the correlation between language, thoughts and intelligence

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Inuit eskimos have 18 different words for snow.

[/ QUOTE ]

wiki

There are two principal fallacies in this myth. The first is that Eskimo languages have more words for snow than English does, when they may have a few more or a few less, depending on which Eskimo language. As in English, these words are related to each other: for example, blizzards and flurries are two different types of snow, but they are both recognized as 'snow' in the general sense. Speakers of Eskimo languages categorize different types of snow in a similar manner to English speakers.

The second fallacy comes from a misconception of what are to be considered "words". As in other polysynthetic languages, the use of derivational suffixes and noun-incorporation results in terms or language codes that may include various descriptive nuances, whether describing snow or any other concept. Because Eskimo languages are polysynthetic, they describe concepts in compound terms or 'words' of unlimited length.

[sebbb]

One thing that I think hasn't been mentioned is that when you know two languages, you have the ability to read books, watch movies (TV etc) in two languages. That means you have access to a lot more material, whether the they haven't been translated or the translation sucks (I think translated material is always worse than the original anyway).

English is my second language, and I'm glad I can read the 2+2 books, american books on finance, Shakespeare, watch South Park, as well as read litterature etc in my first language.

[Blarg]

Having a larger vocabularly has strong correlation with financial success in life.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Having a larger vocabularly has strong correlation with financial success in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

[smurfitup]

[ QUOTE ]
Does having words for things determine if you can think about them?

[/ QUOTE ]

there's this very interesting study by a couple cognitive psychologists that i recently read. apparently, the russian language has different words for light blue and dark blue, whereas english obviously requires you to use an adjective when discriminating between the two. in the study, the authors had native russian speakers and native english speakers discriminate between different shades of different colors, and whereas the native english speakers were unable to differentiate between different shades of blue (the differences were quite subtle), the native russian speakers did it with relative ease. pretty interesting results as they suggest that language influences your perception of the world and by extension your thoughts about the world. obviously, i'm making a big jump comparing the ability to see different colors to how we think about the world, but it is pretty interesting that there is empirical validation for this.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many artful words of other languages that I have heard that mean something you cannot really express that well in english. This means to me that english is sort of a simple language.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is natural that one language will not have some nuances that another does. That doesn't make one language more complex than another.

The size of the English language dwarfs most, because it encompasses so many words or derivations from so many other languages. English originally came from germanic languages, and was conquered by Vikings, Romans, and French, each of which made enormous contributions to the language.

Those contributions made for far more fine distinctions in language than other languages tend to have. Words were adopted where they were needed to make those distinctions.

Prejudice toward one's mother tongue is natural, and many languages are interesting and beautiful. But English is the world standard in the financial and scientific fields and culturally too. It is a mess of conflicting rules and bizarre exceptions, but its position as the America of languages -- the one that has prospered by accepting all mongrels -- has given it an unprecedented and unmatched vitality and utility.

[Bork]

Sapir and Whorf and their work are pretty much a joke among philosophers. Their stuff is usually reserved for sociology courses (where it is just as laughably stupid).


[ QUOTE ]
Among the most frequently cited examples of linguistic determinism is Whorf's study of the language of the Eskimo people, who were thought to have numerous words for snow. He argues that this modifies the world view of the Eskimo, creating a different mode of existence for them than, for instance, a speaker of English.

[/ QUOTE ]
-from wiki

lol

[ QUOTE ]
You might think that "tree" means the same thing, everywhere and to everybody. Not at all. The Polish word that means "tree" also includes the meaning "wood." The context or sentence pattern determines what sort of object the Polish word (or any word, in any language) refers to. In Hopi, an American Indian language of Arizona, the word for "dog," pohko, includes pet animal or domestic animal of any kind. Thus "pet eagle" in Hopi is literally "eagle-dog"; and having thus fixed the context a Hopi might next refer to the same eagle as so-and-so's pohko.

[/ QUOTE ]



-Whorf http://sloan.stanford.edu/mousesite/...ghtReality.htm


These guys are the epitome of contrived and confused.

[Aloysius]

[ QUOTE ]
Words seem to have absolute correlation to their referents, but we know that this is not actually the case. Even here, threads such as, "What color is a tennis ball?" have proven that there is not a shared experience even for a simple english word such as "yellow." How much farther afield are our individual appreciations of the words for a concept like freedom or a temporal designator such as "momentarily?"

But having a word for something is not what allows you to think about it. The existence of the word is proof that someone made it up to cover a concept they had. I wish I had a point here, but I'm going to make breakfast instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurosh - if you're interested in the above concept, look up "signifier v. signified", Saussure, Magritte ("Ceci n'est pas un pipe"), Lacan, Platonic ideal, stuff like that.

I'm not exactly sure what amp's point is either, but what the "signifier v. signified" concept does is ground you in ideas of how language came to be, and what it might represent.

Blarg - your comment, "larger vocab correlates with financial success" - leveling? Can't tell.

-Al

[Mike Jett]

Whoa, talk about this becoming one of my favorite 2p2 threads - basically out of nowhere.

Deep stuff.

[Pyromaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does having words for things determine if you can think about them?

[/ QUOTE ]

there's this very interesting study by a couple cognitive psychologists that i recently read. apparently, the russian language has different words for light blue and dark blue, whereas english obviously requires you to use an adjective when discriminating between the two. in the study, the authors had native russian speakers and native english speakers discriminate between different shades of different colors, and whereas the native english speakers were unable to differentiate between different shades of blue (the differences were quite subtle), the native russian speakers did it with relative ease. pretty interesting results as they suggest that language influences your perception of the world and by extension your thoughts about the world. obviously, i'm making a big jump comparing the ability to see different colors to how we think about the world, but it is pretty interesting that there is empirical validation for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a bit along these lines in psychology studies that suggests that having a larger vocabulary for emotions allows for not just expressing, but actually *having*, subtler shades of feeling.

As it goes, if you only know "mad" and "angry", and can maybe qualify as "very mad" or "very angry", then you're limited in your emotional range. Versus being "furious" or "enraged" or perhaps maybe just "upset"...not actually angry at all.

But the key here is along the lines of the OP's question -- that this isn't just how we express to others through language, but how we express & understand these feelings to ourselves.