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

Mexican American, i meant. not from Spain, or Guatemala, or anywhere else. i don't understand his post.
 
Oh, now I get it. I read it wrong. I thought he was saying "Yo soy Chicano" meant you WOULD be from Spain...or something...blah! Anyway. Chicano = Mexican American.

Chicano English...George Lopez. tee hee.
 
TheOracle said:
Oh, now I get it. I read it wrong. I thought he was saying "Yo soy Chicano" meant you WOULD be from Spain...or something...blah! Anyway. Chicano = Mexican American.

Chicano English...George Lopez. tee hee.
Click to expand...
was george lopez born in Chicago?
:P
just kidding.. i need to stop being so technically correct.
 
violet said:
AH... exactly...
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
Click to expand...

That's not really true, actually. THE CHICANO MOVEMENT
 
TheWriteAlex said:
That's not really true, actually. THE CHICANO MOVEMENT
Click to expand...

For those who like simplistic answers, Chicano can be defined as short for Mexicano. For those who prefer complicated answers, it has been suggested that Chicano may have come from the work Chihuahua—the name of a Mexican state bordering on the United States. Getting trickier, this version then contends that the Mexicans who migrated to Texas call themselves Chicanos because having crossed into the United States from Chihuahua they adopted the first three letters of that state, Chi, and then added came, for the latter part of Texano.
Click to expand...

LAMENESS!!!!!


if you ask us mexicans we say.. you're born in mexico you're mexican.. if you're born Here in the US. with mexican parents they consider you a chicano..but then chicanos from chicago will say they're the original



we should get back on to subject
 
TheOracle said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, a part of the IEPs that I write, there is a section called "mathematical thinking" in which the students would need to apply mathematical concepts to their daily lives. I am not sure if that would be considered as a language as people dont really use math to communicate daily like we use ASL, English, French, and etc.

However, I do agree that mathematics can be integrated into the primary language of the person.
 
I dont think it is the language itself that influences our way of thinking. I think it is culture that does it and language is part of the culture.
 
shel90 said:
I dont think it is the language itself that influences our way of thinking. I think it is culture that does it and language is part of the culture.
Click to expand...

But if culture influences language, then isn't language a reflection of culture? And wouldn't that mean that language influences the way you think?

Some people think that linguistic studies such as this are racist or ethnocentric...but I think it's a valid statement.

Obviously not all cultures share the same world view. So why would languages?
 
TheOracle said:
But if culture influences language, then isn't language a reflection of culture? And wouldn't that mean that language influences the way you think?

Some people think that linguistic studies such as this are racist or ethnocentric...but I think it's a valid statement.

Obviously not all cultures share the same world view. So why would languages?
Click to expand...

Can you explain how the different syntax and all that in all the different language influence our thinking?
 
shel90 said:
Can you explain how the different syntax and all that in all the different language influence our thinking?
Click to expand...

Hmm. I usually think of this in terms of vocabulary, not syntax (rhetoric, in case you haven't noticed, is my "thing" tee hee :D) but I know there have been studies on processing and syntax - kind of like I mentioned in another thread about native ASL users and readers of Chinese characters have similar processing...so do you mean in brain development or just literally something like word order? (ie, emphasis on topic, or noun first versus adjective?)

There's an awesome book I read, shel, and I advise you to get it since you're a teacher, even if you just read a few chapters. It's called Proust and the Squid and it argues that writing is a human invention. It isn't natural like language. And then it goes into detail about how certain cultures (with radically different languages) tend to "see" things differently and how brain processing differs among written languages.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Proust-Squid-Story-Science-Reading/dp/0060186399]Amazon.com: Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain (9780060186395): Maryanne Wolf: Books[/ame]

She also explores "word poverty", something that's been echoed here on AD....where children don't receive enough language input and suffer a sort of deficit.

Anyway...the book completely tripped me up when I got it.
 
Shel, I'm not sure how to answer your q because I don't know what you mean specifically, but I'd love to start that discussion and see what we can explore...if you think about it, our "inner voice" doesn't always have the same syntax, as, say, our speaking (in the hearing world) voice.

Arguably, ASL is closer to people' inner thoughts than English, since people tend to think visually. Hmm...maybe this is why the Internet is so universal!

Some languages don't have transitive verbs. I *believe* some languages don't have verb phrases (such as "bring up your children to be Catholic" when "bring" means a motion). When you say the word "bring", I'd have to quickly identify the meaning of the word using context. That would suggest the use of other cognitive processes, yes?

*hmmm*

I wonder if certain cultures are stereotypically better at math because of this?
 
TheOracle said:
Shel, I'm not sure how to answer your q because I don't know what you mean specifically, but I'd love to start that discussion and see what we can explore...if you think about it, our "inner voice" doesn't always have the same syntax, as, say, our speaking (in the hearing world) voice.

Arguably, ASL is closer to people' inner thoughts than English, since people tend to think visually. Hmm...maybe this is why the Internet is so universal!

Some languages don't have transitive verbs. I *believe* some languages don't have verb phrases (such as "bring up your children to be Catholic" when "bring" means a motion). When you say the word "bring", I'd have to quickly identify the meaning of the word using context. That would suggest the use of other cognitive processes, yes?

*hmmm*

I wonder if certain cultures are stereotypically better at math because of this?
Click to expand...

Like Japan, for one?
 
While you are reading this, an asian kid is doing his homework.

That is all there is to it.
 
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.[/QUOTE]

+1 I was going to post the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top