My one issue with this is that there seems to be slight shortcut being taken when the authors (and Lera Boroditsky in the interview) say that ‘language’ causes the difference in perceptions. I would argue that they probably should use the more open term, ‘linguistic practice’ or ‘language use.’ It’s not just that ‘language’ makes the distinction; it’s probably also that people using the language get lots of practice making the perceptual distinction. Linking the abstraction, ‘language,’ to the effect of changed perception, seems to be a minor, but problematic, little slip in the explanation. I think that my reservations are entirely consistent with pragmatic linguistic anthropology, including much of what Sapir and Whorf were arguing, but it seems to me to be an important distinction.

More importantly, how nice to see a researcher like Boroditsky, and the others that Edge talked to, discussing how research has changed their theoretical opinions. It’s certainly been my experience, and it’s an important thing for younger scholars to know. It was one of the thing I always really admired about some of my professors at the University of Chicago; they had been around long enough, and been prolific long enough, that the change in their thinking was public. The ones who acknowledged it and discussed it were great role models for treating anthropology as an unfinished science, learning and developing better paradigms for understanding human diversity.

Like always, Daniel, thanks for the posting.