Many years ago, I read S.I. Hayakawa’s Language in Thought and Action, an elaboration of Alfred Korzybski’s Theory of General Semantics. In a nutshell, Hayakawa promotes the idea that the language we speak forms, or at least informs, some of the ways we look at the world. I was quite taken with this notion, have re-read the book a number of times, and have often used examples from it when discussing communication.
More recently, I’ve been reading Steven Pinker. While I haven’t yet read The Blank Slate, I devoured The Language Instinct and How the Mind Works. Pinker seems to dash Hayakawa, and is adamant that our thought processes are independent of the language we speak.
I have a slim volume on my bookshelf called Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, a book that examines the differences, at least in classical times, between an Indo-European and a Semitic construct of the world. It was written in German in the early 50s (Das hebraische Denken im Vergleich mi dem Griechischen) by a Norwegian writer named Thorleif Boman, and translated and published in English (and Japanese) some years later. I’ve never made my way completely through this work, because it is very dense reading. I do, though, feel appropriate guilt.
A few bits from the table of contents will illuminate some of the directions the author takes:
- The psychology of the tenses: the concepts ‘present’ and ‘contemporaneity’
- Form: In Kant and Plato is spatially transcendental, a notion lacking among the Hebrews whose words for form designate the entire object
- Psychic time: Before and after are temporal terms conceived in opposite ways by Greeks and Hebrews
That the author is Norwegian and that the book also appeared in Japanese suggests to me that Henri may be favorably disposed to reading this work in its entirety and posting his review of same in this forum . . .
I read "the Language Instinct" by Pinker a few months ago, and thought that he made some very clear points about thought and language. Of course, his atheism is a bother, but that was only one chapter.
I’ll review his book in relation to this topic. If the link is working now, you can see some of the logic behind the idea that language doesn’t limit thought, and that language is not the lense through which we see the world. I am saying language here, not culture.
[quote author=Sitran link=board=translate;num=1049409264;start=0#2 date=04/03/03 at 21:26:40]you can see some of the logic behind the idea that language doesn’t limit thought, and that language is not the lense through which we see the world. I am saying language here, not culture.
Sitran
I haven’t read anything about this in about 15 years, and then it was just a few handouts in college classes (followed by discussions of the subject, though). I can’t decide if I disagree with you, or if I misunderstand the limits of what you are suggesting. I suspect it is the latter. It has been my experience that language limits thought to the degree that it establishes the norms of culture, and has an enormous effect on the learning curve. I can’t see how not having a word for red, creates a situation in which one cannot hold the concept of red in one’s mind. However, if language does not exist, or is not used, to describe a concept (and to a lesser degree, an experience or way of being) some people will not ever think about a concept and it will have no influence on knowledge or experience. Others will hold the concept in their minds, but have to deal with the potential illegitimacy of the concept within their culture. Also, not having language for a concept makes it likely that the idea will not be given its voice in the language (not that it can’t be described in some less direct fashion) and thus making it less available (for both thought and transmission) and less likely to be taught.
So, I don’t see that not having a word for something in a language renders the speakers of that language brain damaged on the concept. However, in some instances, not having the word does damage the ability to transmit the idea, or to just have the thought in the first place, in such a way that it influences all of that language’s culture.
One thing I was thinking about is inclusive language in the church. Another thing I was thinking about is my experience with childbirth and breastfeeding. I am not certain that y’all want to hear about that, but in short, I have realized that my ability to both learn from the experiences of other mothers, and my ability to conceptualize some of what I needed to know, has been negatively affected by a lack of words to describe those things. It took a long time for me to be able to understand what others were trying to tell me because I lacked both a reference point in experience, and the language to describe the concepts. That isn’t to say that after enough different words were tried, and various descriptions were suggested, that I didn’t have an "ah ha!" moment. I did… which lends itself to the idea that my brain was capable of holding the thought even without a good word to tag it. But sometimes the absence of a word in a language, will suggest to its speakers an absence of the concept itself. Then, only the pioneering free-thinkers, and maybe a few others who would prefer otherwise, will stumble onto the truth that the language fails to describe.
Are we saying the same thing, Sitran? We might be agreeing. I’m not certain.
I was thinking that you might disagree with me (and in the end you might), but it seems that everyone is trying to train me into something that we are not, old feather fowl; they seem to think that is good enough to get rid our language (which ever or might it be) and sit the heir to some wonderous throne of equality.
Tongues do not work like that: I can only see the resemblance of the caste system of the Hindus and the Republic of Plato.
One thing I know, the Republicans and the true Anarchists have always been betrayed by the Communist Revolutions. Fidel is a Tyrant; Saddam was a tyrant; Ill is a tyrant, etc., etc., etc.
So many tyrants and such a long history (herstory).
Herstory ended when the (white) men showed up. Such a tragedy, every(genome) survived.
If I explained it right, I believe that the rule for the obviousness of language ruling thought is:
[quote author=Sitran link=board=translate;num=1049409264;start=0#4 date=04/04/03 at 09:56:31]I was thinking that you might disagree with me (and in the end you might), but it seems that everyone is trying to train me into something that we are not, old feather fowl; they seem to think that is good enough to get rid our language (which ever or might it be) and sit the heir to some wonderous throne of equality.
I don’t know who everyone is, but I don’t have an agenda here. Your opening paragraph is very unclear to me. "Old feather fowl"? Get rid of what in our language? Equality? Are you refering to my mention of inclusive language in the Church?
Tongues do not work like that: I can only see the resemblance of the caste system of the Hindus and the Republic of Plato. One thing I know, the Republicans and the true Anarchists have always been betrayed by the Communist Revolutions. Fidel is a Tyrant; Saddam was a tyrant; Ill is a tyrant, etc., etc., etc.
I am worried that I will appear extremely ignorant, and I hate that, but I am honestly clueless about the connection between language/thought and Hindus and Plato, or what forms of government have to do with this discussion. As I said, I am uneducated about the research regarding language and thought, and so perhaps this reference is clear to those who are more informed that I am. Is this something that the linguists refer to in their books?
So many tyrants and such a long history (herstory). Herstory ended when the (white) men showed up.
Herstory has not ended, and it is certainly not limited to a particular race.
Such a tragedy, every(genome) survived.
Again, I am lost. I know that some of the theories discuss a genetic link to grammar. Is this what you are getting at here?
I’m sorry I didn’t understand your post. I still can’t tell if we are coming at this from the same position or not. If you believe I am too uneducated on this subject to discuss it with you, feel free to tell me so.
I think any thoughts can be expressed in any language once that thought occurs (although not necessarily with the same flavor—but that’s another story). As Sitran says, a lack of words in a language for a certain concept is compensated for by introducing new words (from another language or an inventing new words) or by circumscribing the thought with several words. The speakers of a language are not limited in what they are able to put into thought simply because there are no specific words for it. The words will be found.
However, as Shannon said, will the thought even occur if it does not exist in the language?
I have two examples that I think illustrate the point. They are reciprocal cases in English and German where one language differentiates between two concepts and the other does not.
1. In English, a distinction is made between shade and a shadow. German does not differentiate. The word used for both is Schatten. English speakers look at the phenomenon of darkness caused by obstruction of light in two different ways while Germans see it as a single concept. Of course, this does not mean that a German speaker cannot grasp the difference once it is explained to him. It merely means that this distinction is not immediately apparent and I do not think it would spontaneously occur to a German speaker that there is a difference.
2. In German, a distinction is made between kennen and wissen (as in Spanish: conocer and saber). Roughly, kennen is used for familiarity with a person, place or thing while wissen is to know information. English does not differentiate and uses to know for both. Old English had to ken and to wit, but I don’t know if these held that distinction. Present day speakers of English simply do not make this distinction and again, I am not sure this inherent difference it would occur to them if left to their own devices.
Do these examples not represent a limitation? The native speaker is missing a distinction that definitely exists since other languages make it. That means he is lacking a certain bit of information. Can’t we then conclude that his thinking is more limited with respect to this particular case?
Ilka
P.S. (Sitran, shush, your exposing me. They’re all going to see me living up to the German reputation for Ordnung muss sein. ) Yes, your lines are looking great. Very readable indeed. Thanks, too, for the interesting discussion thread.
I’d like clarify what I wrote. Sitran said at the top of the thread that "language does not limit thought". In fact, in the cases that I present, I don’t think the language with only one word for a concept is "restricting" thought in any way. After all, the difference between kennen and wissen can be expressed—explained—in English. However, the language is not actively fostering recognition of the distinction. It does not itself contain the distinction and there does not force the speaker to think along those lines.
[quote author=ilka link=board=translate;num=1049409264;start=0#7 date=04/04/03 at 11:56:43] After all, the difference between kennen and wissen can be expressed—explained—in English. However, the language is not actively fostering recognition of the distinction. It does not itself contain the distinction and there does not force the speaker to think along those lines.
Ilka
I had a similar experience with English and Hebrew. In the book of Genesis, in Hebrew, God’s ruach, or maybe a ruach from God…. or God as ruach
is the wind that blows across the "face of the deep", and is breathed into the Adamah, and is the spirit of God. In English these are three separate things. In Hebrew they are all ruach. To my mind, the notion of God as ruach, or of spirit, wind and breath being the same… or at least conceptually related, brings an element of pantheism to Judaism and Christianity. Not to the exclusion of God incarnate, but in addition to it. This is something I didn’t know about, and had never formed in my mind, before I learned Hebrew. That isn’t to say that I didn’t personally have a revelations of God with pantheistic (or maybe I mean panentheistic… hmmmm) elements, but I never thought I had a scriptural leg to stand on within the Church. Pantheism is still a heresy in Christianity, but now I know that it is not absent within the tradition, all the same.
My point here, as I don’t think I was very clear, is that while the language barrier didn’t stop me from thinking a thought, as I still thought about God in pantheistic, or panentheistic, ways without knowing that the original language of the Bible alluded to that very idea. However, because of the overspecification of English when translated from Hebrew, I failed to see the reference in the stories that I was familiar with. English speakers, in general, I think miss out on a beautiful image in Genesis, and the fullness of the language about God, because of the words we substitute. And that is a reverse situation… the language is divided into specifics and loses the poetry and beauty of a multifaseted word! The division definately hindered my understanding of the story, and shaped my view of both Christianity and the Jewish and Christian God.
~Shannon
[quote author=ilka link=board=translate;num=1049409264;start=0#6 date=04/04/03 at 11:33:40][center]...[/center]2. In German, a distinction is made between kennen and wissen (as in Spanish: conocer and saber). Roughly, kennen is used for familiarity with a person, place or thing while wissen is to know information. English does not differentiate and uses to know for both. Old English had to ken and to wit, but I don’t know if these held that distinction. Present day speakers of English simply do not make this distinction and again, I am not sure this inherent difference it would occur to them if left to their own devices.
Reminds me of the old Swedish joke (which may well be German in origin—one never knows !—about the three kinds of (medical) doctors :
Först finns det (intern)medicinare—de vet mycket men de kan ingenting. Sen finns det kirurger—de kan mycket, men de vet ingenting. Och sen finns det patologer—de vet mycket och de kan mycket, men för sent !
This joke turns upon the difference between kunna (corresponding to German können), which means know in the sense of know how, like knowing how to ride a bike and veta (corresponds to German wissen, which as ilka points out, means to know information (Sw läsefrukter, G Lesefruchte). I should have no problem explaining the above joke to English speakers—especially to a medical audience—but I don’t think I could translate it ; i e, transform it into a joke at which English speakers would laugh. (Perhaps Palewriter will take up the gauntlet ?) A (re?)translation into German, on the other hand, would, I think, be relative straightforword. This again—to me—indicates that language can and does influence thought and categories of thought, but I should not go so far as to say that the former determines the latter—that would be to drastically oversimplify a dialectic relationship. (For my previous discussion of another case that indicates the presence of such influence, I refer the interested to my latest letter on the newspeak thread.) But I agree with ilka ; it’s nice to get a thread exclusively (?) devoted to this line of inquiry (along with a few kicks at Fidel, et al)....
Henri (or, in my other life, Nothingness Incarnate)
[quote author=Agoraphile link=board=translate;num=1049409264;start=0#10 date=04/04/03 at 16:40:35] ... Reminds me of the time Sartre was sitting in a Parisian cafe working on his book ‘On Being and Nothingness.’
Ah, another passionate reader of L’Être et Le Neant ! I remember becoming so angry with le bon Jean Paul after encountering phrases like Being welling up from the Heart of Nothingness, that I wanted to go to Paris, grab him by the scruff of the neck, and give him a course in symbolic logic ! Do you have any references for that charming anecdote, or is it merely an example of the «rat in the pizza» genre ?...
[quote author=M._Henri_Day link=board=translate;num=1049409264;start=0#11 date=04/04/03 at 17:51:06]Do you have any references for that charming anecdote, or is it merely an example of the «rat in the pizza» genre ?...
More appropriately, un escargot dans une baguette.
Getting back to the topic (aah! having trouble typing after a lot of work at piano - this is taking me forever to type) of language and thought…
What if we say that certain language forms, words, etc. promote thought. I don’t particularly like thinking that language limits thought.
Limit, promote, and influence are very different words and they all affect my thinking on the subject of this thread.
But that is not the kind of thing I care about. We have established that translations between languages are available.
What I’m interested in is the way promote contains the word mote and what an interesting thing it is that it makes me think of dust motes! Or how about this: the shapes of written words. Looking at my post, I find the words between and influence to have similar shapes, so they’re similar words in that way.
Looking back at your posts, (ilka and Shannon), I see that I’m trying to get at the same question: will the thought occur given different languages?
I think my example indicates (to me anyway)this: I imagine we could agree that our thoughts are influenced (or limited or whatever) by everything around us, or if not everything then lots of things. Language is just one of them.
LIke my cat, who tells me there is a problem with the front door and it should be opened now. I would no more think to open the door if it wasn’t for her than I would think of dust motes after hearing the word promote if it wasn’t for the English language.
) Yes, your lines are looking great. Very readable indeed. Thanks, too, for the interesting discussion thread.
