【原创】我们所讲的语言决定我们的思维吗？（类GRE、GMAT作文）

这周末，这一期高级英语写作工作坊已经进入了的第二周。主题是：我们所讲的语言决定我们的思维吗？

虽然是facilitator, 但我决定这次工作坊每周自己也写一篇。

题目：Do you agree that the language we speak shapes how we think?

习作/Justin Q. Meng

At the one end of this long-standing disturbing issue stands Benjamin Lee Whorf, who famously argued for linguistic relativity; at the other end, notably Noam Chomsky, who trumpets universalism. Despite the refreshing research done by Lera Boroditsky, I am more Chomskian than Whorfian.

It is more likely that thought precedes language. When babies come to this world, they instantly start to have direct experience with the world. They look puzzlingly at everything around them. They feel, cry, smell and smile. They listen to indistinguishable sound bits. An infant can sense approval and disapproval based on mother’s reaction. He can feel the love and warmth as he suckles at his mother’s breast. Cry is the sign that he is hungry or he is uncomfortable with the guest. By the time a baby picks up a language, he already has had experience dealing with realities and surroundings. No matter how vague or insignificant the first stage of experience is, it is fair to ascribe it to thought than to language. Harvard psychology professor Elizabeth Spelke’s research proves just this.*

Then there is the difference between language and culture. Mo Yan, a Chinese Nobel laureate in literature, is a monolingual influenced by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the famed Spanish-speaking writer. Mr. Mo’s inspirations come not from the original Spanish tomes, but rather translated works of Mr. Marquez. Mo Yan’s intake is second-hand, so to speak. If Mr. Mo benefited from Mr. Marquez as much as other Spanish-speaking writers did, one thing is clear: what is at play is not so much language, but possibly culture and personal idiosyncrasies. This can be further explained by noting that few writers penning in Spanish show the style and grandeur manifested in Mr. Marquez’s writings. To miss this point runs the risk of confusing language and culture. After all, though languages differ vastly, the thoughts expressed by different languages are comprehensible, and oftentimes, readily so.

It is true that often some passages of translated works have a feel of foreignness, and some descriptions are completely alien to foreign readers. It is equally true that nuances get lost in translation, however competent and experienced translators are. Yet the foreignness is not entirely impossible in imagination, and nuances are by definition not critical. The fact that Chinese readers can relish Cien Años de Soledad just as much as their Columbian counterparts do and that German bookworms don’t experience insurmountable barriers in reading Murakami and Dostoevsky is evidence that how we think is not determined by the language we speak.

It also happens that speakers of the same language are mutually amazed by their cultural differences. Ask any American who has spent a sizable amount of time in England. The Englishness that American expats in England try to tease out tells much about how, despite that their language is identical, the cultural gaps can be as large as the transatlantic gap in some respects. Such gaps can be wider still for English-speaking Singaporeans visiting Montana or Mississippi. And vice versa.

It is time for what is unduly attributed to language to be restored to culture. Yes, the language we speak influences how we think, but it does not shape it.

*http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/07.22/21-think.html

回复 作文 阅读其他原创作文。

分享：点击右上角的三个小圆点，可以分享到微信朋友圈

加关注: justintheeconomist（或点击上面题目下方的蓝字）

关于该微专栏（序言、账号运作模式、历史消息）：回复数字1

阅读此微专栏的另一种方法：回复数字 100