Edwina, list, I never meant to imply that language determines thought in toto. So far as all thought is in signs, and a language represents a system of signs, and signs determine other signs, then it must be admitted that language determines signs and, since all thought is in signs, this means that language determines (some) thoughts. That doesn't mean that every thought anyone ever has is determined by a given language. It does mean that to a significant extent, our thoughts are determined by the language in which we express many of our thoughts, because those thoughts are to a great extent interpretants of that language.
I find it absurd that my position has been represented as 'sociolinguistic relativism or determinism'. If you read what I said in attempting to respond to Sunchul's query regarding language, I discussed the different ways in which one could mean language, which included the consideration of logic as the language of thought, as well as considering that language, taken in a very broad sense, could include all the kinds of signs there are. Moreover, I never agreed that human language is an appropriate way to think of reasoning; in fact, I emphatically denied it, and was giving good reason for why logic, which does engage in the analysis of thought, could never be reduced to a study of human language. -- Franklin ------------------------------------------- On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Franklin Ransom is using a discredited analysis of language, referred to > as sociolinguistic relativism or determinism, where language defines the > knowledge base; i.e., language determines thought. Followers of this linear > causality are such as Whorf-Sapir, and Basil Bernstein. It doesn't stand up > to empirical analysis. But it enjoyed its own limelight within the works > of various people who saw language or culture as determinant of thought, > and even, there were some who suggested that some languages should be > eradicated (eg native) because the language was defined as 'primitive' > and prevented the users from thinking 'in a modern or scientific way'. > > Instead, the human brain creates language and thus, can express anything > by coming up with new terms and expressions. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> > *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2015 11:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > > On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > > Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the > things that can be said, and they also develop and evolve over time; the > development of a language to the point where it can articulate scientific > terminology is not a development shared by every human language. > > Can you give your source for this? I remember reading the opposite from > two different linguists. Michael Shapiro is one. (I'd have to search for > the exact statements, but the keyword I'd use is 'passkey'.) Edward Vajda > writes > > " Human language is unlimited in its expressive capacity." > > "Today, it is quite obvious that people living with Stone Age technology > speak languages as complex and versatile as those spoken in the most highly > industrialized society. *There are no primitive languages*. Virtually > no linguist today would disagree with this statement." > > > I don’t know about that quote in particular. However a decade or so back > Michael Tomasello had a fascinating book on the evolution of language in *The > Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. *While he doesn’t speak of it in > Peircean terms he creates a model where it appears a certain kind of > thirdness in terms of interpretation of signs develops. Once that evolves > then he sees language’s capabilities as being largely there and develops > fast. It’s been a while since I read it but I think he keeps the > traditional dating of the evolution of language to around 80,000 - 100,000 > years. The evolution after that is really developing the language and > culture once you have the capability. > > I know he has a newer text based upon some lectures he gave called *The > Origins of Human Communication* although I’ve not read that one. > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
