How Thai interfers with learning English - Page 3 - Ajarn Forum

Hamster · 16th February 2008, 21:39

Thanks Mr T. - I just read up a bit on that book. It looks really fascinating. I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy.

Green on the way for you!

parnassos · 16th February 2008, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boonmee

This is basically right. Although I would say that 90% of Thai conversations are about food (and therefore do not get particularly complicated), it is definitely the case that the dialogues are much more vague than in English. It is quite common, in my experience, for Thais to misconstrue what someone is saying to them, so that many conversations involve phrases like "You mean like this?", "In what way?", etc. ie questions which lead to a narrowing-down of the subject under discussion.

Yes! That's just what I meant. ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boonmee

For complicated English words (what we might call "advanced vocab") there are two possibilities in Thai. Firstly, Pali words. These are particularly used in religious and political contexts, for example Prachaathibtai (democracy), Aariyatham (civilisation), Samaati (meditation).
The second possibilty is a combination of words. Since this word has already come up, I'll use it as an example. "to inculcate (somebody) with (something)" = Plook fang (sing nai) hai kab (khon nai); lit: "Plant/build listening of something give with someone". "Claustrophobia" = Rohk klua jamkad boriwen (lit: disease of fear of limited bounds).

To summarise that more succinctly: whereas advanced English vocab is based around adaptations (even bastardisations) of Greek and Latin, Thai uses either pure Pali and Sanskrit, or combinations of "pure Thai" vocab.

Worth noting, too, that "pure Thai" vocab is largely monosyllabic, unlike Pali and Sanskrit which are Indo-European languages (putting them in the same family as most European languages, and Persian.)

I would suggest, therefore, that the reason Thais normally use quite vague, basic, vocab, is because otherwise sentences become very "wordy".

Really interesting points B. Of course "claustrophobia" when broken down into its Greek roots would sound almost as wordy "fear of enclosed spaces". The example of inculcate and your Thai translation really highlights the difference between Thai and English though.

Natalie · 16th February 2008, 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by wangsuda

In English (UNLIKE THAI), the stress and/or intonation does NOT change the meaning of the word.

There are plenty of words in English where the stress changes the meaning of the word. This doesn't make the language tonal, though. They are just homographs. (permit, record, progress etc)

Cyrille · 16th February 2008, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Mandude

So if I don't know the word for "yellow," I can't see the color yellow? This is where linguistic determinism gets sticky. I believe that thought is pre-verbal and that thought is NOT shaped by vocabulary.

There's no 'thought' involved in your example.

Boonmee · 17th February 2008, 00:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrille

There's no 'thought' involved in your example.

I disagree actually, Cyrille. I think GM has made a good point. When you're thinking about something, are you actually thinking in English, or just "thinking"? Equally, on the subject of experiencing sensations, do we smell/feel/see/hear/taste in English, or do we just smell/feel/see/hear/taste? If it is the latter (and I believe it is) then we all - no matter our native language - experience things "equally". The only problem may come in verbalising those feelings.

Is that basically what you're saying, GM?

Interestingly, though, I find that food is the one subject in which Thais do use lots of adjectives! When they're eating and talking about the food, they'll frequently comment on the important balance of sweetness/sourness/hotness/saltiness/bitterness, and whether the cook in question has got the balance right for that particular dish.

Hamster · 17th February 2008, 00:31

I think in English when I am thinking about complex situations or ideas.

When something tastes good I think: That's good, I wonder what's in it?

My inner dialogue is entirely in English.

When I reflect, I make sense of those reflections in English. Without language the reflections would be indistinct, hazy, and dreamlike.

Boonmee · 17th February 2008, 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by parnassos

Yes! That's just what I meant. ...

Really interesting points B. Of course "claustrophobia" when broken down into its Greek roots would sound almost as wordy "fear of enclosed spaces". The example of inculcate and your Thai translation really highlights the difference between Thai and English though.

You're absolutely right about "Claustophobia", but the fact that English recognises it as a single word is important, I think.

I should add here that I had to look up the word "inculcate" in my Oxford English-Thai dictionary (huge thing, BTW). I've never heard that phrase used in Thai, and wonder if it could even be a construct merely for dictionary purposes (ie merely for Thais to be able to understand the English word "inculcate"). It does illustrate, however, that to be accurate in meaning in the Thai language frequently involves using a lot of words, where English uses just one, meaning accuracy in the language can be a supreme effort.
-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamster

I think in English when I am thinking about complex situations or ideas.

When something tastes good I think: That's good, I wonder what's in it?

When I reflect, I make sense of those reflections in English. Without language the reflections would be indistinct, hazy, and dreamlike.

I agree with this when it comes to complex situations. But: when a bee stings you, do you think "I am feeling pain", or do you just feel the pain?

Hamster · 17th February 2008, 00:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boonmee

I agree with this when it comes to complex situations. But: when a bee stings you, do you think "I am feeling pain", or do you just feel the pain?

Of course not. But pain is a feeling, not a thought. It is curious though how when the bee stings I will first flinch involuntarily and then immediately after will utter an expletive or curse, almost involuntarily.

Consider a situation I think most of us have experienced. When I am having a problem or thinking deeply, my thoughts are sometimes vague and unclear. When I speak to another person about them, the simple process of articulating the thoughts and feelings provides a richer understanding and greater clarity than I had before speaking with someone.

The same goes for writing. When I begin an essay or journal my thoughts may often be unclear, but as I progress the words I choose provide the clarity both for myself and eventually the reader. In both of these cases it was the language and the words themselves that enabled the complex thought to be carried out completely.

It has been said that a person never fully understand a subject taught them until after they have taught it. In this case articulating the idea and having discourse on it, using one's native language, is what is required for a more complete understanding. It is reasonable to imagine that the complexity of the language used will have some bearing on the complexity of the thoughts that can be communicated, and on the overall effectiveness of the communcation, i.e. transfer of information.

And then there is the distinction between thought and emotion that should be considered. I don't 'feel' in English. But I process those emotions and try to understand them, using English words.

Boonmee · 17th February 2008, 01:45

...So it's in our analysis of an experience that we use language. I think I would concur. But that would suggest that speakers of English would be better able to analyse a situation than those of Thai, right? Or perhaps it would depend on the situation, and a generalisation like this isn't possible?

Hamster · 17th February 2008, 02:06

Possibly. I think it would probably depend on the situation. There are some concepts in Thai like 'greng jai' or 'nam jai' that can be difficult to fully appreciate being a westerner. A Thai knows what they mean almost instinctively. Even with our perhaps more complex language we can't fully describe it.

And then there are words like 'serious'. English words that mean one thing to a native speaker and something else to a Thai. Our language is playing a hand in how we experience things. I don't think we are absolutely limited by our language, but it certainly effects our experiences.

I'm not prepared to say that one language is abosulutely superior to another. Maybe best to conclude that each language has it's strengths and weaknesses.

wangsuda · 17th February 2008, 06:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Natalie

There are plenty of words in English where the stress changes the meaning of the word. This doesn't make the language tonal, though. They are just homographs. (permit, record, progress etc)

You're right, and I should clarify my remoark. In English, words are not defined by tone (even though some are defined by stress). Stress is merely accenting a part of a word.

Guy Mandude · 17th February 2008, 10:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrille

There's no 'thought' involved in your example.

Or behind your dismissive snipe.
-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boonmee

I disagree actually, Cyrille. I think GM has made a good point. When you're thinking about something, are you actually thinking in English, or just "thinking"? Equally, on the subject of experiencing sensations, do we smell/feel/see/hear/taste in English, or do we just smell/feel/see/hear/taste? If it is the latter (and I believe it is) then we all - no matter our native language - experience things "equally". The only problem may come in verbalising those feelings.

Boonmee, you have articulated better what I was trying to say. I mentioned that "thought is pre-verbal," but you fleshed out that idea for me. Thanks. And I'm not sure the heaviness of the English dictionary reflects the heaviness of thought behind it. Maybe because English has come from so many other languages, it's overly laden with expression. There are times when this verbosity is a hindrance to expression, not an enhancement.

Cyrille · 17th February 2008, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Mandude

Or behind your dismissive snipe.

Re read it.

All I was saying was that not being able to see the colour yellow if you don't know the word 'yellow' does not involve any thought process.

Ah well, just one more example of you not really 'getting it', I guess. Just this one thread is littered with them.

Guy Mandude · 17th February 2008, 11:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrille

Re read it.

All I was saying was that not being able to see the colour yellow if you don't know the word 'yellow' does not involve any thought process.

Ah well, just one more example of you not really 'getting it', I guess. Just this one thread is littered with them.

Re read what you wrote: "All I was saying was that not being able to see the colour yellow if you don't know the word 'yellow' does not involve any thought process." According to linguistic determinism, if "yellow" is not a word or concept that is part of your culture, you might not be able to see it. Cyr, your "All I was saying..." sentence is not clear or articulate. Or else you are trying to articulate too many ideas in one sentence, but you haven't succeeded. Instead of handing me out another red, why not explain where you fall out on the linguistic determinism issue? And you're right...I'm not getting "it" or you.