Language and Thought

An experiment investigated whether Japanese speakers' categorisation of objects and substances as shape or material is influenced by acquiring English, based on Imai and Gentner (1997). Subjects were presented with an item such as a cork pyramid and asked to choose between two other items that matched it for shape (plastic pyramid) or for material (piece of cork). The hypotheses were that for simple objects the number of shape-based categorisations would increase according to experience of English and that the preference for shape and material-based categorisations of Japanese speakers of English would differ from monolingual speakers of both languages. Subjects were 18 adult Japanese users of English who had lived in English-speaking countries between 6 months and 3 years (short-stay group), and 18 who had lived in English-speaking countries for 3 years or more (long-stay group). Both groups achieved above criterion on an English vocabulary test. Results were: both groups preferred material responses for simple objects and substances but not for complex objects, in line with Japanese monolinguals, but the long-stay group showed more shape preference than the short-stay group and also were less different from Americans. These effects of acquiring a second language on categorisation have implications for conceptual representation and methodology.

Ngôn ngữ và tư duy là hai phạm trù không thể tách rời nhau. Ranh giới mong manh giữa chúng thậm chí đã từng gần như bị xóa nhòa ít nhất hai lần trong lịch sử với ngữ pháp Port-Royal thế kỉ XVII và triết học phân tích (Analytic Philosophy) của Wittgenstein đầu thế kỉ XX. Tuy nhiên, mối quan hệ giữa hai phạm trù này vẫn còn gây rất nhiều tranh cãi. Ngôn ngữ và tư duy: chúng đồng nhất hay thống nhất? Nếu chỉ thống nhất, tức là dừng ở mức độ tương quan, thì chúng tương quan trên những chiều kích và ở mức độ nào? Tư duy quyết định ngôn ngữ hay ngôn ngữ  mới là nhân tố quyết định tư  duy?.v.v. Những câu hỏi như thế vẫn luôn khuấy động  tâm trí tò mò của biết  bao triết gia,  học  giả trong suốt chiều dài lịch sử nhân loại, từ Aristotle cho đến tận ngày hôm nay - trong cuộc tranh luận chúng ta sắp được theo dõi dưới đây.

„Die Vorüberlaufenden“ (Passers-by) – Kafka confronts us with a (certain) perspective (perception)

The article starts with an analysis of form and structure of the text and with the identification of the genre as ‘juridical case’, then tries to illustrate what Kafka wants the readers of his text to experience. It is the distorted perception (with underlying self-consistency bias), that members of the (propertied) bourgeoisie develop, especially people, who are not sure whether they are fully accepted by this class. In the text can be seen, that they even seek for an abundance of exculpations in case they are not able to fulfill the expectations of this class or what they believe to be its expectations. This interpretation forms a clear contrast to preliminary findings on the „Vorüberlaufenden“ (Passers-by) as far as they are known by the author of the article.

Книга посвящена проблеме когнитивных истоков языковой катего-ризации; в ней рассматривается комплекс вопросов, связанных с общей проблемой представления знаний в языке. На конкретном материале показывается феноменологический характер базовых когнитивных структур пространства и времени, участвующих в формировании языковой картины мира. Предлагается когнитивная модель категории вида в русском языке, анализируется эпистемическое соотношение именной и местоименной систем.

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis holds that language plays a powerful role in shaping human consciousness, affecting everything from private thought and perception to larger patterns of behavior in society—ultimately allowing members of any given speech community to arrive at a shared sense of social reality. This article starts with a brief consideration of the philosophical insights that inspired the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or the “principle of linguistic relativity,” as it is more often known today. Toward the end of the article current empirical research is reviewed. This explores everything from human universals to the cross-cultural differences in the construction of gender, color, space, and other creative practices associated with language, such as storytelling, poetry, or song.

Wilhelm von Humboldt was among those philosophers who used language as a tool to study the human mind and interpret human cultural differences. Humboldt equated language and thought as inseparable. His model of language can be summarized as follows: the character and structure of a language expresses the inner life and knowledge of its speakers, and that language must differ from one another in the same way and to the same degree as those who use them. Humboldt's approach to Allgemeine Bildung or well-rounded education was based on his own experience and lifelong learning process. The study of Humboldt's work "helps to clarify the central problems and questions of recent educational theory as matters concerning all of us, and also help to resolve issues which require further theoretical and practical analysis" (Benner,1990).

It is often thought that consciousness has a qualitative dimension that cannot be tracked by science. Recently, however, some philosophers have argued that this worry stems not from an elusive feature of the mind, but from the special nature of the concepts used to describe conscious states. Marc Champagne draws on the neglected branch of philosophy of signs or semiotics to develop a new take on this strategy. 

The term “semiotics” was introduced by John Locke in the modern period – its etymology is ancient Greek, and its theoretical underpinnings are medieval. Charles Sanders Peirce made major advances in semiotics, so he can act as a pipeline for these forgotten ideas. Most philosophers know Peirce as the founder of American pragmatism, but few know that he also coined the term “qualia,” which is meant to capture the intrinsic feel of an experience. Since pragmatic verification and qualia are now seen as conflicting commitments, Champagne endeavors to understand how Peirce could (or thought he could) have it both ways. The key, he suggests, is to understand how humans can insert distinctions between features that are always bound.

Recent attempts to take qualities seriously have resulted in versions of panpsychism, but Champagne outlines a more plausible way to achieve this. So, while semiotics has until now been the least known branch of philosophy ending in –ics, his book shows how a better understanding of that branch can move one of the liveliest debates in philosophy forward.

This article augments and complicates Nelson's claim that "we talk our way into war and talk our way out of it" (Dedaić & Nelson 2003, p. 459). Military endeavors require verbal legitimation, but militarizing participants and wide swaths of the civilian population requires more than just a stated rationale. It requires the complex construction of acquiescent selves and societies through linguistic maneuvers that present themselves with both brute force and subtlety to enable war's necropolitical calculus of who should live and who can, or must, die (MacLeish 2013, Mbembe 2003). War also involves vexed, stunted, and deadly forms of communication with perceived enemies or civilian populations. And those who are victims of military deeds, including civilians and sometimes service members themselves, are often left with psychic wounds that they cannot talk their way out of, for such wounds resist semantic expression and may emerge through more complex semiotic forms.

This thesis presents work toward a novel theory of human thinking. I argue that through ontogenesis the origins of cognition in situated-action are scaffolded by language and, in the process, the functional architecture of cognition, through a series of developmental changes, becomes dramatically restructured. 

The theory is developed with reference to several existing attempts to come to terms with this process, in cognitive modelling, philosophy and theoretical psychology. To test and develop these theories a novel approach to cognitive modelling is developed that allows current thinking in this area to be tested with greater clarity than was previously possible.

My approach builds upon the work of Andy Clark, Daniel Dennett, Merlin Donald and, ultimately, Lev Vygotsky, but it goes further in developing a detailed model of the process by which language (speech) is internalised in order to play a functionally restructuring role in human cognition. In particular I emphasize how the internal and external dimensions of language interact over different time scales. Further I argue it can be used to help explain how truly human thinking is born, and some of what is unique about that thinking.

An extensive historical survey is undertaken of the context in which some of the major previous theories of thinking have been developed and I use this to assess the reasons these models have only entertained a minor role for natural language in cognitive architecture. I also use this historical backdrop to explain why only limited previous work has been done with cognitive models in this area. Two cognitive robotics models are presented and discussed that shed light on how language may be internalised. These are used to develop a theoretical model of language internalisation more generally, and the stages of cognitive reorganisation this entails.

The thesis is completed by the use of the new model to tackle some significant problems in recent literature on the scientific understanding of consciousness. I argue this model can also help to explain findings about certain disorders of thought from the psychopathological literature.

¿Es el pensamiento una capacidad fundamentalmente igual a través de las lenguas y las culturas, o depende más bien de las peculiaridades del idioma en que se habla? ¿Constituye el lenguaje un reflejo del pensamiento, o más bien establece sus límites?.

Hay diversas respuestas para estas preguntas y muchas de ellas adquieren carnadura en la inacabable polémica entre universalistas y relativistas lingüísticos: una discusión que encubre una disyunción más básica entre dos modos de concebir la cultura y, por supuesto, dos conceptos irreconciliables a propósito de la antropología, de la ciencia y (por supuesto) de la política.

En este nuevo libro se estudian las escuelas lingüísticas particularistas desde sus orígenes en el idealismo neokantiano y el Sturm und Drang hasta las manifestaciones más recientes, en las que el viejo relativismo ha devenido (en un brillante giro táctico) en un movimiento de defensa de la diversidad. También se tratan en él algunos episodios polémicos: el mito de los términos para la nieve entre los esquimales, la descripción falsa y alucinada de la concepción del tiempo de los Hopi, las teorías que sugieren la imposibilidad que tendrían los chinos para hacer suposiciones debido a que su idioma carece del modo subjuntivo, las idas y vueltas de la antropología del color y la reciente resurrección de la hipótesis de Sapir-Whorf, en forma harto cruda y decididamente etnocéntrica, a propósito del redescubrimiento de los Pirahã del río Maici, cuyas diferencias Daniel Everett ha sabido convertir en desigualdad.

Speakers of more than one language, (i.e. bilinguals) may intentionally mix their languages during conversation in a phenomenon known as “code switching”.  As a line of scholarly inquiry, code switching is generally limited to the context of bilingual conversation.  I propose to extend the investigation to include inner speech, which is the voice that is often heard inside one’s head while thinking.  One view of inner speech is that it is produced using processes similar to that we use to speak except that no utterances are produced.  In another view, Vygotsky (1986) posits that inner speech is a child’s ego-centric speech turned inward in a more compact way.  For this project, an inner speech discourse is stimulated within proficient Korean-English and Spanish-English bilingual participant s in an experiment by providing one of Kohlberg’s moral dilemmas accompanied by a series of questions probing their responses.  Code switching is primed by providing instructions in their native language (L1); the dilemma and probe questions are provided in English.  At several points during each session, the participants will be asked to reflect on which language they use for inner speech and the role the language is playing in answering the probes.  From this study, I seek an understanding of whether code switching is a mechanism that bilinguals engage in during inner speech activities, how they use it, and what role it plays.  Code switching is an area of active research which could become a lens to examine and understand bilinguals’ non-verbal reasoning processes and inform the methods used to present and teach abstract concepts to bilinguals.

El problema de las relaciones lenguaje-pensamiento es un problema implícito en toda teoría lingüística; por otro lado, es un problema con el que cuentan los hablantes. El problema es hoy de la máxima actualidad gracias a las llamadas ciencias cognitivas, las cuales han acuñado el término «cognición» y han establecido «la cognición» como objeto de estudio.
En este libro se estudia el problema desde el ser hablante, dicente y cognoscente como realidad radical; se estudia lo que constituye el planteamiento del problema según los hablantes o planteamiento naif del problema; se estudian las cuestiones epistemológicas relativas al mismo y los condicionantes que lleva consigo; se define lo que es el concepto de logos; se analizan las soluciones más representativas dadas desde la filosofía y la lingüística. Entre éstas se estudian las teorías de Humboldt, Sapir, Whorf, el enfoque naturalista de Chomsky, las soluciones de Anna Wierzbicka, la lingüística cognitiva y la teoría de Eugenio Coseriu, quien separa el logos en dos: el logos semántico y el logos apofántico. Y se analiza el problema desde el acto de hablar, decir y conocer.

(Italiano)
Abstract: Uno degli assunti fondamentali della linguistica e psicologia cognitive è che ogni percezione ed espressione è connessa alla nostra biologia, e più di quanto si pensasse in precedenza. Dopo una panoramica della letteratura cognitivista orientata per l’indipendenza tra linguaggio e pensiero, evidenzierò punti problematici di questa posizione avvalendomi di ricerche empiriche da un lato condotte in ambito neuro-cognitivista e dall’altro di tipo psicolinguistico. Proporrò degli spunti a favore della ‘contro-tesi’ per cui il pensiero implica la lingua naturale: linguaggio e pensiero, cioè, si influenzano l’un l’altro.
Questa posizione implica che la mente umana sia in corpore (embodied) in un corpo fenomenologico e strutturata dalle nostre esperienze, e gli stimoli esterni quotidiani offerti dall’ambiente in cui si è situati (embedded) formino dinamicamente il modo di pensare degli esseri umani. La mente intesa come prodotto dell’interazione delle proprie introspezioni con le interazioni quotidiane è influenzata, e in una certa misura persino condizionata, dalla lingua parlata e da come è usata. Conoscere la natura dinamica del rapporto tra linguaggio e pensiero permette una migliore comprensione della natura del linguaggio e di come la lingua motivi il modo in cui si ragiona del proprio mondo.

Parole chiavi: Sapir-Whorf, linguaggio e pensiero, linguaggio e cultura, embodiment, cognizione


(English)
Abstract: One of the fundamental premises of contemporary cognitive linguistics and psychology is that human perception and expression are intimately coupled with human biology, to a much greater degree than linguists and psychologists had previously thought. In this essay I provide an overview of contemporary literature from cognitive linguistics and psychology that posits language-thought independence. I also highlight the theoretical problems and the further neurocognitive and psycholinguistic empirical research specific to these issues which make this position problematic. I then provide evidence for the counter-theory, that thinking in fact involves natural language and that language and thought influence one another.
This position indexes the supposition that our minds are embodied in a phenomenological body built on our everyday experiences, and daily external stimuli offered by the cultural environment in which we are individually embedded dynamically form our way of thinking. The mind is the product of the interaction of introspections and daily interactions; it is influenced, and to a certain extent even conditioned, by language and how it is used. Understanding the dynamic nature of language and thought will guide us in better understanding figurative language in general and metaphor in particular as well as how they motivate our way of reasoning about our world.

Keywords: Sapir-Whorf, language-thought, language and culture, embodiment, cognition

El adjetivo se define semánticamente como un elemento de marcado carácter estático.  Como tal elemento estático el adjetivo cumple sus funciones sintácticas de atribución, de predicación, y de intensificación y gradabilidad.  El adjetivo necesita de su carácter estático para cumplir dichas funciones sintácticas.  No obstante, hay muchos adjetivos que son dinámicos.  Nuestra intención en este artículo es analizar su estructura de predicado de estos últimos:  cómo cumplen las funciones propias de un elemento estático siendo dinámicos.

"In a theoretical commentary on the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) approach to the semantics of memory and remembering, this paper argues that evidence of rich cross-linguistic diversity in this domain is entirely compatible with the best interpretations of our interdisciplinary cognitive sciences. In particular, it responds to Anna Wierzbicka’s critique of contemporary psychology, suggests some specific modifications to her proposed explications of some ways of talking about what happened before, and questions her claim that certain historically contingent features of modern Western views of memory are built in to the semantics of English terms. The paper concludes by suggesting a different approach to semantic diversity and the study of memory, and a more positive vision of a culturally-sensitive interdisciplinary science."

An established tradition in philosophy, from Aristotle to Frege and his followers, has tried to explain the relationship between language and reality by appealing to thoughts and their constituents, concepts. In this frame, a word would designate the thing that it designates in virtue of the concept that it expresses, and a sentence would express a thought that is its meaning. Here I suggest that there is something wrong with this strategy. Indeed, I provide an argument aiming to show that concepts are not strange, mysterious entities (mental or belonging to a platonic third realm), but simple words, usually coming from our public language. So, if we really want to understand how words — also the words that constitute our thoughts — are connected with things, we should look elsewhere.

Nell’ultimo trentennio, le scienze cognitive hanno proposto una teoria alternativa a quelle che intendevano la metafora come strumento linguistico, cioè che il processo metaforico si potesse ridurre al livello letterale, semantico o pragmatico. Secondo la teoria della metafora concettuale, la metafora è un modo di rappresentare ed organizzare il nostro mondo, piuttosto che uno strumento semplicemente decorativo del linguaggio avente un ruolo puramente comunicativo. Questo shift paradigmatico ha influenzato anche altri aspetti delle scienze cognitive. In questo contributo si vuole delineare lo stato attuale della teoria elaborata da Lakoff e Johnson e la maturazione del pensiero rispetto alla prima pubblicazione di Metaphors We Live By (1980/1998). Dopo avere illustrato i principi teorici, si daranno degli esempi di metafore culturali e multimodali e si puntualizzerà il ruolo analogo, ma distinto, alla metafora che la metonimia copre nell’ambito dei nostri sistemi concettuali.

The goal of this course is to survey some central debates in the philosophy of language. It is organized around three main themes: (1) the relationship between language and reality, (2) the relationship between language and thought, and (3) the relationship between language and people.

During the first part, we shall discuss some classical theories of meaning that have had a profound influence on the development of philosophy over the past 100 years. In particular, we will look at some proponents of the “linguistic turn” in philosophy, understood broadly as the programmatic idea that the goal of philosophy is to understand the structure of our conceptual schemes, and that philosophical questions could be resolved, or laid to rest, by a careful examination of language in order to disentangle conceptual confusions.

In the second part, we turn to the psychological basis of linguistic understanding, in particular to theories of concepts, the building blocks of thoughts. We shall survey some of the leading theories of concepts, and compare their respective strengths and weaknesses in explaining what underlies our capacities for abstraction, intentionality, categorization, analogical inference, and conceptual combination. This will allow us to explore different conceptions of the relationship between language and thought.

Finally, we shall reflect on the role which language plays for our communicative practices. Starting with the theory of speech acts, and “how to do things with words” (Austin), we shall then move on to consider the place of language in the construction of social and institutional realities.

To English speakers, the distinctions between blue and green, cup and glass, or cut and break seem self-evident. The intuition is that these words label categories that have an existence independent of language, and language merely captures the pre-existing categories. But cross-linguistic work shows that the named distinctions are not nearly as self-evident as they may feel. There is diversity in how languages divide up domains including color, number, plants and animals, drinking vessels and household containers, body parts, spatial relations, locomotion, acts of cutting and breaking, acts of carrying and holding, and more. Still, studies documenting variability across languages also uncover striking commonalities. Such commonalities indicate that there are sources of constraint on the variation. Both the commonalities and divergences carry important lessons for Cognitive Science. They speak to the causal relations among language, thought, and culture; the possibility of cross-culturally shared aspects of perception and cognition; the methods needed for studying general-purpose, non-linguistic concepts; and how languages are learned.

I suggest that, although the nonsensicalist challenge (obviously) matters, it has, at least in its Wittgensteinian form, been widely ignored.  On the other hand, those who still adhere to nonsensicalism (mainly Wittgensteinians) have been equally remiss in their failure to examine its presuppositions.

В основе понимания взаимоотношений мышления и языка у Э.В. Ильенкова лежит постулат о примате предметно-практической деятельности, труда, при формировании человеческой личности. Мысль и Слово возникают как формы Дела – в процессе «делового общения», или в совместно-разделенной деятельности с предметами материальной культуры. Тот же принцип был положен А.И. Мещеряковым в основу Загорского эксперимента по воспитанию слепоглухих детей. Марксистской «логике Дела» противостоит «логика Слова» в различных ее версиях – евангельской, гегелевской, неопозитивистской и пр. В статье И. Ганзела предпринимается попытка критики трудовой теории генезиса мышления и языка с позиций «логической семантики» Р. Карнапа. Со своей стороны, Ильенков критиковал «позитивизм» (и философию эмпиризма в целом) за смешение логической формы мышления с психологической формой «внутренней речи». В результате наука логики превращается в систему правил оперирования словами, знаками, символами, теряя из виду свой родной предмет – законы и категории мышления. Загорский эксперимент наглядно, словно в замедленном кино, показывает «деловой» генезис человеческой личности. Ильенков расценивал его как практическое доказательство правоты «логики Дела» против «логики Слова».

Davidson states that  a creature cannot have thoughts unless it is an interpreter of the speech of another.  Only someone with a language could have a thought, since to have a thought would be to have a disposition to utter certain sentences under given circumstances. Furthermore belief is central to all kinds of thought and having a thought requires a background of beliefs. This paper is a response to D. Davidson’s ‘Taught and Talk’ (1975) article.

El acto lingüístico como acto de hablar, decir y conocer es una actividad que realiza el sujeto desde lo profundo de su conciencia. Consiste en la síntesis cognoscitiva que realiza el hablante de su intuición y de lo que añade mediante su imaginación y su razón, convirtiéndola en palabras de una lengua. El acto lingüístico y, por tanto, el lenguaje, es la proyección hacia las cosas de lo que el sujeto realiza en su interior. Las cosas así tienen un grado de realidad relativo, el que el sujeto les da proyectando su intención significativa hacia lo que le rodea, utilizando para ello las palabras de una lengua, creando así su verdad o su logos. Mi intención en este artículo es reflexionar sobre la realidad humana del acto lingüístico en cuanto que es la respuesta del sujeto que vive una situación dada.

This paper investigates whether bilinguals’ and monolinguals’ concepts
of entities differ when the bilinguals’ two languages provide two different
representations of the same entity. Previous research shows that speakers
of languages that have a grammatical gender system think of objects as
being masculine or feminine in line with the grammatical gender of the
objects’ nouns. The present study investigates the effects of grammatical
gender on concepts of objects in bilingual speakers of two languages
that assign opposite gender to the same object. Italian-German bilingual
children and Italian monolingual controls performed an on-line voice
attribution task. All children were native speakers of Italian and living
in Italy. Results show that Italian monolingual children attribute more
female voices to objects whose noun is grammatically feminine in Italian.
Monolinguals also show a preference for attributing voices consistently
with Italian grammatical gender assignment. Italian-German bilingual
children are not affected by Italian grammatical gender. It is argued that when the two languages of a bilingual represent a specific aspect of reality differently, the bilingual may develop different concepts from a monolingual. This is due to the knowledge of two specific languages rather than to bilingualism per se, and to linguistic rather than cultural factors.

Разделив язык, человека и мир, картезианская лингвистика не в состоянии объяснить функцию языка как биологической адаптации. Чтобы уйти от устоявшихся воззрений на язык как код, используемый для передачи информации, необходимо научиться по-другому говорить о языке, осознав, что способность мыслить не является врожденной чертой человеческого мозга. Как интерактивная деятельность в консенсуальной области второго порядка, язык является биологической основой абстрактного мышления как адаптивного механизма, позволяющего ‘симулировать’ возможные взаимодействия организма со средой. Использование письменных знаков – следующий шаг в развитии этого адаптивного механизма, когда человек, продолжая конструировать свою экологическую нишу, создает ‘мир на бумаге’, насыщая эту нишу аффордансами, которые предоставляют языковые взаимодействия в экспериенциальных областях речи и письма. Языковые взаимодействия в этих областях становятся экологическим фактором, определяющим и поддерживающим развитие человека и общества как живых систем. Показывается, что именно это должно стать предметной областью эколингвистики как новой парадигмы в исследовании языка.

Segregating language, man, and world, Cartesian linguistics comes short of explaining the function of language as a biological adaptation. To challenge the entrenched perspectives on language as a code for information transfer, we must learn to speak differently, realizing that the ability to think is not an innate feature of the human brain. As interactional activity in the second-order consensual domain, language provides a biological foundation for abstract thought as an adaptive mechanism for ‘simulating’ possible interactions of the organism with the environment. The use of writing marks the next step in the development of this adaptive mechanism, when humans continue their ecological niche construction by creating ‘a world on paper’, saturating their niche with affordances provided by linguistic interactions in the experiential domains of speech and writing. Linguistic interactions in these domains become an ecological factor that both affects and sustains the development of individuals and society as living systems. This, it is argued, should be the subject matter of ecolinguistics as the new paradigm in linguistic explorations.

Aims and Objectives/Purpose/Research Questions This article reviews recent research on how speaking a language that marks gender gramatically might affect thinking, and on the relationship between grammatical gender knowledge of more than one language, and thinking, in both early and emergent bilinguals. Design/Methodology/Approach The paper provides a comprehensive review of previous research, as well as an introduction to, and an evaluation of, the articles in this special issue. Findings/Conclusions Several themes emerge in the research on grammatical gender and thinking in bilinguals. First, knowledge of more than one language could reduce the effects of grammatical gender on thinking. Second, these effects may depend on the combination of languages being acquired. Third, researchers are starting to identify other variables that might affect when and how grammatical gender influences thinking, including proficiency and the choice of tasks. Originality This manuscript synthesizes the previously scattered research on grammatical gender and thinking in bilinguals. Significance/Implications This is the first full-length overview paper about the relationship between grammatical gender and thinking in speakers of more than one language.

In this article, it has been searched if the language and consciousness have a co-origin or not. This origin of language and consciousness problem which draws interest in areas especially like anthropology, biology and evolutionary linguistics and evolutionary psychology is tried to be handled from a philosophical point of view. By presenting the theories about the relation between language and consciousness, theories that are well-accepted but contradicted to another from certain aspects, a thinking -which tries to go beyond this contradiction- about the origin of language and consciousness has been attempted. With paying regard to different approaches represented by names like Piaget, Vygotsky, Chomsky, Whorf, an investigation has been made about what the meaning of language and consciousness having a not historical but elementarily philosophical co-origin can mean. It has been aimed to present a compiling point of view with this investigation.

Quello di Heidegger con Nietzsche è uno dei dialoghi filosofici più profondi e gravidi di conseguenze. In esso continua a essere in gioco la fisionomia del nostro presente e, in particolare, la possibilità di una sua rimessa in questione radicale – così come richiede l'intima indole della filosofia. Tale rimessa in questione viene qui sondata secondo il filo conduttore di quel concetto di singolarità che domina – nelle forme del soggetto, dell'individuo, della persona – il nostro orizzonte culturale, sociale, politico ed economico. Il tema della singolarità trova una sua specifica rimodulazione nelle parole chiave di "superuomo" e di "Da-sein", la cui portata è ancora tutta da ponderare. Per farci carico di questo compito dobbiamo collocarci in modo consono nella spaziosità della domanda  che il pensiero ci invita ogni giorno a rinnovare e in cui continuamente, volens nolens, ci troviamo: chi siamo noi?

It is generally assumed that speakers of grammatical gender languages consider grammatical gender arbitrary, but this assumption has never been tested. Research shows that the grammatical gender of nouns can affect perceptions of the masculinity or femininity of the noun's referent in speakers of languages with masculine or feminine noun classes. However, bilingualism facilitates the development of lexical arbitrariness awareness, and could therefore affect awareness of grammatical gender arbitrariness. This study then compared three groups of young adult speakers of a grammatical gender language: monolinguals, early bilinguals, and instructed second language learners. Participants evaluated the gender assignments of 25 nouns of entities (animals, abstract concepts, natural kinds, and artefacts), and answered open and closed questions about grammatical gender. Participants considered grammatical gender as semantically motivated and mostly related gender assignments to perceived masculine and feminine connotations of referents. Knowledge of an additional grammatical gender language was linked to increased awareness of the arbitrariness of first language gender assignments in both early bilinguals and later instructed learners. It is argued that grammatical gender awareness deserves further investigation. Knowing more than one grammatical gender language can increase awareness of grammatical gender arbitrariness. Implications are discussed for language teaching and language reform.

There is considerable difference between languages in how they deal with the expression of the temporal situation of events. Tense and aspect are the most common ways of marking when an event took or takes place and how it extended or extends over time. However, different languages have different tenses and aspects, mix them with modality to greater or lesser extent, or even lack grammatical tense and/or aspect. This variation might raise a number of questions. (1) What is the extent of actual and possible variation? (2) Do these differences lead to (interesting) differences in ways of thinking between speakers of (relevantly) different languages? And (3) Does this linguistic variation have any (other) effects or implications that are philosophically interesting and/or important? This short talk addresses all three questions, but will only offer some skeptical remarks and no (real) answers.