Language and Wealth

[Regis]

Language and Wealth

From the desk of Richard Rahn on Tue, 2006-07-11 07:11

Does the language you speak or use help influence how wealthy you are?

When trying to determine why some countries are wealthier than others, economists rarely, if at all, consider language. However, if you look at the list of wealthiest countries on a per capita income basis, you will notice almost all the top 20 are English-speaking, or use some other Germanic language, with the exception of France, Japan, and Finland (however, most Finns know German and English as well as Swedish, and many Frenchmen know German and/or English).

. . .

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1170

I had always made the connection between the British tradition (Smith and Locke etc) being the major factor behind the general level of prosperity in the Anglo-phone world in whatever region it might sprout. After all, these are the major thinkers that have influenced Anglo-American countries for centuries. I had not, however, considered the lack of corresponding concepts in other languages as such a serious impediment to making use of good ideas.

I also find it intruiging that the French and English methods parallel the languages themselves. English is wholly unregulated which makes it eminently usable and adaptable to new ideas and changing circumstances whereas French is bound to the approval of a small group of Intellectuals.

P.S. I didn't know what forum to put this in, so here it is.

[Edit: Entire article was quoted. I removed most of it but kept the link up.--Matt]

Edited July 11, 2006 by Groovenstein

[~Sophia~]

Is there something about the English language itself that helps make one wealthier, and is there something about the Arabic language itself that inhibits economic development?

This must be a joke.

[D'kian]

Interesting.

But I think this is mostly a cultural matter rather than a linguistic one.

There are words that do not exist in English. For example, the Russian term "Nichevo," is usually translated as "it can't be helped," or "there's nothing to be done about it." This is a word that conotes passive resignation. Well, in Spanish as used in Mexico there's a similar term "Ni modo," which carries the same connotation of passive resignation. One possible English translation would be "Too bad," but even then the term carries a value judgement. I can't vouch for the Russian term, but the Spanish term carries no judgement at all (a literal translation of the Spanish term would be "there is no way").

My point is that two unsuccessful cultures, the Russian and Mexican, both produce such words in their languages, while two successful cultures, the British and American, do not.

Now, it's a lot easier to grasp a concept there is a word for. If for no other reason that the existence of a word to name it implies other people have thought about it, and you can learn from their experience. But it is not essential. A lot more depends on how each individual thinks and reasons. A very good example of this would be Ayn Rand. She grew up in Russia, both before and after the revolution, and still she mannaged to embrace liberty, individualism, productivity, reason and the whole panoply of Western ideals.

So, yes, it might be harder to grasp concepts such as liberty if one grows up speaking Arabic or Spanish rather than English. But along with the language comes a culture as well.

America is a country with many immigrants. The children of these often grow up learnign both English and their parents' native tongue. It strikes me that useful data on this hypothesis could be gathered from such children.

[DavidOdden]

However, if you look at the list of wealthiest countries on a per capita income basis, you will notice almost all the top 20 are English-speaking, or use some other Germanic language, with the exception of France, Japan, and Finland (however, most Finns know German and English as well as Swedish, and many Frenchmen know German and/or English).

Well, naturally I'm extremely skeptical that this is caused by the language. BTW in that top-20 list, at least one such list, are Qatar (Arabic), Japan (need I say), Belgium (French and Dutch), France (extremely French) and Italian (numerous languages called "Italian"). If languages caused economic success, then the various Anglophone nations of Africa would not be such horrid poverty-pits, and Caribbean countries like Grenada, Belize, BWI, Suriname, Jamaica, Trinidad which are Germanic-speaking would be much better off than they are.

It's not because of the languages, it's because of the buisiness-oriented cultures of those who originally spoke the languages, especially the Dutch and the English people.

[Myron Azov]

My point is that two unsuccessful cultures, the Russian and Mexican, both produce such words in their languages, while two successful cultures, the British and American, do not.

"Unsuccessful cultures"? That's quite a collectivistic leap there. Was the Russian-speaking Pyotr Tchaikovsky held back by his language? Or Fyodor Dostoevsky? Or Sergei Diaghilev?

And why should we suppose that because "it can't be helped" does not exist as a single word in English the concept wouldn't be used as a reason not to strive by certain English-speaking people?

[Adrian Hester]

But I think this is mostly a cultural matter rather than a linguistic one...My point is that two unsuccessful cultures, the Russian and Mexican, both produce such words in their languages, while two successful cultures, the British and American, do not.

Just to be clear here, your point's that the languages reflect the culture in that they see need for such a word? I'd agree with that. If you're arguing for some form of causation in the other direction, it strikes me as pretty tenuous.

There are words that do not exist in English. For example, the Russian term "Nichevo," is usually translated as "it can't be helped," or "there's nothing to be done about it." This is a word that conotes passive resignation.

It has a variety of meanings depending on what you understand the omitted word to be, since it's an abbreviation of several set phrases. Nichevo (spelled nichego) literally means "nothing." (More precisely, it's the genitive singular.) It can mean "never mind" (short for nichego strashnogo, "it's nothing serious/terrible," I think) or just "oh, nothing" as well as "there's nothing to be done," though a native speaker should confirm that before you take my word for it. Seems to me there's no real difference between the Russian "Nichevo" and English "Can't be helped" except that the Russian is somewhat more abbreviated.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Adrian Hester

[LaszloWalrus]

I think the originial post is backwards; language does not produce success, but success (or lack thereof) can greatly influence a language. For example, as Ayn Rand pointed out, the English phrase "to make money" definitely has the underpinning that wealth has to be produced. By contrast, the Spanish phrase to "win money" or "get money" ("ganar dinero" depending on a literal or loose translation) implies that money is something one lucks into somehow.

Also, the English-speaking countries were not always the most successful. Arabic-speaking countries were far better off during the Middle Ages.

[D'kian]

"Unsuccessful cultures"? That's quite a collectivistic leap there. Was the Russian-speaking Pyotr Tchaikovsky held back by his language? Or Fyodor Dostoevsky? Or Sergei Diaghilev?

It's not collectivist at all. A failed culture does not preclude great individuals. I pointed out Ayn Rand was raised in Russia.

And why should we suppose that because "it can't be helped" does not exist as a single word in English the concept wouldn't be used as a reason not to strive by certain English-speaking people?

Not a reason, an attitude.

[aequalsa]

There might be something to the idea. I have a very good friend who immigrated here from Russia when he was a teenager. He's a programmer and says that when he needs to think about something difficult,(related to programming or anything else) it is much easier to think in english. Russian requires too much of his concentration to arrange the proper grammer whereas english allows more of your mental capacities to be focused on integration.

This is second hand of course, but it seems to make sense to me. It is possible that some languages lend themselves more to certain types of mental activities but I'd be surprised if english was undisputably better in all respects. In fact, I'd be a little surprised if they did not have some effect on the thought processes of the user.

[Myron Azov]

It's not collectivist at all. A failed culture does not preclude great individuals. I pointed out Ayn Rand was raised in Russia.

Just what authority sets the passing grade for a culture? And since there are no Canadian counterparts for Tchaikovsky, Dostoevsky, or Diaghilev, does Canada count as a "failed" culture?

Not a reason, an attitude.

Are we to suppose that such an attitude cannot easily form in the minds of English-speaking people simply because it takes four words rather than one to name it?

Edited July 12, 2006 by Myron Azov

[Regis]

I think the originial post is backwards; language does not produce success, but success (or lack thereof) can greatly influence a language. For example, as Ayn Rand pointed out, the English phrase "to make money" definitely has the underpinning that wealth has to be produced. By contrast, the Spanish phrase to "win money" or "get money" ("ganar dinero" depending on a literal or loose translation) implies that money is something one lucks into somehow.

Also, the English-speaking countries were not always the most successful. Arabic-speaking countries were far better off during the Middle Ages.

While I won't disagree that success influences a language I would say that the ideas that produce success must first be identified and communicated in some manner. This communication need not be in the form of language (The article itself references the first hand experiences of immigrants that did not know English) but it usually is. Especially in the modern world. Thus, lacking the concepts that produce sucess in a language can be a serious detriment to a society.

[~Sophia~]

While I won't disagree that success influences a language I would say that the ideas that produce success must first be identified and communicated in some manner.

Those ideas can be communicated in any language. It does not matter that you may need to use one word or two to get your point accross as long as the other person can understand the concept you are trying to explain.

Think of the factors affecting economic success (productivity: human capital (human skills) + physical capital (machines, buildings ect) + natural resources (farm land, oil ect)) of a country and then answer yourself: Can a particular nature of a language (not it's pure existance) significantly affect those factors?

Does specific language significantly affect the relation between statism and dynamism?

People come up with crazy excuses for failure, I must say.

[D'kian]

Just to be clear here, your point's that the languages reflect the culture in that they see need for such a word? I'd agree with that.

Yes, that's exactly my point.

Having given more thought to the amtter, it may be that they reinforce each other. That is, a culture that is backward produces a limited language, which in turn does not help in the formation of new ideas to challenge it.

To clarify (I hope!), say a culture lacks a celar notion of both liberty and property. It would be much harder to think in their language that human beings are not property. harder, but not impossible. Creative people, after all, constantly come up with ideas and notions that did not exist before.

Seems to me there's no real difference between the Russian "Nichevo" and English "Can't be helped" except that the Russian is somewhat more abbreviated.

I did discuss the matter once with a native Russian speaker. He says the notion is laced with fatalism, a passive acceptance of misfortune as being how the world is and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.

He gave me an example: A farmer finds his crop is infested by weeds, so many there's no way for him to clear them all off. He won't sit and let his crop die, but he won't try as hard as he can either. He will try in a desultory faschion, knwoing that whatever he does, much of his crop will be ruined. He will save enough to get by, but not as much as he might ahve saved. With me so far? And, according to my friend, he will express this as "The crop is overrun by weeds. Nichevo." (BTW the way he pronounced it, I though it should be spelled "nichevo." That might just be his accent).

Of course this isn't a universal Russian attitude anymore than building up a multibillion dollar comany from scratch is a universal American attitude. But having a word that condenses the attitude does say something about the culture that originated it.

Just what authority sets the passing grade for a culture?

I use my judgement. A culture that embraces the ideas, or most of the ideas, that will result in greater liberty and individualism, will succeed at creating a better life for its memebers. There's the explanationa nd the standard of value.

Are we to suppose that such an attitude cannot easily form in the minds of English-speaking people simply because it takes four words rather than one to name it?

Of couse it can. All too often it does. But is the attitude so prevalent, so much a part of, say, Canada, that English-speaking Canadians eventually come up with a word for it?

It is quite normal for languages to evolve shorter words for ideas, situations, events, etc that take place often, and for which a phrase is used to describe. For example, if only a few hundred people ever sent each other messages using their computers and a network of telephone lines, we may hear of it as electronic mail. But since millions of people do that every day, and since even int he beginning thousands of people sued ti daily, we know it as email.

[~Sophia~]

Capitalism is what allows for progress of nations. It is when a nation has little or no capitalism that it fails to develop. The degree of absence of capitalism has been the degree of disaster arround the world.