An article by Guy Deutscher titled “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?” appeared in the New York Times last month. It reminded me of the ideas in a Wall Street Journal article that ran in July called “Lost in Translation” (here is our take on that article). His essential point is that:

‘Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.’ This maxim offers us the key to unlocking the real force of the mother tongue: if different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about.

Deutscher explains how languages that utilize gendered particles, e.g. Spanish and German, inform the way we conceptualize inanimate objects that have no biological gender. He also details how the English language requires the speaker to reveal the timing of an event because of the obligatory conjugation of verbs into a certain tenses:

If I want to tell you in English about a dinner with my neighbor…I do have to tell you something about the timing of the event: I have to decide whether we dined, have been dining, are dining, will be dining and so on. Chinese, on the other hand, does not oblige its speakers to specify the exact time of the action in this way, because the same verb form can be used for past, present or future actions. Again, this does not mean that the Chinese are unable to understand the concept of time. But it does mean they are not obliged to think about timing whenever they describe an action.

Culture, which impacts how we think about time just as much as language, is another interesting way to look at this comparison. Typically, Chinese people don’t feel they have as much control over time compared to people from English-speaking countries like the US or the UK. Time is a fluid concept for many people in China, which impacts the level of importance people assign to deadlines, schedules, etc. The obvious question is: how does culture inform and reinforce language, and vice versa?

Also, because of the global nature of English, do English speakers in countries like India, South Africa and Jamaica share the same general notion of time with people in, say, the US? In general, time is also a very fluid concept in these three countries, despite the fact that many people grow up speaking English. So, we have to examine the larger cultural context of a community in order to understand how much language impacts thought processes.

The most demonstrative part of the article is in the difference between geographic and egocentric languages, or the ways in which we describe spatial orientation. An Australian aboriginal language, Guugu Yimithirr, “does not use words like ‘left’ or ‘right,’ ‘in front of’ or ‘behind,’ to describe the position of objects. Whenever we would use the egocentric system, the Guugu Yimithirr rely on cardinal directions. If they want you to move over on the car seat to make room, they’ll say ‘move a bit to the east.’”

The individualistic, egocentric nature of the English language is made obvious through the following statement Deutscher makes:

…If you saw a Guugu Yimithirr speaker pointing at himself, you would naturally assume he meant to draw attention to himself. In fact, he is pointing at a cardinal direction that happens to be behind his back. While we are always at the center of the world, and it would never occur to us that pointing in the direction of our chest could mean anything other than to draw attention to ourselves, a Guugu Yimithirr speaker points through himself, as if he were thin air and his own existence were irrelevant.

Of course, the “we” Deutscher uses above (or to the “north”?) refers to the Western English speaker.

How much does the structure and nature of language reveal about the ways we act, think and feel? How does the interplay of culture and language impact cross-cultural interaction? What does this all mean in terms of globalization and the increasingly global nature of our work and daily life?

Sean

RW3 CultureWizard

A recent Fortune article recognizes that companies that are best at developing leaders are those that have taken a long term perspective with their employees. To ensure the quality of their leadership, companies invest in their most promising candidates by requiring them to go on global developmental assignments. Most return with global, cross-cultural skills to effectively build the company’s presence in the global marketplace, which is where most now look to for revenue.

IBM came in at number one in the world for developing leaders in Fortune’s “Top Companies for Leaders” in 2009. One of IBM’s Corporate Service Corps teams was assigned to market locally crafted Ghanaian products around the world. The job “stretched me in a way we all absolutely need,” and “it gave us a shake in perspective,” said one of the team members.

“Developmental assignments like his are among the most important tools that great companies use to build leaders — and that average companies rarely use at all,” according to the article.

“The importance of such assignments and how they’re being adapted to pay off in today’s global economy are two of the strongest messages emerging from the research behind our new ranking of the world’s Top Companies for Leaders.”

International assignments have had a history marked with a mixture of success and failure, but perhaps this doesn’t need to repeat itself because you can learn the skills to adapt to other cultures, and to be successful in a global function. Individuals must spend significant time learning how to adjust their behavior to successfully interact with people from around the world (and before this, to recognize that there’s a cultural gap between themselves and their counterparts in other countries). Intercultural learning is another investment that many global companies make to prepare their leaders-in-the-making, especially in tandem with global assignments. Another key point is that as the global marketplace has grown, companies are recognizing how crucial it is that their leaders understand the range of global markets in which the company operates.

Click here to jump to the article.

RW-3.com

In the New York Times, a conversation between columnists highlights the future of Western men through a very general comparison of Western and Asian thinking styles.

Before looking at that article, I’ll start by noting the various cultural dimensions CultureWizard teaches, e.g. relationship and communication. These dimensions encompass styles of thought, and the approach one takes to human interaction. In China, for example, we generalize that most people are relationship-oriented, which means that relationships are the underlying lens through which Chinese see all aspects of life, both business and personal. The general idea is that this is the opposite of a country like Switzerland, where people often look at a clock to organize their days. To understand others, simple lessons on very basic and commonly encountered cultural attributes is a necessity for global business succss. However, in reality, everyone is unique and should be treated according to their personal culture. Nevertheless, everyone is influenced by a national culture through religion, mythology, history, mass media, etc.

David Brooks’ conversation with Gail Collins is very general, but there is some truth to what Brooks observes on culture, even though it’s still far from being common knowledge.

“Different cultures and groups have different styles of thinking, or to be more precise, the average behavior is different from one group to another. So is it possible that Westerners, on average, have thinking styles that make them ill-suited for the problems of the future while Asians have styles that make them better suited?”

“Asians place emphasis on context while Westerners place more emphasis on individuals. This seems like a gross generalization but it is robustly supported by hundreds and hundreds of studies.”

“Basically, I’m saying that two groups I’m a member of — Westernized men — may have been well adapted to the agricultural and industrial societies, but our thinking styles are not well adapted to the networked age of social information flows. I’m not just saying the West is doomed. I think Western men, like me, are doomed unless we change and adapt quickly!”

The individualistic approach that is deeply ingrained in Western individuals’ minds is not the norm in Asia, although culture is gradually changing, so learning and recognizing situations where different approaches are popular interesting. Western men may not be doomed, but cultural awareness is a solution to the adaptability that global business demands today.

Click here to read the conversation. How would you react to these ideas?

RW-3.com