يسري حمدي
07/06/2007, 11:43 AM
كتاب رائع عن دراسة اللغة والفكر
Author: Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Language in Mind
Advances in the Study of Language and Thought
For the last two decades, the hypothesis that language can influence thought—generally known as the Whorfian hypothesis—has been in serious disrepute. Admitting any sympathy for, or even curiosity about, this possibility was tantamount to declaring oneself to be either a simpleton or a lunatic. The view of most language researchers is well expressed by Pinker (1994, 65): ‘‘Most of the experiments have tested banal ‘weak’ versions of the Whorfian hypothesis, namely that words can have some effect on memory or categorization. Some of these experiments
have actually worked, but that is hardly surprising.’’
Devitt and Sterelny (1987, 178) express this skepticismeven more strongly: ‘‘[T]he argument for an important linguistic relativity evaporates under scrutiny. The only respect in which language clearly and obviously does influence thought turns out to be rather banal: language provides us with most of our concepts.’’ The latter quotation exemplifies the rather schizophrenic way in which the Whorfian question has been viewed. The language-and-thought question is dismissed as banal and unimportant, yet in the same breath it is stated (almost in passing) that language provides
us with most of our concepts—a view far stronger than that of even the most pro-Whorf researchers
http://www.arabswata.org/forums/uploaded/136_1181205639.zip
أرجو أن يحوز رضاكم
مع خالص تحياتي
Author: Dedre Gentner and Susan Goldin-Meadow
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Language in Mind
Advances in the Study of Language and Thought
For the last two decades, the hypothesis that language can influence thought—generally known as the Whorfian hypothesis—has been in serious disrepute. Admitting any sympathy for, or even curiosity about, this possibility was tantamount to declaring oneself to be either a simpleton or a lunatic. The view of most language researchers is well expressed by Pinker (1994, 65): ‘‘Most of the experiments have tested banal ‘weak’ versions of the Whorfian hypothesis, namely that words can have some effect on memory or categorization. Some of these experiments
have actually worked, but that is hardly surprising.’’
Devitt and Sterelny (1987, 178) express this skepticismeven more strongly: ‘‘[T]he argument for an important linguistic relativity evaporates under scrutiny. The only respect in which language clearly and obviously does influence thought turns out to be rather banal: language provides us with most of our concepts.’’ The latter quotation exemplifies the rather schizophrenic way in which the Whorfian question has been viewed. The language-and-thought question is dismissed as banal and unimportant, yet in the same breath it is stated (almost in passing) that language provides
us with most of our concepts—a view far stronger than that of even the most pro-Whorf researchers
http://www.arabswata.org/forums/uploaded/136_1181205639.zip
أرجو أن يحوز رضاكم
مع خالص تحياتي