[Abstract] This paper presents a careful analysis of the relations between thought and language, which provides the precondition for the exploration in the rest chapters. There have been many arguments for the exploration between thought and language. Among them is the famous Spair-Whorf hypothesis, which proposes linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. From this hypothesis we deduce that since every language has a form and no two forms are the same, no two cultures having different languages can have identical views of the world. Chapter Two of this thesis makes a comparative study of the thinking styles of the Chinese and English in four aspects: figurative thinking vs. abstract thinking, comprehensive thinking vs. analytical thinking, subject-centered thinking vs. object-centered thinking as well as straight thinking vs. converse thinking. Thought is the basis of language and language has to depend on thought for its content; at the same time, language provides the best instrument for the expression and communication of thought. The illustration of the relation between thought and language places us in a better position to clarify that language influences thought, particularly how English studying could influence Chinese’s thought.
[Key Words] language; thought; Spair-Whorf hypothesis; English study
【摘 要】 迄今为止，有许多对于思维和语言两者之间关系的争论，法语论文，其中最着名的就是萨丕尔-沃尔夫假设，它提出了语言决定论和语言相对论的观点。从这个假设中，我们可以推导出，由于每种语言都有自己的形式，没有两种语言的形式是一模一样的，因此具有不同语言的不同文化对世界可能有不同的看法。不同民族的思维方式虽相似之处颇多，但又各具特点。因此，本文的第二部分着重从四个方面对汉、英两种语言所体现的逻辑思维进行了略论和对比，即:具象思维和抽象思维;综合思维和略论思维;主体思维和客体思维以及顺向思维和逆向思维。语言是表达和传播思维的最佳工具。思维影响于语言，法语论文网站，语言也影响于思维。阐释过思维与语言的关系之后，我们能够更好的略论语言对思维的作用，特别是法语学习对中国人的思维产生的作用。
【关键词】 语言；思维；萨丕尔-沃尔夫假设；法语学习
1. Introduction
There have been many arguments for the exploration between thought and language. Among them is the famous Spair-Whorf hypothesis[1], which proposes linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. Put in an extreme form, this hypothesis follows that since every language has a form and no two forms are the same, no two cultures having different languages can have identical views of the world. Thought is the basis of language and language has to depend on thought for its content, at the same time, language provides the best instrument for the expression and communication of thought. The illustration of the relation between thought and language places us in a better position to clarify that language influences thought, particularly how English studying could influence Chinese’s thought, for Chinese people have been studying English for very a long time and almost every student in Chinese has to study it. Having learned the English for 10 years, the Chinese students maybe influenced by the language in thought. Here presents the hypothesis that English studying could influence Chinese people’s thought in some aspects.
2. Language and Thought
2.1 What is language?
Modern linguists have proposed various definitions of language, and some of them are quoted below:
“Language is a purely human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols.”(Sapir, 1921)
Language is “the institution whereby humans communicate and interact with each other by means of habitually used oral-auditory arbitrary symbols.”(Hall, 1968)
“From now on I will consider language to be a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set of elements.”(Chomsky, 1957)
Each of these definitions has its own special emphasis, and is not a totally free from limitations. However, there are some important characteristics of human language linguists have agreed on; the most commonly accepted definition of language is:
“Language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols used for human communication”.
So language is a special tool for human beings to communicate. It is possessed by human beings and allows people to say things to one another and to express thoughts and needs. In short, language is a unique system of communication and it is the cornerstone of society.
2.2 What is thought?
“Thought is a function of human brain, and is a cognitive activity for human to understand the objective world. Thought is a process that uses the conceptions, judgment and reasoning to reflect the objective world. Thought can process all kinds of information that enters the human’s brain, therefore we can reflect the nature of things and can solve problems when we think.” “Thought is a power or process of thinking.”（Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary,2002,P1588）
Thought is a process that information enters the brain and is analyzed, synthesized, judged and inferred on the basis of presentation and concept. After the spoken and written language come into being the information which enters the human’s brain comes most from language either by heard or by seen thus what we could think is mostly based on the two styles of language and sometimes led by what we are told. That is to say, without the information entering human’s brain there is no thought or thinking comes into being.
2.3 The Relationship between Language and Thought
2.3.1 Humboldt’s Views
Whilhelm von Humblodt, a famous German diplomat and scholar, states the relationship between language and thought as the following views:
“The spiritual traits and the structure of the language of a people are so intimately blended that, given either of the two, one should be able to derive the other from it to the fullest extent... Language is the outward manifestation of the spirit of people; their language is their spirit, and their spirit is their language; it is difficult to imagine any two things more identical”.
“Language has the function of forming thought. W V Humboldt, a German philosopher and linguist, pointed out that people usually see communication as the primary function of language. However, people must have the content for communication before they start to communicate, and the formation of this content is closely associated with language, or to be more specific, people use language to express thought, yet language is, at the very beginning, involved in the formation of thought, just as he said, ‘language is the formative organ of thought’.”
“Humboldt said that if the sole function of language is to express and convey thoughts and feelings, then language will not be absolutely necessary for human beings, because they can also use other symbols or means to express themselves (though not so effective as language).”
From the above it can make a conclusion that language is not only the function for human to express and communicate but also has the function for humans to form thought. The extent of nearness between language and thought may be exaggerated, but it points out rightly the notion that the two interact with each other. He believes that language incomes from spirit and then reacts upon spirit. Moreover, he put the studies into the specific cultural background and views that no nation can avoid injecting their subjective consciousness into their language to form a special "worldview" in the language, which would in turn restrict people’s language usage. That is to say the language what people saying contains the thinking action. Followed by this view, we may get the idea that different people speak differently because they think differently, and they think differently because their languages offer them different ways to express the surrounding world. The most important part is the language can provide sorts of thinking ways in this paper.
2.3.2 The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Humboldt’s view on the inseparability of language and thought is later picked up by Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf in the United States.
The complement must be the most famous theory on discussing the relation between language and thought in this field. Since its inception in the 1920s and 1930s, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has caused controversy and spawned research in a variety of disciplines including linguistics, psychology, philosophy, anthropology, and education.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis claims that the structure of the language one usually uses influences the manner in which one thinks and behaves. When he was working as a fire insurance risk assessor, he noticed that the way people behaved toward things was often dangerously correlated to the way these things were called. For example, the sight of the sign ‘EMPTY’ on empty gasoline drums would prompt passersby to toss cigarette butts into these drums, not realizing that the remaining gasoline fumes ‘EMPTY’ evoked a neutral space, free of danger. “Whorf concluded that the reason why different languages can lead people to different actions is because language filters their perception and the way they categorize experience.” [10]
“During the 1930s, Edward Sapir’s student Benjamin Lee Whorf promoted the following ideas, which have come to be known as the tenets of the Sapir-Whorfian hypothesis:
1) The worldviews of a culture are embodied in the language forms of that culture.
2) The syntactic and semantic forms of a language determine thought, and therefore:
3) Differences in thought among cultures are due to differences in the linguistic forms of the cultures in question.”[11]
“The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis theorizes that thoughts and behavior are determined (or are at least partially influenced) by language. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf brought attention to the relationship between language, thought, and culture, but neither of them formally wrote the hypothesis nor supported it with empirical evidence, but through a thorough study of their writings about linguistics, researchers have found two main ideas. First, a strong theory of linguistic determinism that states that the language you speak determines the way that you will interpret the world around you (or the way one thinks is determined by the language one speaks). Second, a weak theory of linguistic relativity that states that language merely influences your thoughts about the real world (or differences among languages must be reflected in the differences in the worldviews of their speakers).”[12]
There is no enough powerful support for the strong version—the linguistic determinism because people have found that the thought has been formed former than the language, that is to say the thought comes first and there exist the non-verbal thought. For the weak version which is also called linguistic relativity is the more reasonable and can be adopted. “In most cases, they coexist with and influence each other: Human cognitive ability can develop to a very high level and still can be expressed by language. There is no thought that goes beyond the expression of language. Meanwhile, language is by no means passive as it is determined by thought. Instead, it influences people’s modes of thinking to some extent.”[13]
“Therefore, the relationship between thought and language is: language determines thought (linguistic determinism) and there is no limit to the structural diversity of languages (linguistic relativity), as Whorf concluded. He claimed that:
... It was found that the background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade. Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly, between different grammars...” [14]
The different grammars create the different ideas, maybe we can further understand it with the following words:
“So, for example, according to Whorf, whereas English speakers conceive of time as a linear, objective sequence of events encoded in a system of past, present, and future tenses(for example, ‘He ran’ or ‘He will run’), or a discrete number of days as encoded in cardinal numerals (for example, ten days), the Hopi conceive of it as intensity and duration in the analysis and reporting of experience (for example, wari=’He ran’ or statement of fact, warikni=’He ran’ or statement of fact from memory). Similarly ‘They stayed ten day’s becomes in Hopi ‘They stayed until the eleventh day’ or ‘They left after the tenth day’.” [15]
“Whorf insists that the English language binds English speakers to a Newtonian view of objectified time, neatly bounded and classifiable, ideal for record-keeping, time–saving, clock-punching, that cuts up reality into ‘afters’ and ‘untils’, but is incapable of expressing time as a cyclic, unitary whole. By contrast, the Hopi language does not regard time as measurable length, but as a relation between two events in lateness, a kind of ‘eventing’ referred to in an objective way (as duration) and in a subjective way (as intensity). ‘Nothing is suggested about time [in Hopi] except the perpetual “getting later” of it’ writes Whorf. Thus it would be very difficult, Whorf argues, for an English and a Hopi physicist to understand each other’s thinking, given the major differences between their languages. Despite the general translatability from one language to another, there will always be an incommensurable residue of untranslatable culture associated with the linguistic structures of any given language.” [16]
We can see the best example in the above to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and could better understand how language influence thought. But, we may make another hypothesis that if the Hopi want to learn or to understand the English expression of time (the time conceptions) first they must learn the English language structures and grammar. Maybe it is a complement for them to build up the time system, and further more the Hopi could view the time in a new way. Through studying the foreigner language they can develop their own theory on only in time. So does our Chinese students learning English language.
3. Linguistic Logics of Chinese and English
The thinking styles of the East and the West are different: Easterners tend to seek sameness from difference while Westerners are likely to find difference from sameness. To a certain degree, true in that the thinking styles and viewing angles between the East and the West is different. As a matter of fact, as early as the 19th century, the German Materialistic philosopher Feuerbach(费尔巴哈)pointed out that “Easterners tend to neglect discrepancy in consistency while Westerners tend to ignore consistency in discrepancy.” [17]
Then where on earth does Eastern thinking differ from Western thinking? For decades people have been trying to dichotomize the thinking styles. Eastern thinking is described as "holistic", "dialectical", "figurative", "subjective" and "fuzzy". By contrast, Western thinking is "analytical", "abstract", "objective" and "precise". Chinese language is developing towards fuzziness, obscurity and generalization, whereas Western language is towards precision and concretion.
The Chinese scholar, Jia Yuxing holds the views that Western thinking is characterized by logic, analysis and linearity, while Eastern thinking is known for its integrity of intuitive perception and harmonious dialectics. Westerners are apt at analysis and reasoning, as a result, their thinking pattern is linear; Easterners are prominent in holistic thinking, as they are imaginative and rely more on intuition, therefore their thinking pattern is rather circular. Still there are scholars who hold an ontological point of view and believe that Easterners emphasize the overall consonance as well as all things of creation are integrated with me; in contrast, Westerners are rational, analytical and analogical, which is best manifested by the Greek viewpoint "Man is the gauge of all things in the universe". In terms of thinking patterns, Eastern thinking is radiating while Western’s is rather perspective, the knowledge of which might be of great help to us in further investigating the logical principle underlying the structuring of the Chinese and English languages.
Fu Lei，the well-known translator, thinks that “Eastern thinking differs from that of the West in that Easterners emphasize comprehension, induction and implication, whereas Westerners attach great importance to subtle, precise and in-depth analysis as well as comprehensive description.” [18]
3.1 Figurative Thinking v s. Abstract Thinking
The above-mentioned styles of thinking can be found in all nations, but owing to their particular historical and cultural reasons, different nations might be prominent of one style of thinking. Generally speaking, Chinese is featured by concrete style of thinking in contrast to Westerners’ abstract thinking.
The two different thinking styles are directly reflected on sentence and vocabulary. In Chinese, more concrete nouns are used, but the case is quite different in English, where more abstract nouns are found. An important reason why Chinese in figurative thinking is that a lot of concrete forms are used to express abstract concepts, giving readers the being concrete, definite, direct and lucid impression. While English likes to use abstract nouns in English sentences. These nouns’ meaning is nonfigurative and general and could strike the receivers as abstract, indistinct, obscure and misty.
Chinese scholar Wang Li believed the so-called nouns in Chinese are slightly different from their counterparts in English in terms of denotation and connotation. Generally speaking, Chinese nouns, except for those used in such fields as philosophy, science, economy, politics, etc., usually denote concrete, tangible things that can be sensed by the five sense faculties. Wang also pointed out that strictly speaking, nouns derived from adjectives, such as `kindness’, `wisdom’, `humility’, `youth’, as well as those derived from verbs, like `invitation’, `movement’, `choice’, `arrival’, `assistance’, `discovery’, etc., can find no equivalents in Chinese vocabulary.
Figurative thinking requires the combination of image and meaning, which means that a concrete image carries a particular meaning and they combine to express concepts, feelings and images. To do this, abstract thinking, in contrast, usually resorts to concepts, judgments and precise reasoning. E.g.:
(1)枯藤老树昏鸦;
小桥流水人家;
古道西风瘦马;
天净沙秋思(元)马致远
Translated version:
O’er old trees wreathed with rotten vine fly evening crows;
’Neath tiny bridge beside a cot a clear stream flows;
On ancient road in western breeze a lean horse goes;
In the original Chinese, the "old tree(老树)”，"rotten vine (枯藤)”，"evening crow(昏鸦)”and "tiny bridge(小桥)”，etc., those images are put together, with no overt connectives in between, to present the readers with a tranquil and leisure picture. The translated version is faithful to the original poem by retaining these concrete images; however, some articles (the, a), prepositions (o’er, ’neath, with, in, etc.) and verbs (fly, flow, go, etc.) are added in the translated version to indicate the relationships among these images, to meet the requirements on rigorous abstract thinking in English as well as on syntax too.
3. 2 Comprehensive Thinking vs. Analytical Thinking
Both of the two styles of thinking are found in all nations. However, due to the impact exerted by their respective tradition of culture, the Chinese nation tends to be more comprehensive in their thinking whereas Western nations are more analytical.
As two basic forms of thinking, comprehensive thinking and analytical thinking have their respective advantages: to analyze is to break up the whole into many parts in order to get down to the core of targeted object; to synthesize is to study the targeted object in a comprehensive way by combining the parts which maybe seem isolated into the integrated whole. Analysis played a key role in the establishment and development of modern sciences, despite the fact that systemization was also in service. In a sense, modern sciences would not have come into being had it not been for analytical thinking, not to mention the prosperity of economy and flourish of science and technology of the West world.
Chinese people are more comprehensive in their thinking. In traditional Chinese philosophy, they viewed the heaven, the earth and man as a whole and the harmony between man and nature was their constant pursuit. Thus, analytical methods are less valued and the Chinese nation tends to take the whole situation into consideration and observe the universe from a comprehensive point of view.
These two different styles of thinking have exerted their respective impact on the syntactical structures of English and Chinese. Due to the influence of analytical thinking, the English language is endowed with distinct changes of word forms, varied grammatical forms and flexible sentence orders; In contrast, words almost do not change in form in Chinese and grammatical requirements are usually met by lexical means. What is more, phrases and clauses are usually arranged in chronological order or in logical sequence. Parataxis in the Chinese language best manifests this phenomenon: propositions are coordinatively arranged one after another with no connectives indicating the syntactic relations between them. Chinese sentences, in most styles of the language, tend to be short and seemingly loosely connected with connecting words omitted, but the meaning can be decided from the context. Oftentimes, certain members of a sentence (usually the subject of a clause or the sentence) are omitted, and the sentence is still intelligible to Chinese readers.
E.g.:
1 |
