A intresting relevation that adds an odd twist to the sapir-worf theories of old. Partly supportive, but the apparent use of the 'same circuitry' when learning other languages throws a wrench into it.
It's been awhile since I studies Behavioral Sciences, can you sexplain the Sapir-Worf theory abit more please? I think I must have missed that one.
Stephen
I managed to find a link. http://venus.va.com.au/suggestion/sapir.html
It definatly Deserves more thought, No Pun intended.
Stephen
Not behavioural science. Linguistic anthropology. Weeeeell, they're associated, but not, um, friendly? Ha ha.
Anyway. This theory states, in the shortest, scrunchiest form possible, that a person cognates (thinks) according to the language that they speak with. You think according to the rules your language sets.
This rule (known as the strong form of the Sapir-worf theory) was largely sidelined by the anthropoligical community a long, long time ago, but test like this continually show that there is more truth to this theory than, apparently, meets the eye.
It might be clearer to think about the theory in this way: If you do not have the word(s) to express something, do you simply not express (say) it, or not even think it? In Sapir-Worf land, you don't think it.
This study shows that at LEAST english-chinese languages are different enough to use physically different areas of the brain, which would imply that the thought process is alien between them. Whether this holds between similar root languages, such as between the european family of languages, would be an intresting thing to discover.