The issue for me is that left and right have more than one meaning so we cannot help but have an association between the direction right, the right answer, and to communicate in writing. Plus left the direction, and to exit. This is problematic. Plz do a video on this
I have left a comment for the previous video claiming that the color experiments were all biased. My claim stands for the experiments introduced in the video as well. You (and American linguists in general) keep saying language affects thoughts minimally, but all these exeriments are on the relations between language and perception, and thought has nothing to do with anything. Particularly, the conclusion from the counting experiment comparing English and Piraha speaekers is nonsensical. The experiment simply shows that the English speakers use number words for counting, but it does not necessarily follow that the Piraha speakers have the same concept of quantity as the English speakers. This conclusion is non sequitur and thus not logical at all. Seriously, come on, Linguists! You guys need to better than this.
hello! your comment came across as very on-point to me, i also thought this section of the course would be focusing on language-thought relation instead of perception issues (i mean, some people are color blind and would essentially differentiate between colors worse than others, but this condition doesnt really depend on the language they speak, does it?) i wondered if you studied linguistics elsewhere? if so what was the place/the course? id like to take a look at your resources if you dont mind of course
@@MashoMc Hi there. Thank you for responding to my comment. It's always nice to talk with people who want to dig deeper and learn more. Well, actually, I'm a computer scientist specializing in AI. Given the nature of this field, I got to study other related subjects (like psychology, linguitics, neuroscience). I'm afraid, though, I can't really refer you to my "resources" because my comment comes from my collective knowledge and experience. But as a general direction, I have always been drawn to theories on knowledge representation, concept formation, and memory formation from neural computation perspectives. As final words, the fundamental problem with the linguists' experiments on the Whorfian hypothesis is the fact that they have never defined what "thought" is. In essence, they are looking for what they hide from themselves. PS: My first encounter with linguitics was in Japan when I was an undergrad. I also have been exposed to more esoteric linguistics of European origins, thanks to my a bit weird but wonderful research advisor, who happens to be a linguist as well as a proponent of the Whorfian hypothesis.
It would also be interesting to see which arrow Tzeltal speakers would choose if tested in a room with no windows
Thank you, for these very interesting lectures! Greetings from the Netherlands
i believe that the speakers of pormpuraaw arrange images east to west based on how the sun moves throughout the day.
Great.
What happens if you put Tezetal-speaker in featureless room?
The issue for me is that left and right have more than one meaning so we cannot help but have an association between the direction right, the right answer, and to communicate in writing. Plus left the direction, and to exit. This is problematic. Plz do a video on this
I have left a comment for the previous video claiming that the color experiments were all biased. My claim stands for the experiments introduced in the video as well. You (and American linguists in general) keep saying language affects thoughts minimally, but all these exeriments are on the relations between language and perception, and thought has nothing to do with anything. Particularly, the conclusion from the counting experiment comparing English and Piraha speaekers is nonsensical. The experiment simply shows that the English speakers use number words for counting, but it does not necessarily follow that the Piraha speakers have the same concept of quantity as the English speakers. This conclusion is non sequitur and thus not logical at all. Seriously, come on, Linguists! You guys need to better than this.
hello! your comment came across as very on-point to me, i also thought this section of the course would be focusing on language-thought relation instead of perception issues (i mean, some people are color blind and would essentially differentiate between colors worse than others, but this condition doesnt really depend on the language they speak, does it?)
i wondered if you studied linguistics elsewhere? if so what was the place/the course? id like to take a look at your resources if you dont mind of course
@@MashoMc
Hi there. Thank you for responding to my comment. It's always nice to talk with people who want to dig deeper and learn more. Well, actually, I'm a computer scientist specializing in AI. Given the nature of this field, I got to study other related subjects (like psychology, linguitics, neuroscience). I'm afraid, though, I can't really refer you to my "resources" because my comment comes from my collective knowledge and experience. But as a general direction, I have always been drawn to theories on knowledge representation, concept formation, and memory formation from neural computation perspectives. As final words, the fundamental problem with the linguists' experiments on the Whorfian hypothesis is the fact that they have never defined what "thought" is. In essence, they are looking for what they hide from themselves.
PS: My first encounter with linguitics was in Japan when I was an undergrad. I also have been exposed to more esoteric linguistics of European origins, thanks to my a bit weird but wonderful research advisor, who happens to be a linguist as well as a proponent of the Whorfian hypothesis.