language and thought

[zelazny]

well, i gave this topic a short chance in the archived forum so i thought i'd give it another spin.
Basically, i wondered about this: does language define thought and the other way around, does the whole mindset of a country define the evolution of the language?

For example, take the idea of newspeak in 1984 ( a must read for everyone) where that language should minimize the thought of the people.
Do you think it's possible to think about concrete things without utilizing language for instance?

Hmm, another example: the overall russian person before the second world war would have a way of looking at life as this: don't create trouble, don't think dangerous things and when people get caught, killed or disappear don't worry, or else they might notice (maybe a bit too much, but this feeling was found in the general populace) and they even found new words for it, like nichevo (=it is as it is, you can't change it, live with it) etc...
Now i can see about the mindset influencing the language, but i think the opposite happens too, the language constricting and allowing avenues of thought.
Your words (thoughts) on this?


------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[tyledras]

i think a certain amount of language has a definite impact on thought. i've studied several foreign languages, a couple dead a couple current. the ancient greeks were so philosophical and produced so much philosophical thought because their language was constructed in such a way as to direct thoughts in that direction. a lot of philosophy comes from germany as well. german and ancient greek are very precise languages that allow you to be able to talk about concepts which are difficult in english. that's not to say you can't do it in english, you can. but the language is not structured in such a way as to allow for philosophical thought as easily as other languages do.
i think a culture also influence language and helps shape it. the two go hand in hand.
1984 is a good example of that. so was the culture of russia and a lot of soviet satellite nations under the soviet union.
i've heard some people theorize that the reason shakespeare was so good at his writing was because his thought process was so in tune with the language he spoke that he could use it to convey exactly what he wanted, it was structured in a way that mirrored his own thought capacities. which could be so much bs, but maybe not. interesting theory at any rate.
hmm... was that at all helpful, or was that just air?

[zelazny]

well, thanks for your post for one!
Glad to see someone with the same idea as i have
and hopefully i'll motivate to post yours on this forum


------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[zelazny]

By the way, according to some people i spoke about it the reason shakespeare was such a genius with english was because he invented countless new words himself.

------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.

[ek3]

I think I'll be able to post a relevant reply to this topic...I'm so excited...I just need to go check something in some old papers...Stay Tuned!

------------------
"I did not have implants, I just had a growth spurt." - Britney Spears

[ek3]

Ok...I looked and couldn't find what I was looking for but I will try to give a gereral synopsis of a study I heard about. This study was done with color swaps and was given to regular people and the people of the Dani tribe (The people of the Dani tribe only have two words for describing color, I don't remember them but one meant light the other meant dark.)

The test subjects were shown a series of color swaps, some of them were focal colors like red, blue, or green; while others were non-focal like Turqoise or Fucia. A few moments later, again I'm fuzzy on the exact time, the subjects were asked to pick out the color's the had just seen from a pallette of colors. In both cases, normal people and Dani tribesman, focal colors were more easily identifiable. This, somewhat, proved that the Dani's lack of terminology for color did not affect how the Dani perceived and recalled what they had seen.

This may not be relevant, I'm kinda bad about explaining things and interpreting what I read.

------------------
"I did not have implants, I just had a growth spurt." - Britney Spears

[SHATOUSHKA]

ek3, i think what you said was a great addition to the thread.
i want to ask you something...well, this is for all posters actually.

is it possible to trivialize properties of description so much that context of a given subject is lost in the description?
for example, like in the above thread, is it possible that 'normal' people attempt to be too exact in labeling color? does every shred of color difference have to be named?

on the flip side-- do you think its possible that some people OVER simplify? is knowing a color to be merely 'light' and 'dark' enough to distinguish characteristics?

what of the color orange? is it light, or dark? would it depend on the light in which it was seen in?

can anyone really escape trivialities as this, even when reducing the known vocabulary to simpler terms?

am i ever gonna start making sense?

------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~

General Philosophy