Job Discussion Forums

[nomad soul]

Interesting opinion piece about semantics and perception...

Intricacies of the English language
By Ibrahim Al-Ammar, Arab News | 1 December 2014
Source: http://www.arabnews.com/columns/news/667841

In the previous article, I mentioned some differences I noticed between the English and Arabic languages, and how they might actually be deeper than they may appear. At first glance, some lingual differences could appear negligible; in that article, I talked about how Saudis say, “Where’s the food?”, whereas in English it’s almost always, “Where’s my food?”, and how that — in my estimation — possibly demonstrates a cultural difference between Saudi and western cultures.

Now, there’s another difference I’ve been paying attention to. Know what it is? You should, it’s littered throughout that entire first paragraph. Look at these words I used and see if you notice a pattern: “might,” “may,” “could,” “in my estimation” and “possibly.” If you couldn’t find the pattern by now, I’ll summarize it in one word: Cautiousness. These are cautious words; they are telling the reader, “These are my views which I firmly believe, but I will soften my opinion with these words to maintain a cautious tone.”

This lack of confidence may just be common talk being apprenticed to the scientific language. In many fields of science (say, a study on the effects of a drug), one must be very cautious when publishing a study. You can’t simply say, “Drug X can cure depression.” Rather, scientists subdue the literature with moderating elements, and that last sentence becomes something like, “It was observed that Drug X was linked to a decrease in certain depression symptoms.” This is understandable, as care is essential in these issues, because a reader might get too excited, misinterpret the findings and do something detrimental to his health or even his life, like ingesting Drug X immediately and without medical supervision.

But why is this prevalent everywhere in English, even when simply conversing with someone? More than caution, I think it’s about fear — fear of being contradicted, refuted, belittled. I really see a pattern of this meek style of talking in English that’s not found in Arabic.

Here’s a comparison between how a Saudi and an English-speaker talk:

Saudi: “Car X is THE BEST thing that company ever produced!”
English: “Car X is possibly the best thing that company produced in recent years.” Words like “recent years” also add another element of caution, as if he fears someone mocking his knowledge about cars and pointing out a car made decades ago that’s better than this one.

Saudi: “I stumbled on the best biryani (a rice dish) you will ever taste! You must try it!”
English: “I came across a burger place which I found very delicious. I recommend it if you feel like eating a burger one day.” Notice how this guy says that he found it delicious, as if cautious not to believe the other person would find it delicious as well. Look at the use of “I recommend it,” words that temper the person’s excitement to nearly indifferent levels, as if to say, “this is my personal opinion, so don’t blame me if you don’t like it.” Words like “if you feel like eating a burger” seem to say, “I don’t want you to go there right now, because there’s a chance you might not like it.” And “one day” just kills the last shred of enthusiasm the recommender had for this tasty burger. I cannot muster any excitement when hearing a sentence qualified in such paranoid fashion.

So when you listen to people talking about things in English, pay attention to these little details: You may find that what I’ve said (which is only my personal opinion) might carry some degree of truth in it!

(End of opinion)

[veiledsentiments]

I would interpret it as more overstatement by the Saudi speaker... of what is actually merely his opinion... and the English speakers attempt to be more realistic. I would never interpret it as "fear" but the speakers attempt not to insult the taste of the listener.

But it definitely displays a cultural difference that any of us teachers have commonly dealt with, in particular if we have taught academic writing.

This is actually a "flaw" often seen in headline writing these days likely in both languages, especially on the internet. Yes, it is a cute cat video (or dog or whatever), but it will not shock or floor you or be the BEST EVER or cause you to spit your coffee on your keyboard or whatever silly superlative they have used to try to get you to click on it.

VS

[Gulezar]

I also questioned the word "fear". I thought it was more like consideration, consideration of another and his opinion. I suppose it is the difference between a collective and an individualistic society. An individual realizes that that he may have to convince another of the correctness of his opinion. I hesitate to even consider how I might have phrased these last sentences now if I were Saudi.

[BillyBaddusky]

I think this confuses fear, diffidence and cautiousness with politeness. ex Might I call you by your first name? is simply good manners. I never hear Where is THE food in Arabic, as it is generally reduced to Where food? Never have I heard someone say "where's my food?"unless, perhaps a customer approaches a McDonald's counter after watching queue jumpers being served ahead of him -- then, maybe, hey, where's my food?

[scot47]

The use of modal verbs is an interesting difference, and may reflect a different way of seeing reality ?

[clyde]

This is very interesting. I agree with what you say here. I had a similar moment in class one day. I was explaining to the students that I wanted them to talk about what more tourism would mean. They began discussing, and I was immediately surprised that all they would talk about was how the tourists would have problems. They got into how they would be bored and scared of the Muttawa. They really had no concept of what more tourism would mean to the Saudi people. This indicated how hospitality and generosity are so much more a part of their culture than in the West.

[johnslat]

"Arab Hospitality

Karam, an Arabic word for hospitality or generosity, is also ultimately about security, protection, and respect. Correct behavior toward a stranger/guest is inextricably bound with a family’s honor and reputation; inappropriate behavior might lead to disrespect, danger, and insecurity. Thus, a cultural sphere based on family, lineage, and ethno-religious millets constitutes a horizontal network of support and solidarity; here, the movement of people does not result in decoupling, or deracination.

Notions of hospitality, generosity, and the worthiness of the guest in augmenting individual and family honor are fundamental to many societies and cultures. But they are particularly redolent in the Arab world, where notions of modernity are mixed with those of custom and customary principles of behavior and action. Contrary to the dominant discourse in the West—where a typical response to forced migration is to place asylum seekers in centers that represent a middle ground between mere biological life and full social existence—notions of hospitality and generosity are so important in Arab culture as to make it nearly impossible for the state to adopt bureaucratic indifference to human needs and suffering.

Countries of the region tend to avoid enactment of asylum laws largely because asylum is deeply rooted in notions of individual, family, and group reputation. In societies where providing hospitality enhances reputations for generosity, humanitarian internment camps are unnecessary if not repugnant. The refusal of most Arab states to sign the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is not a reflection of a lack of concern regarding forced migration. Rather, it is an unwillingness to move against the norms and customs of hospitality that grant the stranger, exile, and refugee nearly the same rights of the citizen. The nation is regarded as the home and the head of the family is sovereign of the state. National legislation is not required in order to treat the stranger as a guest. This is underscored by the wide acceptance of the Protocol for the Treatment of Palestinians in Arab States, the Casablanca Protocol, adopted in 1965.

The Arab ideal is that the state is the host, and hospitality is a matter for the local community and the private individual. The refugee camp is not part of the mindset. The forced migrant is welcomed or tolerated as a guest, generally temporarily but sometimes for a long duration. The ideal of an Arab nation persists in the rhetoric and the practices of some states. Syria, for example, has practiced near unconditional hospitality in allowing all Arabs into the country without visas. In other Arab states, it is easier for Arabs to enter than other foreign nationals. In any case, the host is thus someone that has the power to give something (karam) to the stranger, but ultimately remains in control. Karam not only enhances the reputation of the host, the act of hosting also creates greater security by enlarging the network (wasta) of the host. One day the host may become a stranger himself. The cycle of hospitality and refuge among members of different millets is the antecedent to the modern Arab state."

http://www.aucegypt.edu/GAPP/CairoReview/Pages/articleDetails.aspx?aid=335

Regards,
John

[plumpy nut]

[scot47]

They ? Who ?

[Pikgitina]

plumpy nut, did you mean posteriori logic?

[johnslat]

Dear scot47,

They ? Who ?

Just about everybody everywhere in my experience, but I believe plumpy nut was generalizing about only the Arabs, maybe only the Saudis.

Regards,
John

[mashkif]