Must Convey v/s May Convey

Does a language influence how and even what its users think (or don’t think)? At first glance, this seems ridiculous. Even if a language doesn’t have a word for a concept, surely users will just describe the concept using a group of words when needed, right? The absence of a word definitely does not mean that users of a language don’t know or understand the associated concept, reiterates Guy Deutscher in Through the Language Glass.

 

Wilhelm von Humbldt explained that the point of the above question was more nuanced, i.e., to check “what (a language) encourages and simulates its speakers to do from its own inner force”. Max Muller said something similar:

“The words in which we think are channels of thought which we have not dug ourselves, but which we found ready made for us!”

Bertrand Russell expressed this point even more strongly:

“Language misleads us by its vocabulary and by its syntax. We must be on our guard in both respects if our logic is not to lead to false metaphysic.”

Roman Jacobson phrased the intent of the point best:

“Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.”

 

The difference lies in what a language makes mandatory to convey v/s what is optional. An example helps: in English, the word “neighbour” is gender-neutral, whereas in German or Russian, the word would also convey the gender. Of course, an English speaker could mention the neighbour’s gender, but that is optional. Conversely, English verbs usually convey whether the action was in the past, present or future. Not so with Chinese verbs. Again, the Chinese speaker could add that info, but that is optional.

 

The point here is not that certain info cannot be conveyed in certain languages. Rather, it is the subtle point on what becomes habitual to speakers of different languages varies – what’s important, what’s optional. That is a subtle difference that could potentially have bigger impact in other areas…

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Need for an Informed Aadhar Debate

As Aadhar increases in scope, supporters consider it necessary, says L.Viswanath : “We have Aadhaar getting linked to ration cards, NREGA payments, PAN cards, bank accounts, mobile SIMs, mid-day meals in schools, school admissions, university admissions…the list is endless. In a country plagued by corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency, the hope is that Aadhaar will help eliminate fraudulent identities, thereby saving the direct and indirect losses to the nation.” Conversely, opponents don’t cite concrete use-cases of how it might be abused apart from throwing phrases (“Orwellian state”) that sound scary. Until its opponents provide such details, supporters will win the argument by simply asking why Aadhar should be restricted only to subsidy schemes, as Subhashis Banerjee points out : “Admittedly there are substantial leakages in these schemes, but surely the need for de-duplication and strict record keeping and audits are as much, if not more, in the domains of tax co...
Read more

Nazis and the Physics Connection

When the Nazi government seized power, they started removing Jews from more and more positions, including the civil services, and the science departments of Germany. Those physicists who saw the writing on the wall fled to either UK (like Schrodinger) or the US (like Einstein), writes Adam Becker in What is Real?   The great physicist, Enrico Fermi, wasn’t a Jew. But when Mussolini aligned with Hitler, Fermi came under suspicion since his wife was a Jew. To make matters problematic, Mussolini’s new laws had made it illegal to take “more than pocket change” out of Italy. Neils Bohr broke an unwritten rule of the Nobel and told Fermi that he (Fermi) was in the running for the Nobel that year. Perhaps Fermi, should he win, could consider escaping from Stockholm with the prize money to start a new life? Fermi agreed, but it was touch and go – his wife’s passport had been confiscated, which meant she couldn’t come to Stockholm. Fermi managed to pull a few strings to get her passport...
Read more

Bengali Cartoon

I thought that the Left had taken Bengal to rock bottom, that getting worse was not an option anymore: it was either up or sideways. But Mamata Bannerjee showed that down was still an option! She just got a Bengali professor arrested for forwarding a cartoon that made fun of her. Wow! The guy didn’t even draw the cartoon: he just did what most of us do, which is to forward something he liked or found interesting or amusing. And for that, it’s off to the dungeons in Mamata-land. The way the woman was getting in the way of every policy from the Center (the Teesta river pact with Bangaladesh, the Railway Budget, FDI in retail, the centralized counter terrorism proposal), I was beginning to think she had nothing in common with the UPA anymore. She just showed me what she shares with the UPA: she’s the same as Kapil Sibal and gang when it comes to censorship! I guess when Mamata saw Sibal’s attack on the Internet getting thrown out of the courts, one company at a time (first Microsoft, ...
Read more