# Are some languages more "sophisticated" than others?



## Scrooge

Or is this just a myth created by chauvinists?


----------



## GenJen54

Please define what you mean by "sophisticated." I'm afraid we cannot have a discussion until we know more specifically what is being asked of us.


----------



## cuchuflete

Which of these are you intending?



> *chauvinist*,
> _an extreme bellicose nationalist  _
> 2*chauvinist*
> _a person with a prejudiced belief in the superiority of his or her own kind  _


----------



## .   1

I don't even need to have the question clarified.
It is a myth created by a person of language X to say that language X is somehow better or more refined than languages Y and Z.
All languages are as sophisticated as the users of the language.
Australian has more words to describe computers and money than highland languages of P.N.G. but the highland languages have far more words to describe plants and inter personal relationships.

.,,


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Absolutely not. 

I remember reading a FAQ post in a language newsgroup which explained it well (can't find it now); the gist of it was that this myth grew during the colonial times when the "civilised" Europeans met the "simple" natives.

Their way of living was much more refined than the others', so of course their language had to be more refined/cultured/sophisticated as well.
Or to put it another way, it was believed that the natives' language(s) were much simpler, in a sort of "me Tarzan, you Jane" sense. 

As *.,,* said, that's not true. Indigenous languages (all over the world, from the tribal languages from South America's rain forest via the African ones to the ones spoken by Australia's aboriginals) are just as complex (and in some aspects even more so) and fully developed as the ones spoken by "civilised" people.


----------



## OneWorld

Well, it's true that some languages are harder and got rich vocabulary than others. This some how was proven to have effect in the way of thinking, some nations tend to be more direct than others. For example, the spread of English over the globe made it extremely simple and faded away its poetic part; you don’t see a lot of people nowadays read the old Shakespearian poem. But in Arabic, you still find a lot of people who read and write in old Arabic, and they use words that even native Arabic speakers don’t understand. 

But, does that make a language superior over another? I don’t think so. 

You still find smart, poetic, novelists and direct people in every culture and they are speakers of different languages.


----------



## Benjy

If by sophistication you mean capable of fulfilling H-language (Haugen's term) roles then the answer is no. Sociolinguists who study the elaboration of languages over time would be out of a job is all languages were equal in this regard.


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

The problem is defining what "sophisticated" means. It's like the old question whether some languages are easier to learn than others. Many people would say that in the final analysis this is not true (I believe it is).

Most languages "choose" to emphasize some types of ways of describing reality in favor of others, whether it's the precise sense of aspect that one finds in the Slavic languages, the telegraphic minimalism of a language like Chinese, the strict adherence to expressing social nuances that Japanese presents or the precise relationship between the action of the sentence and the receiver of the action - ergativity - that's so marked in Native American languages. All languages are sophisticated in one way or another.


----------



## Kajjo

Are some languages more "sophisticated" than others?

Yes, of course. Don't be blinded by this political correctness stuff that everything is sort of equal. There are differences in how complex the grammar is, how rich the vocabulary, how refined and precise you can express yourself in a language.

For example, creole or pidgin langauages are less sophisticated than most modern languages. 

Kajjo


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Kajjo said:


> Yes, of course. Don't be blinded by this political correctness stuff that everything is sort of equal. There are differences in how complex the grammar is, how rich the vocabulary, how refined and precise you can express yourself in a language.



In my experience though, while some languages are more complex than others (and does 'more complex' necessarily mean 'sophisticated' or 'better'?) on one area (e.g. Russian has six cases, whereas Norwegian has none), they're usually less complex in another (Russian has three verb tenses, Norwegian seven).

I don't think anyone are trying to argue that there are no differences from language to language (after all, isn't that the beaty of them?  ), but extrapolating from there to the position that some languages are more sophisticated (whatever the definition) is wrong.



> For example, creole or pidgin langauages are less sophisticated than most modern languages.



I might be wrong, but I thought the definition of a creole was a pidgin language that had developed into a "full" language?


----------



## karuna

Lemminkäinen said:


> I might be wrong, but I thought the definition of a creole was a pidgin language that had developed into a "full" language?



Yes, creole languages are real, "sophisticated" languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language



> Because of the generally low status of the Creole people in the eyes of European colonial powers, creole languages have generally been regarded as "degenerate," or at best as rudimentary "dialects" of one of their parent languages.
> ...
> Another factor that may have contributed to the longtime neglect of creole languages is that they do not fit the "tree model" for the evolution of languages, which was adopted by linguists in the 19th century and is still the foundation of the comparative method. In this model languages may evolve, split, or die out — but cannot ever merge.





> Since the middle of the 20th century, however, linguists have promulgated the idea that *creole languages are in no way inferior to other languages*, and that those earlier labels are as inappropriate as saying that French is a "degenerate Latin" or a "Spanish dialect". Linguists now use the term "creole language" for any language that is formed from multiple languages by the same mechanism, without geographic restrictions or ethnic implications.


----------



## Alxmrphi

I think so, I have spoken to people where they tell me that one language is easy, but they could never imagine learning their own language as a foreign language, which to me gives the impression they see their language as more sophisticated.

So I think to an extent (maybe only with the people and not the language itself) but a bit of "My language is better" is going on.
Let's take the French stereopype, the Jack Chirac storming out of meetings because it wasn't in French and a French man was speaking in English, etc etc.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Thanks for the clarification, *karuna* 



Alex_Murphy said:


> So I think to an extent (maybe only with the people and not the language itself) but a bit of "My language is better" is going on.



I've heard that a lot of times, how foreigners learning Norwegian must have a hard time since "it's such a difficult language". However, if you speak a Germanic language already, Norwegian is one of the easiest (relatively speaking) languages you can learn.

It's also a well-known "fact" in Japan that their language is the hardest in the world.

Generally, I think it's just a matter of people wanting to be, well, special, and that for the average layman with a mediocre linguistical knowledge, it's easy making sweeping statements like this.


----------



## Alxmrphi

That's true, I think there is a link between how the language is viewed by the people, and if it is sophisticated, I don't think English is sophisticated, but then again English can be written (and spoken) in a very sophisticated manner


----------



## Outsider

Creole languages seem easy, because they lack all those fancy declensions and conjugations and whatnot of hardcore Indo-European (or Uralic) languages. Then again, so does English, for the most part.  

Assuming that creole languages are indeed simpler than typical European languages, though, I'm not sure that's a disadvantage. Which would _you_ rather learn: an easy language, or a complicated one? 

In Mr. Scrooge's case, we already know the answer.


----------



## Kajjo

Lemminkäinen said:


> In my experience though, while some languages are more complex than others (and does 'more complex' necessarily mean 'sophisticated' or 'better'?) on one area (e.g. Russian has six cases, whereas Norwegian has none), they're usually less complex in another (Russian has three verb tenses, Norwegian seven).


That's right. However, if you claim that all languages are equally sophisticated, then property "sophistication" is not useful in the context of languages. You just discard the usefulness of a term without gaining anything.

There are differences. Obviously.

I did not mean to claim one language is better or worse (for what, would be the question), but surely not all languages are equally suited for all purposes. 

By the god of political correctness, creole languages are NOT equally refined to express all nuances most other modern languages can do. They are full languages in certain aspects, in others not.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

How would you objectively define the sophistication of a language, though?


----------



## Frank06

Hi,



Kajjo said:


> Yes, of course. Don't be blinded by this political correctness stuff that everything is sort of equal.


It has nothing to do with political correctness, but with _basic linguistics_. Of course, some languages aren't more sophisticated than others...

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Falcons508

So you people are saying that a caveman language is just as sophisticated as Italian, French, German, English, Swedish etc.?


----------



## karuna

Kajjo said:


> By the god of political correctness, creole languages are NOT equally refined to express all nuances most other modern languages can do. They are full languages in certain aspects, in others not.



200 hundred years ago Latvian was considered "unrefined" peasant language, clearly inferrior to German, French, Swedish etc. Latvians who desired better life learned German and considered their native language inferior. They also believed that many things cannot be expressed in Latvian as well as in German. 

But maybe they never really had a chance to use it widely. As we can read old Latvian folk songs and tales we find very nuanced and rich language, on par with any other language. Due to the political changes, soon the Latvian nationalistic revival started and then everybody discovered that Latvian is perfectly suited for writting novels, plays, culture, state administration, scientific studies etc.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Falcons508 said:


> So you people are saying that a caveman language is just as sophisticated as Italian, French, German, English, Swedish etc.?



What is a caveman language? If you mean indigenous languages (spoken by e.g. Australia's aboriginals), then that's an awfully offensive term to use.
As I said in my first post in this thread, these languages have the same complexity as, say, the Romance languages (though in different ways obviosuly), and are by no means limited to "I Tarzan, you Jane" conversations.

A question you also have to ask is: why do you consider Italian, French &c. sophisticated? 

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you - you might've ben asking about the earliest forms for language. If that is the case, I can't really answer you.
As far as I know, there is very little/no knowledge about how our ancestors spoke and their language developed.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

There are "primitive" people who live in remote areas of our planet today. However, there are no "primitive" languages that are spoken natively. All languages spoken as a native language are complex. Pidgins are not but they are always spoken as a second language. In fact, the more "primitive" the people, the more "complex" their language seems to be. I can make up a pretty simple language right now but since there are no native speakers, it doesn't count. I couldn't pass down a simple language to my kids because they will automatically ruin its simplicity and this has been demostrated in the past.

Evolutionary 				psychologist Steven Pinker noted in his 1994 book _The Language Instinct_ 				that “There are Stone Age societies, but no Stone Age language.”

By definition, if there ever was such a caveman language that is now extinct, we would not know about it because the caveman world is preliterate. Once you start writing stuff down, you're no longer a caveman. 

We know of no group of people who speak a caveman language today.


----------



## .   1

Falcons508 said:


> So you people are saying that a caveman language is just as sophisticated as Italian, French, German, English, Swedish etc.?


I am not familiar with caveman languages but I grew up surrounded by the Gamilaraay and Kamilaroi languages of the Gunn-e-darr people in North West N.S.W.
I learned the story of the Min Min and of the great chief Red Kangaroo from gnarled old blokes with memories stretching back beyond time.
The Kamilaroi language is a vibrant language perfectly suited to the land and the spirituality of the people.  There is no word in Kamilaroi meaning 'slave'.  There is no concept of 'gaol' and no word even close to 'prison' or 'immigrant'.
Many Koori people say that they cringe when they hear stories of the Dreaming translated into English because the stories lose all nuances and cultural keys.
They do not criticise English and know that English has many concepts that are not contained in Koori languages but Koori languages contain so many cultural keys that are foreign to modern English that there is simply no way to translate these concepts without the concepts being lost or reduced to the appearance of childrens fables.
Koori people had to know at least three levels of their own language.
It is well known that Koori people can comminicate vast quantities of information right in front of English speaking people with the English speakers not even being aware that any information is being passed at all.
My suspicion is that this makes for a very sophisticated language indeed.

.,,


----------



## modus.irrealis

Julito_Maraña said:


> There are "primitive" people who live in remote areas of our planet today. However, there are no "primitive" languages that are spoken natively. All languages spoken as a native language are complex. ... I couldn't pass down a simple language to my kids because they will automatically ruin its simplicity and this has been demostrated in the past.



Just to add, it seems to be a widespread view among linguists that a lot of our linguistic knowledge is innate and hardwired in our brains, so humans have as much control over how complex their language is as how complex their immune system is. From this perspective it would seem that if the cavemen were human, i.e. homo sapien, their language would be just as complex as any modern day language. With other species, I'm thinking any comments would be pure speculation unless we ever came across some hidden tribe of Neanderthals 

It just seems to me that the level of sophistication doesn't vary across languages, unless you define sophistication in some ad hoc way to get that it does. And even then, I think you'd have a hard time doing so. Even historically, language don't seem to be getting more sophisticated the way technology, say, is (in fact, I'd wager that more people think European languages have become simpler since the Classical Era than think they've become more sophisticated).

As for the original question, I'd say, though, that the idea that some languages are more sophisticated is not just due to chauvinism. I think people naturally assume that how sophisticated a society is will be reflected in its language, and I'm not sure that that's all that bad of a hypothesis (too many _that_'s there ) -- I just think it turns out to be false.

The only exception to the above is vocabulary which, as others have mentioned, does reflect the culture of the speakers of the language, so if that culture is more sophisticated than another, its language will have a more sophisticated vocabulary. But this doesn't reach the heart of the language since new words can always be coined or borrowed, so there's no language that's inherently less sophisticated even from this point of view.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

modus.irrealis said:


> The only exception to the above is vocabulary which, as others have mentioned, does reflect the culture of the speakers of the language, so if that culture is more sophisticated than another, its language will have a more sophisticated vocabulary. But this doesn't reach the heart of the language since new words can always be coined or borrowed, so there's no language that's inherently less sophisticated even from this point of view.




Yes. And the view that more words to describe modernity means a more complex language is widespread even among relatively intelligent and educated people.

Take this page from National Public Radio: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6276973

"Kazaks conduct business in Russian because there are no words in Kazak for many economic terms."

That's silly. You can talk about anything you want in Kazak. If  you don't know the Kazak word, or their isn't one, just use one that you know from whatever language you wish (as long as the person you speak to understands that word) and you're in business. And if  you can switch to Russian to do business then you can just use Kazak spinkled with Russian loanwords and be sure you will be understood which is what I suspect happens in real life. 

That's how we talk about falafel, croissants, tacos, vodka, pretzels, sushi, espresso, low mein etc. etc. in English. If we don't have the word we borrow it. There is no reason why that can't be done in Kazak unless people don't want to but that's sociolinguistic not technical.


----------



## karuna

The fact that Kazakhs during the time of the USSR were a minority in Kazakhstan, probably, has influenced their language usage in business dealings. Russian had more prestige and provided more opportunities not only in Kazakhstan but in all Soviet Republics. It is simply about using a common language between different parties. In Latvia also there are many Russians who don't speak Latvian and with them I speak Russian, even though I could explain everything much better in Latvian.


----------



## Julito_Maraña

karuna said:


> The fact that Kazakhs during the time of the USSR were a minority in Kazakhstan, probably, has influenced their language usage in business dealings. Russian had more prestige and provided more opportunities not only in Kazakhstan but in all Soviet Republics. It is simply about using a common language between different parties. In Latvia also there are many Russians who don't speak Latvian and with them I speak Russian, even though I could explain everything much better in Latvian.



That's quite true. But if someone told me that Latvian was inadequate for business I would scratch my head. English doesn't have a great deal of medical terms but that doesn't mean our doctors have to switch to Greek. It's just English which is Greek to anyone who hasn't gone to Medical School.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Falcons508 said:


> So you people are saying that a caveman language is just as sophisticated as Italian, French, German, English, Swedish etc.?



(1) As a direct response to Falcon, I don't know Cavemandish, so, frankly, I don't have an idea. But for the sake of the debate: let's accept Cavemandish, and let's accept it never died out and 'changed' into languages X, Y, Z, the same way for example Latin (a far relative of Cavemandish) 'changed' into French, Spanish and Italian.
Would Latin be more or less sophisticated than the daughter languages?

(2) More in general: I thought the original question was about languages, some people here seem to be talking about the culture(s) in which this or that language is spoken. Quite a difference.

(3) what is 'sophisticated' supposed to mean and how are you going to *measure* such a highly subjective notion as sophistication in the first place, and *compare* it with other languages in the second place? And I mean measure/compare by linguistic standards (see below).
Is English more sophisticated than Persian? If you would say yes, could you give some language-related reasons, without referring to extralinguistic circumstances?
Is Sanskrit a sophisticated language because it has a lot of inflection, or is Chinese sophisticated because it lost all inflections (but has a strict word order)?

(4) What has political correctness to do with the simple and basic idea (which prevails in modern linguistics) that subjective assessments based upon irrational standards and random personal preferrences aren't part of any linguistic theory, or of any theory about languages?
What has PC to do with saying that there are no linguistic grounds to answer the questions raised in (3) in a satisfying way?

(5) It's sometimes funny to talk about 'language X being more / less [adjective] than language Y'. But what can possible answers tell us about the languages themselves? IMHO, it tells a great deal about the person who answers them, but not about anything else.
A sub question here could be: why are some people preoccuppied with making top-10 lists of 'most difficult/easiest/most sophisticated/uggliest/...' languages? Why does thinking about language and languages has to end (quite often) in a kind of competition or boxing game, with on our left side, the 'most difficult/most sophisticated/etc.' language, and in the blue corner, the 'less difficult/etc.'? What's the point? 

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ireney

I'm still stuggling with the term sophisticated.

If it means complex as in having cases etc, then it is wrong to use the word "sophisticated".  To take my favourite duo, Greek is more complex grammatically-wise than English due to declension and subjugation , English "beats" Greek hands down when it comes to complexity of pronunciation  

That doesn't mean that either of the two is more sophisticated than the other.

If sophistication has to do with terminology well, English seems to have borrowed a whole load of Greek words in medicine (latin too) and philosophy and we've borrowed a whole load of economic, buisness and technological terms (there's still no good translation of the word "project" in a buisness environment).

In fact Greek, which could be considered by some as sophisticated (I mean those who go for that sort of thing) since it both has a rather complex grammar and syntax and many "highbrow" terminology (and is among those languages that can "boast" for a long history of writen works of some intellectual value) has been borrowing words throughout its long existence. Now if it was really a language more sophisticated than the others would it need to constantly borrow words from 'inferior' languages? Nahhh


----------



## mytwolangs

How sophisticated a language seems kind of depends on what you compare it to. 
Like this - For some English speakers, French seems much more polite and sophisticated than German. [I study both] I ain't putting German down, it just, to me, has a much more harsh sound. 
And then there is the whole context of formal VS familiar. 
Let's face it, "pouvez-vous" sounds much nicer than "peux-tu".

But in America, things are often named after French words to sound more sophisticated.


----------



## Falcons508

> I'm sorry if I misunderstood you - you might've ben asking about the earliest forms for language.



Yes, that is what I meant. Languages that were developed tens on thousands of years ago by cavemen.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.


----------



## ps139

The simple truth is that some languages are better at expressing certain concepts/ideas than others. This has mostly to do with the culture of the language group, the geography, and the lifestyle. That which is more important in life, you will talk about more. 

This does not mean (in my opinion.. there is a raging debate among linguists) that certain language groups cannot express/conceive of certain concepts, it just means that certain terms are not readily available in their languages, and it will take more of an effort to express.


----------



## Frank06

Hi PS, all,


ps139 said:


> The simple truth is that some languages are better at expressing certain concepts/ideas than others. This has mostly to do with the culture of the language group, the geography, and the lifestyle. That which is more important in life, you will talk about more.
> This does not mean (in my opinion.. there is a raging debate among linguists) that certain language groups cannot express/conceive of certain concepts, it just means that certain terms are not readily available in their languages, and it will take more of an effort to express.


I read this interesting idea quite often, but I never saw examples of this theory. I also must admit that I don't fully understand what you mean...
Could you please illustrate that "simple truth" (and quote some (modern) linguists who hold this theory).

I don't know if I am on the right track now, but reading your post the Portuguese word "saudade" comes to mind. A word that, according to most lusophones I know "cannot be translated in any language" [nor can they define it, but that's another prob ]. Do you mean something like that?
Or are you referring to grammatical issues, languages with definite and indefinte articles v. languages without articles; languages with a 'progressive tense' ('I am writing') v. languages without it, to take two very simple examples. If so, how are you going to quantify (and compare) those differences?

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## Seana

I am not a specialist in language and literature, my skills in foreign languages are not very good but I would like to write here because I have some reflections about this topic. 
Compared 3 language I learnt: French, English and Russian with Polish my mother tongue I can see it most refined.
But it isn't exclusively a chauvinism. In my opinion Polish has loads of different diminutives, various synonyms and epithets, cases, prefixes and suffixes, verbal inflection, 'shades' of emotions, comparisons, the emphasis and proverbs. It is just the reasons I see it 'sophisticated'.
Language is a "mirror of our culture". It is said that speech characterizes our personalities and our minds and lives. 
If that was true Poles would have very complicated personalities. 
Polish language was once a lingua franca in various regions of cenral and Eastern Europe for over two centuries what was cause of many influence. According to most linguistic studies Polish was influenced by Latin, Czech, French, Russian, Prussia, German, Italian, Belarusian, Lithuania, Ukraine and Latvia which gave beauty and richness to it .
I have a question for others Polish users with much more better skill then I have. Am I right? Using English - would you be able to express yourself with as refined style as in Polish language?


----------



## ireney

Seana maybe you should better ask English people learning Polish if they can express themselves using Polish with as refined a style as in English language


----------



## ps139

Frank06 said:


> Hi PS, all,
> 
> I read this interesting idea quite often, but I never saw examples of this theory. I also must admit that I don't fully understand what you mean...
> Could you please illustrate that "simple truth" (and quote some (modern) linguists who hold this theory).
> 
> I don't know if I am on the right track now, but reading your post the Portuguese word "saudade" comes to mind. A word that, according to most lusophones I know "cannot be translated in any language" [nor can they define it, but that's another prob ]. Do you mean something like that?
> Or are you referring to grammatical issues, languages with definite and indefinte articles v. languages without articles; languages with a 'progressive tense' ('I am writing') v. languages without it, to take two very simple examples. If so, how are you going to quantify (and compare) those differences?
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


Hi Frank,

Well, there are a lot of different ways that this idea can be expressed. Any bilingual will know that, let's say there is a beautiful piece of poetry in one language, well when it translates into another language, it is just not the same. 

Another point is that languages of cultures who deal with item X (computers, herbal remedies, whatever... something specialized) will have an easier time discussing these topics, as their vocabulary is more disposed to it. Others may be able to discuss it, but with much circumlocution.

In terms of language actually affecting thought patterns, this is where the real debate lies. It all started with Edward Sapir and B.L. Whorf early last century. Whorf said that





> "The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face. The world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which have to be organized in our minds. This means, largely, by the linguistic system in our minds. "


 He also said that "language and our thought-grooves are inextricably interrelated, are, in a sense, one and the same.:" Sapir claimed that humans were "At the mercy of their languages." When Behaviorism ruled the day in early language studies, this view was taken to be gospel.

Of the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" there are two versions, the strong and the weak. The strong encompasses all of the following points, the weak picks and chooses:



> 1.  Structural differences between language systems will, in general, be paralleled by nonlinguistic cognitive differences of an unspecified sort, in the native speakers of the two languages.
> 2.  The structure of anyone’s native language strongly influences or fully determines the world-view he will acquire as he learns the language.
> 3. The semantic systems of different languages vary without constraint.



But when Chomsky burst onto the scene, he turned linguistics on its head (for the better, in my opinion). He completely rejected the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis," and any claims that certain races/language groups were at an advantage over others. Steven Pinker, author of "The Language Instinct" is a modern disciple of Chomsky who writes a lot about this. 

Ok, some real, and modern examples? Since I wrote a term paper on this years ago I hope you do not mind if I pull a slightly edited copy/paste job from my undergraduate work. 

Pro-Sapir Whorf Hypothesis:
*1. *Dan Slobin’s “*Language and Thought Online,*” while fraught with many logical errors, did have some startling evidence in favor of language’s effects on thought. Although I don’t find his entire section on manner of motion verbs, S-languages and V-languages to be airtight, there were some compelling results which gave credence to a weak Whorfian position. 
    Slobin provided an excerpt from “La casa de los espiritus” along with its English translation, which was accurate. When readers of both languages were asked to report their mental imagery during the reading, there was a clear difference in kind between the mental imagery of the English (S-language) speakers and that of the Spanish (V-language) speakers. Slobin writes:

A





> lmost all English speakers reported mental imagery for the manner in which the protagonist moved, using manner verbs...as well as elaborate descriptions....The vast majority [of Spanish speakers] reported little or no imagery of the manner of the protagonist’s movement, although they had clear images of the muddy, stony path and the physical surroundings of the scene. They reported having seen a series of static images or still pictures (“more like still photographs.”) (Slobin, 174)



    The “Static images” of the Spanish speakers contrast sharply with the fluid motions perceived by English speakers. This difference in perception cannot be explained away. I believe it substantiates a weak Whorfian position that when using words, language affects thought. 


2. Miller et al.’s “*Preschool Origins of Cross National Differences in National Competence*” offers more evidence that language affects thought. He investigates the question of why Chinese students score better on mathematical tests than American students, and concludes that it is differeces in number terminology. In English counting, numbers eleven through nineteen are somewhat anomalous to the pattern of other compund numbers, in that they do not follow the “decade name-unit name” pattern. In Chinese, eleven is literally “ten-one.” Also, for numbers twenty and above, it is once again the literal 1-9 numbers strung together. 

Miller suspects that English speaking children probably do not realize that “twenty” is related to “two,” “thirty” to “three,” “fifty” to “five” and so on.  In abstract counting among preschoolers, Chinese and English speaking children three years old rarely make it past twenty. However, at age five, Chinese children can count to 100 without making errors, while English speakers usually don’t make it past fifty. 

He concludes that English naming system “appears to present obstacles to children’s understanding of the base-10 principle of number representation and to acquire mathematical carrying and borrowing strategies.

Anti-Sapir Whorf:
1. .....the study by Soja et al., “* Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meaning.*” In this study, the researchers tested 2 year old children to see what determined their induction of word meanings:_ ontological categories of solid object and non-solid substance_ or _salient characteristics such as shape and number_. Children were taught new words describing various objects which were fit into either ontological category named above. Then, they were shown various other objects, some being solid, others being non-cohesive pieces of the same substance. The children associated the learned word with the new stimuli that shared its ontological category. Consistently, number and shape similarities were ignored in favor of the ontological similarity. There were two types of trials, one with neutral syntax, another with informative syntax. In neutral syntax trials, children were not given any information as to its ontological category - the only determiners used being “my,” “the” and “this.” These determiners could refer to solid objects or non solid substances. 

The informative syntax trials used determiners specific to the respective ontological categories. In both cases the children showed a pattern of ontological category guiding word meaning. Subsequent experiments were performed strictly to rule out the possibility of chance governing the children’s responses. 

    Soja claims that the human mind is originally endowed with these categories of solid object and non-solid substance. In the absence of count/mass syntax, these ontological categories determine associations of types. The crucial piece of evidence is that shape, texture and number were consistently ignored in semantic association. The child’s thought process is described by “Procedures 1 & 2.” These procedures are driven by ontological categories, “is the speaker talking about a solid object?” or “is the speaker talking about a non-solid substance?” The resulting conclusions are based on ontological similarity.

In sum, Soja’s position involves innate ontological categories as guiding word meaning in language acquisition. In this view, new word meanings conform to pre-existing ontological categories rather than being determined by whatever physical feature appears most salient. Her claims are supported by studies with 2 year olds, who have not learned the syntax of count and mass noun distinction, yet seem to be guided in word acquisition by the ontological categories of solid objects versus non-solid substances. Since they do not have syntax of count and mass nouns to guide their semantic understanding, yet ignore shape and number while preferring the ontological category of substance, Soja concludes that language conforms to thought, not vice versa.


----------



## Seana

ireney said:


> Seana maybe you should better ask English people learning Polish if they can express themselves using Polish with as refined a style as in English language


Oh yes if somobody was so kind to answer it I would be really very glad of it.
Bur I wrote it in this way because I am very curious just about this case because when I want to express some situations or emotions in English I often lack possibility of using figures of speech I could find in Polish (apart from the vocabulary  of course).


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


Seana said:


> I have a question for others Polish users with much more better skill then I have. Am I right? Using English - would you be able to express yourself with as refined style as in Polish language?



It's a pity we can't ask Joseph Conrad (born Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski) anymore .

Frank


----------



## Seana

frank06 said:
			
		

> It's a pity we can't ask Joseph Conrad (born Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski) anymore .


 
Conrad created in English, but he had permanent contact with the country and Polish language via the regular correspondence with his uncle and in the correspondence and personal contacts with other Poles he used Polish. 
His father was an expert of William Shakespeare poems so his son might be familiar with English as well I suppose. Even though he is recognised as a one of the biggest stylists in entire English literature, to the end of his days he spoke English with the strong strange accent, even though his French was impeccable.


----------



## badgrammar

Hi Seana, 

The point, it seems to me, is that of course you cannot express yourself in ENglish as well and with as many nuances as you can in POlish, but that is because it is not your native language, I believe it is as simple as that.  If English were a native language for you, then you would have no trouble at all expressing yourself with precision, conveying even very subtle ideas with ease...  

There are always situations and things that can better be expressed using one language than another, but they are isolated. While it may be easier or more nuanced to express X idea in Polish for whatever reason, it may conversly be easier to express Y idea in English.   

I tend to believe that there is no one language more sophisticated/refined than any other for reasons stated in some of the excellent posts above.


----------



## Seana

Thank you badgrammar for your reply. 





			
				badgramar said:
			
		

> tend to believe that there is no one language more sophisticated/refined than any other for reasons stated in some of the excellent posts above]


Perhaps you are right because the style of speech in many times depends on the person who just use it. It is certain that language  is used in different ways by people. Theirs education, jobs, personal tendency to be little bit  'poetic' or dry in reporting reality that influence for it (for example a specialist in language and literature, the engineer,  doctor,  buildworker,  poet, teacher etc)  


Thomas F. O'Gara said:


> Most languages "choose" to emphasize some types of ways of describing reality in favor of others, whether it's the precise sense of aspect that one finds in the Slavic languages, the telegraphic minimalism of a language like Chinese, the strict adherence to expressing social nuances that Japanese presents or the precise relationship between the action of the sentence and the receiver of the action - ergativity - that's so marked in Native American languages. All languages are sophisticated in one way or another.



Although I don't know these languges I must agree with this opinion because I feel these differences instinctively.


To be on topic I want to ask you what do you think about this sentence said by Athan Anagnostopoulos, Director The Greek Institute in Cambridge  Massachusetts 

*"The Greek language is Greece's most precious gift to the world. The loftiest ideas and most refined sentiments have been expressed through the Greek language." *​


----------



## karuna

Native language always seems very special thus the comparison with a language one have learned later in his life may be biased. But if I had to decide which language – Russian or English – is more sophisticated or better in explaining certain concepts, I couldn't answer. These languages have different flavours but I find them equal in all other aspects. It doesn't matter if Russian has perfect and imperfect verbs, noun declensions and other features that English does not have; on the other hand, Russian has no articles. The difference in understanding is mostly due to cultural differences, not due to different languages. In my work I often have to read Russian and English texts and it really doesn't make any difference whatsoever. A Russian author writting in Russian or an American author writting in English – both are equally good to express all kinds of ideas in their own languages.

Sometimes I don't know a precise word or expression because I don't speak these languages perfectly but I can always find a way how to explain my thoughts in other way. I guess that is true even for a native speaker who can always find a way to express a foreign concept that has no direct equivalent in his native language.


----------



## ireney

Errr I'd say that Mr Anagnostopoulos is overtly proud of his mother language. It is indeed a language that the users of its ancient form were the first (?) to be in a position to contemplate on some of the "loftier ideas" -as Mr Anagnostopoulos calls them- before others. This meant that those who "followed" and read their work borrowed the terms they had coined.

I find Greek in all its forms an intricate language. I have not met anyone who knows Greek (either modern or even more so, ancient) that does not call Greek an intricate language. That however does not make it more "sophisticated" than the others.

We can argue about whethere the Ancient Greeks had a more sophisticated society/culture/whatever than others (and we'll need to define "sophistication" once more) but not about their amazing language.

P.S. "most refined sentiments" have been expressed in many, many languages if not all.


----------



## Frank06

Hi PS, all,

Thanks, PS, for your long and  elaborate reply! 


ps139 said:


> Any bilingual will know that, let's say  there is a beautiful piece of poetry in one language, well when it translates  into another language, it is just not the same.


I understand now, and I completely agree!  
But I also interpret this example as a kind of confirmation that it is rather  useless to compare two language what concerns their degree of  '*sophistication*' in absolute terms, in the sense that language X (let's  say Persian) is more sophisticated than language English, or vice versa. I mean, translating e.g. Hafez into English will probably yield  as many problems as translating e.g. Shakespeare into Persian, or rather, a  comparatively similar amount of problems, but problems which are completely  different. But this doesn't say a thing about the comparative sophistication of  the two languages, does it?



> Another point is that languages of  cultures who deal with item X (computers, herbal remedies, whatever... something  specialized) will have an easier time discussing these topics, as their  vocabulary is more disposed to it. Others may be able to discuss it, but with  much circumlocution.
> In terms of language actually affecting thought  patterns, this is where the real debate lies. It all started with Edward Sapir  and B.L. Whorf early last century.
> Whorf said that He also said that  "language and our thought-grooves are inextricably interrelated, are, in a  sense, one and the same.:" Sapir claimed that humans were "At the mercy of their  languages."


I am not really a fan of what is conveniently called the  'Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis' (SWH), which draws heavily on the old ideas of Herder  (+1803) and von Humboldt (+1853), btw. I find the SWH more interesting for  historical reasons than for reasons inherent to the hypothesis/theory itself.
My major problem, _as far as  I understood the SWH_, is that it takes a snap shot of a language and that  it draws enormously dramatic and far-going conclusions from that snapshot,  relating to culture.
Maybe I miss the ball completely, but if people are 'at  the mercy of their language', then I wonder how the language of a bunch of  farmers/warriors in 6th C Anglo-Saxon Britain could have changed in a nick of  time.
I mean, the SWH seems to look at language as something very static, as a series of snapshots of frames (like a movie). It doesn't seem to account for that the idea that language users are able to adopt their language to the (changing) cultural environment. Just look at the language of our grandparents, our own language (assuming you speak the language of your grandparents, viz. English) and all the cultural changes in those two generations.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## ps139

Frank06 said:


> Hi PS, all,
> 
> Thanks, PS, for your long and  elaborate reply!
> 
> I understand now, and I completely agree!
> But I also interpret this example as a kind of confirmation that it is rather  useless to compare two language what concerns their degree of  '*sophistication*' in absolute terms, in the sense that language X (let's  say Persian) is more sophisticated than language English, or vice versa. I mean, translating e.g. Hafez into English will probably yield  as many problems as translating e.g. Shakespeare into Persian, or rather, a  comparatively similar amount of problems, but problems which are completely  different. But this doesn't say a thing about the comparative sophistication of  the two languages, does it?


 I see what you're saying. There can be no scale by which we measure sophistication... there is no way to categorize language like that... and theoretically, if there was, only someone fluent in all languages could do it, then people would say "it is only his opinion" etc ... impossible to do this in absolute terms. There is just way too much we do not know.




> I am not really a fan of what is conveniently called the  'Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis' (SWH), which draws heavily on the old ideas of Herder  (+1803) and von Humboldt (+1853), btw. I find the SWH more interesting for  historical reasons than for reasons inherent to the hypothesis/theory itself.
> My major problem, _as far as  I understood the SWH_, is that it takes a snap shot of a language and that  it draws enormously dramatic and far-going conclusions from that snapshot,  relating to culture.
> Maybe I miss the ball completely, but if people are 'at  the mercy of their language', then I wonder how the language of a bunch of  farmers/warriors in 6th C Anglo-Saxon Britain could have changed in a nick of  time.
> I mean, the SWH seems to look at language as something very static, as a series of snapshots of frames (like a movie). It doesn't seem to account for that the idea that language users are able to adopt their language to the (changing) cultural environment. Just look at the language of our grandparents, our own language (assuming you speak the language of your grandparents, viz. English) and all the cultural changes in those two generations.
> 
> Groetjes,
> 
> Frank


Exactly... I agree with you. 

I also am suspect of... if Whorf's "brain grooves" were "formed" by English... how could he learn Hopi well enough to understand it? It's ironic... and the theory has nonsensical bases. However there is some influence between language and thought, so we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Balthazar

clearly... the British accent... because we can say that it is the mother tongue....


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

While there is a certain amount of truth in the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis - and any language student can experience this when he realizes that he has to change his concepts of reality somewhat when learning a new language - languages are nevertheless capable of adapting.  The most obvious example of this is Arabic, which adapted itself within a hundred years from being the language of some nomadic tribes (which admittedly had a large poetic vocabulary) in the sixth century to a highly flexible language, capable of use for discussing the most abstruse technical and philosophical issues of its time.  Languages can change when a historical exigency for that change develops.


----------



## Paparaciii

karuna said:


> Native language always seems very special thus the comparison with a language one have learned later in his life may be biased. But if I had to decide which language – Russian or English – is more sophisticated or better in explaining certain concepts, I couldn't answer. These languages have different flavours but I find them equal in all other aspects. It doesn't matter if Russian has perfect and imperfect verbs, noun declensions and other features that English does not have; on the other hand, Russian has no articles. The difference in understanding is mostly due to cultural differences, not due to different languages. In my work I often have to read Russian and English texts and it really doesn't make any difference whatsoever. A Russian author writting in Russian or an American author writting in English – both are equally good to express all kinds of ideas in their own languages.
> 
> Sometimes I don't know a precise word or expression because I don't speak these languages perfectly but I can always find a way how to explain my thoughts in other way. I guess that is true even for a native speaker who can always find a way to express a foreign concept that has no direct equivalent in his native language.


Daļēji piekrītu, daļēji ne. 

First of all I think that one must be fully bilingual(or multi-lingual) in those languages which he wants to compare.
If we compare Russian with Latvian(I'm not fully bilingual, so I concede that my opinion might be false) , I can say that it's true that there's no visible advantage for any of these languages of expressing idea's and opinions in proffesional fields, cultural and educational activities. But in every-day(informal) speech it seems to me that sometimes it's esier for Russian-language speakers to express their emotions, especially when using slang and rude words. 
And actually I don't know any Latvian who doesn't use some Russian slang words when curse.


----------



## karuna

Paparaciii said:


> Daļēji piekrītu, daļēji ne.
> 
> First of all I think that one must be fully bilingual(or multi-lingual) in those languages which he wants to compare.
> If we compare Russian with Latvian(I'm not fully bilingual, so I concede that my opinion might be false) , I can say that it's true that there's no visible advantage for any of these languages of expressing idea's and opinions in proffesional fields, cultural and educational activities. But in every-day(informal) speech it seems to me that sometimes it's esier for Russian-language speakers to express their emotions, especially when using slang and rude words.



Slang, especially Russian slang is extremely simple. And they don't express much sophisticated emotions at all. To be blunt is exactly the reason why it is used. 



> And actually I don't know any Latvian who doesn't use some Russian slang words when curse.



Come on, I know a lot of Russians who don't use Russian slang what to speak of Latvians.  Some Latvians may use Russian slang words because they don't understand their meanings very well and therefore it sounds less rude to them. But normally using Russian slang or so called mother words is considered ill-mannered.


----------

