What if blue is not blue? Who decided blue would be called blue? What if the person who decided blue was blue looked up at the sky during the night and decided the night sky was blue?
There is a 55-hectare spaced land in the centre of Richmond which has been under much ownership debate for many years.
These are some questions I wondered about after watching a clip from BBC Horizon about the Himba tribe. The people of the Himba tribe see colours differently from English speakers. It’s amazing to realize how impactful words can be on us as humans and how it can change the way we perceive the world. For the Himba, it is easy to distinguish which green is which compared to the English speaker. There was no hesitation and no questioning. That particular “green” was different from the other “greens”.
J. Edward Chamberlin says in his book, If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories? Finding Common Ground, “living in the real word depends on our living in our imaginations” (125). I believe when he says this that he is suggesting there is no real solid divide between reality and imagination. He calls the choice of choosing between these two “false choices”. Each reality is different for each one’s imagination.
There are many words for things in reality that don’t exist in the English language. One of the most common struggles I have growing up using Cantonese as my other language is trying to explain to non-Cantonese speakers in English about something that seems to only exist in the Cantonese language. Take example the word “nonsense”. In English, it means something that either has no meaning or sense, or behaviour that is foolish or unacceptable. However, in Cantonese, mo liu means that and more. It’s a feeling too. You can feel mo liu or you can feel something is mo liu. You can’t really feel nonsense in English. Something can seem nonsensical, but can you really feel it?
Non-Cantonese speakers probably don’t know what I’m babbling about. I don’t expect them to. Maybe there is a way to explain mo liu in one perfect English word or phrase, but I just don’t know it yet. For now, the reality of that feeling only exists to me and other speakers of the Cantonese language.
Chamberlin touches upon briefly the hypothesis of linguistic relativity, or what is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It is the idea that language can shape our thought processes and thus the way we see the world. I would argue that language can help to shape the way we see the world, or at least how we name or describe it. Even without a word, things exist but with a word to name it, these things seem clearer and closer to understanding. Chamberlin writes, “Naming things is one of the oldest forms of storytelling” (127).
Ultimately, Chamberlin’s goal is to find common ground. This is difficult when we feel the need or are forced to choose these “false choices” – between what is common ground and what is not. I don’t believe there can ever be a true common ground where everyone agrees what something should be (or, say, what English word best represents mo liu). It is why when Canadians are asked, “What is a Canadian?” you can get about a hundred and four different answers. Some are agreed upon and some are not. But they are all valid representations of what a Canadian is – according to the answerer.
I am privileged to have two languages and to be able to see the world through several lenses. I do not see the world exactly the same way as my mother or my father, but they gave me my language and my Chinese culture. The fact that I can think something is nonsense as well as feel it as mo liu, brings me closer to the reality that I imagine for myself everyday.
I don’t believe common ground is the attempt to find similarities while discounting the differences, or choosing what is considered important to keep as shared values. But rather common ground is being able to understand and acknowledge the many words a language can create for someone. And also understanding how each language, or culture, exists at the same time and is all relevant to everything in its own unique way.
Just because you think it is nonsense, does not mean it is nonsense to another.
References Chamberlin, J. Edward. If This Is Your Land, Where Are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. Toronto: Vintage Canada, 2003. Print. Lilienfeld, Scott O. “Linguistic Relativity: Language Gives Thought A Gentle Nudge.” Psychology: From Inquiry to Understanding. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, 2011. 347. Print.
Hi Crista – what a fascinating clip on the Himba tribe and the relation between language and color vision – wow. Indeed, a fascinating read, thank you.
Thank you for reading!
I really loved reading your blog. It is very true that just because something does not have a meaning to me, does not mean it would not have a meaning to you. It is very interesting to see a perspective from someone who speaks another language. The definition of colour was also very interesting to me. I had this conversation with my dad about 15 years ago. He posed the question to me: “What is someone came from another planet and had no idea what red was. How would you describe it?” It is hard to describe to someone or something for that matter what a colour is if they have never experienced it.
I also wanted to ask you where do you think that society is failing to understand that just because something is nonsense to you does not mean it is not non sense to someone else? Do you think it is the school systems in certain countries? Do you think it is that there is a lack of education in other cultures? I feel, being American, that the U.S. education system is lacking. I am not sure if it is this way in other countries, but we are really only taught about the American way, and the American Culture. If a school looses its funding, the first things to go besides sports and art programs are the foreign language programs. I feel very lucky that I was able to go to a private high school, where we actually went on a world religion trip, and were able to experience other churches and religions first hand. We also had an opportunity for exchange programs. However my friends whom I also grew up with, but went to the public schools did not have the same view, and were very closed minded to what the world had to offer.
Your dad asked a very interesting question! It would definitely be extremely difficult to explain the colour red to someone who has never seen it.
To be honest, I feel it is both institutional as well as social (since both affect the other). Historically, the Canada and the US we are familiar with growing up was built on the idea of colonization and assimilation. As well as the idea that, like Chamberlin writes about, there is a difference between the primitive and the civilized and it is all on a hierarchy. Personally, I would like to believe in equality but the idea of equality would discount the differences we have amongst ourselves. When I was in my socials studies class in high school, a teacher of mine told us that some American textbooks completely wipe out the existence of Canadian troops in WWII . I imagined Americans growing up and not knowing that Canadians had had a role in the war and going on to tell their children the same story (without Canadian involvement). We have to think why certain institutions make the decisions they make and we can usually attribute them to the social thought during that period. It’s why I think it is both institutional and social.
It also makes me think it is almost impossible to know about every culture but it is not impossible to acknowledge them and understand these cultures are not the same nor are they so different from us. It’s a confusing thought since I feel discourse is so embedded in binaries of differences and similarities that we instantly group the “Them and Us” unconsciously.
Anyway, I hope that sort of (kinda) answered your questions! Or at least made a little sense. I have to admit, I am struggling with the questions you asked that I ask myself and others all the time. I don’t yet know the answer or if there is even answer. But I’m glad it’s being thought about! Thank you for commenting 🙂
“I would like to believe in equality but the idea of equality would discount the differences we have amongst ourselves.”
Crista, my mother was a woman’s libber is the 1950’s, in the 1970’s I was a feminist. When my mother asked me what the differences were between a woman’s libber and a feminist, I told her: ” the woman’s liberation movement in Canada fought for equal rights, equal pay, and equal access to education, the feminist movement was born on the recognition of difference: not equal, but different. Our slogan was “celebrate difference”! Or as my French Canadian sisters would say: Viva la difference! The point is, the fight for equality shifted to the celebration of difference, which extends to all.
So, for me, once I let go of the notion of equality, and embraced celebrating difference, the world became less complicated — and more fun too.
Thank you for these fascinating observations and questions, Crista. It really reminded me of this: http://blog.maptia.com/posts/untranslatable-words-from-other-cultures have you seen those images before?
My curiosity lies in the meaning of all this. I wonder if the words that are specific to certain cultures tell us something about the cultures themselves? Maybe to have a word for something implies a cultural preference/prioritizing for that concept, or of course, the opposite of that. Or what is it about those cultures that magnifies these images, concepts, and ideas? Just looking at some of those illustrated words found at the hyperlink I posted above, I wonder, did the French word dépaysement (which means the feeling of not being in one’s own country) come from the French role as colonizer or “settler” of various countries in the world? It is so very interesting to me. And does packing these concepts into one word limit them in any way or does it legitimize feelings and images and beliefs and somehow make them more real and more important?
This also reminds me of the interest I take in film translations. I am somewhat limited to French and English but when I watch a film that has subtitles I am always very interested in what the translator chose to emphasize. Whether the translator went literal with something or whether they tried to capture the feeling of what was said. I don’t know if any of you have seen the French film “A Very Long Engagement” (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344510/?ref_=nv_sr_1). There is an example of what I’m talking about from this film that I find fascinating. The protagonist couple in the story of the film are named Mathilde and Manech. They are in love and affianced and Manech goes away to war. Rather than having terms of endearment for each other, they celebrate their love by saying (or carving into trees) the acronymn “MMM.” In French, it is M (Manech/Mathilde) aime (loves) M (Manech/Mathilde). The characters say it to one another so it has that element of wordplay that makes it more significant. The subtitles in the film say “Manech is marrying Mathilde” in order to keep in synch with the MMM alliteration. To me, that translation is so wrong! I always think the translator should have stuck with the real meaning, “Manech loves Mathilde” because it captures the feeling and meaning more accurately. I find that using “marrying” is much more limiting. It limits Manech’s feelings for Mathilde to the ceremony of marriage rather than conveying the all encompassing love he has for her. Also, the film is about a couple who are engaged, not a couple who are married so it just feels wrong to me.
There are many other examples, of course, particularly in how films are titled when they are released in other countries.
Endlessly fascinating! Thanks for this very enjoyable meditation on cultural differences in meaning.
Thank you so much for the link and your comment! I remember seeing a similar list as well. I haven’t thought about the origins of words in languages and I’m glad you brought my attention to it. It’s definitely interesting to think that dépaysement might have originated from “settlers”. It reminded me of how Japanese has adopted many foreign words and has even devised a different alphabet/symbols to convey foreign words (katakana).
I agree that “Manech loves Mathilde” is much more powerful than “Manech is marrying Mathilde”. The emotional verb is lost to the “action-oriented” verb. I do think words tell us a lot about a culture and like translators, how different cultures choose to emphasize or deemphasize different things. Similarly, in Japanese, “I like you” and “I love you” are different but “I like you” (tsuki) can be translated at times into English as “I love you”. But it doesn’t really mean that, yet translators choose accordingly to the moment whether to use “like” or “love”. (I’ve only learned about this – I don’t actually speak Japanese!)
P.S. I’ve read on the internet that in the French version of Harry Potter, that in order to keep the anagram of “I am Lord Voldemort” – that they had to make Voldemort’s middle name “Elvis”. I find this very amusing and your story reminded me of it. If I find the link, I’ll be sure to post it as a reply.
Haha, that’s so funny. Kind of makes Lord Voldemort seem less threatening in a way. I would think that the meaning rather than the acronym take precedence but I guess the riddle of Tom Riddle in Harry Potter is all part of the fun. Translators have a tough job!
Hey Crista!
I completely understand what you mean about the phrase 無聊 (mo liu) in Cantonese being a feeling. I’m sure you’ll relate to what I have to say (and I hope I’m clear enough to those unfamiliar with Cantonese) regarding this feeling in relation to memory. My parents and many other Hong Kong aunties and uncles I have encountered often use the phrase to describe items that are unnecessary, or of excessive cost. Sometimes the phrase is used to describe a product as gimmicky and stupid, but my parents have also used it to describe items I might have wanted as a child, as they were luxuries they couldn’t afford, and therefore, labeling it as “mo liu”.
I think a lot of phrases like this have deep personal and cultural connections, and therefore are hard to describe for outsiders, and maybe even insiders as well due to different anecdotes individuals may have experienced. The Chinese culture also considers the mastery of language a demonstration of intellect, especially shown when four-character idioms are dispensed in everyday conversation. This love of language is different from a western love of language, best explained in McLuhan’s phrase from our Chamberlin book: “the medium is the message” (17). Chinese and English are different media, and have different messages.
PS. Is that the plot of land between Garden City and No. 4? It’s so silly how many different rumours I have heard over the years about what’s going to be done with. How’s that for grapevine storytelling!
Chamberlin, Edward. If This is Your Land, Where are Your Stories?: Finding Common Ground. A. A. Knopf: Toronto, 2003. Print.
Hi Chris 🙂
I can definitely relate to the many definitions of mo liu. It is a truly versatile word. And I’m glad you can understand what I’m trying to explain!
I completely agree that words have different anecdotes/meanings to both outsiders and insiders. My knowledge of the Cantonese language is considered abysmal to native speakers, as well as “changed” because of the way I process Cantonese in my head. Usually, I translate Cantonese from English so often times, I catch myself saying sentences in the incorrect order. I know my youngest sister always says, “Can we go now” as “Ngo de hwo mm hwo yi jiow yi ga?” (sorry for butchering the phonetic sounds haha).
And wow, I didn’t know that language in Chinese culture was considered a demonstration of intellect. I usually get lectured or tsk’d at for not speaking Cantonese or not knowing enough and now I can see where it is coming from.
And yes, that is the the land in between Garden City and No. 4. I’m still not sure what it is but a quick look on wiki confirmed to me that still, nobody really knows. Personally, I’m quite attached to it for some reason and I’d be quite sad if they decided to build high rises or a Walmart there (I’ve heard they’re building a Walmart on Alderbridge, just across this plot? Again… rumours!)
The intellect part is more of a use of dropping certain phrases or idioms. They are usually four-words (the Lunar New Year greetings are some of them).
But I totally know what you mean regarding us native-born Cantonese speakers and fluent ones. I can speak conversationally but the inflection of people from Hong Kong sounds very different.
And yes I heard about that thing about Wal-Mart too! And a long time ago they said it was going to be a Playdium. Yeesh, what liars. A friend of mine told me that because of the density, there’s always fog there, and local photographers like to go capture it.
Hi Crista!
Excellent post! I was fascinated by your discussion about the difficulty in retaining true meaning when translating Cantonese into English. I remember reading Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in high school. We discussed the relevance of having particular words to describe particular places, feeling and objects in the context of the famous line, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Back then, it seemed like words were almost arbitrarily assigned to objects and places and feelings. But once a word has been given a meaning, it becomes attached to the nuances, connotations and resulting feelings evoked. So maybe that’s why mo liu can only ever mean mo liu. Nonsense will never adequately confer the true meaning of mo liu.
And I wonder what happens when we try and convert emotions into words. Well, I guess we get emoticons and emoji’s :). What if writers resorted to emojis to convey emotion in literature and stories? Could emoji’s intimately affect you, say to feel sad, in the same way a description of a sad situation could? Or perhaps, make you appreciate the beauty of an object (the smiley with heart eyes), the same way a description of the beautiful object could? Besides, I’m not so sure the golden complexion of emojis adequately reflects the diversity of the human race (Maybe a 50 shades of yellow version would?) 😉 Jokes aside, I don’t think emojis can truly ever represent the depth of human emotion, in the same way that nonsense can never truly define mo liu.
Shakespeare, William, and Alan Durband. Romeo and Juliet. Woodbury, N.Y.: Barron’s, 19851984. Print.