Linguistic relativity

Today I would like to tackle one of those vocabulary areas that I find truly fascinating: the worldview inherent in a language.

Last week, in my C1.1 class, I briefly discussed the controversial case of linguistic relativity: the notion that a person's mother tongue basically shapes their worldview and thought processes. While there are several schools of thought on the subject, there is nothing in the neighborhood of academic consensus. My personal take on the whole issue lies somewhere in the middle. In my experience skeptics of the hypothesis (those who dismiss the idea out of hand) tend to be people that may speak several languages but don't think in those languages. I am fortunate enough to be able to think in two languages and I can tell you that thinking in a language does have an impact on your thoughts. The differences are not stark, but I do feel them. The problem is I can't quite specify to what extent languages affect me. I'm not a cognitive scientist, nor am I a language researcher. Yet, I don't quite feel the same when I speak English, when I think in English. The reason I mention this has to do with the very beginning of this process, which really should be part of your learning experience.

By the way, if you are curious as to what linguistic relativity is about, feel free to watch this three-minute clip, which offers a pretty good summary of the topic.

As I said, I only mention this "problem" because the hypothesis of linguistic determinism lies at the core of the transition to the advanced level of a language. Long before a student is capable of complex thought processes in a second language, they must master the conventions that make up that language.

It often starts with simple vocabulary differences, but as you hack your way through the L2 jungle you realize that not everything is easily translatable. Certain concepts and nuances are invariably "lost in translation" and a student feels frustrated when they can't quite say things in English the way they feel them in their mother tongue. Consider this example. Do the words farce, mess and joke accurately translate the meaning of cachondeo in Spanish?

Nevertheless, not every problem can be put down to translatability. Whether we like it or not, the culture-language spectrum in Anthropology (let's call it "spectrum") is not unlike the spacetime continuum in Physics. Yes. We can discuss one or the other, but ultimately they're so intricately interlaced that isolated discussions may not always make much sense. So... is it possible to learn a language without knowing the culture that made it possible? I fear it's not.

My contention is that history, religion, poetry and even science permeate the vocabulary and imagery of a language. Let's think of history for a while.

The Spanish phrase quemar las naves harkens back to none other than Alexander the Great (even if it was later reused by Hernán Cortés). The expression a buenas horas mangas verdes (meaning too little too late) refers to the Santa Hermandad (los mangas verdes), a police force established in the kingdom of Castile in the 15th century whose response time sometimes left much to be desired. As you see, history still has an effect on the expressions we use in the 21st century.

How about religion? Spanish uses the word ojalá, which means something to the effect of if only god wished. Adieu (i.e. to god) is the French term for goodbye, which in turn is a shortened form of god be with you. Even the days of the week are laden with religious references. Thursday is an obvious reference to Thor, a Scandinavian deity, just like the French word mercredi (Wednesday) is a reference to another god: Mercury. So there you go: religion is part of the vocabulary. Can we really avoid those (etymological) references. I'm afraid we can't: there are no synonyms for the days of the week.

That said, there is a deeper level of sophistication: understanding metaphors. The Spanish words pesar and pesadumbre, whose meaning is "grief" or "sorrow", refer to the idea of physical weight (peso). The underlying metaphor is that a person walks around as if carrying a heavy weight. Come to think of it, in English we say someone looks as though they carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. Similar references are ingrained in every language. In most European languages up is good. Down is bad. Just like North has a  positive ring to it whereas South is usually negative. That's why heaven is supposed to be somewhere up in the sky and hell is some place underground. When we say you are my north it means something like "you are quite a reference to me", but when something goes south it is a disaster.

I would argue that other elements worth contemplating are just as important as vocabulary and may even affect a speaker's choices in terms of syntactical structures. Using the passive voice, for example, allows you to remain neutral. Languages in which personal subjects prevail or those whose grammar does not include a passive voice may not make it easy for a learner to deal with a subject without "getting personal", not an optimal approach in a business situation.

These simple notions are part of every language. So we don't even think about them, do we?

When a student transitions from the intermediate plateau to the advanced level, they should forgo not only vocabulary but also the tendencies dictated by their mother tongue so they can embrace the conventions of the English-speaking world. I believe you may keep a certain amount of your "color", but of course, but just go easy on it. A speaker of a language such as Spanish or Russian, which are often deemed to be more "direct" than English, will easily say something along the lines of you have to be careful when an English speaker would go for something more tentative, something like: you should probably be careful, you ought to be cautious, etc.  The same is true when we voice an opinion. Consider all these common English phrases:

• He strikes me as weird
• He seems to be / he appears to be weird
• As far as one can tell, he's a weird man
• She usually comes off as weird
• He comes across as weird
• I'm under the impression that he's (sort of) weird

They are a far cry from in my opinion he is... right? At the C2 level you may want to resort to "wordier" turns of phrase even if you use the verb to be:

• While that may be the case, he can also be...
• I have a sneaking suspicion that she is...
• I feel it in my bones. She is...
• I'm of the opinion that he is...
• Strange as it may seem, he is...

Should you feel the urge to steer clear of the verb to be (and I think you should) you may choose to describe someone like this:

He had none of the hallmarks that make it relatively easy for a layperson to spot a narcissist -the grandiosity, the need to be the center of attention, the haughty or overbearing remarks and competitiveness...

Do you see what this language user did? At no point does she say "he is".

Okay. Many of you will argue that all the expressions above have simple translations into your respective mother tongues and I will counter that the frequency with which a competent speaker in your L1 uses those equivalent phrases is extremely relevant. A speaker that overwhelmingly favors expressions as basic as I think he is great may sound simple-minded, unsophisticated or plain ignorant to speakers of a language which promotes a more tentative approach. It's inevitable. That's why you should not forget that frequency (e.g. he's sometimes brash) and tendency (e.g. he's prone to losing his temper) can be critical factors.

Remember: you want to become advanced English speakers (I gather that's why you come to class). Incorporating all those "fancy phrases" and understanding the value of nuance, be it tentativeness or uncertainty, simply come with the territory.