Ways of Thinking Differ From One Nation to Another As a Function of Language
Sunday, 12. October 2008, 15:19:04
For English kids, it’s natural to think that only the word ‘blue’ is a normal description when pointing to a blue object and other words and expressions are false. When a little bit grown up, they might say: “Germans might call it ‘blau’, but this usage is exclusive to things which are blue’. A kid thinks a house is a ‘house’, rose is a ‘rose’ and that’s all. He then learns that amazing people of France call a house a ‘maison’ and asks: ‘if they mean a house, why don’t they call it a house?’ Because he thinks words contain specific qualities - in this case, a house; but language is only a reflection of environmental elements.
Our mental relationship with the language we speak (while learning at an early stage) affects the way we think. In fact, it's the language that lets us develop our thoughts by pre-defining how different signs and symbols should mean:
Because we’ve already contracted on what the signs ‘+’, ‘=’, ‘2’ and ‘5’ mean, we can consider/think/argue that 2+5 = 7. Without having a tag on an item (a word), we can't discuss about it.
And as you know, languages themselves are functions of the environment they were formed in: the nature, ecology, living habits. That's why different geographical groups speak different languages and expressions (of their thoughts and feelings). For Iranians as well as other sedentary nations, it might be a surprise to hear that rural Turkmens say ‘to exit towards the city’ instead of ‘to enter the city’.
Let’s consider a fixed condition where the temperature is 10 degree Celsius. An Indian would call this temperature as ‘cold’ or 'cool' while an Eskimo from Greenland considers this as ‘warm’. Although we’re using a standard scientific scale/language about the temperature, still the langauage they use and thoughts they have about temperature differ.
Our mental relationship with the language we speak (while learning at an early stage) affects the way we think. In fact, it's the language that lets us develop our thoughts by pre-defining how different signs and symbols should mean:
Because we’ve already contracted on what the signs ‘+’, ‘=’, ‘2’ and ‘5’ mean, we can consider/think/argue that 2+5 = 7. Without having a tag on an item (a word), we can't discuss about it.
And as you know, languages themselves are functions of the environment they were formed in: the nature, ecology, living habits. That's why different geographical groups speak different languages and expressions (of their thoughts and feelings). For Iranians as well as other sedentary nations, it might be a surprise to hear that rural Turkmens say ‘to exit towards the city’ instead of ‘to enter the city’.
Let’s consider a fixed condition where the temperature is 10 degree Celsius. An Indian would call this temperature as ‘cold’ or 'cool' while an Eskimo from Greenland considers this as ‘warm’. Although we’re using a standard scientific scale/language about the temperature, still the langauage they use and thoughts they have about temperature differ.
WIDGETIZE
vivalamuerte # 17. October 2008, 13:28
The examples you gave were of pure arbitrary nature, there are far more cases in which the environment really explains nothing at all.
Elias Yemreli # 17. October 2008, 16:10
Thanks
daxonmacs # 18. October 2008, 20:22
vivalamuerte # 18. October 2008, 20:55
Language also consists of other factors such as grammar etc - as far as I know there is no evidence that grammar or the way we pronounce certain sounds, syllables and words (phonology) is environment-based. For instance German and French sound entirely different, but the enviroment is pretty much the same (middle-europe).
daxonmacs # 18. October 2008, 21:10
But to use your example: blue - blau, blue is used to name a colour but also has other meanings, which can't be translated into the german blau.
I don't know about environmental as i've learned languages have probably a mutual origin, for example a lot of european languages come from the indo-european.
Elias Yemreli # 19. October 2008, 08:05
The reason for those lexical examples is the fact that vocabulary is prior to the development of grammar since we need words first to develop their usage (that is grammar). And pronunciation is a later change: as you know, German and English share the same linguistic roots, but the way they pronounce common words are not alike. Even among Turkic languages which have a high mutual intelligibility (if we consider an English man understands 30-40 percents of a German speech, then a Turkic speaker understand another Turkic dialect like 80-90 percent), there's still obvious differences in Pronunciation and accents.
By environment, as I mentioned, I meant the nature, ecology, living habits. For instance, Hunes who have always resided on the steppes, spent their history on the horses militating, have developed their language from its proto-form in a different manner from that of Chinese people who have always lived in cities/villages (civilization, I mean) - therefore faced different situations - have had an old science tradition. 'To exit towards a city' is an example on this.
Or, about grammar, women of Altaic tribes have always had a vital role in tribal life: besides making food and making warm clothes, they gathered herbs and nutriments and attended hunting together with men. That’s why in Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolian, Tungus-Manchu), gender distinctions are absent; there is no grammatical gender: both ‘male’ and ‘female’ are referred to as ‘ol’/’al’. And they lack honorific language.
Elias Yemreli # 19. October 2008, 08:18
Like, in Turkish:
yash: 1- age 2- tear 3- to hide
Only the second one is the original meaning for the word 'yash'. The old form for 'age' was 'yal'. And I don't know what the word for 'to hide' was originally.
daxonmacs # 19. October 2008, 09:06
As people from a nomad culture don't live in cities they originally wouldn't have a word for it as for them it was a non existing concept.
I think I'm beginning to understand what you mean though, not yet completely. Hehe. We better stop before the both of us end up frustrated.
I also as a kid was unaware of other languages, but it changed soon, as in my country three different languages are spoken. It is my conviction that the sooner a child learns that, the better. If only for implanting the notion that the world is larger than their own street or village.
And later in life we learn about other ways of communication, too.
Elias Yemreli # 19. October 2008, 09:14
Frustrated?!
daxonmacs # 19. October 2008, 09:42
Luis Lizardi # 23. April 2009, 18:43
I wonder whether your references to "the environment" should be addressed more accurately as "Culture" (and thus, all the concepts associated with that label: ie: environmental culture, linguistic c, religious c, family c, ...).
Yet, the difference between your choice of words(environment), and mine (culture), comes from the very fact that we both come from different cultures. Thus, we see the world with the words (and the whole conceptual scheme these words might have), of our native languages... even though we are writing in English. In other words, our scheme of the world is a construction done with the concepts (or tools), that our native language have provided even if we are speaking other languages. This is why all of us who are second language speakers of any language might sound "foreign" every now and then to a native speaker!
True, when we speak other languages our conceptual scheme broadens. However, no matter how well we have learned a second language, a small fragment of speech might give us away as a foreigner because there are subtle sociolinguistic nuisances that we could miss because of our mother tongues' conceptual scheme or our multicultural linguistic conceptual scheme.
(Of course, I am talking about spoken language, because in writing you could always have an editor in your computer, or a friend to double check for errors.)
{I am delighted to engage in such discussions and to read these entries. We all learn from each other so much... Thank you for your initiative, Elias!)
Elias Yemreli # 24. April 2009, 09:34
I just wonder if 'culture' would be a proper choice, because culture itself is somehow dependent on the environment in which it has been started. And that's because, I suppose, some parts of every culture is based on how to interact with nature and environment.
I completely agree with you on your notes regarding the relationship between thinking habits and languages