Does our primary language influence how we think/see the world?

TheOracle

TheOracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,487
Reaction score
0
Can you learn new thngs without having a language for it?

Take the Pirahã lanugage and people. They have words for "more" and "less" but not numbers. According to some controversial experiments, they do not know how to count and could not be taught number concepts (one, two, three, etc., as opposed to just larger and smaller). Their words for color are very few. (Some languages don't have words that distinguish between blue and green, for example.) Their language can be whistled and has few phenomes. It's very tonal.

This tribe is considered "primitive". For more, you can Wiki or Google. Daniel Everett has a great book on his work there.

Pirahã people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you think people who speak different languages think differently than you do? See the world differently? Have a different reality? Basically - does your language influence your thought (and cognitive) processes?

Can you know something without being able to describe it? How could you teach concepts to someone who has no language?
 
I dont know if this fits in here.. but i really dislike how theres words for things in spanish that just translate the same into english..same with spanish to asl asl to spanish/english
I quite dislike that.
 
This is an old debate in linguistics stemming from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It's been shown time and again that languages adjust and evolve based on what is needed from them by the people who use it. If the words do not exist, they will be created--the concepts will be invented as a matter of necessity.

A good quote that exemplifies this is from Roman Jakobson: “Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.”
 
violet said:
I dont know if this fits in here.. but i really dislike how theres words for things in spanish that just translate the same into english..same with spanish to asl asl to spanish/english
I quite dislike that.
Click to expand...


por que ? You mean when the word is the same? Like borrowing from other languages?

The Write Alex: Yeah, I happen to believe in linguistic relativity. And there's a difference between what just influences and what is absolute.

Yes, languages revolve around what is important. We've established that. But if you're told all your life that "this is green" and "this is green" but one is green and one is blue, then are you going to struggle with the difference in an environment where there's a distinction?

How about framing? Plenty of people on this board believe in framing. You don't think the word "disability" influences how people think?!

It's already been established that there's a sensitive period for language acquisition. Is there a sensitive period for math acquisition? How do you teach the Pirahã algebra if they don't have words for numbers?
 
TheOracle said:
por que ? You mean when the word is the same? Like borrowing from other languages?

The Write Alex: Yeah, I happen to believe in linguistic relativity. And there's a difference between what just influences and what is absolute.

Yes, languages revolve around what is important. We've established that. But if you're told all your life that "this is green" and "this is green" but one is green and one is blue, then are you going to struggle with the difference in an environment where there's a distinction?

How about framing? Plenty of people on this board believe in framing. You don't think the word "disability" influences how people think?!

It's already been established that there's a sensitive period for language acquisition. Is there a sensitive period for math acquisition? How do you teach the Pirahã algebra if they don't have words for numbers?
Click to expand...

Going along with the whole thinking differently when you speak a different langauge..
what i mean is you may be thinking of one word (like i think a lot in spanish) and when i think of the word in english/asl there just is no exact translation..sometimes it gives such a different effect to somethings meaning
make sense?
 
TheOracle said:
The Write Alex: Yeah, I happen to believe in linguistic relativity. And there's a difference between what just influences and what is absolute.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt for a second that our language influences the way we think and perceive the world. I know of no linguist who disagrees with that. But the idea that language restricts our perception of the world around us is a much trickier subject. Why? Because it involves two or more people with different L1s making assumptions about the other person's perception of the world. From a scientific viewpoint, that is unknowable (which is why we humans have invented something called "empathy," allowing us to emotionally understand viewpoints that are unknowable to our individual perception).


Yes, languages revolve around what is important. We've established that. But if you're told all your life that "this is green" and "this is green" but one is green and one is blue, then are you going to struggle with the difference in an environment where there's a distinction?
Click to expand...

What type of environment are you talking about? A physical environment or a social environment?

In a physical environment where survival depends on knowing the difference between blue and green (blue flower=poisonous. Green flower=safe), you'll certainly struggle at first, but assuming you don't die, you'll quickly develop the internal language to distinguish between blue and green quickly enough for survival.

In a social environment where wearing blue=cool and wearing green=dorky, you'll be picked on and laughed at if you wear green, but in time you'll adopt the attitudes of the society as a need to be accepted by the group (survival), and thus you'll acquire the language used to distinguish between green and blue.

I believe our eyes will always be able to distinguish between different colors, and the language to describe what we see will follow--not the other way around. It's just a matter of what our mind needs to do with that information. If there's no practical reason for our brain to distinguish between hunter green and seafoam green, then it will group the two together, and the language to describe both will be the same (they are both just "green"). If there is a practical need, language will adjust accordingly.


How about framing? Plenty of people on this board believe in framing. You don't think the word "disability" influences how people think?!
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. But this has just as much to do with rhetoric and social theory as it does with linguistic properties, and it's a VERRRRYYY complicated question.


It's already been established that there's a sensitive period for language acquisition. Is there a sensitive period for math acquisition? How do you teach the Pirahã algebra if they don't have words for numbers?
Click to expand...

Well, you couldn't teach them algebra using their own language, that's for sure. But how would algebra benefit a group of indigenous people living in pretty much the same way for thousands of years? Until they decide as a culture that it's important to know algebra, the language to describe that math will not exist.
 
violet said:
Going along with the whole thinking differently when you speak a different langauge..
what i mean is you may be thinking of one word (like i think a lot in spanish) and when i think of the word in english/asl there just is no exact translation..sometimes it gives such a different effect to somethings meaning
make sense?
Click to expand...

ah, yes. you know that french doesn't have as many words as I thought it did? I know that many regions have governing bodies for language, but I was surprised.

do you feel a little more knowledgeable about the world knowing three langauges? everyone says bi and multi linguals are more creative.
 
Alex -

I don't doubt that people develop language as they see fit. But the questions I'm asking are the same questions that have been asked since antiquity. My interest in the subject isn't to discredit any culture or language. It's a legitimate inquiry.

Language influences our world view. That's pretty much a given. That's also the feeling of (most) relativists nowadays.

One of the things I love about linguistics is that it takes the "soft" sciences and the "hard" sciences and puts them together. If you consider Chomskian linguistics, which asserts there is a critical period for learning a language, then why not ask it about math? It's definitely worthy of consideration.

If a group does not have need, for, say, algebra, then how can you say their world view isn't different? They also have no written history. Now, I believe that writing is a human invention. But according to scientists who have visited, they seem to have no history. Can you imagine a world without books? Internet? Bills to pay? Tell me that doesn't change your world view.

What does empathy have to do with it?

RE: Color: There are a lot of studies on this. I just randomly googled color perception + language and here's a hit Hues and views for anyone else that's interested.

dis
able
ity

Yes, that clearly influences how we think. I don't know what your argument is. It sounds like you agree with me...?



TheWriteAlex said:
I do not doubt for a second that our language influences the way we think and perceive the world. I know of no linguist who disagrees with that. But the idea that language restricts our perception of the world around us is a much trickier subject. Why? Because it involves two or more people with different L1s making assumptions about the other person's perception of the world. From a scientific viewpoint, that is unknowable (which is why we humans have invented something called "empathy," allowing us to emotionally understand viewpoints that are unknowable to our individual perception).




What type of environment are you talking about? A physical environment or a social environment?

In a physical environment where survival depends on knowing the difference between blue and green (blue flower=poisonous. Green flower=safe), you'll certainly struggle at first, but assuming you don't die, you'll quickly develop the internal language to distinguish between blue and green quickly enough for survival.

In a social environment where wearing blue=cool and wearing green=dorky, you'll be picked on and laughed at if you wear green, but in time you'll adopt the attitudes of the society as a need to be accepted by the group (survival), and thus you'll acquire the language used to distinguish between green and blue.

I believe our eyes will always be able to distinguish between different colors, and the language to describe what we see will follow--not the other way around. It's just a matter of what our mind needs to do with that information. If there's no practical reason for our brain to distinguish between hunter green and seafoam green, then it will group the two together, and the language to describe both will be the same (they are both just "green"). If there is a practical need, language will adjust accordingly.




Oh absolutely. But this has just as much to do with rhetoric and social theory as it does with linguistic properties, and it's a VERRRRYYY complicated question.




Well, you couldn't teach them algebra using their own language, that's for sure. But how would algebra benefit a group of indigenous people living in pretty much the same way for thousands of years? Until they decide as a culture that it's important to know algebra, the language to describe that math will not exist.
Click to expand...
 
Most linguists think there is a certain time period one has to learn their first language. After that, you can't acquire a language at proficient level. Now, obvisouly that's very hard to study, but the current research seems to support that idea. (Google "Feral children")

That's why I was wondering about math...is it possible to learn number concepts after puberty (critical period)?

Math is a language, albeit a diferent kind, but dyscalculia is a type of dyslexia, so that would be really interesting to study...

but how can anyone deny that without language, we can't build on our knowledge? have you ever been able to remember information without naming it? how could i explain to you, oh, i don't know, a power plant if don't even have a word for electricity, much less nuclear?

What's the whole purpose of language, anyway? To communicate what we know, right?
 
TheOracle said:
Most linguists think there is a certain time period one has to learn their first language. After that, you can't acquire a language at proficient level. Now, obvisouly that's very hard to study, but the current research seems to support that idea. (Google "Feral children")

That's why I was wondering about math...is it possible to learn number concepts after puberty (critical period)?

Math is a language, albeit a diferent kind, but dyscalculia is a type of dyslexia, so that would be really interesting to study...

but how can anyone deny that without language, we can't build on our knowledge? have you ever been able to remember information without naming it? how could i explain to you, oh, i don't know, a power plant if don't even have a word for electricity, much less nuclear?

What's the whole purpose of language, anyway? To communicate what we know, right?
Click to expand...

I'll respond to your prior post in time, but I'll answer this one quickly before I head out for a bit (Friday night, ya know?)

If math is a language that utilizes the same faculties of the brain that verbal language does, then would it matter if one is learned before the other?

If I'm not mistaken, the idea behind the "critical period" is that the neural pathways which process language must be mapped fully by a particular time (some say this is five years old, some say it's three, some say early adolescence, and so on), then those neural pathways are never developed. If this is the case, then it's a matter of physical properties in our brain, and as long as the physical properties for ANY language are developed, then there shouldn't be a problem transferring this to acquiring new language. Right?

The problem is, while math utilizes some of the same parts of the brain as verbal language, there is some distinction as well. It is a language, but it's not language. The two can develop independent of each other (research in savant abilities and autistic children support this).

It could very well be that there are "critical periods" for many different types of cognitive processes, but right now, we are devoting far more research time and energy to verbal language. I don't think there's anything wrong with that; I just think we still have a LOOOOOTTTT to learn about our brains.
 
Sure! I know that math is not the same thing as verbal/main language, but I am curious how it works...savants...another story...also, just because someone doesn't speak doesn't mean they aren't exposed to language. and concepts. yeah?

I don't know a lot about the brain and math. I know a little - kind of what I picked up concerning literacy and the brain - but not a lot. And of course I've read some of George Lakoff.

Math and language uses some of the same parts of the brain, but your left temporal lobe is is extremely complex...so...I donno. I thought that Everett couldn't even teach them numbers when he tried? Maybe he couldn't. Maybe they didn't want a white dude teaching them new shit.

Who knows?
 
Language is cultural (ethnically) bound.

The language itself is parsimonious, if it had too much complexities no one would be able to understand it, or speak it. After all, what good is a language that only one or two people can understand how to use? All languages are easy enough to learn given that the individual is constantly immersed, and has a willingness to acquire it.

The way I observe the multiple languages utilized in the world is a hierarchy like a phylogenetic tree. Older languages derive and new languages branch off it, just like how old korean is not the same as modern hangul, chinese and cantonese are not exactly the same, UK english, american english *even yorker vs midwestern (standard) english) have varying regional differences, exactly the same regional difference given in american sign vs say Australian sign. What you learn in the language is exactly part of that culture, which, you will see the world in that view. We have slang for people of non-american race, so do those races have identifier words for americans.


Your reason for why mathematics is different is simple to explain. It's not a language per say - we learn what numbers and variables LOOK like - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, pi, Θ, α, dx, whatever else you want to toss in, the rest is history. This is all arithmetic, a brain processes operations differently compared to how it will process a question. I daresay you may realize other species in the animal kingdom can process simple math, too. s1 s2, s3 thus, from my reasoning (biological rhetoric) should not be considered a primary language, it is more of a conceptual area that is mutual between species of higher functioning.
 
I don't disagree that math is a different kind of language. But as far as I know, no one has ever done a study about a sensitivity period w/math. If they have, I'd be really interested. That's not what I'm unfamiliar with...I'm unfamiliar with the specific neurological relationships between math and the brain (aside from pointing at a certain part and saying, "this is where logic and math skills are supposed to be").

Math is language, yes. But it's not a made-up one. It's a language that already exists - we're just not fluent yet.

As far as language goes...being immersed in language AFTER you know your first is one thing...but never acquiring any language is another. it would be a lot easier for me to learn German right now than Cantonese. :P some things are wired early.
 
TheOracle said:
ah, yes. you know that french doesn't have as many words as I thought it did? I know that many regions have governing bodies for language, but I was surprised.

do you feel a little more knowledgeable about the world knowing three langauges? everyone says bi and multi linguals are more creative.
Click to expand...

creative yes to some extent.. i wish it made me smarter though :P
 
naisho said:
Language is cultural (ethnically) bound.

The language itself is parsimonious, if it had too much complexities no one would be able to understand it, or speak it. After all, what good is a language that only one or two people can understand how to use? All languages are easy enough to learn given that the individual is constantly immersed, and has a willingness to acquire it.

The way I observe the multiple languages utilized in the world is a hierarchy like a phylogenetic tree. Older languages derive and new languages branch off it, just like how old korean is not the same as modern hangul, chinese and cantonese are not exactly the same, UK english, american english *even yorker vs midwestern (standard) english) have varying regional differences, exactly the same regional difference given in american sign vs say Australian sign. What you learn in the language is exactly part of that culture, which, you will see the world in that view. We have slang for people of non-american race, so do those races have identifier words for americans.


Your reason for why mathematics is different is simple to explain. It's not a language per say - we learn what numbers and variables LOOK like - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, pi, Θ, α, dx, whatever else you want to toss in, the rest is history. This is all arithmetic, a brain processes operations differently compared to how it will process a question. I daresay you may realize other species in the animal kingdom can process simple math, too. s1 s2, s3 thus, from my reasoning (biological rhetoric) should not be considered a primary language, it is more of a conceptual area that is mutual between species of higher functioning.
Click to expand...
:roll: this is too much for my brain :P
 
violet said:
:roll: this is too much for my brain :P
Click to expand...

Click the links and read some of them, I'm confident you'll be okay from there. :cool:

Anyway, I'm sure you are accustomed to some of the dialect differences between Spain-spanish and mexico-spanish or even cuban right?
This is kinda what I mean, if I said "yo soy chicano" you'd probably realize right away I have no direct association with Spain.. I think I have this right. :P
 
naisho said:
Click the links and read some of them, I'm confident you'll be okay from there. :cool:

Anyway, I'm sure you are accustomed to some of the dialect differences between Spain-spanish and mexico-spanish or even cuban right?
This is kinda what I mean, if I said "yo soy chicano" you'd probably realize right away I have no direct association with Spain.. I think I have this right. :P
Click to expand...

AH... exactly...
makes sense!!!
I'm mexican :P

TheOracle said:
whaaaa un chicano is a mexican !
Click to expand...

actually wrong.. chicano was made from a a chicago born mexican person
hench the CHIC in the word
its like here we are tejanos or texanos whatever.
so if you want to be technical they arent mexican
 
Back
Top