Language and Culture, are they inseparable?

[rdearman]

I had thought the linguistic relativity principle, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis had pretty much been disproven. Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.

So in theory if we all have one common language we all think the same. Newspeak to George Orwell. Now I've recently spent some time thinking about this whole "your language determines your culture and beliefs" thing, and I believe it is a load of old bollocks. Most linguists seem to agree, although the jury is still out until there is some proof one way or another.

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/worldt ... whorf.html

In my own personally experience I know that although the USA and the UK have a common languages the cultural values are can be the same or wildly different depending on the topic. Gun control, or nationalised healthcare being examples.

So let's assume for a moment every language other than English dies in the next month and everyone in the world now speaks English, do you believe in this scenario we'd all think the same? REDACTED I don't think so, I believe your national culture and identity aren't related to languages. More to do with your surrounding economic or social influences. E.g. your neighbours are more important to your culture and values than languages.

So if there is only one language, English, or Gorbogokka from Taui-Centi 3, I believe your local "tribe" makes the culture, not the language. In fact the language would probably shift into separate languages as local slang morphed into dialects and then into new languages. For example New Zealanders or Scottish can be almost unintelligible to the average American.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/12/01/santa-struggles-kiwi-accent-viral-air-new-zealand-christmas-ad

[reineke]

In my own personally experience I know that although the USA and the UK have a common languages the cultural values are can be the same or wildly different depending on the topic. Gun control, or nationalised healthcare being examples.

So let's assume for a moment every language other than English dies in the next month and everyone in the world now speaks English, do you believe in this scenario we'd all think the same?

A former French person might start picking at your grammar.

[DaveBee]

I believe your national culture and identity aren't related to languages. More to do with your surrounding economic or social influences. E.g. your neighbours are more important to your culture and values than languages.

I agree with that. But one of the presentations at the recent polyglot gathering, Different language, different personality? reported an observed behavioural effect of using a different language.

That doesn't disagree with your notion of conforming to group norms either, it just suggests that L2 you is identifying with a different group to L1 you.

[AndyMeg]

I think we all have something called "mental language". This is the base from which all the other languages develop. And this is why we sometimes want to communicate something but we don't find the words to translate it in spoken (or sign) language even if we know it in our minds. The mental language is what allows us to understand concepts from which there are no specific words in our native tongue and it is also what allows us to understand very different concepts and points of view from other cultures.

The way I see it, we all think in the mental language but we quickly translate it to our native tongue or to whichever language we want (if we know it, of course). This happens so fast that we usually don't realize it.

I think culture shapes language, but language also influences culture (and it's actually a reflection of it). As the culture evolves and changes, so does language, and as the language changes, it also changes the words and concepts we are exposed to from our very early days and what we accept as normal or expected.

Having a common mental language doesn't mean that we have to think exactly the same. Even native speakers from the same native tongue may have different opinions on different topics and different ways to approach the same thing. That's part of human nature and it has to do with many factors like personal values and principles, life experiences, economic situation, availability of resources, social expectations, personality, feelings and emotions, cognitive development, etc.

[emk]

REDACTED

Are you trying to make extra work for the moderators? If this thread turns into a giant political flamewar, I'm going to be busy doing Anki reps and you'll have to escape on your own.

So if there is only one language, English, or Gorbogokka from Taui-Centi 3, I believe your local "tribe" makes the culture, not the language.

This seems pretty plausible. Of course, a language barrier can really slow down cultural diffusion. English is partially immune to this, because Holywood-Internet-it's-a-popular-L2-etc. But cool stuff goes on all the time in non-English languages that never really diffuses "back."

[iguanamon]

Some of the worst wars in human history have been so-called "civil" wars with both sides having a common language: the English Civil War in the 1600's; the US Revolutionary War; the French Revolution; the US Civil War in the 1860s; the Russian Revolution; the Spanish Civil War in the 1930's; the Chinese Revolution in the late 1940's; the Korean War in the 1950's (though later outsourced in the name of the Cold War) along with the Vietnam War in the 1960's-70's; the Balkans War in the 1990's; the Syrian Civil War; the Yemeni War, etc... I'm sure I'm leaving out some here... but, you get the point.

So, yes, having a common language did/does not erase all cultural differences between these people... it just made it easier for them to make war and justify themselves to each other. There's a saying- "All politics is local". This is true. Nations have interests. Regions have interests. Cities have interests. Neighborhoods have interests. Groups have interests. If we all switched to Esperanto, this would still continue to be true. It's only human.

[Iversen]

As Iguanamon points out, two countries can share a language and still end up fighting - and single individuals within one country can speak the same language and still become mortal enemies. You can also ask whether having a shared language is a guarantee that you also have at least some common cultural references in common, and mostly that would to some extent be the case. For instance most people in Germany will probable be aware who Angela Merkel is, but I vaguely remember from the English Pointless quiz that only around 15% had the faintest idea about her identity. So people who watch the same news broadcasts and 'reality' shows will probably end up sharing some common knowledge, which outsiders may not even be aware of. But it is doubtful whether this extends beyond superficial knowledge about some VIP names.

Actually musicians or nuclear physicists or mormons or football/soccer addicts from different countries may have more in common in their knowledge within their chosen field of interests and their way of thinking in general than people who share a language, but belong to very different subcultures. But ironically that shared knowledge could also be the reason that make them hate each other.

So I would answer the question of the OP with the German word "jein" or the British "ah dunno".

Personally I would find it difficult to study a language without also to some extent absorbing some knowledge about the places it is spoken and their history. But that doesn't make me feel like a cultural chameleon or shapeshifter - I am me, myself and nobody but me in all my languages, and my aim is to be recognizable as me in any language I might choose to use, and any cultural item I may have learnt in language A should be available to me also when I use language B.

[rdearman]

REDACTED

Are you trying to make extra work for the moderators? If this thread turns into a giant political flamewar, I'm going to be busy doing Anki reps and you'll have to escape on your own.

Err... yeah, sorry about that. I'm not trying to make a political statement, just trying to illustrate the differences in cultural values between two countries with a common language. So let me try to think of a less political example. I'm actually more interested in what creates cultural values? Is it the language? I don't think so, so although a language might give you some common references, it isn't all about that.

Let me give another example, in London I was once called a Septic. (Septic Tank = Yank) so although I knew both those words, I didn't have the cultural reference of Cockney rhyming slang to translate the concept. So even though I knew all of the words involved as a native English speaker it wasn't a common cultural reference. So this is where I'm going with the "common culture" as it relates to language. I'm sure there are things which a Canadian or Aussie would take for granted which I wouldn't have a clue about. This is why I don't believe a common language would necessarily kill a culture.

[MrPenguin]

Right now, languages function as effective cultural insulators, but that insulation is only effective in one direction with regards to the Anglosphere. Thanks to the current status of English as a lingua franca, and the American entertainment industry, the world gets English stuff, the Anglosphere gets English stuff, but hardly anyone anywhere gets "world stuff". Having the "world stuff" change into English stuff would effectively break that barrier, possibly ending the cultural influence of America and Co.

Unlike a lot of people in the language industry*, I am truly looking forward to the day when computer software can translate seamlessly between every language, and maybe even provide commentary and context on things that are difficult to translate ("let the reader decide"), or things that could be misunderstood. It would mean finally being able to browse The World, instead of being limited to the Anglosphere, and a few other, comparatively tiny regions of the internet.

Can you imagine how great it would be if everyone on a forum could write every post in their native language, fully expecting everyone to understand thanks to seamless automatic translation? It would be a boon for language learners as well, being able to turn off the automatic translation for certain languages, and read posts in the original, for practice.

I may have gone off on a bit of a tangent here...

Edit*: from "learners" to "professionals"*
Edit2: I just looked up "language professionals", and see that that's something else entirely.

[lichtrausch]

This is why I don't believe a common language would necessarily kill a culture.

Not necessarily, but in practice it often does on some levels. For example, how likely are rhyming songs from an indigenous American language likely to survive if that language's community of speakers switches to Spanish? Not very. Other cultural artifacts like cuisine should fare better.