Not really, but kinda. His view is a little different and can explain a lot of things in traditional linguistics as being different from previously thought. His major contribution is in his theories that natural language is essentially binary.
Interesting. If it's simply about natural language, describing a physical thing or phenomena that is universally experienced, that wouldn't seem to discredit the nuance of more complex language. However, a precise written language won't have proper analogues in a natural, oral language. Is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis still considered valid?
There isn't really such a thing as a "precise written" language. There are dead languages, that don't change. Languages change over time, which is why we have related languages. Languages tend to have mechanisms to explain things across the board, but they differ in how it's all done.
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is still taught because its basic principle hasn't really changed. Language does affect the way we think and the way we think affects language.
There isn't really such a thing as a "precise written" language.
I don't know. I think written languages are inherently more precise by virtue of expansion beyond individual comprehension. Nuance can be preserved. I could be wrong, but the morphology and lack of historical material to study in oral languages make it hard to say one way or the other. It seems like oral languages have been expanded by proximity to European concepts through colonization, often using bastardized alterations of English words, though.
Language does affect the way we think and the way we think affects language.
I'd say further, the way we think affects our cultures, and the cultures we create affect the selection pressure of favored genetics, reciprocating back into the culture. Language seems more a reflection than a cause.
Yeah, I'm no linguist. Just a quick check shows that Chomsky is largely credited with discrediting linguistic relativity.
Not really, but kinda. His view is a little different and can explain a lot of things in traditional linguistics as being different from previously thought. His major contribution is in his theories that natural language is essentially binary.
Interesting. If it's simply about natural language, describing a physical thing or phenomena that is universally experienced, that wouldn't seem to discredit the nuance of more complex language. However, a precise written language won't have proper analogues in a natural, oral language. Is the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis still considered valid?
There isn't really such a thing as a "precise written" language. There are dead languages, that don't change. Languages change over time, which is why we have related languages. Languages tend to have mechanisms to explain things across the board, but they differ in how it's all done.
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is still taught because its basic principle hasn't really changed. Language does affect the way we think and the way we think affects language.
I don't know. I think written languages are inherently more precise by virtue of expansion beyond individual comprehension. Nuance can be preserved. I could be wrong, but the morphology and lack of historical material to study in oral languages make it hard to say one way or the other. It seems like oral languages have been expanded by proximity to European concepts through colonization, often using bastardized alterations of English words, though.
I'd say further, the way we think affects our cultures, and the cultures we create affect the selection pressure of favored genetics, reciprocating back into the culture. Language seems more a reflection than a cause.