John McWhorter - Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language

[@nagatom]

John McWhorter has me laughing out loud as much as many comedians, he's so dry and witty. Plus I'm learning, which is a bonus.

[@DustinTheGreat1123]

I’ve listened to a bunch of his lectures via audiobook and literally laugh out loud. I had to stop listening to them in bed at night because I disturb my wife.

[@weshard1]

I’m on a McWhorter spree, and KZbin knows it. I’ve been on a Lexicon Valley binge whilst having covid. It’s helped me beyond words..

[@seriekekomo]

Thank goodness!! Friggin' postmodernists think that reality is entirely a social/linguistic construct. We are limited by our brains and our lack of knowledge not our languages. Every time someone says that they reached nirvana through language learning I just cringe my face into a I-just-ate-a-lemon type of grimace. Thank goodness this guy is promoting actual science. His work is amazing, check it out.

[@eeeeeeeeeeef]

Things can be social constructs without being sapir-whorf constructs, you goof Sapir whorf isn't even a postmodern concept

[@seriekekomo]

@@eeeeeeeeeeef You know what is not a construct? Reading comprehension, develop some.

[@Louisianish]

@@eeeeeeeeeeef They’re referring to people who *use* a simplified summary of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis to promote linguistic diversity.

[@FaheemShuaibe]

Experience creates our worldview and our language reflects our experience.

[@Lurker1979]

As an outsider to this area of study. This is very intresting.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

interesting

[@lohphat]

I think we have a semantics problem here. "World View" has a specific meaning and means the figurative term referring to how an individual has an outlook in life and politics. Yes, we can do that regardless of the language. That is an inside to outside synthesis of opinions and assertions. Language on the other hand is an outside inwards interpretation of the world and language very much affects how we interpret that jumble of inputs. Cased languages which constrain how nouns are treated via pre or post fixes vs noun phrases, or genders of objects, or if people outside your clan are not considered human and other terms not used for family -- those greatly affect the internal "interpretation of the world" which then formulates the outward focused "World View".

[@PrimePhilosophy]

A semantics problem that a professor of linguistics at columbia can't work his head around. Fascinating.

[@quadgod77]

This has gotta be one of my most favorite talks! xD

[@jdankerdake]

It’s beneficial to taste blackberries and see acorns, not for the sake of preserving the language, but for the joy and enrichment of experiencing the world.

[@michaelweber5702]

This guy is good . John McWhorter is a wonder ... If only all college teachers were close to as helpful as Professor McWhorter ...

[@saiello2061]

So if I understand correctly, experience of the world comes first and is universal. A language comes second and the bulk of its content is shaped by its usefulness and efficiency in communicating the immediate environment to others of the same group. The primary differences between languages therefore is as a result of experience of the immediate environment and some luck. But, because human experience is universal, it does not mean that a group speaking one language does not have the ability to understand all of the concepts of another group speaking a different language. A group may understand a concept that another group understands but chooses not to name it or have fewer descriptive words because it is relatively unimportant to them. As an example, an Eskimo may have twice as many words for different forms of water ice, but I might have many more words for different forms of rock ( boulder, pebble, gravel, sand, powder, etc ). It doesn't mean I will not be able to understand all of the subtle distinctions of water ice and vice versa.

[@kurogawakun]

A very interesting talk.

[@kscorp5176]

I enjoy listening to this bloke talk. He seems so affiable!

[@GingerDrums]

There is no "i" in affable :) Yes he is an incredibly incisive and personable lecturer!

[@divergentsenior]

McWhorter is pure gold. Funny and truthful. I love that at least 1-2 times a video, I need the dictionary. And my vocabulary is better than most (based on the “what does that mean?” queries I get. Another good professor of rhetoric is Erec Smith of York University. Great interview with Benjamin Boyce.

[@NikhileshSurve]

Would it be correct to say that rather than the language or its grammar shaping the world view it's the world view that shaped the language or its grammar? In other words, it's the culture that shapes the language & learning the language one may get a glimpse of the culture (of course interacting with native speakers in their language will show you their culture more than just learning their language).

[@megabigblur]

I dunno about bahasa Indonesia but "waktu panjang" definitely doesn't sound right in bahasa Malaysia, which is another standardised form of Malay, because in Malaysian Malay "waktu" is a specific time point or specific period (e.g. 7:40 to 8:00 a.m.). In Malaysian Malay it would be "masa(time, often quantitative) lama(adjective specifically meaning a long time)"

[@zac8603]

Nice talk on an interesting view point, definitely going to check out that book.

[@withastone]

The final answer was just the best :)

[@divergentsenior]

Note this is from FIVE YEARS AGO! Can’t wait to read his new book on how curse words have changed.

[@Tohlemiach]

This is such a stupid debate and I don't understand why we're still having it. It is painfully obvious to anyone that is multilingual that language absolutely affects how you perceive the world. Yet these academics see that fact as problematic for some reason and insist on digging through the minutia of any claims about it just to minimize any potential differences it could cause. Like, I'm not claiming that Japanese people are more emotional than English speakers, but when I hear someone say ”懐かしい", it just feels way different from hearing someone say "man that's nostalgic." It's more personal, more sentimental, more intimate, more powerful, and yet Japanese is my second language. I think what people don't understand is that Whorfian claims are wholly aesthetic ones. The flavor and texture of certain ideas *feel* different in different languages, but that doesn't change the actual information inherent in a given idea. You CAN translate the word 萌え into English and convey the same information through a giant paragraph of words and sentences, but that paragraph simply does NOT feel the same as simply saying "萌え". That singular word is extremely efficient at communicating a complex idea, and we do not have a word or phrase or simply cultural familiarity with the concept enough to even come close to replicating a similar level of efficiency in English. This is basic experiential knowledge that any and every multilingual human being knows, and I don't see what people get out of trying to disprove it. No one is claiming that Germans are literally better engineers. But there are absolutely reasons why, as you can see from Lera Boroditsky's work, the world is suffused with a history of people talking about how incredibly different the world feels in different languages.

[@karsten9895]

But Sapir and Whorf did make scientific claims, not just purely aesthetic ones and so did their followers. Also, you say that no one claims that Germans are better engineers. Well, German engineers do! You clearly don't know any of them. They've a favorite saying: "Dem Ingenieur ist nichts zu schwör" (basically: an engineer can everything). If you were around them, you would realize that they'll clearly have a slightly nationalistic interpretation of this saying (at least that's true for the older generation).

[@Tohlemiach]

@@karsten9895 that sucks to hear, but again, if something is true but CAN lead to bad outcomes, does that mean we have to lie about it?

[@karsten9895]

Who lies about what? Whom are you accusing of lying?

[@Tohlemiach]

@@karsten9895 McWhorter's whole argument is "it could lead to racism, so it's not true." But we know it's true, so it would be a lie just for the sake of preventing potential harm.

[@uusrano]

I speak Croatian, German, English and French. I agree with what the prof says, but I disagree with the title. The biggest benefit I have from knowing these languages, is that I can access foreign media. Each of these language groups has a different view on life, the topics and nature of public discourse are totally different. I think that being exposed to such differences enriched me.

[@GingerDrums]

The question is, would those people think differently due to other cultural factors. The causal link between language and thought is not accurate. The Turkish community here in Berlin have a more socially conservative view of things, even though many of them only speak German. Culture and beliefs differ, but not because of language. Language gives you access to different groups who also think differently.

[@honest_bishop5905]

The professor makes the same point you are making, in the question answer session. The one where he talks about Russian.

[@mikhailkhramov4955]

John McWhorter is a great lecturer and a fantastic writer, I bet he is a superb linguist as well. However, I do believe there is a fallacy in the argument that a theory is bad because is puts down some ethnic groups as he puts it in his lecture. In science in general, you find the theory to be true or wrong based on the data, rather than its offensiveness to whoever might find it offensive. I am not a believer in Sapir-Whorf theory, but don't say it's wrong because it may put Chinese down. Say it's wrong because the data shows it's wrong, don't use "offend others" as an argument.

[@KyPaMac]

Yes, he doesn't make that point especially well in this talk. I think a more robust reading of the argument is that the true size of the effects predicted by Sapir-Whorf must be tiny at best, because if they were any more significant, lots of people would be hopelessly incompetent in lots of important ways, and they obviously aren't.

[@DeviantFish]

He doesn’t say it isn’t true because it’s a put down, he says that’s part of the reason he cares so much. He separates the two

[@wordsbymaribeja1470]

I think the point he ultimately makes is that dominant languages and their rules become such arbitrarily, language is not binary so a science analogy is misplaced.

[@blaisetzu]

This is a very interesting discussion, with many incremental degrees. Trying to quantitate it all is like trying to collectively measure all the waves in the ocean. What he is saying is that language does influence perception on minor levels, but not world views/beliefs. But can it slightly or subtly push people in various directions? A subtle lean. Obviously a widely spoken language contains many world views. And if world views are similar or practically the same between speakers of different languages, is there any value in viewing this same belief through a different linguistic lens? That's what I ask myself. I''m under the impression that language can subtly/lightly influence. I began to wonder this when I developed a close relationship with a person from another country via the internet, and having long form conversations through translator, she would break down ideas sometimes in a completely back door way or unconventional by American standards so I began to wonder to what degree was her language shaping this? (And yes I know translators can botch words, make sentences awkward, misread or shave off meanings)... I live in a foreign country and a huge portion of my work deals with non-english speaking countries. I can only speak two languages at the moment, but as I eventually learn more, and spend more quality time in the tropics, I plan to examine this quandary over the course of my life. In the meantime I'll have to check out McWhorter's book "The Language Hoax.." and maybe others eventually.

[@jerrykoh9692]

Can someone tell me what the little screen is for? The auditory impaired? And is it a pre-written script or just a very fast typist?

[@soupy4099]

very fast typist.

[@bofbob1]

Look up "stenotype". Different kinds of special keyboards used to type closed captions live.

[@PattisKarriereKarten]

This is fun, like every presentation from McWhorter 👍 Just for the record, Nivea is a German brand and Americans - also McWhorter - just pronounce it SO wrong 😂 it’s Niveeeaaa, the syllables are pronounced long and the stress is on the second, not the first. 🤭

[@cannibalsaaa]

Thank you for this lecture. As a Bulgarian, I really appreciate the fact that you said that Bulgarian and Macedonian are the same language. But I look at this whole issue of 'the same world'' differently . Yes, I damn sure can't kill a parrot just by looking at it, although my native tongue has evidential markers. But I really see the world in a different way than a English native speaker does. I'll give an example. When I started learning English a long time ago and I was 7 or 8 years old, I really thought that the words hand and arm are synonyms (because my native language uses one word for both) and it took me a couple of years to understand that one talks about different parts of the body when using them. This is not my fault of course, it's just that no one has told me that in different language there'll be a different word for the upper and lower parts of the limb. Even now after a lot of years of knowing English for me I really see this limb as a whole thing and not as 2 separate parts as a native English speaker does. So, of course the example with the two words for 'there' and ''over there' in Spanish doesn't change the way a English speaker would see the world, even if he has learned Spanish. An English speaker would still think as if it were just one word, even when he uses both. Is it so difficult to understand? You can learn 25 languages with all their strange concepts that don't exist in your native tongue, this will not change the way you perceive the reality around you, BUT the native speakers of these languages really do see the world differently. This is based on the fact that when we grow up the languages that our parents decided to teach us shape our perception of the world for whole our lives. You can learn Japanese and Chinese but you are not going to think the way they do. Your brain is still going to process the information you gain based entirelly on the language you learned as a child. Our mind is just a slave to our native tongues, doesn't matter how many languages we have learned after that. That's why everyone laughed at the idea for 'harm''. You can learn Russian but you won''t think the same way. That's why you're going to think it's funny, when it's not. So, just to end. Of course the world would look the same FOR YOU in all languages, it's because your mind keeps thinking the way your parents decided for you, when choosing you a language. BUT the world DOES look different for the different people that speak other languages and this is something you can never understand because your mind has already been shaped to think in your native one.

[@seriekekomo]

Didn't you pay attention to the lecture at all? The fact that your language only have one word for hand and arm doesn't change your perception of the world to a significant extent. You may feel like your hand and arm are just one thing, but that's all. If we apply the Whorfian Hypothesis to this example, I could make the case that English speakers are more capable of understanding anatomy than Bulgarian Speakers, which as you may notice, is an absurd statement to make. Then, you said that even if you learn Chinese, "you are not going to think the way they do". For starters, do you think all Chinese people think the same way? Of course not. As John McWhorter said in this lecture, the grammar of a language does not alter people's perception of the world in a significant way, just a little bit. Probably, what you really meant was that a westerner can't be like Chinese or Japanese people because they have very different cultural backgrounds. However that doesn't have anything to do with grammar and language, those are cultural aspects. Btw, parents don't decide the way you think by giving you a particular language. What you learn from them are values and ideas, but that can be done in all languages. There's a huge difference between ideology, culture and language. Have a nice day! :D

[@ghostress2001]

Bulgarian: Ostrov - ob + strovy - PIE *strow (*srew) Russian: O + Strov = "water runs around". English: Island - ea (old eng. running water) + land. English: Stream - Proto-German *straumaz - PIE *srew. Old English word frowe (feminine) meant a woman. Freo (masculine) meant a ruler or a lord, eine Frau is a feminine form of "lord" from PIE *prow. *prow is the same root in Russian "pravi" (right), but it also means a lord (pravitel). Praviti = to direct. A lord is always right in both English and Russian because he is the lord)) English: right - Proto-German *rehtaz (to direct) - PIE *Hreg Latin: Rectus (perfect passive participle of rego) - PIE *Hreg (to direct). Compare native australian east/west. Which side is right or wrong? Perhaps south until you turn around))) PIE languages are so widespread because of geography as Jared Diamond wrote. It's just an accident)) Twice. The World Looks the Same in Any Language", yes of course)) bla-bla-bla. Whorfianism is wrong because it is a dangerous idea for our modern multicultural society. You compared English and Bulgarian and found some differences in the way of thinking. In fact they're not significant. Both those languages are PIE. 5.000 years ago it was the same language. All those words changed their meaning separately and independently each from other. So why do we still think the same way? It's sad, that linguistics became a tool of ideology.

[@AlkisGD]

@cannibalsaaa - I'm Greek and had the same problem! Worse, it took me way too many years to realize I often said 'hand' when I meant 'arm' and 'foot' when I meant 'leg'!

[@DenianArcoleo]

Reason number four has me convinced.

[@phoeurnphally7965]

Thanks

[@BioxyTube]

wow that's diamond talk!

[@albertinapisano22]

I disagree, I speak 5 languages and have lived in the corresponding countries, and I have experienced different world views correlating to local experience and culture AND language

[@aubreyfranks1267]

English has "yonder". 41:28 Other languages also 3.

[@TheChiefRockah]

Good old Ruth. I once 'knew' a girl named Ruth back in school. She was a confident woman. I wonder what job she has now?

[@gisopolis77]

I guess you could say you are now Ruthless

[@rahulray5411]

@@gisopolis77 😂😂😂

[@HolahkuTaigiTWFormosanDiplomat]

OK

[@jadwigaw.6896]

I’m gunna start telling people to “Whorf off” from now on 😆🤣✌🏼

[@Rand_War]

this guy sounds exactly like reggie watts

[@PrimePhilosophy]

He says the terms in the second mentioned proposition are obscure or not implicit, then says it's not true, then says it's true but not how we've been told by teachers, then he says what does worldview even mean?, then he says it works in some limited manner.. mostly while taking the term 'language' from the first principle/proposition to mean national/cultural dialect rather than the other treatments of the word. I'll admit I'm an amateur when it comes to this and I haven't researched beyond basic definitions.. but 15 mins in and this guy seems all over the place. His take on the two initial principals is not how I would have interpreted them at all.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

You should see if they’ll give you his spot at Columbia.

[@PrimePhilosophy]

@@Individual_Lives_Matter you say it like the education system hasn't been corrupted.. no thanks.

[@JCosio-bs9xr]

First of all, I am not a linguist. If you are going to enlighten my ignorance, do so diplomatically. My impression of the speaker is he speaks like an ideologue. My understanding of ideologues is that they tend to approach questions with confirmation bias and that they often close themselves off from the possible views that undermine their often novel authority. Why does Whorfianism have to be a zero sum game? As far as I know from the field of speech pathology, the five parameters of language are phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Why does situational context not determine the superiority of one system over another? The idea of categorical perception of phonemes is already one parameter that would support the idea that being raised in a language with a larger phonetic inventory gives an individual a statistical phonological advantage in learning how to speak other languages. And what about semantics? If you visit a country with historical racial and linguistic homogeneity, how can the idea of racism and other identity politics terms play out? Is it possible for people to live superior, enabled lives if they could not see themselves as being oppressed? Why does culture get the credit for diversity and not language? How are they not interwoven? I feel people are so afraid of supremacy (in all cases) that they don’t distinguish it from superiority (in certain situations). Hasn’t anyone ever been in a situation where one sociolect was better than another? If each language were a tool, the superiority of one tool over another would depend on the task at hand. Finally, I wonder if he ever thought of looking at language in a constructionist sense. If one were to construct a language, would it be impossible to do so in a way that would improve the cognition and neuroplasticity of the speaker’s mind? Wouldn’t you want to?

[@nelsonrushton]

A substantial part of McWhorter's argument is that "Whorfianism" has consequences that are politically incorrect, and therefore must be false. This is especially horrid coming for a guy who speaks against political correctness.

[@hamm0155]

No that was one the reasons why it’s important. The first is that it’s false which he supports with other arguments.

[@blaisetzu]

I wonder if he still believes in his opening statement. Because now in the age wokeness there has been a whole lexicon created by gender theorists and CRT architects. This lexicon of new and redefined words which seems to often draw the avid user into very specific and often rigid conclusions, thus informing their world view.

[@Otome_chan311]

I stopped watching the second he said language is like "bubbles in soup" in that "it's entirely random and unpredictable". Because the latter is demonstrably false. The amount of information needed (that we lack) and the speed of computation (which we lack) makes it impossible for humans to know in real time prior to it happening, but mathematically it's absolutely predictable and deterministic. Likewise we find the same with language. Features in language are fairly deterministic. If they weren't, and everything happened "by chance", then languages would be completely and entirely different and have nothing whatsoever in common. Yet they're all structured fairly similarly, with very similar components. And based on the geographic origin of the language, we can see similarities with other nearby languages. This shows it isn't "random" whatsoever. If it were, then neighboring languages would be entirely different from one another.

[@mhertin660]

About languages in the same area sharing similar features, it's because of language families. Almost every language in Europe is descended from the same language - with random sound changes and semantic shifts causing it to diverge into dialects and then into languages. For example, the Latin word 'biscoctu' became 'biscuit' in French - what else apart from a random sound change caused that word to change form? Should we have been able to predict that change? The actions of human beings aren't predictable and our thoughts can't be mathematically calculated. As language is a purely human phenomenon, why should it be predictable in its changes? And about universal language structures - could it not be that humans all share the same psychological structures? The human brain is wired to function in a specific way - thus shaping the way all human languages work. But there is wiggle room within that structure - all languages DO all share many structural similarities, but there is a multitude of different ways that structure can be expressed, and other structural elements which are negotiable.

[@bofbob1]

So...you stopped listening to a linguist because he wasn't a physicist? ...

[@ghostress2001]

If Whorfianism is wrong how to explane the fact some words changed their meaning? For example wif (neuter) meant a virgin. wif+man = woman. In modern English it means a wife. Eine Frau means both wife and woman in German and it has the same root in Old English word frowe (feminine). Freo (masculine) meant a ruler or a lord, so eine Frau is a feminine form of "lord" from PIE *prow. *prow is the same root in Russian "pravi" (right), but it also means a lord (pravitel in Russian). Also the russians speak "to be behind a man" (viti za muzsh) when you're a bride just alike english wif+man. Also a lord is always right in both languages because he is the lord))). Compare to native australian east/west. Island = ea (running water) + land. Ostrov means an island in Russian from the PIE root *strow. O+STROV = water runs around. We have an english word "stream". German eines Mädchen has a neuter grammar gender just alike it does in many PIE languages. In English we have the same root in a word "maiden". Do you feel anything "neuter" in this word? Some linguistics claim it's our heritage from proto-PIE language which had to be an active-stative one. I'm not sure. All those words changed their meaning separately and independently each from other and English and Russian and German are PIE languages.

[@maxens_is_here]

They changed their meaning because people either progressively used them for different things or even, more rarely, just plain decided to use them for a different meaning at some point. You've already got part of your answer in your post (well, in your multiple posts): the people who used these languages lived somewhat separately and (almost) independently from each other, they used the terms in the ways that were accepted in their communities as it changed. Thus, usage differed. (You can see it happening quickly by looking at Internet slang.) Do you understand that Whorfianism is the idea that grammar and language structure influences the way you think? The fact that words change their meanings (and that languages evolve) does not mean that grammar influences the way you think. (Also... I don't want to nitpick, but nouns aren't gendered in modern English, you probably just think of "maiden" as somehow more feminine than "mädchen" because it refers to a young woman... but mädchen also refers to a young woman.)