Linguistic Relativity, what's up?
Linguistic relativity is a concept I've imagined long before I knew that there was a word for it. And my thoughts on it have evolved over time.
If you read the above link you'll find mention to a strong and a weak form. Where basically, the strong says that language, effectively sets some hard limits.
I don't agree with this. I think that the existence and growth of language is sufficient proof that it is incorrect. Languages grew and evolved. Take any word, or any concept. There was a point in time when that word or concept did not exist in your language. Or, for that matter, in any language. In other words, there must have been a point in time for every word, and every concept in every language where it breached that limit.
I do believe that there is a soft limit. I believe it is a VERY difficult thing to do. Language does influence, and influence VERY heavily how we think and what we are capable of thinking. Of this, I don't have much doubt. I think in language, I remember in language. Heck, I even dream in language.
If you look at language on a larger scale, it gets even more profound. Language aren't JUST collections of words and rules. They also contain (amongst other elements) things like figures of speech and compound words. For people learning a new language, these are often the most profound things to learn. These little things can reshape how you perceive something very important, or even many things in general. Watching this Ted Talk by Roxanne Pomerantz gives an example with someone learning about "falling in love". The language her friend knew had words for "falling" and "love", but not the concept of actually falling into it. It changed her perception in a profound way.
That same video also talks about the speaker learning about what I imagine to be the opposite of home sickness. Something literally translated as "icthy feet" describing that desire to get out. It is a minor change. But, I've just heard about it less than 20 minutes ago, and it has already reshaped the way I think about and feel when being cooped up for too long.
But what if it isn't JUST a figure of speech or a way of looking at something? What if, entire words or even language constructs are missing? Well, here is a Ted Talk on just that by Phuc Tran. It is profound the way that growing up without this linguistic concept materializes in interactions between the speaker and his father. The speaker grew up in America and has a good understanding of the subjunctive. His father, after moving to America, likely uses it to some degree now, but it isn't part of his native tongue and it manifests in a drastically different way of thinking and speaking. He forms thoughts and sentences like a Vietnamese native, even in English.
That same video also talks about the happiest and least happy places on Earth. And Vietnam, while a poor place polled as being one of the happiest. And one the least happy? France, a place whose native language has 2 forms of the subjunctive. Cleary, we can't absolutely say that language is the sole cause, or even if it is one at all. But, it does seem that language is likely to have some impact. I mean, as the speaker points out, his father rarely talks or even considers what could be or what might have been. And dwelling on those sorts of things is definitely a cause for depression in many. The subjunctive also, it appears, provided an outlet for the speaker to find happiness which wasn't otherwise there.
At the end of the day, yes, I believe language sets some soft limits on what we are capable of thinking. I also believe what we already know about linguistics shapes the way we think and perceive things. It is definitely one of the many reasons I'm enjoying learning Japanese. It HAS expanded my vocabulary and my ability to express myself. It HAS shone new light and meaning on things, even in my native tongue. I also have no doubts that growing up in an effectively purely English environment that there may be notions and nuances of the Japanese language which I'll never be able to fully grasp and thus lights that will never shine in the dark areas of what I could know or experience.
Think about just how profound language is. While we see it, primarily as a means of communicating, it is actually so much more. And communication, in some senses ends up being a mere side effect. We store memories linguistically. We analyze the world using the corpus of language of available to us. We think in one or more languages. Beyond a certain age we don't think or analyze or remember in terms of anything which we cannot apply words too.
Sure, we can create new words and new phrases, but we don't really teach this as a skill. It would, after all, run the risk of defeating the perceived primary purpose of language. I can experience something and name that experience or feeling "mahfg". But, if I used that word with someone else, they wouldn't understand. I'd also need to remember the experience or feeling myself. It is cumbersome and usually less useful than simply trying to understand it in already accepted terms. We don't really do it. And beyond a certain age it becomes increasingly harder to break the linguistic habits we've formed.
And that last point is also critical. Remember that thought, memories and communication are all tied to linguistics. These are critical things for all humans. And they are things we use all of the time. Of course our brains like to iron these out as quickly as makes sense. If you woke up tomorrow and successfully decided to change the way you decode language you could, instantly, become a non-functional person. The heavy usage of linguistics also naturally strengthens those neural links in our brain.
While I don't think it is ever too late to start expanding your linguistic skills. I also think that the weak form of linguistic relativity is a real thing and takes over in full force by the time we stop actively developing language in a chid like fashion. That being said, I don't necessarily think becoming multi-lingual by that point is necessary. Ensuring a broad understanding of as many linguistic concepts as possible is probably the most important. A second language may simply be an easier shortcut to that goal, especially if the other language is richer in some way or contains whole concepts which your language doesn't.
If you read the above link you'll find mention to a strong and a weak form. Where basically, the strong says that language, effectively sets some hard limits.
I don't agree with this. I think that the existence and growth of language is sufficient proof that it is incorrect. Languages grew and evolved. Take any word, or any concept. There was a point in time when that word or concept did not exist in your language. Or, for that matter, in any language. In other words, there must have been a point in time for every word, and every concept in every language where it breached that limit.
I do believe that there is a soft limit. I believe it is a VERY difficult thing to do. Language does influence, and influence VERY heavily how we think and what we are capable of thinking. Of this, I don't have much doubt. I think in language, I remember in language. Heck, I even dream in language.
If you look at language on a larger scale, it gets even more profound. Language aren't JUST collections of words and rules. They also contain (amongst other elements) things like figures of speech and compound words. For people learning a new language, these are often the most profound things to learn. These little things can reshape how you perceive something very important, or even many things in general. Watching this Ted Talk by Roxanne Pomerantz gives an example with someone learning about "falling in love". The language her friend knew had words for "falling" and "love", but not the concept of actually falling into it. It changed her perception in a profound way.
That same video also talks about the speaker learning about what I imagine to be the opposite of home sickness. Something literally translated as "icthy feet" describing that desire to get out. It is a minor change. But, I've just heard about it less than 20 minutes ago, and it has already reshaped the way I think about and feel when being cooped up for too long.
But what if it isn't JUST a figure of speech or a way of looking at something? What if, entire words or even language constructs are missing? Well, here is a Ted Talk on just that by Phuc Tran. It is profound the way that growing up without this linguistic concept materializes in interactions between the speaker and his father. The speaker grew up in America and has a good understanding of the subjunctive. His father, after moving to America, likely uses it to some degree now, but it isn't part of his native tongue and it manifests in a drastically different way of thinking and speaking. He forms thoughts and sentences like a Vietnamese native, even in English.
That same video also talks about the happiest and least happy places on Earth. And Vietnam, while a poor place polled as being one of the happiest. And one the least happy? France, a place whose native language has 2 forms of the subjunctive. Cleary, we can't absolutely say that language is the sole cause, or even if it is one at all. But, it does seem that language is likely to have some impact. I mean, as the speaker points out, his father rarely talks or even considers what could be or what might have been. And dwelling on those sorts of things is definitely a cause for depression in many. The subjunctive also, it appears, provided an outlet for the speaker to find happiness which wasn't otherwise there.
At the end of the day, yes, I believe language sets some soft limits on what we are capable of thinking. I also believe what we already know about linguistics shapes the way we think and perceive things. It is definitely one of the many reasons I'm enjoying learning Japanese. It HAS expanded my vocabulary and my ability to express myself. It HAS shone new light and meaning on things, even in my native tongue. I also have no doubts that growing up in an effectively purely English environment that there may be notions and nuances of the Japanese language which I'll never be able to fully grasp and thus lights that will never shine in the dark areas of what I could know or experience.
Think about just how profound language is. While we see it, primarily as a means of communicating, it is actually so much more. And communication, in some senses ends up being a mere side effect. We store memories linguistically. We analyze the world using the corpus of language of available to us. We think in one or more languages. Beyond a certain age we don't think or analyze or remember in terms of anything which we cannot apply words too.
Sure, we can create new words and new phrases, but we don't really teach this as a skill. It would, after all, run the risk of defeating the perceived primary purpose of language. I can experience something and name that experience or feeling "mahfg". But, if I used that word with someone else, they wouldn't understand. I'd also need to remember the experience or feeling myself. It is cumbersome and usually less useful than simply trying to understand it in already accepted terms. We don't really do it. And beyond a certain age it becomes increasingly harder to break the linguistic habits we've formed.
And that last point is also critical. Remember that thought, memories and communication are all tied to linguistics. These are critical things for all humans. And they are things we use all of the time. Of course our brains like to iron these out as quickly as makes sense. If you woke up tomorrow and successfully decided to change the way you decode language you could, instantly, become a non-functional person. The heavy usage of linguistics also naturally strengthens those neural links in our brain.
While I don't think it is ever too late to start expanding your linguistic skills. I also think that the weak form of linguistic relativity is a real thing and takes over in full force by the time we stop actively developing language in a chid like fashion. That being said, I don't necessarily think becoming multi-lingual by that point is necessary. Ensuring a broad understanding of as many linguistic concepts as possible is probably the most important. A second language may simply be an easier shortcut to that goal, especially if the other language is richer in some way or contains whole concepts which your language doesn't.
Comments
Post a Comment