Do you guys think, that because some languages are more complex and nuanced than others, that people who speak them are more prone to understand more about the world than people who speak simpler ones? I mean, your mind has to work harder to use some languages than it does to use others, so do people who speak more complicated languages have stronger minds? I just sort of threw this question together.
Anyone know the answer?
My speculation would be yes. Simply because a greater word bank would result in words with more specific meanings, and understanding those words would likely result in a greater range of thought in general.
I’ve always wondered this. But I think the implications of the common sense answer that you’ve just given, (and that I tend to agree with), are very much not politically correct. Should we get in trouble for thinking these things?
I think that it is a politically correct thing to say, otherwise, it would be politically incorrect to state that someone that speaks English as a first language, but only knows 300-400 words has a limited word bank, and therefore, less knowledge.
Trouble, depends on what country you live in.
I’d also like to add that lacking in vocabulary doesn’t necessarily make a person stupid, perhaps they are an exclusively visual thinker, and a very astute one. It is just my experience that people with a greater word bank both seem and generally are more intelligent than people with a poor word bank.
Consider the dumbing down of society mentioned in the book, 1984, I know many will view that as a sophmoric reference. Either way, the point in lessening the word bank and creating the new dictionaries with less words was simply to give people a more limited view of the world and range of thought, so it stands to reason that languages that do not possess the words required for people to express themselves articulately tend to have less intelligent people.
Additionally, their lack of words (in terms of number of words) might simply reflect that they are not aware of as many technological components and business practices etc. as speakers of some other languages. By this, I mean, what would many of the West Africans call a computer? They wouldn’t, because many of them do not know what one is, thus they do not have a word for it. It gives us the ability (simply because we have to call thoughts/things/actions/ideas something) to have more words than many other languages or cultures.
“the limits of my language are the limits of my world” … ludwig
-Imp
So he would think that a Mexican would a limited view of the world compared to that of an American? (assuming that the mexican speaks spanish and the American speaks english)
I don’t think that the language someone speaks relates to an ability to understand the world better.
The Finish language(the native language of Finland) is one of the most complex in the world.
Do you know any prominent Finish thinkers or scientists. I don’t.
he would think that the more terms one had at their command to describe the external world, the more that they could relate it to another person…
bigger description=bigger world
but what else would you expect from a logical positivist who reduces everything to language?
-Imp
yeah, but they are always waiting at the end…
-Imp
Given the limited vocabulary that German provides, I’m not so sure that such a stance is actually true.
Now, it would certainly make sense if it were true, but I am not so sure it is. The German example throws a bit of a wrench into that hypothesis. However, I do think that language predisposes us to think along different lines. I certainly think differently when I am speaking in a different language – however, that could also be due to personae.
No language is any more complex than any other.
Chinese is easy for a Chinese L1.
English is easy for an English L1.
The ability for them to learn each others language is based on their respective aptitudes.
To say that ones understanding of the world is based on their language is just as ignorant as saying it’s based on their social class or financial wealth.
Ones language is as arbitrary as their place of birth and/or race. To think or state otherwise borders on bigotry.
Point of order; I am no linguist, but I do study linguistics and several languages, this is a topic I have a great interest in.
I think I have to agree with Sarhan,
Although, if we talk about a language that lends itself more readily to abstract thoughts. There might be a bit of something. Limited vocabulary won’t hinder this it would be just limited meanings and nuances.
If you take English words and cut them down to just one meaning each what would happen?
If we cut all english words to one meaning, then nobody who spoke it could be pretentious, and nobody would be confused.
Besides all that nobody would speak english. Except for me, to sound smart speaking a dead language.
If we did that we’d need to invent a whole bunch of new words. Which could be quite fun.
Perhaps not to understand the world better, but it would certainly have an adverse affect on an individual’s ability to articulate that understanding. It also limits the person’s ability to, “come-off,” as being intelligent which may cause less people to really listen to that person.
I also think it depends on the extent of the differences between the two languages. What I mean is, if the difference in word banks is a thousand, two thousnad words, it’s probably not all that limiting. On the other hand, if a particular language only has a word bank of 1,000-2,000 words, then they would be drastically limited in their ability not only to communicate abstract ideas, but even to think them.
Also, we have to consider whether or not that is the only language spoken by a specific person. Naturally, there are words in French (just for an example) that don’t translate directly into English because they reflect something that we don’t really know about, or use a series of words (rather than just one) to express.
It is pretty much like an intelligence quotient thing, just in terms of words. A person with an IQ of 175 doesn’t have much of an advantage over a 160, but a 190 completely trumps a 103. Again, perhaps the 103 is an excellent carpenter whereas the 190 hasn’t done shit when it comes to manual labor in his entire life, then the 103 has some advantages.
That’s the same thing when it comes to languages. The peoples that have very limited languages tend to be the people that culturally, “live off of the land,” and it is for that reason why they have many advantages over Americans. Let’s see your regular computer programmer fashion a spear out of a bamboo stick and bring down a bird with it from 30 yards, that’s just not usually going to happen. However, to sit the hunter down in front of a computer, his first instinct is going to be to try to fashion a weapon out of the thing.
As far as Finnish thinkers or scientists goes, I’d have to research that, but I am sure there are some. People often like to compare countries like that to the number of American, Japanese, Chinese and German thinkers and scientists, but I have a simple response for that argument, there are more Germans, Americans, Japanese, and Chinese people than there are Fins, thus, it stands to reason that you would have more names in the talent pool for those things in those countries.
Also, you have to look at how long each particular country has been one of the leaders in terms of scientific and technological development, and the exposure that any given individual would have had to those things throughout their lives.
Good points there Pav. The original question is that would they be handicapped in understanding the world better, not communicating it. As it happens I have done some research on the natives of finland, the original tribes that still live culturally as they did for more than a thousand years have a relationship with their world akin to the original native american people, take from this what you will, you might consider it enlightened or just explaining it away with superstition.
More words may well offer richer descriptions. But vocabulary range is different from complexity. Perhaps the more complex a language, the more brain power is wasted in ensuring one is grammatically correct and intelligible. Conversely, maybe simpler languages are a handier and more efficient tool for whatever one hopes to do. German, though much more difficult than English when it comes to basic grammar, accommodates with ease the compounding of words, having a wider vocabulary in the end (whilst English speakers would have trouble pinpointing specific senses). Sticking to the German word “Dasein” in English Heidegger translations is an example where no English word could be found for a German compound word. The vast academic contributions from German speakers speaks for itself.
I would think that they may be more at peace, not so much understanding. They would probably have a few more answers than we do, but far, far less questions. And, as we all know, asking questions is the first step along the path to true understanding.
This must have been what happened when they came up with words like flabbergasted and gnarly.
Don’t get me wrong - I think it’s a good question - but there’s only a marginal difference between this and any other bigoted, prejudicial question. ‘Do white Americans understand the world better because they speak better English than black Americans?’ I mean, come on. However, along the same lines, I will say that I tend to think people who speak multiple languages are in better position than those who only speak one. But even this is questionable.