Chrisonomicon

Thursday, May 8, 2003

Over the weekend, the NY Times reported* on the theories of William Hannas, linguist, who postulates that East Asian writing systems hamper scientific thought because they do not have the abstract nature of Western alphabets. Coming across as rather inciting and ethnocentric, his ideas have been met with some obvious controversy. However, considering some of my own experiences with cultural differences, as well as a few years studying Chinese, I'm more inclined to see the legitimacy of Hannas's theory than take immediate offense.

The process of learning Chinese from an English standpoint was worlds apart from learning German, which I took for 6 years. It was a process of memorization and learning the compiler-like bridge of pin-yin, rather than the formation of a language that was constructed on a small, finite set of letters (fortunately already learned).

That being said, I disagree that written language influences one's ability to perceive the physical world. Air is air, water is water, and if you release a ball from a height of ten feet, anyone can predict what course it will take. A Chinese scientist may not be able to verbalize a false hypothesis for lack of subjunctive tenses, but I have no doubt that the concept can be verbally conveyed and understood.

Additionally, Hannas's hypothesis could be taken one step further and (falsely) applied to Western culture, by saying that because English does not have the same grammatical devices of, say, Japanese -- devices that indicate a speaker's social standing with respect to the person addressed and certain modal inflections of verbs -- we are unable to create written works of art that are as subtle and syntactically elegant or robust -- as, say, The Tale of the Genji -- and therefore English speakers are not as artistically inclined. From the innumerable works of art -- written and otherwise -- in both cultures, we know this is not the case (or if it is, the case is completely subjective to matters of personal taste and not scientific rigor).

Going back to the case of false hypotheticals (false(?) hypothetical: "If Chinese used an abstract alphabet, they would be better at science."), it's interesting to note that the absence of such linguistic devices mirrors East Asian cultural protocol preserving a respect for what has been and what is, respect for the elderly, respect for one's ancestors and respect for the past. From an East Asian perspective, it could be said that Hannas has the ability to hypothesize on these linguistic incongruities out of a lack of respect inherent in our language.

* (NY Times User: chrisono, Pass: chrisono)