I recently corresponded with someone who used the phrase 'language is culture'. This made me think about the relationship between language and culture. To my mind, language is a component of culture and as such, reflects culture.

Some people seem to think that unless you learn the language of a particular culture, you can never gain a deep understanding of that culture. What do you think?

Regards,

Chris

celldee:I recently corresponded with someone who used the phrase 'language is culture'. This made me think about the relationship between language and culture. To my mind, language is a component of culture and as such, reflects culture.

Some people seem to think that unless you learn the language of a particular culture, you can never gain a deep understanding of that culture. What do you think?

Regards,

Chris

Language, of course, is a part of culture - such an important part that a deep understanding of that culture without knowing the language most likely is not possible indeed, I think. Actually, I even think that language, written or spoken, is the most important part of culture at all. So, simply being able to communicate with people in their native language is still not sufficient for deep understanding their culture. The other question is how deeply every native speaker understands his/her own culture
But not knowing the language does not hinder understanding certain parts of the culture very well: I can easily imagine that one could be an expert on Thai cuisine without knowing the Thai language at all.

Amike,
Harri.

This question has implications for the value of Esperanto. It is only to the extent that the understanding of cultures as expressed in their language can be translated, that Esperanto can be an effective bridge language. If such translation cannot be accomplished sufficiently for harmony, Esperanto cannot bring about world peace.

But a more hopeful way to look at this may be to say: languages do indeed emerge as part of the culture of the communities that use them, and many things in a culture and hence its language cannot be translated perfectly; but that which is essential for harmony can, on the grounds of our common humanity. Otherwise true friendships or understanding between humans at all levels across languages or cultures would be impossible, and that is not so.

I'd say that language is more or less an insight into the way a folk (if not an individual) think and understand things. For instance, if you spoke a language where there was no word for purple and instead it was called 'dark pink', then you'd probably understand the colour purple to be simply a dark pink. Not that it really matters, maybe purple is just a dark pink after all.

And I wonder why we need Esperanto when we already have four universal languages: love, laughter, maths and HTML

Unfortunately I'm only fluent in laughter and semi fluent in HTML

ceigered: I wonder why we need Esperanto when we already have four universal languages: love, laughter, maths and HTML ..

Don't know whether you would lump 'science' with maths there. But have you forgotten the language that is even more universal? I quote from Frederick Forsyth's The Fist of God:

In Rahmani's experience there was one language that every poor Iraqi spoke and spoke well. He produced a wallet and peeled out 100 dinars..

That's a brilliant book, by the way, one of Forsyth's best IMHO. It's been around long enough that you can probably get it free from a public library or very cheaply from a second hand bookshop.

Miland:

ceigered: I wonder why we need Esperanto when we already have four universal languages: love, laughter, maths and HTML ..

Don't know whether you would lump 'science' with maths there. But have you forgotten the language that is even more universal? I quote from Frederick Forsyth's The Fist of God:

In Rahmani's experience there was one language that every poor Iraqi spoke and spoke well. He produced a wallet and peeled out 100 dinars..

That's a brilliant book, by the way, one of Forsyth's best IMHO. It's been around long enough that you can probably read it free from a library or get it very cheaply from a second hand bookshop.

Good point. But money is a very slurred tongue

Miland:This question has implications for the value of Esperanto...
...many things in a culture and hence its language cannot be translated perfectly; but that which is essential for harmony can, on the grounds of our common humanity. Otherwise true friendships or understanding between humans at all levels across languages or cultures would be impossible, and that is not so.

Our common humanity is not culture-specific and I suppose, therefore it can be effectively expressed in any language, including the Esperanto. I also think that principally features of any culture can be expressed in any language - if the speaker only does know these features well enough. And most likely s/he would not know them well enough if s/he does not speak the language of this culture.
Amike,
Harri.

I don't think we can judge the phrase "language is culture" until we define what culture is.

Is language culture?
What about cooking? Is that culture?
What about styles of dress? Is that culture?
Architecture?
Art?
Music?
Religion?
Politics?
How about the history of an area? Does that count?
And so on.

Personally, I think that language is PART of culture, but that culture is considerably more than language.

Plus, there are different levels of culture. Take Asian culture, for example. It spans multiple languages, many of which are extremely different from one another. Chinese culture is different from Japanese culture in many ways, but is also similar in many ways. We can say the same about Korean culture, Vietnamese culture, and so on. Even within Chinese culture, there are zillions of dialects, many not mutually intelligible, yet there is still something we can identify as "Chinese culture" even if we entirely remove the spoken language element.

There is also a readily identifiable European culture that differs quite a bit from Asian culture, and yet spans German, French, Spanish, Danish, Italian, etc. But within European culture, Italian culture is still different from French culture, etc.

Language contributes to some levels, not to others. Personally, I don't believe that one can properly appreciate a culture until one is fully immersed in it for many years - that includes learning the language(s), but also includes just dealing with the people on a day-to-day basis, learning the history, eating the food, understanding the politics, and so on and so forth. Unless one "goes native", they will always have an incomplete understanding (and even then, they will still have missed parts related to growing up in that culture).

Miland:

ceigered: I wonder why we need Esperanto when we already have four universal languages: love, laughter, maths and HTML ..

Don't know whether you would lump 'science' with maths there. But have you forgotten the language that is even more universal? I quote from Frederick Forsyth's The Fist of God:

In Rahmani's experience there was one language that every poor Iraqi spoke and spoke well. He produced a wallet and peeled out 100 dinars..

That's a brilliant book, by the way, one of Forsyth's best IMHO. It's been around long enough that you can probably get it free from a public library or very cheaply from a second hand bookshop.

But money is just such a fragile thing, even more so than love.

Here's from the proverbs:

Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone,
for they will surely sprout wings
and fly off to the sky like an eagle. Proverbs 23:5

No I think ceigered is right. The true languages are: love, laughter, math and HTML

I guess I still have to learn the first two though

DaDane:But money is just such a fragile thing, even more so than love..

Just this lunchtime I was in a restaurant and overheard one of two young women at the next table talk about a break-up that she had experienced. Of course I concentrated my gaze on my Esperanto book, but couldn't help hearing her fascinating talk. I'm sure they were glad that their money didn't fade away when paying for their lunch.