Cultural differences

[Serial_Apologist]

That'll be the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis you have in mind I think, based on the work of these two linguists with Native American languages. Current thinking in linguistics tends rather against the strong version of this theory if I'm not mistaken.

Obviously people with different geographies and/or histories will develop distinct cultures, and these differences will express themselves in many ways, including but not limited to languages which divide human experience into categories (ie. words) with more or less different boundaries. Being human, on the other hand, means (potentially at least) being flexible with regard to understanding different cultures, bearing in mind that bi- or multilingualism has necessarily been the norm rather than the exception through most of human history.

Anecdotally: it seems weird to me to put it in these terms, but I've been married three times, none of the ladies concerned have been from the UK and only one has been a native English speaker. Without going into any further details, the various cultural/linguistic differences have been in all cases a source of richness and fascination rather than misunderstanding. Misunderstandings, it seems to me, are wilful rather than the default.

I would agree there. I rather think cultural differences, and their potential conflicts, are more a reflection of cultural protocols than of linguistic differences. I would say the middle classes across Europe, but to a lesser extent including America, have more in common as regards manners, for example, than with either the old aristocracies or the working classes. This was well brought out in an excellent TV series "The Rise and Sprawl of the Middle Classes", in which it was shown how the Victorian rising middle classes had to evolve their own social norms and protocols in order to distinguish themselves from the upper classes and working classes as a self-made class bearing the claimed mores of the aristocracy while at the same time rejecting their inherited sense of entitlement, along with its "do as we say, not as we do" attitudes. All of which would be taken on board as acceptable over time, of course, as capitalism developed to allow the upper middle class to become inextricably part of the ruling class. Another illustration of the primacy of class in any social and political considerations.

Incidentally, as one raised in upper middle class-aspiring but not succeeding family circumstances, in a virulently racist family household, I can attest that it is a lot easier to adjust to cultural norms different from those associated with ones upbringing than remain contented and sane by not challenging them and changing ones own ouitlook and norms in the process. Some of us were indeed lucky to have grown up in the 1960s!

[Dave2002]

.

Her breezy outlook seems almost caricaturally American rather than expressive of the wider English speaking world. For what it's worth, my wild generalization wd be that the English have more in common with the French (and other Europeans) than they do with the Americans.

But I'm afraid my reaction to her piece wd be to send her the tee-shirt "I Think You'll Find It's A Bit More Complicated Than That"



.

I still think you guys are concentrating too much on language. You seem to want to put the author of the article down (a typically British characteristic ...) rather than admit she has some good points.

Maybe the misunderstandings in this thread are wilful too.

[ardcarp]

I've enjoyed the article and the thread, Language and culture are connected, of course, but in concentrating too much on 'excité' seemed a bit of a diversion. All languages evolve to give different nuances to words which have similar roots in a 'foreign' tongue.* I thought the comment that the French live in the 'etre' more than Americans and English rang very true. My take on culture involves Brexit. One mantra quoted by Brexiteers was that 'we don't all want to be the same'. Anyone who has travelled at all (other than as a tourist on a package holiday) will know that every country has a strong and individual culture which includes things like perception of personal space, degree of 'reserve', and many aspects of the social acceptability of types of behaviour. Being a member of the EU hasn't changed thnigs a bit. France, Italy, Spain, Sweden..all as different as chalk from cheese. And it's not even as simple as that, because different regions of the same country have marked variations.

* There's a couple of good books about French: Faux Amis and Key Words by Thody and Evans; and (more lighthearted) The Bonjour Effect by Barlow and Nadeau

[Alain Maréchal]

My own experiences suggest that there really are cultural difference between people living in different countries. Many of us are fixed in one culture, so just “don’t get” the views of people from other countries, even if they use the same language, or if words can be used to give - in some cases - a near equivalent meaning.

This article gives some insights, though obviously it is a very personal view, as relatively few people have the experiences to be able to write about these matters authentically. I found it interesting — maybe others will too.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/w...=pocket-newtab

This article appears to be part of a long-established American complaint : "Why can't the French, or the British, or anybody, behave like us?"

[Andy Freude]

Concentrating on language misses the point, IMO.

Language is the aspect which the author chose to illustrate her point. It is the claimed link between language and culture that is the subject, not culture. What is challenged is some of her conclusions which seem to be grounded in a comparison of Americans and French, not Anglophones and French, still less Anglophones and Francophones.

[Richard Barrett]

You seem to want to put the author of the article down

Nobody has said anything (or knows anything, as far as I can see) about the author, only the article. As has been said, she uses language as her central focus, and uses the word "Anglophone" more vaguely than one ought to when making a case for a particular relationship between language and culture. There's a big difference between "putting someone down" and engaging critically with their assertions and arguments. And in my experience the latter isn't "a typically British characteristic" - quite the opposite, in fact, if the recent election of a prime minister most of whose utterances don't bear any close scrutiny at all is anything to go by.

[ardcarp]

quite the opposite, in fact, if the recent election of a prime minister most of whose utterances don't bear any close scrutiny at all is anything to go by.

Sad but true. One wonders what ministerial gags are being applied to the prime ministerial gob at this crisis moment of Trump madness.

[Dave2002]

This article appears to be part of a long-established American complaint : "Why can't the French, or the British, or anybody, behave like us?"

I get the feeling that most of us - probably includes me as well - are seeing this ony from one possibly prejudiced viewpoint.

To comment on the "Why can't the French, or the British, or anybody, behave like us?"

Scots: "Why can't the French, or the English, or the Americans, or anybody, behave like us?"
English: "Why can't the Scots, French, or the Americans, or anybody, behave like us?"
French: " "Why can't the Americans, or the British, or anybody, behave like us?"
etc.

Most probably nobody really wants any other group to behave like them!

I still don't think it was only about language, though the preamble concentrated on one word.

This section conveyed a significant cultural difference, rightly or wrongly:

“You Americans,” he said, “live in the faire [to do]. The avoir [to have]. In France, we live in the être [to be].”

There are many different characteristics even within one country and culture, and very possibly there are people in France who have very similar attributes to those in America or other countries, so when we consider people in different countries we are often thinking of stereotypes - though there may be some validity there.

Perhaps America is more driven by "success" - but success is defined as what? Making money? Having a "good" job? Having more "stuff"?

Perhaps in some other countries people are more relaxed, and have time to spend on relations, but in some other countries people may be so frazzled by their lack of resources that spending time on human relations is not the highest thing on their priority list.

I will still generalise though, and suggest that most people in the UK do not have any significant understanding of people outside these islands, and the converse is also true. Many of us don't really have much understanding of other people in different parts of the UK, nor always, much sympathy for them.

[muzzer]

The US is and always has been a materialistic society. That comes from being a young country. Obviously it’s got worse under Tr**p in places, and its biggest test is whether it collectively wants to put increased public provision in place or remain forever divided along the Iines of wealth. I envy the French their ability just to ‘be’, but ultimately isn’t it socially regressive simply to accept one’s lot? We used to have the possibility of the best of both worlds in Britain, however torturous it was occasionally, but we now seem to be doomed to return to a more feudal society of no social mobility and vested interests. And nobody sensible has a clue what to do about it.

[Dave2002]

The US is and always has been a materialistic society. That comes from being a young country.

I don't think you can say that's the only reason. In some, perhaps many countries, climate and environment may have significant effects. In most countries around the world, for very long periods, the drive for individual and small group survival has been a major force.

Also, what do you mean by materialistic? OK - I think we know in broad terms, but has it always been so? Since 1600, 1800 - 1900? Many Americans, like many Europeans, Asians and Africans were struggling to survive for long periods of history.

[oddoneout]

The US is and always has been a materialistic society. That comes from being a young country. Obviously it’s got worse under Tr**p in places, and its biggest test is whether it collectively wants to put increased public provision in place or remain forever divided along the Iines of wealth. I envy the French their ability just to ‘be’, but ultimately isn’t it socially regressive simply to accept one’s lot? We used to have the possibility of the best of both worlds in Britain, however torturous it was occasionally, but we now seem to be doomed to return to a more feudal society of no social mobility and vested interests. And nobody sensible has a clue what to do about it.

Perhaps for the most part 'one's lot' suits? The events of 2019 showed that the French(beyond the air traffic controllers and farmers) are more than capable of voicing their opinion when that situation changes, eg pension changes.

[muzzer]

I don't think you can say that's the only reason. In some, perhaps many countries, climate and environment may have significant effects. In most countries around the world, for very long periods, the drive for individual and small group survival has been a major force.

Also, what do you mean by materialistic? OK - I think we know in broad terms, but has it always been so? Since 1600, 1800 - 1900? Many Americans, like many Europeans, Asians and Africans were struggling to survive for long periods of history.

I think the essence of the American Dream is that anyone can make their own way financially in a way not possible in other parts of the world. That may no longer be true or as true as it was, but plenty of people still believe it. Granted it’s a generalisation, but that’s the nature of the debate ;)

[muzzer]

Perhaps for the most part 'one's lot' suits? The events of 2019 showed that the French(beyond the air traffic controllers and farmers) are more than capable of voicing their opinion when that situation changes, eg pension changes.

I agree about one’s lot suiting. Look also at the limit on the hours of the working week. Enforced in France, ignored in Britain.

[Richard Barrett]

the essence of the American Dream is that anyone can make their own way financially in a way not possible in other parts of the world. That may no longer be true or as true as it was

It's never been true! especially for those not blessed with white skin.

[Alain Maréchal]

I have thought about the idea of the french just "being", and this comes to mind:

Every town has a number of family-run pâtisseries, even the smallest has at least one. The "business model" is simple - Monsieur is usually the engine, Madame runs the shop. Occasionally unmarried children help out. They usually live above the premises, which they either own or rent. This supports them in a lifestyle to which they are accustomed, and gives them a prestige within the community- they are artists - nobody would try to make their products at home, when it is done so well. Nobody (well, few) ever suggests that they expand, diversify, form a chain or take over shops in other towns. When they retire they either sell the business or the lease, and enjoy their leisure. Yet I have seen these held up (by journalists) as obstacles to progress. These journalists are usually seen as "Anglo-saxon" which is often code for "American" in their outlook, and threats to French society.

I side with the shopkeepers - why is it considered necessary, if one has a comfortable lifestyle, that one constantly strives to improve one's position?