The usage of the first-person word in different languages...

[vcharng 10]

First noticed this when listening to Japanese and American songs.

It's hard to hear the word "I" or "Me" in a Japanese song,

but you won't be able to stay clear of "I" for more than three sentences in an American song.

Later, a friend of mine informed me that first-person words are often bypassed in Japanese.

"-while 'I's are always written in capital letters?" I added.

This was the moment when I started to think that the diffference of the usage

of this word may reflect the cultural differences between the Europeans and Asians.

We know that individuals are more "valueable" in the West in comparison

with in Asia. Personaly I tend to explain it with the "market rules", that is,

since the amount of resource every individual person can share in Asia

is way less than that in the West, the Asian cultures tend to consider

individual person as less valueable.

What do you guys think about the relations between the usage of first-person words

and the cultural tendency between individualism/collectivism?

[MikiRei 10]

I think besides the point you made above, there is also another reason why the Western culture focuses on the individual.

1. Western people, specifically, Caucasians physically LOOK different, so from the get-go, their "individuality" is already emphasized. Us Asians, however, have pretty much the same features. We have more SUBTLE differences in our physical looks (relatively speaking). Might also explain why our language is also more subtle than English? Who knows.

2. In modern days, most Western countries, for example, America, Australia, England etc. have plenty of immigrants flocking there (not to mention, in America and Australia, there's also the presence of indigenous people) and after several decades, the need to be tolerant or more understanding and accepting of other culture is heightened. The "individuality" of each person's cultural background is also emphasized. In retrospect, most Asian countries don't quite have as many immigrants flocking there so the population in Asian countries are extremely homogenous - or more like it STAYS homogenous. As a result, we're not as sensitive to issues such as being understanding of other cultures. In fact, we're fairly quick in placing stereotypes on certain types of people and anything different is usually frowned upon. Afterall, we look similar (relatively speaking) and our culture is the same by and large. Hence, the "individual" isn't being emphasized in our daily lives and we tend to emphasize on the collective.

In a way, Asian culture tends to be more "collective" because physically, and culturally, we are just ONE collective whereas in Western countries, particularly in the modern day, there are SEVERAL culture collectives. What I find, for example, in Australia is that we're very USED to getting to know people from very different backgrounds. It's not everyday you talk about family life and people will know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Instead, it'll be more like:

"Oh, how's your weekend?"

"Oh, it was kinda annoying. I had Passover over the weekend."

"What?"

"Passover. Jewish festival. <Insert explanation>"

"Oh, right! Interesting! We had Moon Festival."

"What?"

"<Insert explanation"

"Oh, right. Interesting."

NB: No, the two events DO NOT coincide. Making an example

Think back to a country where the majority of the population all come from the same cultural background and you'll realise why this makes such a difference. In a homogenous society, you don't HAVE to explain your culture everyday because everyone experience the same thing. The above scenario shows just how much the individual gets emphasized in daily life in a country where several cultures are mixed together.

That's just my view anyway.

此內容已被編輯, April 17, 2010 ,由 MikiRei

[vcharng 10]

Yea I think you got a point.

If there's only one "real culture" in the eyes of a nation, that is, if a nation only considers themselves as the one real human race (others are considered as babarians), they don't respect the "right to be different" and therefore, they don't respect individuals to go anywhere against their tradition. This may be even a better explaination than the "market rules" I think.

Or if we describe it in a different way, when there are more than one cultural collectives existing on the world (the area that people knows or can reach), it will be harder for the cultural collective to be over-proud of itself and therefore discriminate everyone and everything that doesn't follow what it consider as "the right way".

Maybe we then reached an conclusion that one of the definitions of the word "freedom" is "the right to choose a different way"? Hmm, looks like an interesting philosophical topic to me...

[訪客]

I don't think you have enough evidence to support your hypothesis. For example, in Romance languages (Latina, Italiano, François, Español...), first and second person pronouns are always omitted unless you want to emphasize it. It's more likely related to the grammatical feature of the language than culture.

[vcharng 10]

Erhh I asked my mother, who learned some French... first person pronoun cannot be omitted, they just abbreviated it. In French you won't know which kind of verb you need to use unless you know what pronoun you are using.

I'm thinking that even if it is for grammar reasons, grammar is still created by human, right? There ought to be reasons behind those grammars, reasons like why we can omit "I" in this language and why we cannot do so in another.

[MikiRei 10]

I think in terms of grammar etc. we should consult a linguist. They will know this a lot better than any of us. Either that, spend 3 hours reading about each language on Wikipedia.

[MikiRei 10]

If there's only one "real culture" in the eyes of a nation, that is, if a nation only considers themselves as the one real human race (others are considered as babarians), they don't respect the "right to be different" and therefore, they don't respect individuals to go anywhere against their tradition.

This sentence is kind of interesting and somehow REFUTES the reason you gave for Western cultures respecting individuals. Why? Well, that was EXACTLY the attitude Western culture had over many of the countries they colonized and in a certain way, is still alive these days. (White supremacy anyone?)

In Australia, we had a period called the "Stolen Generation" where they pick mixed Indigenous kids (half-Aboriginal, half-White) and try to raise them "White". The idea was to breed Indigenous Australians to extinction by making Indigenous Australians marry White Australians in the hopes that eventually, their DNA will be JUST White Australians (yes, EXTREMELY disgusting policy). Watch "Rabbit Proof Fence" if you want some details - a VERY good film just by the way (the scene where they took the children away from their mothers was particularly heart-wrenching).

I reckon the respect for individualism only started VERY recently. If you think back to, for example, Jane Austen's books, women were just expected to marry. Only women without "respectable prospects" end up working, becoming governess mainly and it was something frowned upon, even considered embarrassing.

The need to "fit in", I reckon, is human nature. I remember so many times I have some stupid people at school coming up to me to tell me to stop reading Chinese/Japanese books. My friend sometimes ask why I don't listen to "normal" music (normal being English). The need to be "tolerant" and "understanding" of everyone, similar or different, had always been a main theme at school and emphasized and is something that only came only in the last 20 year, or maybe 30 years, maybe during the "Hippie" era where the focus was to be "rebellious", to be "unique" (not that you're being REALLY unique if you're all conformed to dress the same - ironic as).

Anyway, just more of my random observations.

[vcharng 10]

Oh, yeah...almost forgot that the westerns are also the least friendly to non-white people....

I think...the white people have things they can and cannot tolerate after all...

They can understand and respect different thoughts better than the Chinese do, but maybe not the color or religion... (a friend of my father told me how hard it is for the westerners to understand that Confusionism is not actually a religion, they just can't accept that it is possible for a culture to exist without actual religious faith to the God, or Gods.)

[MikiRei 10]

almost forgot that the westerns are also the least friendly to non-white people....

Errrm....I meant in the past....don't think that completely applies to the current time. Of course they'll be people who're still racist but you can't say ALL. If that were the case, my boyfriend wouldn't be going out with me and his family wouldn't like me. :p

They can understand and respect different thoughts better than the Chinese do, but maybe not the color or religion...

BEG to differ. Discrimination is of course, not 100% gone (and afterall, WHERE in the world is there a place that doesn't have prejudice against people based on race and religion?) Many Western countries in the past few years had started to emphasize and encourage critical thinking but that doesn't mean close-minded people don't exist. In fact, close-minded exist everywhere. My point was due to large amount immigration, these countries tend to be MORE AWARE of being tolerant towards people of different backgrounds, both thought, race and religion. Saying that Caucasians as a collective is less tolerant towards people of different race and culture is a bit of an overstatement. In the end, it depends on the individual. They are plenty of Caucasians (here in Australia) who are less understanding of other culture and plenty who ARE more understanding. It's a case by case scenario. Also, a lot of the times it's not that they are LESS tolerant it's more the lack of exposure. I had plenty of teachers past their 50's when I was at school who used to say certain things that were slightly offensive (offensive in the racist arena) but we didn't hold it against her because we realise she didn't quite understand it was offensive and all in all, she was a very nice teacher. Unfortunately, she was brought up in the era where White Australian policy only just lifted. Interacting with people of different culture just haven't been part of her years of growing up.

As for different thoughts - I wonder about that. Our culture do focus on the collective and not falling out of line. Japan, in particular, is big on "being the same" (I remember reading a Japanese article explaining Japanese customs to Westerners and they actually said, "Japanese are like clones". Mind boggling...). But I wonder...I really wonder. CLEARLY, we are capable of a diverse range of topic for discussion or we wouldn't be here (well, DUH - any culture is capable - just a matter of whether it's encouraged). Many Chinese philosophers are listed as one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Our culture may discourage it but certainly the people don't yield to it. Culture can also change and I think it changes through exposure of experience and education method. I remember reading an article not so long ago where they got children from mainland China and Taiwan to compete and the Chinese students scored better in maths test with focus on speed and accuracy whereas the Taiwanese students excelled in topics that required critical and diverse thinking.

Makes me wonder whether it's a difference in our education or whether the focus had been shifted over the years.

Western culture, at a time, also weren't big on different ways of thinkings. Many great thinkers who questioned authority throughout the years were exiled or tried as heretics (this, of course, happened during the time when the Church had a greater influence on people's lives). It took centuries for them to get to the point they are now and it's still a work in progress.

(a friend of my father told me how hard it is for the westerners to understand that Confusionism is not actually a religion, they just can't accept that it is possible for a culture to exist without actual religious faith to the God, or Gods.)

I think your father forgot to add the word "RELIGIOUS" in front of Westerners. There are plenty of atheists in the world, both non-Western and Western countries alike. Though he is correct. There actually ISN'T a culture that exist without religion. Chinese culture is predominantly Taoism and Buddhism. Your dad's friend just happen to have the wrong "religion" in his mind.

Ok - enough ranting from me.

此內容已被編輯, April 22, 2010 ,由 MikiRei

[Krislih 10]

oh goodness, stuff up here are way too much to be read.

[MikiRei 10]

Sorry to be so verbose.

Maybe next time I write in point form? :p

[vcharng 10]

(deleted for improved reading efficiency...)

I think your father forgot to add the word "RELIGIOUS" in front of Westerners. There are plenty of atheists in the world, both non-Western and Western countries alike. Though he is correct. There actually ISN'T a culture that exist without religion. Chinese culture is predominantly Taoism and Buddhism. Your dad's friend just happen to have the wrong "religion" in his mind.

Ok - enough ranting from me.

A culture without religion? Well if communism counts as a culture....XD

Anyway, we should agree that Chinese culture based more on Confusionism

instead of Taoism and Buddhism, right?

Still, I think it is indeed natural for ancient human to invent religion to

explain those existance that exceeds their range of understanding and ability,

also, religion is quite useful when it comes to building up a social order.

(and reinforce the ruler/dominaror/king/emperor's power as well)

[Krislih 10]

Sorry to be so verbose.

Maybe next time I write in point form? :p

That'd be amazing of you to do : )

By the way, the socceroos... oh dear oh dear, got crushed by us xDDDD

[MikiRei 10]

Anyway, we should agree that Chinese culture based more on Confusionism

instead of Taoism and Buddhism, right?

Well, yes but it certainly isn't RELIGION. We don't pray to Confucious :p

Still, I think it is indeed natural for ancient human to invent religion to

explain those existance that exceeds their range of understanding and ability,

also, religion is quite useful when it comes to building up a social order.

(and reinforce the ruler/dominaror/king/emperor's power as well)

I watched a documentary the other day and it was quite fascinating.

It was analysing how human civilisation is formed throughout history based on ancient artifacts dug up from the ground.

Basically, before humans learned to cultivate the land eg. grow crops, in order to survive, they hunt. While they were hunting, they see themselves as being equal, or part of nature (which they are).

Once they started to cultivate the land and hunting became more advanced through tools, humans no longer see themselves as equal or part of nature, but rather, ABOVE nature. This is when they find evidence of religion (eg. things used in rituals) starting to pop up. The theory is because we no longer feel like we are a part of nature, we have to create another being above ourselves to feel less guilty in "owning" nature.

After religion is formed, the idea of "ownership" began to form and that's when crime starts to happen. Through crime, social order begin to naturally form and that's when laws are created, chiefs are elected etc.etc. - and the rest is history.

The documentary also states that they are looking at current tribes in the world that had yet to be touched by the outer world to see whether this pattern also forms as their culture starts to become "civilised".

That'd be amazing of you to do : )

Hmmm......now that you mention it, I realised something interesting. I like point forms. In all my exams at school, if it's not English, then I write my answer in point form if I can 'cause I just can't weave pretty sentences that well.

But yes...I am verbose here...I think it's because I just type as I think.

By the way, the socceroos... oh dear oh dear, got crushed by us xDDDD

Oh shoosh you.

But then again, Aussies had NEVER been good at soccer :p I was asleep during that game. Those ppl staying up at 4am werecrazzzyyyy

Though we DID beat the Japs last Fifa :p

此內容已被編輯, June 20, 2010 ,由 MikiRei

[vcharng 10]

Well, yes but it certainly isn't RELIGION. We don't pray to Confucious :p

I watched a documentary the other day and it was quite fascinating.

It was analysing how human civilisation is formed throughout history based on ancient artifacts dug up from the ground.

Basically, before humans learned to cultivate the land eg. grow crops, in order to survive, they hunt. While they were hunting, they see themselves as being equal, or part of nature (which they are).

Once they started to cultivate the land and hunting became more advanced through tools, humans no longer see themselves as equal or part of nature, but rather, ABOVE nature. This is when they find evidence of religion (eg. things used in rituals) starting to pop up. The theory is because we no longer feel like we are a part of nature, we have to create another being above ourselves to feel less guilty in "owning" nature.

After religion is formed, the idea of "ownership" began to form and that's when crime starts to happen. Through crime, social order begin to naturally form and that's when laws are created, chiefs are elected etc.etc. - and the rest is history.

The documentary also states that they are looking at current tribes in the world that had yet to be touched by the outer world to see whether this pattern also forms as their culture starts to become "civilised".

@first paragraph

correct, confusionism is not a religion, that's exactly why I think Chinese culture depend

less on religions, in comparison with the Western cultures.

@second paragraph

well that is a interesting and pursuasive theory.

but according to that theory, confusionism will be categorized as religion!

because confucious created "Tao" (different one from Taoism) to be above human.

actually they have the concept of god as well, just not as clear as the Abraham religions.

BTW, what about the religions that prey nature as god? they did not invent the religion because they consider themselves above nature.....

ans still, confusionism is NOT a religion (westerers can never understand = =)

[MikiRei 10]

well that is a interesting and pursuasive theory.

but according to that theory, confusionism will be categorized as religion!

because confucious created "Tao" (different one from Taoism) to be above human.

actually they have the concept of god as well, just not as clear as the Abraham religions.

BTW, what about the religions that prey nature as god? they did not invent the religion because they consider themselves above nature.....

I'm quite sure Confucius didn't make Taoism the default religion....

In fact, if you read up on Taoism, Taoism is actually about controlling the mind. That is, control your emotions so that you are able to think rationally at all times. Over time, due to superstition, people started throwing in all these random Gods into it until it became what it is right now where we have THOUSANDS of Gods to pray to and various temples dedicated to each. Adding fusion with Hinduism and Buddhism, the Chinese "religion" (if you may call it) is like some hybrid child of various ancient religion, mashed into one.

Regardless, that still supports the theory. The Chinese culture did start to create religion. In fact, before Confucius came along, the Chinese culture already HAD a religion. Think about it. River Gods? Rain Gods? Sacrificing girls to the River God in hopes he won't flood the land? Religion definitely played a part in Chinese culture. Why else do we have so many temples right now?

Religions that still pray to nature - well, if you think about it, for example, the American Indians and Indigenous Australians, they actually don't think they OWN nature. They still believe they are PART of nature. In the case of American Indian, I think they are in a transition stage. That is, they already have a concept of owning things (hence tribal wars I'm guessing) but since they're still by and large nomadic, they haven't yet think of themselves as being ABOVE nature or that they own it.

Indigenous Australis were even more so when the English came so I think that still supports that theory.

Try and search up for it if you're interested. I only remember in SUMMARY what the entire documentary was about.

[vcharng 10]

Well, the point I wish to establish is that chinese culture did not rely on a religion to develop itself. Surely Chinese people invented a lot of gods, but none of them stands a dominent place in the develop of the culture. The dominent ideology of chinese culture is Confusionism, which is not a religion.

Also, I don't think we should link the presence of the concept of ownership with the thought of being above nature......In UK, THEORETICALLY the queen owns everything, but if the queen take a piece of cake from a civillian on the street by force or whatever, it is still going to be illegal.

That is, even if someone believe him/herself as part of nature, and therefore believe everything to be owned by Mother Nature, he/she will still have something that is not allowed to be taken by anyone else.

or maybe we should say, the concept of "mother nature owns everything" does not actually conflict with the concept of "there is something that belongs to me", divine ownership is different from inter-personnel ownership.

[MikiRei 10]

Well, the point I wish to establish is that chinese culture did not rely on a religion to develop itself. Surely Chinese people invented a lot of gods, but none of them stands a dominent place in the develop of the culture. The dominent ideology of chinese culture is Confusionism, which is not a religion.

Fair,fair. No contest there.

Also, I don't think we should link the presence of the concept of ownership with the thought of being above nature......In UK, THEORETICALLY the queen owns everything, but if the queen take a piece of cake from a civillian on the street by force or whatever, it is still going to be illegal.

That is, even if someone believe him/herself as part of nature, and therefore believe everything to be owned by Mother Nature, he/she will still have something that is not allowed to be taken by anyone else.

or maybe we should say, the concept of "mother nature owns everything" does not actually conflict with the concept of "there is something that belongs to me", divine ownership is different from inter-personnel ownership.

...........errrm...I think you're missing my point again...

By "ownership", I meant personal ownership. The idea of "owning nature". As in, thinking the earth as a property rather than a peer. Something that we are a part of.

In modern culture, we definitely treat "nature" or the Earth as property. We can buy land, we can sell it, we can build things on it. It's something we OWN.

The point you made about the Queen...ummm..yeah. I think you're missing the mark there......

Being "above nature" doesn't mean thinking you're above everyone else as your example there makes (at least that's what I THINK you're saying). All the documentary was saying is we do not think of ourselves EQUAL to nature. Nature is an ASSET to us.

Finally, some corrections:

Well, the point I wish to establish is that Chinese culture did not rely on a religion to develop itself. Of course Chinese people invented a lot of gods, but none of them played a dominant role in the development of our culture. The dominantt ideology of the Chinese culture is Confusionism, which is not a religion.

Also, I don't think we should link the presence of the concept of ownership with the thought of being above nature......In UK, THEORETICALLY the Queen owns everything, but if the Queen takes a piece of cake from a civilian on the street by force or whatever, it is still going to be illegal.

That is, even if someone believes him/herself as part of nature, and therefore believes everything to be owned by Mother Nature, he/she will still have something that is not allowed to be taken by anyone else. Or maybe we should say, the concept of "mother nature owns everything" does not actually conflict with the concept of "there is something that belongs to me", divine ownership is different from personal ownership.

此內容已被編輯, June 22, 2010 ,由 MikiRei

[vcharng 10]

Oh yeah...I forgot that "Personnel" ownership means you own a person XD

Anyway, I mean, a culture that considers themselves equal or even inferior to nature

doesn't neccessarily go without owning a land.

I own this real estate, but the world---including this real estate---- is still owned by Mother Nature.

The first "own" is not quite the same with the second.

This real estate belongs to Mother Nature, so I shall not use it in an unatural way,

but still, if you come and use this real estate without my permission, I will call the police.

That was what I meant by using the terms of "divine ownership" and "personal ownership"

also, this is why I don't consider it a good idea to think that as long as we started to own things,

we are considering that we own nature.

[MikiRei 10]

Anyway, I mean, a culture that considers themselves equal or even inferior to nature

doesn't neccessarily go without owning a land.

Well, of course nothing is ABSOLUTE. It's only a theory and observation some scientists had observed which is interesting.

NOMADIC culture do view themselves as part of nature more so than "civilised" culture. However, yes, in a sense, I'm sure they still feel ownership over something. It's just a question of how MUCH of the feeling of ownership they have. Personally, I reckon humans are just naturally selfish and possessive to begin with. It's how we survive.

I own this real estate, but the world---including this real estate---- is still owned by Mother Nature.

The first "own" is not quite the same with the second.

This real estate belongs to Mother Nature, so I shall not use it in an unatural way,

but still, if you come and use this real estate without my permission, I will call the police.

That was what I meant by using the terms of "divine ownership" and "personal ownership"

Yes - I get your point here.....but....that line of thinking.....is when humans started to transition to a more ORGANISED society.

Noone said it happened overnight. Of course it was gradual.

What the documentary was saying that INITIALLY, we just viewed ourselves as part of the order of nature.

Once you start talking about the difference between "personal" ownership and "divine" ownership, that's already transitioned past the point where we no longer see ourselves as PART of nature. Of course, what you've described there is either

1. during the transition period between non-organised to more organised society

2. very modern way of thinking that only started when we got more environmentally conscious

The term "divine" is a concept of a higher order - which also means understanding the concept of religion - which again, then means we've transitioned passed the idea of being just a part of nature rather than above nature.

I think maybe the discrepancy in our understanding is that by knowing we're a part of nature, I meant in an animalistic sense. More like, humans have not even established the concept of "nature", "higher order" and their "place" within nature. It's more like how animals don't even question whether they are above nature or part of nature. It's a concept that doesn't even occur to them.

Possibly, that's where the documentary is getting at.

Defining whether we're part of nature already means we are conscious of the difference, or the individuality of "us" (human) and what's "out there" or around us or "nature".

also, this is why I don't consider it a good idea to think that as long as we started to own things,

we are considering that we own nature.

No, it's not a good idea....but many people DO think that way. Good thing YOU don't think that way but most people do.

Think about mining companies. Do you really think they bother establishing the fact that the land they own still belongs to mother nature? No, they're just thinking about the amount of minerals they can dig and how much profit they'll get out of it.

....I think it's best if you can find that documentary and watch it for yourself. THEN we can discuss. Otherwise, we'll just discuss in circles because we're not coming from the same page. On that note, I should also watch that documentary in full :p. It was just something I managed to come across on TV that I thought was interesting.

此內容已被編輯, June 28, 2010 ,由 MikiRei

[【馬克杯】 10]

Well you can omit the first-person pronoun (not first-person word, there's a grammatical term for words like, I, you, he, she, we, they, in Chinese they're called 代名詞, please excuse my use of Chinese here, I am just trying to make things clear.)

In Italian pronouns are usually omitted because the principal verb already shows the person. In Italian novels or articles or other commonly seen literature, you're likely to see:

Parlo l'italiano.

Parli l'italiano.

Parla l'italiano.

Parliamo l'italiano.

Parlate l'italiano.

Parlano l'italiano.

Instead of:

Io parlo l'italiano.

Tu parli l'italiano.

Lui/lei/Lei parla l'italiano.

Noi parliamo l'italiano.

Voi parlate l'italiano.

loro/Loro parlano l'italiano.

Wanna know why you can't do this with French? Because in French many verb conjugations sound the same! For exmaple:

Je parle chinois.

Tu parles chinois.

Il/elle parle chinois

Nous parlons chinois

Vous parlez chinois.

Ils/Elles parlent chinois.

Those that are underlined are those that sound the same.

And guess what, parlez sounds the same as parler, which is the infinitive form.

And the imperfect:

Je parlais chinois.

Tu parlais chinois

Il/elle parlait chinois.

Nous parlions chinois.

Vous parliez chinois.

Ils/elles parlaient chinois.

Those that are underlined are those that sound the same. And guess what, parlais, parlait, parlaient all sound like parler, just like parlez.

You can't do this with German as well, because Sie and wir take the same conjugation...

For example:

Wir lieben. (We love.)

Sie lieben. (You love.)

So in some languages it's not just the matter of culture, it's the matter of the language itself.