Does Language Shape How You Think?

[Mark Stryker]

Read this is the Times' Sunday Magazine and found it fascinating:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine

[mjzee]

Looks like the Times has been cribbing from the Journal. This is from the 7/23/10 WSJ:

Lost In Translation

[kinuta]

After 30 years of grappling with the Japanese language, my answer to the question would be a definite yes.

Absence of subjects, objects,concepts of number and amount, lack of, or more accurately none use of, a precise grammar for establishing who did what to whom and when, the ability to make complex statements with a couple of words most certainly shape the way of looking at things, present the outsider with seemingly never ending enigmas, and explain in part the inability to learn English. Daily Japanese is a lazy language that thrives on brevity and vagueness and requires a clear leap of logic from a learner.

Edited August 30, 2010 by kinuta

[Jazzmoose]

Is this a serious question? Sorry; haven't clicked the links yet, but it sounds like a cry for Captain Obvious...

[kinuta]

Is this a serious question? Sorry; haven't clicked the links yet, but it sounds like a cry for Captain Obvious...

I think there are some schools of thought that dismiss the idea that your language shapes how you relate to things.

My experience has not been so, at all.

[John L]

The interesting question here is cause and effect. Different cultures think differently, and that is reflected in languages. Do people brought up in the US, but tought Japanese from a Japanese parent, think differently than other Americans?

[JSngry]

Does thought drive perception, does perception drive thought, or are we actually considering different parts/manifestations of the same thing, a yin and a yang of a same thing which probably also involves a role for biochemistry that is more unknown now than known?

"Language" is just a symbol, a signifier if you will, of even more primal/inner/whatevers than probably anybody can imagine at this particular juncture of our evolution.

[BillF]

Apart from English, the only language in which I have any degree of fluency is French and I'm struck by the fact that English no longer has any equivalent of the French "tu/vous" distinction, also present in many other European languages. This means that the "politesse" which comes so naturally in French doesn't lend itself so easily to communication in English. Some languages demand drastic changes in vocabulary and grammar when addressing social superiors, while the change of register involved in English is far less fundamental. (Those who know Japanese will probably confirm that it's very different from English in this respect.) All this means that, if you want to do deference, don't choose English. Dare I say that our language, by making light of social superiority/inferiority is inherently more democratic than many other languages, and that this has a profound effect on how people regard each other? Or did the democratic attitude come first and shape the form of the language? That one can't be answered!

[porcy62]

I would be surprised of the opposite affirmation: Language Doesn't Shape How You Think.

From what I remember of my Philosophy Courses at University, it was Ludwig Wittgenstein that wiped out the concept of a objective world in wich human beings just gave name to things. Actually most of the last century philosophic reserches is about the way we 'create' and 'indagate' the world with our languages, mathematics included. It was a very interesting and challenging subject of research and I was serioulsy tempted to choose the academic career because of it.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

You're right about maths, Porcy. I've been fascinated by two little points for years.

Most (all?) European languages have words for the numbers up to 10 - mostly related. English and German have separate words for 11 and 12. French has words for 11-16. Thereafter both languages use portmanteau words, made up of a version of the number plus an ending relating to 10. So, English encouraged (but probably didn't originally compel) us to lump teenagers and the teenage years into a conceptual bracket in a way that French probably didn't.

The Mandinke, like Europeans, have words for 1-10. Their neighbours, the Wolof, have words for 1-5. Thereafter, Wolof goes something like 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 10, 10-1... 10-5-1, 10-5-2 etc.

So the question inevitably arises - what were the Wolof doing with their other hand?

(Answers on a postcard to the WSJ and NYT.)

MG

[GA Russell]

Somewhere I picked up the idea that your thought isn't crystalized until it is spoken/thought in a specific language. And therefore if there is no word in your language for a specific thought, then you don't think it.

As a result, people with large vocabularies have more specific ideas than those with small vocabularies. When you see an athlete interviewed on TV saying that he cannot express his feelings in words, he does not really have a specific idea to express.

That has been my understanding of it.

[Tim McG]

TBH, I think the studies used in this op-ed piece point to the same limitations all human beings impose upon themselves and are not necessarily through the default of a particular language.

I also think culture and environment play a huge roll in determining how one might perceive or process the world which surrounds us. Language certainly helps us do that but the environment and the vast cultural traditions each of us are exposed to through our own individual up bringing have far more to do with cognition than the limitations of language does. Because a given language doesn't have a name for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't still exist. Or, more to the point, it doen't mean we won't be able to grasp the meaning or concept

An interesting thought piece though.

Edited August 30, 2010 by GoodSpeak

[porcy62]

Indeed, MG. math would be different if we'd have six fingers for hand or a fin.

Like as the incipit of 'Smilla's Sense of Snow' of Peter Høeg, where the main character, Smilla, describes lots of different types of snow and their characteristics and their different names in Inuit language. Since 'snow' is the main enviromental for inuit, any little difference has and worth a specific word.

Edited August 30, 2010 by porcy62

[porcy62]

TBH, I think the studies used in this op-ed piece point to the same limitations all human beings impose upon themselves and are not necessarily through the default of a particular language.

I also think culture and environment play a huge roll in determining how one might perceive or process the world which surrounds us. Language certainly helps us do that but the environment and the vast cultural traditions each of us are exposed to through our own individual up bringing have far more to do with cognition than the limitations of language does. Because a given language doesn't have a name for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't still exist. Or, more to the point, it doen't mean we won't be able to grasp the meaning or concept

An interesting thought piece though.

BUT 'the environment and the vast cultural traditions' are trasmitted, internalized and memorized through Languages.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

TBH, I think the studies used in this op-ed piece point to the same limitations all human beings impose upon themselves and are not necessarily through the default of a particular language.

I also think culture and environment play a huge roll in determining how one might perceive or process the world which surrounds us. Language certainly helps us do that but the environment and the vast cultural traditions each of us are exposed to through our own individual up bringing have far more to do with cognition than the limitations of language does. Because a given language doesn't have a name for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't still exist. Or, more to the point, it doen't mean we won't be able to grasp the meaning or concept

An interesting thought piece though.

BUT 'the environment and the vast cultural traditions' are trasmitted, internalized and memorized through Languages.

But, as you say, we don't have all those words for snow. (Course, the English have LOTS of words to describe rain ) But environment does determine a big chunk of language. Also it determines a big chunk of culture, though the largest element of culture would surely have been determined by the invention of agriculture, in those societies in which it has flourished. All kinds of new words would have been needed in those societies, mostly borrowed from other societies who transmitted agricultural technology and skills as the idea caught on.

MG

[Quincy]

Apart from English, the only language in which I have any degree of fluency is French and I'm struck by the fact that English no longer has any equivalent of the French "tu/vous" distinction, also present in many other European languages. This means that the "politesse" which comes so naturally in French doesn't lend itself so easily to communication in English. Some languages demand drastic changes in vocabulary and grammar when addressing social superiors, while the change of register involved in English is far less fundamental. (Those who know Japanese will probably confirm that it's very different from English in this respect.) All this means that, if you want to do deference, don't choose English. Dare I say that our language, by making light of social superiority/inferiority is inherently more democratic than many other languages, and that this has a profound effect on how people regard each other? Or did the democratic attitude come first and shape the form of the language? That one can't be answered!

While having a tu/vous distinction would be more efficient, isn't this taken care by simply dropping in a "sir" or "m'am." Say a well dressed gentleman wearing a top hat and a monocle asks me if he's heading in the right direction to get to Park Place. I can answer "No sir, you need to turn right at the stoplight." I run into this type of thing in stores or offices. "Sir, you need to take a right at the end of the hall, otherwise you'll end up peeing in the janitor's closet." Whereas when I was younger it was just "You need to take a right…"

I always admired the order of things in French compared to English. I'd rather first hear that it's a cow that's brown, not that there's something brown that's a cow. Maybe I know too many slow English speaking storytellers.

[Tim McG]

TBH, I think the studies used in this op-ed piece point to the same limitations all human beings impose upon themselves and are not necessarily through the default of a particular language.

I also think culture and environment play a huge roll in determining how one might perceive or process the world which surrounds us. Language certainly helps us do that but the environment and the vast cultural traditions each of us are exposed to through our own individual up bringing have far more to do with cognition than the limitations of language does. Because a given language doesn't have a name for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't still exist. Or, more to the point, it doen't mean we won't be able to grasp the meaning or concept

An interesting thought piece though.

BUT 'the environment and the vast cultural traditions' are trasmitted, internalized and memorized through Languages.

Agreed...in the sharing of them.

However, I submit, the longest lasting memories are those which are contained within the images and feelings we associate with them. As an example, the words are long since forgetten but the images and feelings still remain.

[porcy62]

TBH, I think the studies used in this op-ed piece point to the same limitations all human beings impose upon themselves and are not necessarily through the default of a particular language.

I also think culture and environment play a huge roll in determining how one might perceive or process the world which surrounds us. Language certainly helps us do that but the environment and the vast cultural traditions each of us are exposed to through our own individual up bringing have far more to do with cognition than the limitations of language does. Because a given language doesn't have a name for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't still exist. Or, more to the point, it doen't mean we won't be able to grasp the meaning or concept

An interesting thought piece though.

BUT 'the environment and the vast cultural traditions' are trasmitted, internalized and memorized through Languages.

Agreed...in the sharing of them.

However, I submit, the longest lasting memories are those which are contained within the images and feelings we associate with them. As an example, the words are long since forgetten but the images and feelings still remain.

Of course, but that's the greatness of human beings!

Wittgenstein said in last sentence of 'Tractatus logico-philosophicus':'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' BUT another philosopher, I forgot the name I quote by memory, replied that actually the most interesting things are exactly the unspeakable ones.

Edited August 30, 2010 by porcy62

[JSngry]

Somewhere I picked up the idea that your thought isn't crystalized until it is spoken/thought in a specific language. And therefore if there is no word in your language for a specific thought, then you don't think it.

As a result, people with large vocabularies have more specific ideas than those with small vocabularies. When you see an athlete interviewed on TV saying that he cannot express his feelings in words, he does not really have a specific idea to express.

So what about music? Visual arts (a picture is worth a thousand words?)? Dance? Etc.?

Even planned physical violence against another individual?!?!?! Or thoughts communicated strictly through body language &facial expressions?!?!?!?!

Language = words is a very...primitive way of looking at things, no?

[kinuta]

Apart from English, the only language in which I have any degree of fluency is French and I'm struck by the fact that English no longer has any equivalent of the French "tu/vous" distinction, also present in many other European languages. This means that the "politesse" which comes so naturally in French doesn't lend itself so easily to communication in English. Some languages demand drastic changes in vocabulary and grammar when addressing social superiors, while the change of register involved in English is far less fundamental. (Those who know Japanese will probably confirm that it's very different from English in this respect.) All this means that, if you want to do deference, don't choose English. Dare I say that our language, by making light of social superiority/inferiority is inherently more democratic than many other languages, and that this has a profound effect on how people regard each other? Or did the democratic attitude come first and shape the form of the language? That one can't be answered!

Interesting. The tous/vous choice for expressing you is present in Japanese, but in a greatly expanded variety.

When referring to yourself, you can choose from 1 watakushi,formal,2 watashi, neutral, 3 atashi, used informally by women, 4 boku, used by boys,5 ore, a bit rough and ready and used only by men,6 washi, used by old men, 7 one's first name, used by small kids. For addressing a person directly, 1 anata- the form for you that appears in a dictionary but is seldom used 2 kimi, used informally or when speaking to someone perceived as being on a lower social level, 3 omae,rough, used by all boys when addressing each other, by husbands to wives, by superiors to inferiors, 4 kisama- you fucker 5 temei- asshole 6 oniisan, literally big brother used the same way as ' love' in the north of England with the female version 7 oneisan. However maybe the most widely used forms of direct address are 8 name+san or sama, 9 sensei when talking to a teacher or doctor and 10 okyakusan or sama when a shop person is addressing a customer. If I were speaking to one of the neighbours, in the unlikely event that I had to use a subject, I'd use 11 Okusan ( literally housewife ) for a woman and 12 Danasan ( literally husband) for a man. In reality many of these subject pronouns are simply omitted, the relations being expressed by the choice of verb, but that's another story.

Edited August 30, 2010 by kinuta

[Tim McG]

TBH, I think the studies used in this op-ed piece point to the same limitations all human beings impose upon themselves and are not necessarily through the default of a particular language.

I also think culture and environment play a huge roll in determining how one might perceive or process the world which surrounds us. Language certainly helps us do that but the environment and the vast cultural traditions each of us are exposed to through our own individual up bringing have far more to do with cognition than the limitations of language does. Because a given language doesn't have a name for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't still exist. Or, more to the point, it doen't mean we won't be able to grasp the meaning or concept

An interesting thought piece though.

BUT 'the environment and the vast cultural traditions' are trasmitted, internalized and memorized through Languages.

Agreed...in the sharing of them.

However, I submit, the longest lasting memories are those which are contained within the images and feelings we associate with them. As an example, the words are long since forgetten but the images and feelings still remain.

Of course, but that's the greatness of human beings!

Wittgenstein said in last sentence of 'Tractatus logico-philosophicus':'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' BUT another philosopher, I forgot the name I quote by memory, replied that actually the most interesting things are exactly the unspeakable ones.

Good point.

I would also argue that language, any language, is a very limiting vehicle to communicate through. Just looking at the battles and harsh words on this BBS, I'm willing to bet the ranch that if there was some way to express feeling, visual cues, body language, tone of voice and/or verbal intent, a lot of these sorts of things wouldn't happen.

[BruceH]

Does Language Shape How You Think? Well, just off hand I'd have to say yes, how can it not, to SOME extent?