Dicionary.com gives this definition for the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
A theory developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf that states that the structure of a language determines or greatly influences the modes of thought and behavior characteristic of the culture in which it is spoken.
Do I agree with this? Definitely. I remember one book I read, in which there is a character who speaks both Arabic and French. When he speaks French, he treats women with respect. When he speaks Arabic, there is far less politeness. Language and culture are very closely linked. A language is really an entire mindset, not just a different list of vocabulary and grammatical rules. Language definitely shapes how you think.
But do I agree with what Mr. Philpot suggested, that thought is not possible without language? No, it is certainly possible. The reason someone might think it is not would be because they, like all of us, have been brought up with language. Our thoughts are in words, and we can't imagine thinking any other way, because the brief time that we did when we were babies, we can't remember. I think the words we use to formulate ideas within our minds are just on the surface. They represent something deeper. [Spoken] Language makes it easier to communicate ideas, but without words, we could still communicate. Take for instance the part in "A day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" where Shukhov is working with Senka. Senka is deaf, and yet the two of them are able to communicate without words. I see that I have gotten off-subject. Back to the original topic of thought being impossible without language, I just don't agree with it.
Sunday, 26 October 2008
Monday, 13 October 2008
Article on language
I thought I'd upload this interesting article about the English Language, since we're talking about language now:
"Today when we spell the word "color" instead of "colour" we can thank a crotchety, humorless man for saving wear on our fingers, not to mention savings on paper and those obscenely expensive inkjet printer cartridges. Oct 16 marks the 250th birth anniversary of Noah Webster (1758-1843), lexicographer extraordinaire, who compiled the American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), the first authoritative lexicon of American English.
Webster believed in establishing cultural independence from Britain and as such he emphasized a distinct American spelling and pronunciation. His dictionary listed various unusual and shortened spellings of words. He would hardly have imagined how the tide would turn one day. According to reports, more British children today spell "color" instead of "colour", for example. Webster's suggestion of using "tung" instead of "tongue" didn't stick, though.
Today Webster's name is synonymous with dictionaries and the date of his birth is observed as Dictionary Day. In his honor, this week we'll present words about words. As Webster said, "the process of a living language is like the motion of a broad river which flows with a slow, silent, irresistible current."
"Today when we spell the word "color" instead of "colour" we can thank a crotchety, humorless man for saving wear on our fingers, not to mention savings on paper and those obscenely expensive inkjet printer cartridges. Oct 16 marks the 250th birth anniversary of Noah Webster (1758-1843), lexicographer extraordinaire, who compiled the American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), the first authoritative lexicon of American English.
Webster believed in establishing cultural independence from Britain and as such he emphasized a distinct American spelling and pronunciation. His dictionary listed various unusual and shortened spellings of words. He would hardly have imagined how the tide would turn one day. According to reports, more British children today spell "color" instead of "colour", for example. Webster's suggestion of using "tung" instead of "tongue" didn't stick, though.
Today Webster's name is synonymous with dictionaries and the date of his birth is observed as Dictionary Day. In his honor, this week we'll present words about words. As Webster said, "the process of a living language is like the motion of a broad river which flows with a slow, silent, irresistible current."
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Babel Fish
Will Babel Fish ever work satisfactorily? An interesting question, to be sure. There are so many intricacies to language; words have different meanings in different contexts, we use idioms that literally translated mean something completely different than what we mean to say, and so on. That is why online translators give us translations that are sometimes quite comical.
In an episode of the TV series “Get Smart”, there is a character that is a robot. His master has to be careful with what he says to him, because he takes everything literally. The scientist tells the robot to “take off” and pursue agent 86, but the machine-man merely stands in one place and flaps his arms. This is very much like what an online translator would interpret a text.
In order for a translating program to work at its fullest potential, the programmer would have to put every idiomatic expression known to man into the database. Not an easy task by any means. It would be impractical, and it would still be an imperfect system. Babel Fish and Google translate definitely have ample room for improvement, and perhaps they will improve greatly in the next few years, but I don’t think that they will ever be perfect.
Much of understanding language involves making judgments on what we hear based on our knowledge. For instance, if someone says to us, “break a leg,” we know that they are wishing us luck, not physical injury (hopefully). But could a computer discern the difference? If the programmer told the computer that “break a leg” meant “good luck,” then what happens when a text is actually referring to a broken leg? This is why I believe that these things will never be perfect, and that human judgment is needed in a successful interpretation of language.
*EDIT*
In response to Mr. Philpot's comment, "But if you tell a computer to translate 'break' into 'good luck' every time it is mentioned within an immediate proximity of 'a leg', then it can translate it properly. Couldn't it?"
Here is why I disagree. Let's say we have the sentence, "My mom won't let me skateboard; she's afraid I'll break a leg." This would translate into "My mom won't let me skateboard; she's afraid I'll good luck." I really don't believe that there is a way around this.
In an episode of the TV series “Get Smart”, there is a character that is a robot. His master has to be careful with what he says to him, because he takes everything literally. The scientist tells the robot to “take off” and pursue agent 86, but the machine-man merely stands in one place and flaps his arms. This is very much like what an online translator would interpret a text.
In order for a translating program to work at its fullest potential, the programmer would have to put every idiomatic expression known to man into the database. Not an easy task by any means. It would be impractical, and it would still be an imperfect system. Babel Fish and Google translate definitely have ample room for improvement, and perhaps they will improve greatly in the next few years, but I don’t think that they will ever be perfect.
Much of understanding language involves making judgments on what we hear based on our knowledge. For instance, if someone says to us, “break a leg,” we know that they are wishing us luck, not physical injury (hopefully). But could a computer discern the difference? If the programmer told the computer that “break a leg” meant “good luck,” then what happens when a text is actually referring to a broken leg? This is why I believe that these things will never be perfect, and that human judgment is needed in a successful interpretation of language.
*EDIT*
In response to Mr. Philpot's comment, "But if you tell a computer to translate 'break' into 'good luck' every time it is mentioned within an immediate proximity of 'a leg', then it can translate it properly. Couldn't it?"
Here is why I disagree. Let's say we have the sentence, "My mom won't let me skateboard; she's afraid I'll break a leg." This would translate into "My mom won't let me skateboard; she's afraid I'll good luck." I really don't believe that there is a way around this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)