Sure it will. There are higher-order concepts that you can only learn with language. I remember an interesting Radiolab episode about this.
One example from the episode was that rats get the individual concepts of “left” and “blue” and “wall”, but the higher-order relation “left of the blue wall” is totally beyond their comprehension. This is the same for humans up until about the age of six, and even for adults if you deny them the use of language.
Another example was the case of deaf people in a poor African country. They couldn’t learn spoken language, but when put in groups, they spontaneously invented sign language, but for the first generation it was lacking certain higher-order concepts, notably theory of mind. Adults in this group were failing tests for this that older children get right every time, but that younger children always get wrong, at least until they learned the concepts from the next generation of deaf children who had improved the sign language.
I’m somewhat confused, it seems you are suggesting that a person who speaks a simplified version of English would not have language, but that is not the case. ~1,000 words is plenty to be able to express any idea (including high-order concepts—example), even if in a way that seems roundabout to us (because our conventions are built around an axiom of having a rich vocabulary). Basic English uses only 850 words, and the Simple English Wikipedia encourages using that list or similar there.
I am not disputing that some words can be explained with other words, or even with a relatively small subset of words. A dictionary of Simple English definitions of collegiate English vocabulary would be doable.
I’m disputing the title of the post. We have a real-world example of a language that lacked an important concept—theory of mind—and without that concept from language, the people were unable to even think it. This was explained better in the episode than my comment (there is a transcript too).
Newspeak might not have its intended effect on the first generation, since the people using it are still capable of thinking in their old language. (Though perhaps this ability could atrophy over time.) But the second generation who only ever learned Newspeak might lack access to certain important higher-order concepts altogether.
Would you mind clarifying here whether you mean by »Newspeak«: A) Newspeak exactly as presented in 1984 or B) Simplified English (which Newspeak is a metaphor for, following both Orwell and me)?
If A), the title of this post was not meant to literally assert that 1984.Newspeak does not make someone stupid, and I clearly state in the post that Newspeak as implemented by Oceania is problematic; the title of the post should be understood as “Simplified English will not make you stupid” (a claim that Orwell would incorrectly disagree with me about). If B), I would then dispute the final paragraph of this comment.
Part of my point is that just as “Wall” and “blue” are words that can be assigned to meanings, “Left of the blue wall”, if used enough times, will eventually become a word in its own right, even if one doesn’t have the processing capabilities to combine the individual parts on the fly. If the researchers keep asking “go to the left of the blue wall”, and seem happy when you go to this particular place (that happens to be next to a wall that is blue), you will eventually get the point, even if you don’t realize why “left of the blue wall” is called what it is.
(I realize this doesn’t address why it would be preferable to call it “left of the blue wall” instead of “shmaznag”, which would be just as meaningful. I would expect “left of the blue wall” to be an easier fixed phrase to learn than “shmaznang”, though)
I actually had a paragraph about this exact point in an earlier version of this post, but it was poorly written and somewhat confusing, so I removed it recently.
Sure it will. There are higher-order concepts that you can only learn with language. I remember an interesting Radiolab episode about this.
One example from the episode was that rats get the individual concepts of “left” and “blue” and “wall”, but the higher-order relation “left of the blue wall” is totally beyond their comprehension. This is the same for humans up until about the age of six, and even for adults if you deny them the use of language.
Another example was the case of deaf people in a poor African country. They couldn’t learn spoken language, but when put in groups, they spontaneously invented sign language, but for the first generation it was lacking certain higher-order concepts, notably theory of mind. Adults in this group were failing tests for this that older children get right every time, but that younger children always get wrong, at least until they learned the concepts from the next generation of deaf children who had improved the sign language.
I’m somewhat confused, it seems you are suggesting that a person who speaks a simplified version of English would not have language, but that is not the case. ~1,000 words is plenty to be able to express any idea (including high-order concepts—example), even if in a way that seems roundabout to us (because our conventions are built around an axiom of having a rich vocabulary). Basic English uses only 850 words, and the Simple English Wikipedia encourages using that list or similar there.
I am not disputing that some words can be explained with other words, or even with a relatively small subset of words. A dictionary of Simple English definitions of collegiate English vocabulary would be doable.
I’m disputing the title of the post. We have a real-world example of a language that lacked an important concept—theory of mind—and without that concept from language, the people were unable to even think it. This was explained better in the episode than my comment (there is a transcript too).
Newspeak might not have its intended effect on the first generation, since the people using it are still capable of thinking in their old language. (Though perhaps this ability could atrophy over time.) But the second generation who only ever learned Newspeak might lack access to certain important higher-order concepts altogether.
Would you mind clarifying here whether you mean by »Newspeak«: A) Newspeak exactly as presented in 1984 or B) Simplified English (which Newspeak is a metaphor for, following both Orwell and me)?
If A), the title of this post was not meant to literally assert that 1984.Newspeak does not make someone stupid, and I clearly state in the post that Newspeak as implemented by Oceania is problematic; the title of the post should be understood as “Simplified English will not make you stupid” (a claim that Orwell would incorrectly disagree with me about). If B), I would then dispute the final paragraph of this comment.
Part of my point is that just as “Wall” and “blue” are words that can be assigned to meanings, “Left of the blue wall”, if used enough times, will eventually become a word in its own right, even if one doesn’t have the processing capabilities to combine the individual parts on the fly. If the researchers keep asking “go to the left of the blue wall”, and seem happy when you go to this particular place (that happens to be next to a wall that is blue), you will eventually get the point, even if you don’t realize why “left of the blue wall” is called what it is.
(I realize this doesn’t address why it would be preferable to call it “left of the blue wall” instead of “shmaznag”, which would be just as meaningful. I would expect “left of the blue wall” to be an easier fixed phrase to learn than “shmaznang”, though)
I actually had a paragraph about this exact point in an earlier version of this post, but it was poorly written and somewhat confusing, so I removed it recently.