, relatively easy to state in English.
This is the whole idea of Sapir-Whorf: the language we use makes it easier or more difficult to think and perceive the world in a certain way. There are other empirical examples; the Eskimo hoax aside, Sapir-Whorf is in way better shape as a scientific hypothesis than ether theory.
Miles