4 ms·

> So a young nomadic Mongolian girl and I (UK, middle-age, male, working in craft/retail) don't represent different cultures because we can both speak English?

> So a young nomadic Mongolian girl and I (UK, middle-age, male, working in craft/retail) don't represent different cultures because we can both speak English? I think the person you responded to went too far in their argument. I would've said that speakers of the same language can have very different culture, but that (in your example) the English-speaking Mongolian girl wouldn't be part of the same culture that she would if she were a Mongolian-speaking Mongolian girl. Language doesn't dictate patterns of thought, but it certainly shapes them. A concept that might be easy to formulate in Mongolian may be difficult to formulate in English, and the reverse applies. People naturally use the patterns that the language encourages. With different patterns, different group behaviors tend to emerge, because they're easy to think about. Simultaneously, the culture shapes the language to fit its needs. Given time and isolation, it will become more and more distinctly different.

jugbandjames 10y ago
>Language doesn't dictate patterns of thought, but it certainly shapes them. What you're talking about is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it is not certain at all. It's highly contested. Language may have an effect on some cognitive processes (again, contested) but definitely not all. However, language does reflect the cumulative experience of a culture, whether modern speakers are aware of that experience or not. Here's a good illustration: http://youtu.be/kIzFz9T5rhI http://youtu.be/kIzFz9T5rhI So language can reflect a culture, but it probably doesn't dictate it. In the case of the Mongolian girl, she's unlikely to be a nomad these days, and what separates an English speaking Mongolian from a non-English speaking one is usually wealth. So, someone from a wealthy country is probably more culturally similar to her than they might expect.
- khedoros 10y ago
  > What you're talking about is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it is not certain at all. Yes, I am. The weak variation of the hypothesis. Coming from a computing background, it's difficult to convince myself that it's the case that the structure of a language (whether artificial or natural) doesn't encourage or discourage specific ways to represent meaning.

jugbandjames 10y ago

>Language doesn't dictate patterns of thought, but it certainly shapes them. What you're talking about is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it is not certain at all. It's highly contested. Language may have an effect on some cognitive processes (again, contested) but definitely not all. However, language does reflect the cumulative experience of a culture, whether modern speakers are aware of that experience or not. Here's a good illustration: http://youtu.be/kIzFz9T5rhI http://youtu.be/kIzFz9T5rhI So language can reflect a culture, but it probably doesn't dictate it. In the case of the Mongolian girl, she's unlikely to be a nomad these days, and what separates an English speaking Mongolian from a non-English speaking one is usually wealth. So, someone from a wealthy country is probably more culturally similar to her than they might expect.

khedoros 10y ago
> What you're talking about is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and it is not certain at all. Yes, I am. The weak variation of the hypothesis. Coming from a computing background, it's difficult to convince myself that it's the case that the structure of a language (whether artificial or natural) doesn't encourage or discourage specific ways to represent meaning.