echidna

It�s a good thread but it seems to be running out of controversy, so I�ll do my best.

But �kindergarten� has the same meaning in German if I�m not mistaken, Germans could hardly mock the English. �Horde�, �ogre�, �dunce� are long-standing words whose original meaning is no longer used in common speech anywhere, meanings twist slowly over time or more quickly if political and social movements play a role such as the word �gay� in recent decades. Similarly �philistine� and �barbarian� are other terms with political etymology. �Chimpanzee� has exactly the same meaning as �orang-utan� in bahasa, but the description is metaphorical from the perspective of all cultures.

But at the end of that, here�s a site which refutes my �mixmaster-blong-jesus� story anyway, although I�m still intrigued as to its origins since there are several references to it. http://faculty.virginia.edu/phantom/pmng.html But he goes on to say �

Zephyrus

Hmmm. I'm far from a qualified linguist, and I'm pretty much an interloper into this thread, but I did come across an article that may or may not be relevant to this discussion.

More brain power needed for Mandarin than English

Thoughts, interpretations anyone? Obviously it's only a news article, and it doesn't even come close to giving an in depth explanation of results and methodology and all that. But does this detract from your point at all, Gurdur? Or is this simply a matter of people becoming used to one language as a child, and having difficulties with highly dissimilar ones? Forgive me for my ignorance, I'm just a layman.

Luiseach

*bump*

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Zephyrus
[B]Hmmm. I'm far from a qualified linguist, and I'm pretty much an interloper into this thread, but I did come across an article that may or may not be relevant to this discussion.

More brain power needed for Mandarin than English

Hmmm..

• "It seems that the structure of the language you learn as a child affects how the structure of your brain develops to decode speech.

Probably true, but it would be nice if some more work had been done on English, and on gender. I've read that women also decode things in more parts of their brain then men. Was that factored in?

• Native English speakers, for example, find it extraordinarily difficult to learn Mandarin," Scott said.

Hogwash. Mandarin is easy, four tones, completely regular, easier than Spanish, I thought. Want a hard language? Try Cantonese or Kimeru.

Vorkosigan

paul30

I don't suppose people "require" language to think, but I do believe that language is a lens through which most of us see.

Language and the culture it represents often supplies the categories by which we understand--or fail to understand--things.

It just as often obscures as clarifies thought.

Clutch

Phaedrus, that's a very interesting paper; it summarizes a good deal of Sperber and Wilson's Relevance, and raises some important questions about the relation between concept-possession and lexical mastery.

In fact, the whole volume in which it appeared, Carruthers and Boucher Language and Thought (CUP) is excellent. I recommend it to everyone interested in these issues.

I'm writing a conference paper on verbal comprehension that comments, in part, on the Sperber & Wilson paper. If anyone's interested, PM me and I'll circulate an antepenultimate copy when I have it.

Gurdur

Well, first off, apologies to Luiseach, Soyin Milka and Hugo Holbling for being so tardy in posting here.
At the moment, I'm extremely busy (house renovation and building a rose arch and a rose arbour/pergola), and I post very infrequently for the time being.
Also, I'm just working my way through the papers that Rufus Atticus linked to, and I'll be posting critiques of them too.
IOW, I will be replying and posting more, and soon, just not today.


Just a quick aside:
Excepting of course that many abstract concepts and operations become impossible without grammatical language.
Like any other sensory/communicative modality. Perception without lenses is pretty much almost an impossibility.
No.
Language provides the basis on which we grammatically categorize things, but it hardly provides the basis on which we understand (concrete) things ---- that kind of understanding is often pre-language. If that quip were true, then language would be useless. It isn't, and it isn't.

Gurdur

Excellent question, Zephyrus.

I thought about this one for a day before answering, and the short answer is,
It may affect my point, but it's impossible to yet see how it would affect my point.

The reasons why I say that are numerous, so please pardon me if I take a while before answering, since as I wrote just above, I'm really busy at the moment.
But I will get around to it !

Luiseach

Clutch, that conference paper of yours sounds fascinating.

I would think that your ideas would be a most worthwhile contribution to the discussion as it unfolds!

Clutch

Thanks kindly! But I don't wish to derail the thread from Gurdur's intentions, whatever they are. So I'll just circulate the paper to interested parties privately, for now.

Thanks again.