Final answer:
The claim that all linguists embrace machines for interpreting literature is false. Perspectives vary in the linguistic community, and cultural nuances in literature often require human insight, as implied by theories like the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that all linguists have emphatically embraced the idea that machines could help them make sense of stories and in general on literature is false. While some linguists and researchers find machine assistance invaluable in understanding and interpreting language and literature, there is a wide spectrum of opinions within the linguistic community. Perspectives vary regarding the role and effectiveness of machine analysis in the study of literature. For instance, tools like natural language processing can aid in analyzing text patterns and translating works, but the subtleties and cultural nuances often demand human insight.
Moreover, considering theories such as made by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf, literature and language are deeply intertwined with cultural contexts, which machines may not fully capture. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis suggests that our thoughts and behaviors are shaped by our language, a concept that transcends simple linguistic analysis and enters into the realm of human experience — an area where machines have limitations.
Ultimately, while machines can offer assistance, the complete embrace of such technology by every linguist for literature interpretation is an overstatement. Human understanding and critical thinking are essential when delving into literature's depths, where personal experience and cultural context play pivotal roles in comprehension and appreciation.