Flogging a Dead Hypothesis: Sapir-Whorf In The AMERICAN SPECTATOR
Print Friendly and PDF

In my fortnightly “Shelf Life” book review over at American Spectator, I take on John H. McWhorter’s diatribe against the poor old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

In case you slept through Introductory Linguistics, Sapir-Whorf argued that our broad conceptions of the world—time, color, categorization of natural objects, and so on—are shaped by our native language.

I had vaguely supposed that Sapir-Whorf was exploded forty years ago.  Apparently not.  From my review of McWhorter:

A school of neo-Whorfianism has come up, devising psych-lab experiments that show language shaping thought in tiny ways, under contrived circumstances. Russian, for example, has different words for “light blue” and “dark blue.” OK: set up an experiment where Russians and non-Russians have to match off blue squares by shade as fast as they can. It’s been done, with all the cross-controls you can think of. Russians do better. McWhorter accepts the results, but labors mightily to show that it doesn’t matter.

So what’s McWhorter’s beef with neo-Whorfianism?  It’s not progressive enough!  My review explains.

(My wife, who is much more perceptive about social issues than I am, and who learned English as a second language so that she has a keener eye for word shapes than a native speaker, suggests that McWhorter's real beef may be pique at another linguist having a "Whor-" surname, like a girl at a party seeing another girl in the same dress as hers.  I offer no opinion.  For the record, here is Whorf, here is McWhorter.  Clearly, as in the case of the Lords Russell, neither of them is the other.)

Print Friendly and PDF