Podcast appearances and mentions of John H Mcwhorter

John H. McWhorter teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University. He is the host of the podcast Lexicon Valley and writes a weekly column for The New York Times. McWhorter is the author of twenty-three books, including Nine Nasty Words, Woke Racism, The Power of Babel, and Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and John McWhorter explore how language evolves, why English only has one form of you, and if we should embrace the singular they. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: goodfightpod@gmail.com Podcast production by Mickey Freeland and Leonora Barclay. Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google X: @Yascha_Mounk & @JoinPersuasion YouTube: Yascha Mounk, Persuasion LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Do you know your blood type? Do you know why we have different blood types? This episode begins with some interesting intel about blood types, why you should know yours and why some people actually have no blood type. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140715-why-do-we-have-blood-types You have probably heard about the value of validating someone else's feelings and experience. What you may not have heard is the science that proves just how powerful it is when you want to connect with someone or influence them. When done right, validation can transform a relationship according to my guest Caroline Fleck, PhD. She is a licensed psychologist, and Adjunct Clinical Instructor at Stanford University as well as the author of the book Validation: How the Skill Set That Revolutionized Psychology Will Transform Your Relationships, Increase Your Influence, and Change Your Life (https://amzn.to/3YgpzAK) Pronouns are some of the hardest working words in the English language. I, you, me, he, she, we, they – and yet the way these words behave in our language can sometimes be maddening. For example, the word “you” can mean 1 person or a group of people. In a lot of other languages, there are two different words. While English teachers will tell you that the correct way to say this is, “He and I went to the store” doesn't it feel more natural to say, “Him and me went to the store.”? Joining me to dive into the world of pronouns is John H. McWhorter. He teaches linguistics, American studies, and music history at Columbia University and is the host of the podcast Lexicon Valley (https://slate.com/podcasts/lexicon-valley). John is the author of twenty-three books including his latest, Pronoun Trouble: The Story of Us in Seven Little Words (https://amzn.to/4iSauh1) What should go on a resume? People have lots of ideas of what to include and how to write it but what do hiring managers say they look for? Listen and hear what makes a great resume. https://www.entrepreneur.com/living/the-dos-and-donts-of-the-modern-resume-infographic/244399 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Rosen is joined by John McWhorter, author and linguist at Columbia University, to talk about his life in language. John H. McWhorter teaches linguistics, American Studies, and music history at Columbia University. He is a contributing editor at the Atlantic, columnist at the New York Times and host of Slate's Lexicon Valley podcast. McWhorter is the author of twenty books often on the subject of language, including The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language, Talking Back Talking Black, Words On The Move and Woke Racism. Producer: Eliza Lomas

Loving your language means a command of its vocabulary beyond the level of the everyday. - John H. McWhorter The post S26E1 – Becoming a Student of Language appeared first on Writing Roots.

1:52 Why Thomas doesn’t use the term mixed race 10:21 Perception that being brown/black is synonymous with oppression 15:08 Whiteness 16:12 Skin colour inheritance 20:35 The importance of representation; links between race and class 27:44 Hip hop as performative blackness 33:40 “Acting white” 34:48 Mixed race identity as an opportunity 37:15 The yearning for belonging 40:05 Adrian Piper 42:15 Ancestral guilt and ‘worshipping the wound’ 50:47 The rejection of optimism 53:07 What prompted Thomas to write Self-Portrait in Black and White 56:18 Thomas reads an extract from the book 1:03:57 Richard Spencer, the European far right, & the identity politics arms race 1:09:44 Culture & multiculturalism 1:11:55 White guilt 1:15:21 Transcending the mental habits of race Thomas Chatterton Williams' memoir "Losing My Cool" is available here: https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Chatterton-Williams/e/B0035FEJHC%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share Thomas Chatterton Williams, Self-Portrait in Black and White: Unlearning Race (2019): https://www.amazon.com/Self-Portrait-Black-White-Unlearning-Race/dp/0393608867 You can read an extract from his upcoming book, "Self Portrait in Black and White" here: https://www.vqronline.org/essays-articles/2015/01/black-and-blue-and-blond For more of Thomas's writings, see: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/magazine/adrian-pipers-self-imposed-exile-from-america-and-from-race-itself.html https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/04/the-french-origins-of-you-will-not-replace-us and https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/opinion/ta-nehisi-coates-whiteness-power.html?_r=0 …. Follow Thomas on Twitter at @thomaschattwill. Additional References For more on Adrian Piper: http://www.adrianpiper.com/ Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress (2018) John H. McWhorter, “Antiracism: Our Flawed New Religion” (2015) https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion The preface to Iona’s piece on mixed race themes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdUunlGWqrw&t=17s

John H. McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He has written academic books on creole linguistics, including the book we'll be talking about today, but also a number of popular books on language (including The Power of Babel), and black identity in the United States. He is a regular columnist for several US broadsheets; he's a two-time TED talker; and he has a weekly podcast dealing with issues related to language called Lexicon Valley which is worth checking out if you're listening to New Books in Language. In this interview, McWhorter discusses his recent book The Creole Debate (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Making the case that prominent scholars in creole studies have systematically mischaracterized the nature of creole languages, McWhorter calls for a more intellectually honest engagement with the empirical evidence, both from “syntactocentric” formal linguists, and from creolists concerned that treating creoles as typologically distinct is tantamount to neocolonialism. John Weston is an Yliopisto-opettaja (University Teacher) in the Language Centre at Aalto University. His research focuses on the relationships between language variation, knowledge and ethics. He can be reached at j.weston@qmul.ac.uk.and @johnwphd.

John H. McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He has written academic books on creole linguistics, including the book we’ll be talking about today, but also a number of popular books on language (including The Power of Babel), and black identity in the United States. He is a regular columnist for several US broadsheets; he’s a two-time TED talker; and he has a weekly podcast dealing with issues related to language called Lexicon Valley which is worth checking out if you’re listening to New Books in Language. In this interview, McWhorter discusses his recent book The Creole Debate (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Making the case that prominent scholars in creole studies have systematically mischaracterized the nature of creole languages, McWhorter calls for a more intellectually honest engagement with the empirical evidence, both from “syntactocentric” formal linguists, and from creolists concerned that treating creoles as typologically distinct is tantamount to neocolonialism. John Weston is an Yliopisto-opettaja (University Teacher) in the Language Centre at Aalto University. His research focuses on the relationships between language variation, knowledge and ethics. He can be reached at j.weston@qmul.ac.uk.and @johnwphd. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John H. McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He has written academic books on creole linguistics, including the book we’ll be talking about today, but also a number of popular books on language (including The Power of Babel), and black identity in the United States. He is a regular columnist for several US broadsheets; he’s a two-time TED talker; and he has a weekly podcast dealing with issues related to language called Lexicon Valley which is worth checking out if you’re listening to New Books in Language. In this interview, McWhorter discusses his recent book The Creole Debate (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Making the case that prominent scholars in creole studies have systematically mischaracterized the nature of creole languages, McWhorter calls for a more intellectually honest engagement with the empirical evidence, both from “syntactocentric” formal linguists, and from creolists concerned that treating creoles as typologically distinct is tantamount to neocolonialism. John Weston is an Yliopisto-opettaja (University Teacher) in the Language Centre at Aalto University. His research focuses on the relationships between language variation, knowledge and ethics. He can be reached at j.weston@qmul.ac.uk.and @johnwphd. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John H. McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He has written academic books on creole linguistics, including the book we’ll be talking about today, but also a number of popular books on language (including The Power of Babel), and black identity in the United States. He is a regular columnist for several US broadsheets; he’s a two-time TED talker; and he has a weekly podcast dealing with issues related to language called Lexicon Valley which is worth checking out if you’re listening to New Books in Language. In this interview, McWhorter discusses his recent book The Creole Debate (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Making the case that prominent scholars in creole studies have systematically mischaracterized the nature of creole languages, McWhorter calls for a more intellectually honest engagement with the empirical evidence, both from “syntactocentric” formal linguists, and from creolists concerned that treating creoles as typologically distinct is tantamount to neocolonialism. John Weston is an Yliopisto-opettaja (University Teacher) in the Language Centre at Aalto University. His research focuses on the relationships between language variation, knowledge and ethics. He can be reached at j.weston@qmul.ac.uk.and @johnwphd. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John H. McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He has written academic books on creole linguistics, including the book we’ll be talking about today, but also a number of popular books on language (including The Power of Babel), and black identity in the United States. He is a regular columnist for several US broadsheets; he’s a two-time TED talker; and he has a weekly podcast dealing with issues related to language called Lexicon Valley which is worth checking out if you’re listening to New Books in Language. In this interview, McWhorter discusses his recent book The Creole Debate (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Making the case that prominent scholars in creole studies have systematically mischaracterized the nature of creole languages, McWhorter calls for a more intellectually honest engagement with the empirical evidence, both from “syntactocentric” formal linguists, and from creolists concerned that treating creoles as typologically distinct is tantamount to neocolonialism. John Weston is an Yliopisto-opettaja (University Teacher) in the Language Centre at Aalto University. His research focuses on the relationships between language variation, knowledge and ethics. He can be reached at j.weston@qmul.ac.uk.and @johnwphd. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

John H. McWhorter is Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He has written academic books on creole linguistics, including the book we’ll be talking about today, but also a number of popular books on language (including The Power of Babel), and black identity in the United States. He is a regular columnist for several US broadsheets; he’s a two-time TED talker; and he has a weekly podcast dealing with issues related to language called Lexicon Valley which is worth checking out if you’re listening to New Books in Language. In this interview, McWhorter discusses his recent book The Creole Debate (Cambridge University Press, 2018). Making the case that prominent scholars in creole studies have systematically mischaracterized the nature of creole languages, McWhorter calls for a more intellectually honest engagement with the empirical evidence, both from “syntactocentric” formal linguists, and from creolists concerned that treating creoles as typologically distinct is tantamount to neocolonialism. John Weston is an Yliopisto-opettaja (University Teacher) in the Language Centre at Aalto University. His research focuses on the relationships between language variation, knowledge and ethics. He can be reached at j.weston@qmul.ac.uk.and @johnwphd. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea that the language we speak influences the way we think – sometimes referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – has had an interesting history. It’s particularly associated with the idea that languages dismissed as primitive by 19th century thinkers, such as those of indigenous peoples in America and Australia, are not only as rich and complex as European languages (a now uncontroversial point) but also cause their speakers to conceive of reality in fundamentally different and more sophisticated ways. One problem with this idea, as John McWhorter points out in his new book The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language (Oxford UP, 2014), is that, for there to be ‘winners’, there must also be ‘losers’ – people who are held back by their language. And that’s a much less palatable idea, whether we think that it’s Hopi or English or Chinese speakers that are the ‘losers’. However, McWhorter’s main objection to the Whorfian idea is not that it’s unpalatable, but rather that (as the title of his book suggests) the evidence for it is sketchy. Or, more precisely, although language has been shown to influence cognition in certain ways, none of these are very substantial, and it would be a gross exaggeration to consider that speakers of different languages automatically have different worldviews. In this interview, we talk about the political dimensions of Whorfianism, and discuss some of the evidence for effects of this kind (and how far they go). We touch upon the way in which claims about it are evaluated by linguists, and how the history of linguistics influences how the idea has developed. And we consider the implications for our own view of the world, if the consequences of language were as profound as has been argued. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea that the language we speak influences the way we think – sometimes referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – has had an interesting history. It’s particularly associated with the idea that languages dismissed as primitive by 19th century thinkers, such as those of indigenous peoples in America and Australia, are not only as rich and complex as European languages (a now uncontroversial point) but also cause their speakers to conceive of reality in fundamentally different and more sophisticated ways. One problem with this idea, as John McWhorter points out in his new book The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language (Oxford UP, 2014), is that, for there to be ‘winners’, there must also be ‘losers’ – people who are held back by their language. And that’s a much less palatable idea, whether we think that it’s Hopi or English or Chinese speakers that are the ‘losers’. However, McWhorter’s main objection to the Whorfian idea is not that it’s unpalatable, but rather that (as the title of his book suggests) the evidence for it is sketchy. Or, more precisely, although language has been shown to influence cognition in certain ways, none of these are very substantial, and it would be a gross exaggeration to consider that speakers of different languages automatically have different worldviews. In this interview, we talk about the political dimensions of Whorfianism, and discuss some of the evidence for effects of this kind (and how far they go). We touch upon the way in which claims about it are evaluated by linguists, and how the history of linguistics influences how the idea has developed. And we consider the implications for our own view of the world, if the consequences of language were as profound as has been argued. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The idea that the language we speak influences the way we think – sometimes referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – has had an interesting history. It's particularly associated with the idea that languages dismissed as primitive by 19th century thinkers, such as those of indigenous peoples in America and Australia, are not only as rich and complex as European languages (a now uncontroversial point) but also cause their speakers to conceive of reality in fundamentally different and more sophisticated ways. One problem with this idea, as John McWhorter points out in his new book The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language (Oxford UP, 2014), is that, for there to be ‘winners', there must also be ‘losers' – people who are held back by their language. And that's a much less palatable idea, whether we think that it's Hopi or English or Chinese speakers that are the ‘losers'. However, McWhorter's main objection to the Whorfian idea is not that it's unpalatable, but rather that (as the title of his book suggests) the evidence for it is sketchy. Or, more precisely, although language has been shown to influence cognition in certain ways, none of these are very substantial, and it would be a gross exaggeration to consider that speakers of different languages automatically have different worldviews. In this interview, we talk about the political dimensions of Whorfianism, and discuss some of the evidence for effects of this kind (and how far they go). We touch upon the way in which claims about it are evaluated by linguists, and how the history of linguistics influences how the idea has developed. And we consider the implications for our own view of the world, if the consequences of language were as profound as has been argued.