I came late to this thread, so I may be going over old territory.

Isn't there a middle ground between "thought is determined by language" and "language and thought are completely separate"? Surely the categories chosen by a language at least influence the way we think. For example, with the word "uncle," English labels four very different relationships with the very same term (father's brother, mother's brother, father's sister's husband, mother's sister's husband). As a boy, I considered all of my uncles to be equally close relations. Would that have been the case if, say, we had different terms for blood-related uncles and uncles-by-marriage?

Juliet claimed that "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." That's one of many things she got wrong. Would it really smell as sweet to us if the plant were called the "skunk cabbage weed"? Advertisers and politicians devote untold effort to naming products and programs because they believe names matter. Think of "the death tax," "Operation Iraqi Freedom," "the Patriot Act." People in opinion polls respond differently depending on what the thing is called. You get different results if you ask people if they're "pro-life" or if you ask if they're "anti-choice." Words have connotations, and connotations affect our responses.

Certainly we can have thought and opinions without language. Of equal certainty, names and labels for things affect our responses to them.

Dick Veit

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Robert Yates <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Colleagues,

I started my first reply on the metaphor string to suggest that there is
an alternative view from the one that language “structures our thinking.”
I believe that language and thought are completely separate.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/