That’s usually referred to as the Sapir-Whorf or Whorf-Sapir hypothesis. See “Linguistic relativity” on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity . Try the search bar located (non-obviously) at the bottom of HN pages to see what people here think about it.
Edit: Actually, there aren’t many submissions about the subject and I forgot that you can only view search results for comments in Date order and not Popularity order. (For the obvious reason that you can’t see the score of comments.) Googling gives results that may be satisfying:
Languages are a construct of the environment they are on. Thus they create a bias, but do not put constraints on your logic
Sure, thoughts might be just concepts. What does this statement lead to? I don't see much value
I actually had this exact theory but I didn't know it was already a thing. see how Chinese is good for maths, french are melancholic, English is materialistic and world dominant etc. for instance take Romanian, which is vulgar (common, as spoken by peasants) Latin. Romanian is much more expressive and precise than English on matters pertaining to housekeeping and farming (peasant activities in general), whereas English is by a mile more suited and expressive in upper-class discourse (negotiations and reasoning of a more abstract or theoretical form; subtle social dynamics). I think to some extent because say Romanian biases heavily towards agriculture in its lexicon, it is an inherent impediment to try to achieve great scientific discoveries in such a language, whereas English or Chinese are evidently better suited. perhaps this raises the question then of wether a globalised language like English would offer greater fairness and freedom of expression, or wether composite languages are for emerge to eg take advantage of German technicality with English managerial interdynamics and French artistry (English already borrows heavily from French and Latin, and is a Germanic language to begin with so is that why it's now the global default language? is it because it's already a semi-composite language?)
Chinese can't invent new words. It's really difficult to invent new characters holding the new meaning one wants to express.
For example the word computer 电脑 (Dian nao) consist of the word for electric/electricity and the word brain. Both together gives the meaning "computer". While English, German, and other 130 languages I googled, somehow represent the verb "to compute / to calculate" ..
in Chinese it's the "electronic brain".. the calculator is then ji suan ji (计算机) -> calculating machine.
The other things you mentioned are pure cultural influenced. Like "the Chinese is better suited to achieve great scientific discussions" which is actually achieved by accumulation of knowledge and learning. Another example, the best mathematicians are in France, Russia.., ..., and US by most. Gambia also has "one" mathematician.. while English being official. Shouldn't then there be more Gambian mathematicians? ... It's "culture" preventing the accumulation of knowledge, or, at least not teaching it amongst the pupils.
Before settling on just using the English word computer elektronhjerne (electric brain) was a contender for what word in danish should be used for computer. The other was datamat (data automator).
I would postulate a counterthesis that its not the language we speak that affects the way we think, but rather how much of that language we use and how much the (single) language is capable to express AND how much of different topics we read/hear (in that language). Just think of kids not so profound in their language - they think, they reason, but they can't argue about "to be or not to be...". But when they grow up, they more and more use and read other topics that utilize higher parts of the language, difficult sentences, etc.. -> so they LEARN and start to think differently on topics.
so, my postulation is:
the knowledge we gain shapes our thinking. Language itself is the transportation medium for the knowledge. Is the medium is small, so the knowledge described with the medium is also "small" or "not destinctive enough". We can use a "second" language then to make the knowledge more exact and mor destinct/tdefined.
But the knowledge can also be gained with other means - learning by doing, as exmaple. So, a language is not necessary to gain knowledge (numb and deaf and blind people also think, but are somehow limited in their expression ...)
so based on that, I postulate, it's a coincidence when a language shapes our thinking, but the cause and the "affecting part" is the real "knowledge-transfer" by the language. No matter if its sign language, pointing towards .. speaking piraha or russian or finnish-english.
Latin had no word equivalent to the English "yes". Latin had sic which is very close to the English this, which means to speak in the affirmative requires a relation that qualifies an affirmation.
As a result thinking in Latin is absolutely different than thinking in English which has yes/no questions that could not exist in Latin. When asked a yes/no question without receiving a yes or no answer English speakers immediately assume deception and that assumption is almost always correct. The exception is when the answering party fully fails to grasp the question, or the question's intent if the question is vague or itself deceptive. In Latin language answers without a yes or no were the default and even though there is not an option to apply a direct yes or no answer many times deception was none the less assumed regardless due to differing cultural norms, especially in elevated classes.
I have a theory that language does shape individuals and societies. As someone who speaks 3 different languages (and learning one more), I’ve noticed interesting things.
For example, in one of the languages I speak, husban and wife literally means owner and woman. So a woman would say that he is her owner, while the man would say that she is his woman.
Some languages have different “you” meanings. There is a “you” for someone you know, a formal “you”, a “you” when addressing someone older than yourself.
While these things sound minor, I do believe they shape the thinking of individuals and societies.
I have a blog post draft about it, and now you reminded me that I should probably proofread it and publish.
Yes. Telling from personal experience of living in different cultures. Language you speak and think in not only contributes a lot to the way you think, but also to your personality itself, to character. People who spent few years+ living in different language often even sound differently, having different voice.
may be it's the personal evolvement, that leads to that? One who have or is living abroad for a few years also develops himself in certain ways. Just like with the students who did study abroad. They show, they gain the competence of self-care-taking-in-a-foreign-environment and problem-solving-skills, more than the ones who studied and lived comfortable (often at parent's home).
I speak five languages myself. Being born and grown up in one country, went to highschool in second country, studied in a third country. But it's not the languages, but rather what i've learned and the discussions I had, that shaped the today's me. If I didn't study or argue with others, I would less utilize my thinking-as-an-engineer -> clear & aim-oriented, logically structured problem solving.
I notice the use of logical thinking in my daily life (if -> then -> but why? -> conclusion) even more after I started programming in spare time. Yes, it's a new language: strict, well defined, clear expression and problem-modeling. The new language did not change my thinking, but rather the way it solved my problems, and the new knowledge of e.g. data structures, did. So, for me, language is a tool for unlocking the knowledge and the knowledge shapes me.
another examples that supports my thinking "its the knowledge that shapes us":
- when the war in Ukraine started, a lot of people said "We have. Give them long-range missles. Give them now.". But after learning that for some long-range missles it's neccessary to continiously monitor & control the missle with propriatary technology. This technology is secure and difficult to operate and rather shouldn't fall into the hands of enemies - the thinking about "give them" changed. But not the language.
- Trump's imposed tariffs: Quite a lot of US thinks the tariffs are paid by the producers. After learning, its paid by the importer, they change their thinking too. Language didn't change. But their thinking.
so, I'm opposed to the theory that language alone shapes our thinking. It's the knowledge we gain and the links and conclusions we make. Language is static, while knowledge is dynamic.
in cases like that you can't really untangle and isolate all factors. Maybe it's not language, but culture, but then can you say culture is not influenced by language? Or language by culture?
Yes, boolean logic and math are language invariant. But "thinking" is much broader context and I definitely see strong signs of how people change their thinking with changing the language.
I'm with you on this. The best sign for language shaping us is right in front of our eyes: out kids going to school and peu au peu learning new words, while gaining new insights and knowledge. The higher the language they use, the more grown up they seem. But, in the meantime they also learned concepts and how to use that. So, language is just a vehicle to transport knowledge, while knowledge is possibly cultural tangled, in my thoughts.
Once I experienced such thing while teaching students: there was a group of 6 + 1 Ninjagirls (headscarfed, traditional clothing without skin visible). The one of seven was not wearing headscarf, but rather non-body-pronounced, ordinary clothes, but still covering skin. So, being a man myself, the 7 girls always kept distance to me, while I explained the technical subject. So, when it was about hands-on practice, a possibility to examine the partly finished product has been loudly used by 6 of 7: They warmed up and where happy smiling discussing the topic furiously among each other and me. Except that one girl. She was standing there and thinking and just looking at what we've produced. I noticed that and of course approached her with "why don't you participate in the discussion. It's important for gathering understanding. Do you have questions?" She was like: "I don't understand this. ... How does it exercise an influence on vibration inducement in the finished product?"
I was blown away by the question. Not because it's a difficult question, but rather because in 14y of teaching, no one - no student, no professors, no workers - literally, no one, has thoughts on vibration inducement at this half-finished state. It doesn't make sense to ask it. It's "too late to" and "too early to" at the same time..
So I, lost my words, said "Why do you ask this? I mean, I will be very happy to explain it to you, but please, let your conmilitones first finish their discussion." .. so, I explained it to her in the way she built up the understanding to answer her own question by herself.
I was so blown away by this, that I approached her after and asked her again "why did you ask it.. I'm very happy about it. In my 14y of doing this..." and closed it with "Keep up what ever you've were thinking. Don't let anyone tell you what to do or what to think or learn. I know, you're really special given the situation today.."
And you guess, that gave her a push in her self esteem. Such a big one, that she changed her style to short skirts, open wonderful hair and a lot of makeup and other girly-things over the next few months. She went literally from Zero to Bomb in 3 months. Also did her engagement in studying change. She enjoyed being smart then.
Nice story, I like to tell. Thinking changed. No other language involved. But here, it's more of the "culture thing" than knowledge, as you said.
Culture, by itself, influences the language and words used. In a patriarchal society the word "emancipation" is not used often. Agreed. Learning emancipation in a third language doesn't change the thinking towards emancipation. But knowledge of other women living a self-determined life does provoke thinking over the own situation.
Culture shapes behavior, behavior shapes language, language expresses accumulated social knowledge and back-fluences culture :)
For sure, though not likely how you infer (from the way you stated your reasoning.)
Consciousness (existential inflection) and conscious (aware) are two separate things. Consciousness envelops one’s conscious experience, however there is much more (an entire mind technology.)
The mechanics of language and their influence on thought is yet another fascinating layer.
The apparatus of our minds which shape our thoughts are a technology. You shaping your thoughts is just as distinctive as your voice shaping your words. Many have a wide range of variability. There are many influences.
The technology of thought in our minds changes a great deal about who we are and how we interface with the world (more than just words and people.)
What is useful is not which language, for every modern language is mature through countless generations “polishing” it. What is useful is how much experience one has, and how they might articulate how this was processed.
The technology of the mind may at times seem like an arms race, though it is also like an ouroboros, devouring itself and reinventing through time.
Honestly, not really, no. Speaking as someone who has had a handful of languages at a handful of proficiencies under his belt over his life, I don't really think learning any of them have "expanded my consciousness" or anything like that by any considerable degree. Sorry to burst your bubble. I learned English, Spanish, and Latin as a teenager, and currently am about 4 years deep into learning Finnish, so I speak with some lived experience on this.
If you want to think interesting thoughts, you need to think hard about things for a long time. That's the sine qua non of it. It can be in any language you want, or even in a nonlinguistic substrate like mental visualization. I would heavily caution people away from trying to shortcut this process by first spending 5 years studying e.g. ancient Assyrian and only then attempting to commune with pre-biblical demons (or whatever it is people think they want to do with this - if there's no particular goal in mind, I would say that's yet another red flag).
In general, I'm sorry to say, I think language learning is a tremendous waste of time and effort for almost everybody. Exceptions are mainly for hobbyists (even then, there are probably much more worthwhile hobbies you could take up), passing regulatory hurdles (all of mine so far), and integrating into a new culture (Finnish alone so far). If you want a pastime which will really push your brain to think hard and in new ways, philosophy and mathematics are both much better bang for your buck.
> In general, I'm sorry to say, I think language learning is a tremendous waste of time and effort for almost everybody
I take from that that you dont like Finnish, you learn it because you have to, and your level is not good enough yet to participate in society exclusively in Finnish.
Nothing wrong with that, but you are generalizing a lot from a very specific context.
A lot of profient L2 speakers will tell you that L2 learning is a very enriching experience indeed.
That’s usually referred to as the Sapir-Whorf or Whorf-Sapir hypothesis. See “Linguistic relativity” on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity . Try the search bar located (non-obviously) at the bottom of HN pages to see what people here think about it.
Edit: Actually, there aren’t many submissions about the subject and I forgot that you can only view search results for comments in Date order and not Popularity order. (For the obvious reason that you can’t see the score of comments.) Googling gives results that may be satisfying:
No. This is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and has, even in its weak form, been conisdered a dead end.
That said the culture (relegion and other stories) we live in completely drive our cognition.
Culture & Ideology Are Not Your Friends (Terence McKenna) [FULL]
Presented at the Whole Life Expo, Denver, April 1999
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0gsHFatPp0
Languages are a construct of the environment they are on. Thus they create a bias, but do not put constraints on your logic Sure, thoughts might be just concepts. What does this statement lead to? I don't see much value
I actually had this exact theory but I didn't know it was already a thing. see how Chinese is good for maths, french are melancholic, English is materialistic and world dominant etc. for instance take Romanian, which is vulgar (common, as spoken by peasants) Latin. Romanian is much more expressive and precise than English on matters pertaining to housekeeping and farming (peasant activities in general), whereas English is by a mile more suited and expressive in upper-class discourse (negotiations and reasoning of a more abstract or theoretical form; subtle social dynamics). I think to some extent because say Romanian biases heavily towards agriculture in its lexicon, it is an inherent impediment to try to achieve great scientific discoveries in such a language, whereas English or Chinese are evidently better suited. perhaps this raises the question then of wether a globalised language like English would offer greater fairness and freedom of expression, or wether composite languages are for emerge to eg take advantage of German technicality with English managerial interdynamics and French artistry (English already borrows heavily from French and Latin, and is a Germanic language to begin with so is that why it's now the global default language? is it because it's already a semi-composite language?)
Chinese can't invent new words. It's really difficult to invent new characters holding the new meaning one wants to express.
For example the word computer 电脑 (Dian nao) consist of the word for electric/electricity and the word brain. Both together gives the meaning "computer". While English, German, and other 130 languages I googled, somehow represent the verb "to compute / to calculate" ..
in Chinese it's the "electronic brain".. the calculator is then ji suan ji (计算机) -> calculating machine.
The other things you mentioned are pure cultural influenced. Like "the Chinese is better suited to achieve great scientific discussions" which is actually achieved by accumulation of knowledge and learning. Another example, the best mathematicians are in France, Russia.., ..., and US by most. Gambia also has "one" mathematician.. while English being official. Shouldn't then there be more Gambian mathematicians? ... It's "culture" preventing the accumulation of knowledge, or, at least not teaching it amongst the pupils.
Before settling on just using the English word computer elektronhjerne (electric brain) was a contender for what word in danish should be used for computer. The other was datamat (data automator).
I would postulate a counterthesis that its not the language we speak that affects the way we think, but rather how much of that language we use and how much the (single) language is capable to express AND how much of different topics we read/hear (in that language). Just think of kids not so profound in their language - they think, they reason, but they can't argue about "to be or not to be...". But when they grow up, they more and more use and read other topics that utilize higher parts of the language, difficult sentences, etc.. -> so they LEARN and start to think differently on topics.
so, my postulation is:
the knowledge we gain shapes our thinking. Language itself is the transportation medium for the knowledge. Is the medium is small, so the knowledge described with the medium is also "small" or "not destinctive enough". We can use a "second" language then to make the knowledge more exact and mor destinct/tdefined.
But the knowledge can also be gained with other means - learning by doing, as exmaple. So, a language is not necessary to gain knowledge (numb and deaf and blind people also think, but are somehow limited in their expression ...)
so based on that, I postulate, it's a coincidence when a language shapes our thinking, but the cause and the "affecting part" is the real "knowledge-transfer" by the language. No matter if its sign language, pointing towards .. speaking piraha or russian or finnish-english.
Latin had no word equivalent to the English "yes". Latin had sic which is very close to the English this, which means to speak in the affirmative requires a relation that qualifies an affirmation.
As a result thinking in Latin is absolutely different than thinking in English which has yes/no questions that could not exist in Latin. When asked a yes/no question without receiving a yes or no answer English speakers immediately assume deception and that assumption is almost always correct. The exception is when the answering party fully fails to grasp the question, or the question's intent if the question is vague or itself deceptive. In Latin language answers without a yes or no were the default and even though there is not an option to apply a direct yes or no answer many times deception was none the less assumed regardless due to differing cultural norms, especially in elevated classes.
https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/1592/how-do-you-sa...
https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/questions
I have a theory that language does shape individuals and societies. As someone who speaks 3 different languages (and learning one more), I’ve noticed interesting things.
For example, in one of the languages I speak, husban and wife literally means owner and woman. So a woman would say that he is her owner, while the man would say that she is his woman.
Some languages have different “you” meanings. There is a “you” for someone you know, a formal “you”, a “you” when addressing someone older than yourself.
While these things sound minor, I do believe they shape the thinking of individuals and societies.
I have a blog post draft about it, and now you reminded me that I should probably proofread it and publish.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language
As a controversy to the theory of linguistic relativity..
Yes. Telling from personal experience of living in different cultures. Language you speak and think in not only contributes a lot to the way you think, but also to your personality itself, to character. People who spent few years+ living in different language often even sound differently, having different voice.
may be it's the personal evolvement, that leads to that? One who have or is living abroad for a few years also develops himself in certain ways. Just like with the students who did study abroad. They show, they gain the competence of self-care-taking-in-a-foreign-environment and problem-solving-skills, more than the ones who studied and lived comfortable (often at parent's home).
I speak five languages myself. Being born and grown up in one country, went to highschool in second country, studied in a third country. But it's not the languages, but rather what i've learned and the discussions I had, that shaped the today's me. If I didn't study or argue with others, I would less utilize my thinking-as-an-engineer -> clear & aim-oriented, logically structured problem solving.
I notice the use of logical thinking in my daily life (if -> then -> but why? -> conclusion) even more after I started programming in spare time. Yes, it's a new language: strict, well defined, clear expression and problem-modeling. The new language did not change my thinking, but rather the way it solved my problems, and the new knowledge of e.g. data structures, did. So, for me, language is a tool for unlocking the knowledge and the knowledge shapes me.
another examples that supports my thinking "its the knowledge that shapes us": - when the war in Ukraine started, a lot of people said "We have. Give them long-range missles. Give them now.". But after learning that for some long-range missles it's neccessary to continiously monitor & control the missle with propriatary technology. This technology is secure and difficult to operate and rather shouldn't fall into the hands of enemies - the thinking about "give them" changed. But not the language.
- Trump's imposed tariffs: Quite a lot of US thinks the tariffs are paid by the producers. After learning, its paid by the importer, they change their thinking too. Language didn't change. But their thinking.
so, I'm opposed to the theory that language alone shapes our thinking. It's the knowledge we gain and the links and conclusions we make. Language is static, while knowledge is dynamic.
in cases like that you can't really untangle and isolate all factors. Maybe it's not language, but culture, but then can you say culture is not influenced by language? Or language by culture?
Yes, boolean logic and math are language invariant. But "thinking" is much broader context and I definitely see strong signs of how people change their thinking with changing the language.
I'm with you on this. The best sign for language shaping us is right in front of our eyes: out kids going to school and peu au peu learning new words, while gaining new insights and knowledge. The higher the language they use, the more grown up they seem. But, in the meantime they also learned concepts and how to use that. So, language is just a vehicle to transport knowledge, while knowledge is possibly cultural tangled, in my thoughts.
Once I experienced such thing while teaching students: there was a group of 6 + 1 Ninjagirls (headscarfed, traditional clothing without skin visible). The one of seven was not wearing headscarf, but rather non-body-pronounced, ordinary clothes, but still covering skin. So, being a man myself, the 7 girls always kept distance to me, while I explained the technical subject. So, when it was about hands-on practice, a possibility to examine the partly finished product has been loudly used by 6 of 7: They warmed up and where happy smiling discussing the topic furiously among each other and me. Except that one girl. She was standing there and thinking and just looking at what we've produced. I noticed that and of course approached her with "why don't you participate in the discussion. It's important for gathering understanding. Do you have questions?" She was like: "I don't understand this. ... How does it exercise an influence on vibration inducement in the finished product?"
I was blown away by the question. Not because it's a difficult question, but rather because in 14y of teaching, no one - no student, no professors, no workers - literally, no one, has thoughts on vibration inducement at this half-finished state. It doesn't make sense to ask it. It's "too late to" and "too early to" at the same time..
So I, lost my words, said "Why do you ask this? I mean, I will be very happy to explain it to you, but please, let your conmilitones first finish their discussion." .. so, I explained it to her in the way she built up the understanding to answer her own question by herself.
I was so blown away by this, that I approached her after and asked her again "why did you ask it.. I'm very happy about it. In my 14y of doing this..." and closed it with "Keep up what ever you've were thinking. Don't let anyone tell you what to do or what to think or learn. I know, you're really special given the situation today.."
And you guess, that gave her a push in her self esteem. Such a big one, that she changed her style to short skirts, open wonderful hair and a lot of makeup and other girly-things over the next few months. She went literally from Zero to Bomb in 3 months. Also did her engagement in studying change. She enjoyed being smart then.
Nice story, I like to tell. Thinking changed. No other language involved. But here, it's more of the "culture thing" than knowledge, as you said.
Culture, by itself, influences the language and words used. In a patriarchal society the word "emancipation" is not used often. Agreed. Learning emancipation in a third language doesn't change the thinking towards emancipation. But knowledge of other women living a self-determined life does provoke thinking over the own situation.
Culture shapes behavior, behavior shapes language, language expresses accumulated social knowledge and back-fluences culture :)
For sure, though not likely how you infer (from the way you stated your reasoning.)
Consciousness (existential inflection) and conscious (aware) are two separate things. Consciousness envelops one’s conscious experience, however there is much more (an entire mind technology.)
The mechanics of language and their influence on thought is yet another fascinating layer.
The apparatus of our minds which shape our thoughts are a technology. You shaping your thoughts is just as distinctive as your voice shaping your words. Many have a wide range of variability. There are many influences.
The technology of thought in our minds changes a great deal about who we are and how we interface with the world (more than just words and people.)
What is useful is not which language, for every modern language is mature through countless generations “polishing” it. What is useful is how much experience one has, and how they might articulate how this was processed.
The technology of the mind may at times seem like an arms race, though it is also like an ouroboros, devouring itself and reinventing through time.
Honestly, not really, no. Speaking as someone who has had a handful of languages at a handful of proficiencies under his belt over his life, I don't really think learning any of them have "expanded my consciousness" or anything like that by any considerable degree. Sorry to burst your bubble. I learned English, Spanish, and Latin as a teenager, and currently am about 4 years deep into learning Finnish, so I speak with some lived experience on this.
If you want to think interesting thoughts, you need to think hard about things for a long time. That's the sine qua non of it. It can be in any language you want, or even in a nonlinguistic substrate like mental visualization. I would heavily caution people away from trying to shortcut this process by first spending 5 years studying e.g. ancient Assyrian and only then attempting to commune with pre-biblical demons (or whatever it is people think they want to do with this - if there's no particular goal in mind, I would say that's yet another red flag).
In general, I'm sorry to say, I think language learning is a tremendous waste of time and effort for almost everybody. Exceptions are mainly for hobbyists (even then, there are probably much more worthwhile hobbies you could take up), passing regulatory hurdles (all of mine so far), and integrating into a new culture (Finnish alone so far). If you want a pastime which will really push your brain to think hard and in new ways, philosophy and mathematics are both much better bang for your buck.
> In general, I'm sorry to say, I think language learning is a tremendous waste of time and effort for almost everybody
I take from that that you dont like Finnish, you learn it because you have to, and your level is not good enough yet to participate in society exclusively in Finnish.
Nothing wrong with that, but you are generalizing a lot from a very specific context.
A lot of profient L2 speakers will tell you that L2 learning is a very enriching experience indeed.
Definitely I think yes. Because language is also a culture, it does affect the way we think a lot.
I am tempted to say yes, but how do we separate culture from language?