Every now and then the question over the relationship between language and culture pops up. It usually concentrates on one specific theme, for instance how does one shape the other, is the influence unidirectional or, the one of the chicken and the egg, was it the language that made the culture or viceversa. I always find the topic an interesting one, since it goes on to prove that language is possibly a lot more than just a tool of communication, it can also shape the way we are, the way we think and the way we view others.

Even though the existence of this kind of relationship has always seemed very logical to me, I have always had difficulties in pinpointing where exactly was this to be seen and how did it affect our everyday life. I did read once that the talent many Indians have possessed in mathematics can be traced back to the structure of the Sanskrit language, but since i did not speak it I had some difficulties in understanding why and how.  However, some time ago I came across with a concrete example of my own, one that seems to be affecting at least my life on a daily basis. Needless to say,  the example has its flaws and it does not reflect all the local people being somewhat “stereotypetive” by its nature, but I think it makes a case in point.

Few years back while learning Spanish I got to know that the word “discusión” (“discussion” in English) and the verb of the same word, “discutir” (“discuss”), tend to mean more of having an argument than a normal conversation. The word “discussion” in Spanish had and has this connotation of arguing, it is considered to be a some sort of a verbal fight, at least not very far from it. It is like disagreeing to disagree. The thing is that on my opinion this also reflects the way the people often communicate here in order to solve problems, to exchange opinions or just to wonder about something.

Back at the North (based on my own, probably biased, experiences) discussions of this sort were often aimed at coming to some sort of a conclusion. The important thing was not really on who was wrong and who was right but more on the matter itself. You built your view on the topic at hand together with the other, and you could easily include to your own thinking the pieces of information the other one had. You did not have to agree with the other one, but just listen the arguments the other one had, and if you still did not agree, you should tell the other one why not and so the conversation kept on going. Naturally, people did and do argue and have arguments in there as well, but the basic nature of a typical discussion was not a confrontational one, it was one of co-operation. It was ok to disagree, but even then you often agreed to disagree.

In Spain discussions, like the word implies, are more like duels. It is one opinion against the other, and the discussion (or the argument) becomes easily one on who is right and who is wrong. The information of the other is automaticly false or at least understood wrong. Furthermore,  the winner (yes, there is a winner) is not necessarily solved on the basis of the facts, but on who is more convincing.  Being convincing, on the other hand, is sometimes nothing else than being firm (keep on repeating your stand) and making a cracking joke about the other party on a suitable moment. Moreover, listening is for losers. The end-result is that every discussion comes to resemble a televised political debate between the opposition and the governing party. Lot of talk, but little conclusions that both agree on or even agree to disagree on.

The curious thing is that this is the direction that many conversations take, even though they start off as “non-agressive” ones. It represents itself as a normal mode of communication. Sometimes it seems that the locals are on a continuos state of heated debate, where the topic might chance but opinions do not. The most important thing is to keep your ground, no matter the ground. Conversations of the co-operation kind do not really exist. In most cases they take the form of not exchanging ideas, but one of teaching, where one is the teacher and the other the pupil. Then there is no need for argument, the setup makes things already clear: the teacher has the point.

I do not know if this is the case in other languages as well, or are Spanish and Catalan somewhat unique in this sense. Moreover, as said before, it is not entirely clear which came first, the word or the behaviour. In any case, it has its advantages and disadvantages. The good thing is that you get to learn to debate about everything, since instead of concentrating to the issue you learn to concentrate onto the debate. In addition it brings more passion to life, since even the haircolor of S. Berlusconi can be a topic of an emotions-run-wild type of discussion. The bad thing is that sometimes conversations or discussions seem to lose their purpose. Furthermore, from a northeners point of view, it is difficult to know how heated the situation reality is or what is actually going on. Even though according to the northern standards the situation/discussion can already be considered as hostile one, this might not be entirely the case. Thus, it might be ok to call the other one idiot, but complete idiot might already cross the line. Where is the limit? Like said, it is impossible to know, since it is up to the locals to set the standards. This again implies that as a foreigner, one can only be wrong.

 Loading ...