Но и необязательно чересчур сложной. К изданию 2007 года Пинкер написал 30-страничный "Постскриптум", где он комментирует места из своего оригинального текста, которые к тому времени уже были убедительно опровергнуты. С одной стороны, это делает ему честь — он не стал переписывать текст, а как бы признал ошибки. С другой стороны, стиль и тон этих признаний снисходительный, увиливающий и в целом неприятный. Я не знаю, есть ли этот постскриптум в русском переводе, вот на всякий случай пара примеров, про лингвистическую относительность и про понимание языка обезьянами:
Chapter 3: Mentalese. When I wrote this chapter, the Whorfian hypothesis was largely out of favor among linguists and psychologists, but the pendulum has swung back [он должен, буквально обязан – обратно], and there is now a lively neo-Whorfian movement. In The Stuff of Thought, I review this new research and argue that the problem with the idea that language affects thought is not that it's entirely wrong but that there are many ways in which language can affect thought, and people tend to blur them together. In particular, people tend to confuse banal observations, such as that one person's words can affect another person's thoughts (if that weren't true, language as a whole would be useless) with radical claims, such as that we think in our native language, and that the language we speak makes it impossible to think certain thoughts. In the new book I argue that the major conclusion in "Mentalese" is right - we think not in our native language but in more abstract media of thought.
Though I think that Kanzi and other bonobos can understand and use words with greater reliability than had been shown when I wrote The Language Instinct, their ability to combine them remains rudimentary. Indeed, the striking achievements in animal communication have been seen in species that are far more distantly related to us than chimpanzees.
Ну а сейчас уже пора писать постскриптум к постскриптуму. Например, он там много говорит о том, как компьютеры не понимают речь.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2023-03-31 01:51 am (UTC)К изданию 2007 года Пинкер написал 30-страничный "Постскриптум", где он комментирует места из своего оригинального текста, которые к тому времени уже были убедительно опровергнуты. С одной стороны, это делает ему честь — он не стал переписывать текст, а как бы признал ошибки. С другой стороны, стиль и тон этих признаний снисходительный, увиливающий и в целом неприятный. Я не знаю, есть ли этот постскриптум в русском переводе, вот на всякий случай пара примеров, про лингвистическую относительность и про понимание языка обезьянами:
Chapter 3: Mentalese. When I wrote this chapter, the Whorfian hypothesis was largely out of favor among linguists and psychologists, but the pendulum has swung back [он должен, буквально обязан – обратно], and there is now a lively neo-Whorfian movement. In The Stuff of Thought, I review this new research and argue that the problem with the idea that language affects thought is not that it's entirely wrong but that there are many ways in which language can affect thought, and people tend to blur them together. In particular, people tend to confuse banal observations, such as that one person's words can affect another person's thoughts (if that weren't true, language as a whole would be useless) with radical claims, such as that we think in our native language, and that the language we speak makes it impossible to think certain thoughts. In the new book I argue that the major conclusion in "Mentalese" is right - we think not in our native language but in more abstract media of thought.
Though I think that Kanzi and other bonobos can understand and use words with greater reliability than had been shown when I wrote The Language Instinct, their ability to combine them remains rudimentary. Indeed, the striking achievements in animal communication have been seen in species that are far more distantly related to us than chimpanzees.
Ну а сейчас уже пора писать постскриптум к постскриптуму. Например, он там много говорит о том, как компьютеры не понимают речь.