What impact does it make on cognition/thought formation when language is acquired though a logographic system in comparison to an alphabetic system?

asked 2018-08-06 01:31:13 -0500

To better state this, I’d like to assess the Sapir-Whorf “hypothesis” that “an individual’s thoughts and actions are determined by the language/s they speak” and see if the acquisition of the spoken language from two different writing systems further differentiate the outcome of thoughts and actions. To illustrate my intent, let’s examine learning the written language of Chinese (logographic language) in comparison to learning the written language of English and Korean (both alphabetic systems: English has 26 letters in their alphabet, Korean 24). We will look at the English digraph, and Korean/Chinese word Ni 니 你 Since we as English speakers learn how to say this by spelling out the n and i (saying the phoneme for each appropriate letter), this is how we would attempt to learn Korean. We would come to learn that “ㄴ” says n and “l” would say i. If we put those two together, 니 would result in the word being pronounced like ni. But looking at Chinese, since it’s a logographic system, the symbol 你, as it stands, says ni. 亻does not indicate the n sound, and 尔 does not indicate the i sound (in fact, this says Ěr [pronounced like are]). But, together, they say ni. Learning language through a logographic system seems to have fundamental difference in comparison to the acquisition of language through an alphabetical system. Because of this, what kind of impact does this have on cognition and thought formation?

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete