Scan barcode
nothingforpomegranted's review against another edition
I just didn’t get to this before it was returned to the library. will return to kt
heylook's review against another edition
3.0
Mostly for the layperson, with a few dips into "heavy" linguistics, investigating what's wrong with the strong Whorfian hypothesis.
arquero's review against another edition
2.0
The book provides staunch and uncompromising criticism of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
So first of all, Whorfianism comes in two forms:
- Classic Whorfianism AKA linguistic determinism. Languages limit the way we think. Consider Newspeak in 1984.
- Neo-Whorfianism AKA linguistic relativism. Languages encourage some thought patterns over others.
Typically, Whorfian theories go like there is 'no word for X in language Y' or 'many words for X in language Y'. There is also a grammar version of this trope that is when a language has/lacks some category (e.g. evidentiality, future tense), more or less grammar.
The author claims that language hardly affects the culture, nor the culture guides language development in any meaningful way. I largely agree with him, though regarding vocabulary, my counterargument is that big industrialized languages usually possess rich terminology. Also if true, this disqualifies the whole PIE homeland reconstruction effort based on the PIE vocabulary.
Big languages are simpler because of many L2 speakers. If left alone any language would build a complex system over time, but expansion simplifies big languages.
So how does the author deconstruct Whorfian claims?
- Inconsistency: Selective/arbitrary nature of the features Whorfian studies pick to further their case.
- Counterarguments: nations speaking genetically related and thus similar languages may perform differently in economy and culture.
- reduction to absurd: Throwing in so many examples from so many languages that it becomes hard to find any consistent pattern to build on.
- retrospective claims: if the Ancient Greek language had evidentiality, the golden age would be explained by that.
- academic bias: The study is mostly done in the West, it's Eurocentric and sensationalist. Whorfianism is often concerned with quirky facts from small exotic languages, yet often misses the idiosyncrasies of bigger and better known languages.
- Unfortunately, he also uses non-scientific arguments a lot. He plays the political correctness card all the time. It cannot be because it should not be (otherwise, are you a racist?). that's cheesy and manipulative.
P.S. In the end, I should accept that I largely agree with the author. My criticism is that I wanted to hear more genuine arguments, rather than being told what I already believe in. The book was a long moral advocacy and the author consistently uses 'she' as the default 3rd-person pronoun. That's quite woke. The last two chapters added no value. The same arguments again and again. The writing style is excessively elaborate, stuffed with unnecessary words and long expressions. What's the point?
So first of all, Whorfianism comes in two forms:
- Classic Whorfianism AKA linguistic determinism. Languages limit the way we think. Consider Newspeak in 1984.
- Neo-Whorfianism AKA linguistic relativism. Languages encourage some thought patterns over others.
Typically, Whorfian theories go like there is 'no word for X in language Y' or 'many words for X in language Y'. There is also a grammar version of this trope that is when a language has/lacks some category (e.g. evidentiality, future tense), more or less grammar.
The author claims that language hardly affects the culture, nor the culture guides language development in any meaningful way. I largely agree with him, though regarding vocabulary, my counterargument is that big industrialized languages usually possess rich terminology. Also if true, this disqualifies the whole PIE homeland reconstruction effort based on the PIE vocabulary.
Big languages are simpler because of many L2 speakers. If left alone any language would build a complex system over time, but expansion simplifies big languages.
So how does the author deconstruct Whorfian claims?
- Inconsistency: Selective/arbitrary nature of the features Whorfian studies pick to further their case.
- Counterarguments: nations speaking genetically related and thus similar languages may perform differently in economy and culture.
- reduction to absurd: Throwing in so many examples from so many languages that it becomes hard to find any consistent pattern to build on.
- retrospective claims: if the Ancient Greek language had evidentiality, the golden age would be explained by that.
- academic bias: The study is mostly done in the West, it's Eurocentric and sensationalist. Whorfianism is often concerned with quirky facts from small exotic languages, yet often misses the idiosyncrasies of bigger and better known languages.
- Unfortunately, he also uses non-scientific arguments a lot. He plays the political correctness card all the time. It cannot be because it should not be (otherwise, are you a racist?). that's cheesy and manipulative.
P.S. In the end, I should accept that I largely agree with the author. My criticism is that I wanted to hear more genuine arguments, rather than being told what I already believe in. The book was a long moral advocacy and the author consistently uses 'she' as the default 3rd-person pronoun. That's quite woke. The last two chapters added no value. The same arguments again and again. The writing style is excessively elaborate, stuffed with unnecessary words and long expressions. What's the point?
biblioauds's review against another edition
informative
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
A fascinating and even humorous book in which McWhorter attempts to debunk both the Whorfian myths of the media as well as question the Neo-Whorfian revival. This book really had me questioning how much finding "evidence" towards something holds up when it is both inconsequential and trivial. A must-read for any linguistics student or enthusiast, in which readers find out that the Whorfian myth is not as attractive as it seems, progressivism can be hurtful, and the truth about language and thought is actually far more appealing.
zsommers's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
mjgriffinii74656's review against another edition
This book was far more niche than I expected when I purchased it. And while I may have only really understood about 20% of it, I’m glad I gave it and shot and read it. Unfortunately, can’t really rate or review it beyond that.
bupdaddy's review against another edition
3.0
John should have gone out and touched grass before he wrote this book.
He's mad at...someone...about...something to do with people thinking too much that language influences culture. He's not mad at Guy Deutscher for writing [b:Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages|8444621|Through the Language Glass Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages|Guy Deutscher|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1317066228l/8444621._SX50_.jpg|13232704], he says, even though the subtitle of John's book is a direct reference to the subtitle of Guy's. And he refers to the book a lot. This book feels like Sweet Home, Alabama to Neil Young's Southern Man. He's mad at media coverage that simplifies the thesis of that book to 'language controls how you feel' he says, but acknowledges many times that the modest claims Deutscher makes are scientifically valid.
And while he's acknowledging but also minimizing the importance of one's mother tongue on their thinking, he's also careful to be hip with using she pronouns mixed in with the he's for hypothetical people, and I can only guess that's because he recognizes that the sexist ubiquity of he from 40+ years ago affects default thinking.
I agree that language is not terribly important at affecting thinking - it certainly doesn't prevent any sort of thinking like the racist linguists a hundred years ago thought (not many words for time in such-and-such a language - those people are incapable of planning!). [b:1984|61439040|1984|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1657781256l/61439040._SX50_.jpg|153313]'s Newspeak couldn't really stop people from thinking things.
I think of it like the coriolis effect on water going down the drain. It's true, but much less important than most other aspects of water flow, and easily overcome. Any child can see they can reverse the direction of the water spout emanating from the drain with just a few good sweeps of the hand.
Native Russian speakers can sort light blue from navy blue tiles a bit quicker than native English speakers, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody with a couple of hours' training got just as good as a Russian. Or the experiments that showed if a noun is feminine in Spanish and masculine in German, or vice-versa, speakers of those languages tend to anthropomorphize those nouns according to the gender their own language gives them. But A German probably wouldn't gasp at a male bridge, nor a Spaniard at a female one.
Languages are fun to learn about because they open our minds to other phraseology and grammars. They expose us to - metaphors - built into languages. They make new synapses fire.
This is supposed to fill us with wonder, John. Your book feels like an angry letter you should have stuffed into your desk for a while and looked at later.
He's mad at...someone...about...something to do with people thinking too much that language influences culture. He's not mad at Guy Deutscher for writing [b:Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages|8444621|Through the Language Glass Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages|Guy Deutscher|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1317066228l/8444621._SX50_.jpg|13232704], he says, even though the subtitle of John's book is a direct reference to the subtitle of Guy's. And he refers to the book a lot. This book feels like Sweet Home, Alabama to Neil Young's Southern Man. He's mad at media coverage that simplifies the thesis of that book to 'language controls how you feel' he says, but acknowledges many times that the modest claims Deutscher makes are scientifically valid.
And while he's acknowledging but also minimizing the importance of one's mother tongue on their thinking, he's also careful to be hip with using she pronouns mixed in with the he's for hypothetical people, and I can only guess that's because he recognizes that the sexist ubiquity of he from 40+ years ago affects default thinking.
I agree that language is not terribly important at affecting thinking - it certainly doesn't prevent any sort of thinking like the racist linguists a hundred years ago thought (not many words for time in such-and-such a language - those people are incapable of planning!). [b:1984|61439040|1984|George Orwell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1657781256l/61439040._SX50_.jpg|153313]'s Newspeak couldn't really stop people from thinking things.
I think of it like the coriolis effect on water going down the drain. It's true, but much less important than most other aspects of water flow, and easily overcome. Any child can see they can reverse the direction of the water spout emanating from the drain with just a few good sweeps of the hand.
Native Russian speakers can sort light blue from navy blue tiles a bit quicker than native English speakers, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody with a couple of hours' training got just as good as a Russian. Or the experiments that showed if a noun is feminine in Spanish and masculine in German, or vice-versa, speakers of those languages tend to anthropomorphize those nouns according to the gender their own language gives them. But A German probably wouldn't gasp at a male bridge, nor a Spaniard at a female one.
Languages are fun to learn about because they open our minds to other phraseology and grammars. They expose us to - metaphors - built into languages. They make new synapses fire.
This is supposed to fill us with wonder, John. Your book feels like an angry letter you should have stuffed into your desk for a while and looked at later.
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
At no fault of the author, this book just wasn’t for me. I recently became interested in sociolinguistics, and I bought a bunch of books by McWhorter. The first one I read was fantastic (Talking Back, Talking Black), but 99% of this book went over my head. If you’re already familiar with linguistics, I’m sure you’ll love this book, but as someone new to it, it was confusing as all hell. McWhorter is an extremely intelligent man, and when you combine that with someone who has based their expertise around language, he sometimes uses a series of $100 words, so entire sections feel like a different language for someone like me. Again, I’m sure this is a great and interesting book for certain audiences, but not me. I haven’t given up on McWhorter’s books though. He definitely has some other books that I’m sure are more at my level as someone who just recently developed an interest in this field.
lil_juulnieb's review against another edition
informative
fast-paced
3.5
Interesting and really accessible.
simazhi's review against another edition
1.0
This book is full of problems. I only would recommend it if you want to be inspired to think about the gazillion ways the author's reasoning is flawed; he keeps beating a dead horse and bases his arguments on mistaken assumptions. I expected more from a big name in the field like McWhorter.