I wonder if a complex vocabulary or an amount of words at ones disposal has anything to do with anything other than the ability to be “wordy”? I also wonder if emotion related to each word is what offers a better understanding of the world? For instance, if I am training a horse, and the horse and I are on a trail ride, we both have a pretty clear idea of our world, should a bear come into our path. Who’s understanding of the world is better at that point- mine or the horse’s? Probably neither. Both understand the world around them quite clearly at that point. Now in reference to a more “wordy idea” like god, there is likely a different description of god from every person on the planet, yet is “our” understanding of god any better with over 6 billion descriptions from every language that exists? Perhaps what a language lacks in number of words is enhanced by the senses in a way that lets the individual understand their world equally as well as if their language had a zillion words?
It’s an idea that George Orwell used in “1984” - limiting thought by limiting speech to stuff the state approves of.
I think it’s called the Sapier-Wharth model of neuro-linguistics (I’m sure I spelled it wrong), and it hasn’t been in fashion with speech pathologists for nearly 30 years. It’s considered a rather naive assumption about how the mind’s relationship to language works - the kind that made Descartes assume animals had no thoughts or feelings because they didn’t talk.
It’s an idea that George Orwell used in “1984” - limiting thought by limiting speech to stuff the state approves of.
I think it’s called the Sapier-Wharth model of neuro-linguistics (I’m sure I spelled it wrong), and it hasn’t been in fashion with speech pathologists for nearly 30 years. It’s considered a rather naive assumption about how the mind’s relationship to language works - the kind that made Descartes assume animals had no thoughts or feelings because they didn’t talk.
Right…
Right…
