Hi @ll This is a forum using the English language. English, like other European languages does have some ‘layers’ (sorry, if you don’t find this word suitable, just invent another one and post it here), but not so many as other languages. Explanation: with ‘layers’ I mean the degree of courtesy, which is available to languages. In English I can “eat”, but I can also “grab a bite”, or I can “dine”. I can “walk“ and I can “gravitate”, for example. However, when it comes to personal pronouns, there is only one level of “I” and “you”. Other languages are more structured. They do have five or more different forms for “I”, consistently used with the appropriate level of nouns (which are proportionally numerous). For instance in some countries you would say “I go to…” to a person that is perceived to be of the same rank, but then “your highness proceeds to…” to someone like your boss. Question: There must be a psychological side effect to having your pronouns shifting all the time. What Westerners know is they have in general all their verbal expressions built around the single “I” (I know there are some exceptions). What do you think: does the usage of language layers probably have sociological impacts? Are such ‘layer’-societies supposed to be less egotistic
i don't really think the structure of a language can influence your egotism. but it is true, english does have several different ways of saying things. that's what's great about the language, there's so much variation. an american indian tribe, i think it's the Hopi Indians, can only speak in a way like, ''i shall be doing this.'', ''the fire will be starting.'' etc.
<i>an american indian tribe, i think it's the Hopi Indians, can only speak in a way like, ''i shall be doing this.'', ''the fire will be starting.'' etc.</i> I seriously doubt this.
@airavata Yes, you can express many things in English. But still, when it comes to a PERSON, you have only one word. The indian tribes language confusion: could it be that there is no exact English expression and therefore it basically cannot be translated? You see, if I were to express those different personal pronouns' levels into English, it doesn't correspond either. In many languages the words for "you" and "your royal highness" are equally short: one word only. However, because ther IS not English word for it, things get difficult. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well language certainly effects the way you think to some extent. I don't know about pronouns in Western languages and egotism though. some how i doubt it. but i suppose if there is a real difference in the languages in use of the "I" pronoun there could be some small differences psychologically.
Well some of the certain to way to express situations are slang that has been put into use recently...i.e grab a bite...so idon't know if you could techinically call that a part of english but if the OED can include the term "bling bling" than i guess it counts. As for your question; i don't think the layers in a countries language coincides with their egotism...if it did then US would certainly be a dictator along with all the Primary English languge countries. In hindi language there are many ways to say you in different regards but that only pertains to respect for others. If you do not talk with such regard in India you are looked as a uneducated oaf, certainly not the person who is talked to in high regard will boast in his respect by others and feed his ego..ok well some will but those are just douche bags. BTW the word for tommorrow and yesterday is the same in HindiPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ....it's just the matter of how you form the sentence around that wordPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i'm pretty sure about the american indian thing, i'm sure i read it somewhere. but it could also be that english dosen't have anywords to describe the structure of that language. yes, when i was a kid, i used to get confused about that. people also get confused the other way round. a north indian guy i knew said tomorrow for yesterday, and yesterday for tomorrow.
It's true! The Russians actually view the world in a different way to Europeans because through their language, Russians must specifiy a gender for each object: When we say 'a' pen, the Russians must specify it as male or female.
@sargentlard et al Well, I don't mean to put all kinds of ego-centredness back to language, but I could not help to notice that in countries where you have hierarchical language, you tend to have a more hierarchical society. Agree? If you have to constantly shift the way you consider and express yourself in relation to others, there must be certain subtle psychologic consequences. The "tomorrow"-thing: in another language, the word that is usually translated into the English "tomorrow" in fact is two words and means literally "another day". No wonder that this leads to a lot of confusion with Westerners who say that the natives are lazy, not punctual... If they would care for learning the native language, they would realize that the natives never SAID "tomorrow"... An in this society, you could get by as well with only one language layer (like in Hindi, I guess), it is generally understood, but here, too, it is a sign of bad education and manners. greetings
Well not really...it's not a hierchy of language to support the caste system...though the caste system survives on it's own still in less developed part of countries such as India. As for hindi the different forms of saying you are used as a sign of respect...as in "Aapko" for elder members and "tu" for a friend or "aap" for parents...it is really to point out the standing of each character not really concerning with Hierchy...Yes the society is a lot more hierachical then i'd like it too be that because of wealth division, self centered morons, and wealthy supporting each other in putting down the less fortunate. Even in India one must say sir to their boss like in US or any other country. It's funny because poor, bitter people talk with harshness to rich people and vice versa. BTW..GreetingsPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hi sargentlard, I intentionally did not refer to the cast-system, because I know too little about it, e.g. whether there is a ?gcast-imminent language?h (I guess not, please correct me). When I say ?ghierarchical?h I mean hierarchic in a sense of seniority. Let me give you an example: When I am lost in a rural area in my home country, I would turn to the next person (let?fs assume it?fs a woman) and ask her: ?hCould you (!) please tell me (!) the way to the next village??h. Now I am in a hierarchical (language layer) country. Before I can ask, I have to reflect: is she older than me? If yes, how much older - do I have to address her as my bigger sister (and then refer to myself as ?glittle sister?h) or is she rather the generation of my parents? Then I would have to ask: ?gCould the aunt (you) please tell her niece (me) the way to the next village??h I mean in such circumstances you have to PERMANENTLY reflect about where you stand in relation to others and that leads me to the conclusion that maybe the perceived ego is then more flexible than that of a Westerner. Opinion? By the way: in some languages (Thai) you even have gender-specific ?gyes?hs. A man would say ?gkrap?h and a woman ?gkah?h for ?gyes?h. The world is an interesting place! PS: I have never worked in a place where I had to say `Sir`to my boss. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh if you put it that way..well than yes Hindi language is very hierachiacal....i believe many languages are..i.e Spanish. Even in Hindi there is some what gender specific hierchy. That's why English is so easy to learn as opposed to other languages... and never had t osay sir to a boss ehh...luckyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Correction of scrambled message Sorry everyone, I posted my text yesterday from an internetcafe with weird formatting (Thai) – it appears unreadable. Here it is again. Hi sargentlard, I intentionally did not refer to the cast-system, because I know too little about it, e.g. whether there is a “cast-imminent language” (I guess not, please correct me). When I say “hierarchical” I mean hierarchic in a sense of seniority. Let me give you an example: When I am lost in a rural area in my home country, I would turn to the next person (let’s assume it’s a woman) and ask her: ”Could you (!) please tell me (!) the way to the next village?”. Now I am in a hierarchical (language layer) country. Before I can ask, I have to reflect: is she older than me? If yes, how much older - do I have to address her as my bigger sister (and then refer to myself as “little sister”) or is she rather the generation of my parents? Then I would have to ask: “Could the aunt (you) please tell her niece (me) the way to the next village?” I mean in such circumstances you have to PERMANENTLY reflect about where you stand in relation to others and that leads me to the conclusion that maybe the perceived ego is then more flexible than that of a Westerner. Opinion? By the way: in some languages (Thai) you even have gender-specific “yes”s. A man would say “krap” and a woman “kah” for “yes”. The world is an interesting place!
yeah, i agree. the hierachial organisations of pronouns in a language usually reflects the social organisation of that particular society. rigid class societies do tend to have a wider selection of pronouns. in japanese too, there are different ways of saying 'i' according to class, gender, age and most impotantly context (i can think of maybe six off the top of my head.. watashi, atashi, oree, washi, boku, temae). on top of that, there are different verb inflections to go with it, like humlbling the speaker, elevating the audience etc. but then... with that theory... english didn't exactly come from a terribly 'equal' society... and so still there are different registers of formality in pronouns retained. like the use of 'one' in the first person that is considered very formal now, but probably very prevalent in a historical context... and the use of plural "we" as the singular first person as the UK monarchy does.... non? :bugeye: (in the formal linguitic terminology 'layers of formality' is usually called "register")
Hi, Welcome here and thanks for the correct word. Does one (Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) have to say “register- languages”? It's used as a noun, right? Yeah, I think there is no question that a hierarchic society is reflected/can be reflected through a language. However, my question was related to the seemingly high incidence of self-centeredness in societies with a single “I” and the (perceived) low incidence of the same in societies with a wide range of “I”s. I think that the use of many “I”s could also have an influence in a psychological way – by setting the stage for more humbleness and consideration of others (generally of course, because individual character conditions also play a role here). What are your observations?
hmmm.... i really dunno... but herein lies the question of whether language dictates social construct, or social contruct laying the basis of language... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep. I’ve been thinking about that. Think it is more complicated. Just say there is a cavemen group and one of them just came home with his fifth mammoth in one month. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! They will probably call him “big hunter” then and after some time that title will go with certain privileges (among them the possibility NOT to be a great hunter at all, ggg). With a position of power there probably were in many societies tendencies to develop and use pronouns (including one for “I”) for each situation appropriately. A humble “I” used when talking to a person of authority and so on. A “WE”, as you pointed out for the English language used by a person with superior power. Now the questions I see: Why have some languages invented completely new words for “I”, why some others just use already existing ones (some European languages), e.g. “your worthless slave”?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe there HAVE BEEN such separate “I”s in European languages, but they are lost (any linguists here?)? If they were abandoned, then why?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! About ego-centrism: from a personal perspective it’s easy to decide what influences what. When a baby is born into hierarchical structures it is taught from the beginning where its place is. Just because there is a very firm structure within the family as well. However, when it comes to society…there seems to be a certain influence of language on society and vice versa. Clear is, if ever, then language is only a contributing factor, not a determining one… Or?
