Introduction to Linguistics: Language and Thought 1

Prof. Futrell discusses the linguistic relativity hypothesis, patterns of words for color across languages, and whether people that speak different languages think of color differently.

[@ramzy-6566]

Thank you.

[@advaithramesh6697]

Certain languages may allow you to ‘articulate’ certain thoughts more efficiently?

[@le-ore]

[@clovercodex]

What about the way that we are sub-jected to the ob-ject in english? Also that humans are nouns or things. This is problematic to our mental paradigm of possible thoughts in my opinion.
Also the issue of letters being also words. Like:
A: a
B: be
C: see
E: energy
I: i
M: am
N: in
O: owe
R: are
U: you
W: double you
Y: why
Plus the vow-els:
A, e, I, O, U (and sometimes why?!)
Hmmm. Its a code and words are spells thats why its called spelling.
Sub -ject: throw below
Ob -ject: throw above
Also how capitalistic terms are used like: good JOB; its working (its functioning); im broke (i have no money); its broken: it is not functioning. We PAY attention. We spend time, we save time, we collect debts though.
In-DENT-ured servitude is now called per-son-al i-DENT-it-y

[@EchoLog]

I remember piecing together linguistics on my own, too. I also remember piecing together concepts like conlanging and jargons, with benevolent or malevolent intent.
Welcome to the show & tell 2.0 club, where prescripto-hardasses and artistic/autistic free spirits are one. Be it you saw the light on the hill, felt the path in the jungle, heard the river's flow, or a friend showed you the way - you cant not come back here; because it's always been a part of you.
Something something in the beginning there was something something wheel, bird, eye, weave, grandmother, breath, serpent, water, star something something sun tzu & ephesians & navajo teachings something something... fried okra & yams.*
*: beer battered

[@tosuchino6465]

I am not a linguist but have argued with them about what they consider "evidence" against the Whorfian school of thoughts. I truly think (particularly American) linguists are biased against the Whorfian school of thoughts. I am familiar with these color experiments but have to say that they are quite biased and based on unsubstantiated assumptions.
First, using color for the experiments itself already shows a bias and a conclusion drawn from them naturally inherits the bias embedded in the experiment setup. Any color word in any language refers to a concrete category of color. Given the human genomes, we as a species can perceive the same (similar?) range of color. When there is a concrete referent, our perception is naturally grounded to a specific object, and thus that's where the Whorfian effects are the weakest. Setting up experiments in such a way that they will induce the weakest effects and then drawing a conclusion that the effects are minimal is a textbook proctor effect. I believe the Whorfian effects are strongest where abstract concepts are formed. Whorf himself tended to look at the aspects of language where abstract concepts are deeply involved.
This notion of "concrte vs absteact" referents also relates to the issue of untranslatable words. There are untranslatable words particularly referring to abstract concepts. You say you were able to translate untranslatables after all. I'd say that's because you selsected the "difficult to translate (but not untraslatable)" words which have concrete referents. When there is a concrete referent, you can simply describe the referent in another language, which you call the translation of an untranslatable. Notice, however, that this is not to say that you cannot learn concepts referenced by untranslatable words. Learning/knowing socioculturally unique concets and having untranslatable words are two different things.
Second, using verbal interference to minimize the effects of linguistic memory enhancement is a velid method if and only if it is proven that the verbal interference disrupts only the assumed linguistic process taking place in working memory. I deliberately used the term "working memory" because the verbal interference experiments mentioned in the video seem to assume that the verbal interference affects short term memory. But until/unless proven otherwise, it is quite possible that the verbal interference affects the items stored in working memory, which includes color perception (more precisely, the color perveived) itself. With the experimental setup that ignores this aspect of memory, the validity of the conclusion drawn from the verbal interference experiments should be revisited.

[@beroal]

The problem with words without concrete referents is that you can't measure their referents. Hence you can't devise a scientific experiment about them.

[@tosuchino6465]

@@beroal
I would say it depends what you mean by "concrete" referents. For example, you could measure the frequencies of certain actions over time (like slip of the tongue) one takes or rate of changes in reaction time for certain tasks over time given specific conditions. If I were to design an experiment on this topic, I probably would rely on involuntary behavior exhibited. Do you consider something like "frequency" or "rate of change" concrete enough?