I wanted to expand on some of the topics we discussed in
class on language; I would like to do this by raising this question, is
language a reflection of culture, or is culture a reflection of language?
Let us start with some basic linguistic background; there are
a finite number of sounds our mouths can produce, phonemes. Every language uses
a differing set of these phonemes to create their words, or phones. This is why
Chinese sounds vastly different from English. Along with sounding different most
languages are also structured differently grammatically and lexically, an
example being Spanish having the adjective come after the noun it describes, as
in el coche rojo (the red car). Or in many Asian languages theyre will be many different
words relating to family, where we would use just “brother” they will use many
variations of “brother” to describe a more in depth relation.
Is their family oriented culture affecting the language? Or
has their language influenced the culture? Language at its prime is used to
communicate an idea, abstraction. With that being true I believe that it then
would follow a group of likeminded persons capable of discussing their beliefs
will then group to one another. Due to either isolation or just the gradual
evolution languages go through, we end up with distinct languages that mimic
the ideals of the community at large.
Now here is where I believe this gets interesting, what
happens when a people adopt a new language, or morph an existing one into new
languages, such as English, Spanish, and French being romance languages have a
large relation to Latin? Does the culture that adopted the new language change
its ideals to match that of their new language? Do cultures that share related
languages, or simply have dialectal splits, share similar belief systems/morals?
Just curious as to
what others may think?
I think that language grows from culture. Like the example we talked about in class that the Eskimos have many different words for snow while other languages just say snow. The other reason that tends to have me lean towards this conclusion is the fact that a good majority of the languages in our world come from the same base language, yet there are such a variety of different languages that all are Latin based. They have evolved around the culture that was prevalent in the country that spoke each specific language. At the same time you can’t discount the influence that language has on culture. So I guess I’m trying to say that it is impossible to completely say one causes the other, it’s more like a circle and both parts are constantly affecting the others. Things in the language affect the culture at the same time that things in the culture affect the language. Although I do still believe that culture influences language more than the other way around. Language and culture are both fluid and everything in an environment affects the other things around it. So they are both constantly changing in regard to the other.
ReplyDelete"I would like to do this by raising this question, is language a reflection of culture, or is culture a reflection of language?" I believe that culture is a reflection of the language. When it comes down to it how does one learn a culture? Culture is learned or taught through language. Therefore language shapes the way we think. On that note how do we really think? We don't think in images, we think in words first to bring about a picture in our head. If I said think of an elephant, you would think of a big gray creature with funny looking ears. If you saw an elephant you would immediately associate that image with the word that represents that big gray creature again. But getting back on tract, we talked in class about the way our society uses "girly" as a negative term, which is usually identified with the word "weak". Before women had equal rights, they were generally known as the weaker sex. This not only affected the words associated with women (as in sissy or girly) but our culture as well. Today we all know that women have the exact same rights as men but our society still uses negative terms to describe someone that compares to a weak women.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your last statement, I would tend to argue that like the divergence in the language there is also a divergence in the belief systems and cultures, and that the degree of that divergence can be linked to just how far from each other the two related cultures are. This was kind of exhibited the other day in class with regard to my own hastily stated joke/remark in reply to something stated at the end of the class. I've forgotten already the context of it, but I seem to recall Prof. Hager asking me to repeat it in a more articulate fashion, then following it with a statement with regards to her southern upbringing and how much slower they speak, attributing this characteristic to not wanting to rush things in the heat. There is certainly a slight break in culture between the northern and southern united states, as well as a certain variation in both the speed and mannerisms as well as some of the slang and word choices. As much as Prof. Hager tries to get us to subconsciously, most of us are not regularly saying "Y'all" when referring to each other, likely because we're still within the environment and culture that tends to lead us to another turn of phrase when applied to the same context. Some of this break also lends itself to the beliefs a certain region may generally have, although what elements within a region influence this can vary wildly. In the case of the US regions; environment, history, cultures that settled the region initially; they all compound in how said region sees the world, as well as then how they are seen by the other regions. Also given that history and time are continually advancing and evolving elements, so too does their influence on these regions evolve and change. I hate to use a divisive event, but look at how much things shifted between north and south after the civil war, and then with the events that followed in reaction to that how much it changed again.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you to point, the difference in previous beliefs system would affect how much they adapt the new ideals, however it is not related to language in adaption, or distance. My big reasoning be the Santos religion. A complete melting pot of Catholicism and Voodooism. This was caused primarily do to the African slave trade, I can't remember the exact way it happened, but in middle America and parts of South America, the Voodoo religion mixed seamlessly with Catholicism however no exchange of the language was present, or any was negligible.
ReplyDeleteThis would mean that Either language effects culture, or that culture effects language, not however both. Which I disagree with, so perhaps once a language has settled in and worked its roots through a people, a simple change in ideals isn't enough to evolve a new way of speaking? Perhaps in my example there just hasn't been enough time to determine if a change will occur.
I personally believe that culture influences the language. While I have never taken Chinese, I have two years of Japanese under my belt. Japanese, for those that don't know, borrow Chinese characters in writing. I would sometimes have a difficult time memorizing Kanji (although I had only just started when I stopped taking the course). My sensei, however, had no problem seeing Kanji as pictures. She grew up as part of a culture that was very visual. That's the best way I can explain it, really. I mean, look at big cities in Asian countries and tell me that they aren't visually stimulating. Anyway, this visual culture had created a system of writing based off of pictures. That, to me, is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI have always loved learning other languages. Culture affects language and the language, in turn, reflects the culture. I have taken Spanish, Japanese, and Italian. I wish I had more time to learn more languages and pick up on languages I have lost touch with. Even fictional languages fascinate me. If you ever have a chance to listen to Mr. David Salo (the Wisconsinite that did all the Elvish work on the Lord of the Rings movies), do it. He is a pleasure to listen to and his knowledge of the process Tolkien went through to create the languages is amazing.
Although his work on some of tolkiens languages is poor, especially entish he did do a marvelous job on sinderin, I believe is the dialect used in the movie... no one ever uses quenyan! Btw have you heard of conlanging? You can find while bunches of nerds who are also into lnguahes!
DeleteI think things have to put in their proper context here. Language and culture are not products of each other, they are products of people. If culture is the customs and ideas of a people group, then language is a subset of culture.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay which was the basis for this discussion in class, Ngugi argues not that culture creates language or vice versa. He says that language is a "carrier of culture", that the ideas of the people who develop a language are woven into it. Rather than an inert medium of communication, language actually influences what is being said. For him, to debate an Englishman in English is an unfair fight; to even use English is to assume the English worldview. The question is, is that idea correct? I am inclined to think that it is.
You asked at the end of your original post, Jacob, whether adopting a new language means adopting a new culture. I think the answer is yes or no, depending on what is meant by that (deep, huh? :) ). I think that your worldview is influenced by your native language, the one most closely associated with internal thought (but not actually comprising internal thought: I believe we think in images and translate to words). If the new language becomes your "thought" language -- as described by Ngugi in the essay -- then your culture and worldview will change. If it is learned merely as a tool for communicating with foreigners, then it will not significantly change your outlook.