Lost in
Translation - WSJ - An interesting read for Sanskrit
enthusiasts
Sunday,
May 29, 2011
Lost in
Translation -- Wall Street Journal
"All this new research shows us that the
languages we speak not only
reflect or express our thoughts, but
also shape the very thoughts we
wish to express. The structures that exist in our languages
profoundly shape how we construct reality,
and help make us as smart
and sophisticated as we are."
(Please read the article online, here are some
of my comments as I
was reading it.)
Note:
This is an interesting peace of information that I stumbled
upon, researched a bit, and felt like sharing with you. There are no
claims of Sanskrit being the best language or anything of that sort.
Reader discretion is advised.
I read
this article last summer, but got reminded of this article
last evening during a discussion on the effect of languages on human
behavior and culture.
The
article above is a beautiful peace discussing how languages play
an important role in shaping our perception, observation and
expression. (You'll see this once you read the article.)
There are
many dimensions to this article, but in the context of interest and time,
I
would briefly focus on two that are interesting to us as Sanskrit
students (and skipping others like phonetics, grammar etc.).
First,
there is an information theoretic part to the language, which
is fundamental, yet beyond the scope of their study.
And that
has to do with the size of the script. Before getting to the
point, let me take an example to clarify.
Consider
number 1000. The number is expressed in 4 digits (1, 0, 0 &
0) in our base10 number system (where we represent 0,1,..9 for
counting). The same number in binary system (i.e. using only 0 & 1)
takes 10 digits (1111101000), so is relatively more difficult to
process (or remember /recall / write / convey).
Below is
a list of some languages (that are very different than
Sanskrit) with number of basic alphabets:
Some
South American languages have as few as 12 letters in the
script, which makes it easier to do poetry (because words are very
long and everything rhymes), but more difficult to do science.
English with 26 letters, so it's clearly at a huge advantage in terms
of compaction.
Devanagari
is among the richest of script, with 54 basic letters and
couple of hundreds of mixed and special forms. The level of
compaction achievable is immense when compared to English & many
other language.
Working
with a larger script base, one is inherently at an advantage
of compaction, and as a result, of speed.
Apart
from a popular script, the structure of the language (e.g.
different shabdha roopas for pullinga, strilinga, napunsaklinga etc,
and several tenses pluralities) add further expansion of the
language base, providing a compaction of the language. And all these
tied together in 14 verses of Maheshwar Sutras (see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Sutra ) or ~4000 rules of
Paninian
Grammer.
Remember,
that this compaction was also a need of the time, as
writing material was scarce, and messages or texts had to be very
very compact.
Second,
the historic fact that much of Indian art, science and
history has been recorded in Sanskrit (and most likely conducted by
people who spoke the language). And ever since Sanskrit was dropped
as the language of choice for education, India's contribution to arts
& sciences has been on a decline.
Also note
that, as the article above argues, culture and language
mutually influence each other. Changing the language is like changing
the thinking, as claimed:
"One of the key advances in recent years
has been the demonstration
of precisely this causal link. It turns
out that if you change how
people talk, that changes how they
think. If people learn another
language, they inadvertently also learn
a new way of looking at the
world. When bilingual people switch from
one language to another,
they start thinking differently, too."
One must
remember that there are languages that have far too many
characters. For example, some Asian languages, like Chinese &
Japanese, with scripts that have open script system have several
thousand alphabets (anyone can create a new one). (I am not qualified
to comment on these languages as I don't understand them, but my
guess is that it would be extremely difficult to master the tens or
hundreds of thousands of alphabets (see here
).
I am also
not aware of and could not find other languages with more
alphabets than Sanskrit. If you have more info on that, any info
would be much appreciated.)
-
A.
Lost in
Translation
New
cognitive research suggests that language profoundly influences
the way people see the world; a different sense of blame in Japanese
and Spanish
By Lera
Boroditsky
The Wall Street Journal
July 23, 2010
[Caption]
'The Tower of Babel' by Pieter Brueghel the Elder, 1563.
The Gallery Collection - Corbis
Do the
languages we speak shape the way we think? Do they merely
express thoughts, or do the structures in languages (without our
knowledge or consent) shape the very thoughts we wish to express?
Take
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a..." Even this snippet of a nursery
rhyme
reveals how much languages can differ from one another. In English,
we have to mark the verb for tense; in this case, we say "sat"
rather
than "sit." In Indonesian you need not (in fact, you can't)
change
the verb to mark tense.
In
Russian, you would have to mark tense and also gender, changing
the verb if Mrs. Dumpty did the sitting. You would also have to
decide if the sitting event was completed or not. If our ovoid hero
sat on the wall for the entire time he was meant to, it would be a
different form of the verb than if, say, he had a great fall.
In
Turkish, you would have to include in the verb how you acquired
this information. For example, if you saw the chubby fellow on the
wall with your own eyes, you'd use one form of the verb, but if you
had simply read or heard about it, you'd use a different form.
Do
English, Indonesian, Russian and Turkish speakers end up attending
to, understanding, and remembering their experiences differently
simply because they speak different languages?
These
questions touch on all the major controversies in the study of
mind, with important implications for politics, law and religion. Yet
very little empirical work had been done on these questions until
recently. The idea that language might shape thought was for a long
time considered untestable at best and more often simply crazy and
wrong. Now, a flurry of new cognitive science research is showing
that in fact, language does profoundly influence how we see the
world.
The
question of whether languages shape the way we think goes back
centuries; Charlemagne proclaimed that "to have a second language is
to have a second soul." But the idea went out of favor with
scientists when Noam Chomsky's theories of language gained popularity
in the 1960s and '70s. Dr. Chomsky proposed that there is a universal
grammar for all human languages -- essentially, that languages don't
really differ from one another in significant ways. And because
languages didn't differ from one another, the theory went, it made no
sense to ask whether linguistic differences led to differences in
thinking.
Use Your
Words
Some
findings on how language can affect thinking.
Russian
speakers, who have more words for light and dark blues, are
better able to visually discriminate shades of blue.
Some
indigenous tribes say north, south, east and west, rather than
left and right, and as a consequence have great spatial orientation.
The
Piraha, whose language eschews number words in favor of terms
like few and many, are not able to keep track of exact quantities.
In one
study, Spanish and Japanese speakers couldn't remember the
agents of accidental events as adeptly as English speakers could.
Why? In Spanish and Japanese, the agent of causality is dropped:
"The
vase broke itself," rather than "John broke the vase."
The
search for linguistic universals yielded interesting data on
languages, but after decades of work, not a single proposed universal
has withstood scrutiny. Instead, as linguists probed deeper into the
world's languages (7,000 or so, only a fraction of them analyzed),
innumerable unpredictable differences emerged.
Of
course, just because people talk differently doesn't necessarily
mean they think differently. In the past decade, cognitive scientists
have begun to measure not just how people talk, but also how they
think, asking whether our understanding of even such fundamental
domains of experience as space, time and causality could be
constructed by language.
For
example, in Pormpuraaw, a remote Aboriginal community in
Australia, the indigenous languages don't use terms like "left"
and
"right." Instead, everything is talked about in terms of
absolute
cardinal directions (north, south, east, west), which means you say
things like, "There's an ant on your southwest leg." To say hello
in
Pormpuraaw, one asks, "Where are you going?", and an
appropriate
response might be, "A long way to the south-southwest. How about
you?" If you don't know which way is which, you literally can't get
past hello.
About a
third of the world's languages (spoken in all kinds of
physical environments) rely on absolute directions for space. As a
result of this constant linguistic training, speakers of such
languages are remarkably good at staying oriented and keeping track
of where they are, even in unfamiliar landscapes. They perform
navigational feats scientists once thought were beyond human
capabilities. This is a big difference, a fundamentally different way
of conceptualizing space, trained by language.
Differences
in how people think about space don't end there. People
rely on their spatial knowledge to build many other more complex or
abstract representations including time, number, musical pitch,
kinship relations, morality and emotions. So if Pormpuraawans think
differently about space, do they also think differently about other
things, like time?
To find
out, my colleague Alice Gaby and I traveled to Australia and
gave Pormpuraawans sets of pictures that showed temporal progressions
(for example, pictures of a man at different ages, or a crocodile
growing, or a banana being eaten). Their job was to arrange the
shuffled photos on the ground to show the correct temporal order. We
tested each person in two separate sittings, each time facing in a
different cardinal direction. When asked to do this, English speakers
arrange time from left to right. Hebrew speakers do it from right to
left (because Hebrew is written from right to left).
Pormpuraawans,
we found, arranged time from east to west. That is,
seated facing south, time went left to right. When facing north,
right to left. When facing east, toward the body, and so on. Of
course, we never told any of our participants which direction they
faced. The Pormpuraawans not only knew that already, but they also
spontaneously used this spatial orientation to construct their
representations of time. And many other ways to organize time exist
in the world's languages. In Mandarin, the future can be below and
the past above. In Aymara [It is a language spoken
since pre-Columbian times only by the indigenous population around the Titicaca
Lake region, i.e., occidental Bolivia, south of Peru, and northern areas of
Chile and Argentina.] the
future is
behind and the past in front.
In
addition to space and time, languages also shape how we understand
causality. For example, English likes to describe events in terms of
agents doing things. English speakers tend to say things like "John
broke the vase" even for accidents. Speakers of Spanish or Japanese
would be more likely to say "the vase broke itself." Such
differences
between languages have profound consequences for how their speakers
understand events, construct notions of causality and agency, what
they remember as eyewitnesses and how much they blame and punish
others.
In
studies conducted by Caitlin Fausey at Stanford, speakers of
English, Spanish and Japanese watched videos of two people popping
balloons, breaking eggs and spilling drinks either intentionally or
accidentally. Later everyone got a surprise memory test: For each
event, can you remember who did it? She discovered a striking cross-
linguistic difference in eyewitness memory. Spanish and Japanese
speakers did not remember the agents of accidental events as well as
did English speakers. Mind you, they remembered the agents of
intentional events (for which their language would mention the agent)
just fine. But for accidental events, when one wouldn't normally
mention the agent in Spanish or Japanese, they didn't encode or
remember the agent as well.
In
another study, English speakers watched the video of Janet
Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" (a wonderful
nonagentive
coinage introduced into the English language by Justin Timberlake),
accompanied by one of two written reports. The reports were identical
except in the last sentence where one used the agentive phrase
"ripped the costume" while the other said "the costume
ripped." Even
though everyone watched the same video and witnessed the ripping with
their own eyes, language mattered. Not only did people who read
"ripped the costume" blame Justin Timberlake more, they also levied
a
whopping 53% more in fines.
Beyond
space, time and causality, patterns in language have been
shown to shape many other domains of thought. Russian speakers, who
make an extra distinction between light and dark blues in their
language, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue.
The Piraha, a tribe in the Amazon in Brazil, whose language eschews
number words in favor of terms like few and many, are not able to
keep track of exact quantities. And Shakespeare, it turns out, was
wrong about roses: Roses by many other names (as told to blindfolded
subjects) do not smell as sweet.
Patterns
in language offer a window on a culture's dispositions and
priorities. For example, English sentence structures focus on agents,
and in our criminal-justice system, justice has been done when we've
found the transgressor and punished him or her accordingly (rather
than finding the victims and restituting appropriately, an
alternative approach to justice). So does the language shape cultural
values, or does the influence go the other way, or both?
Languages,
of course, are human creations, tools we invent and hone
to suit our needs. Simply showing that speakers of different
languages think differently doesn't tell us whether it's language
that shapes thought or the other way around. To demonstrate the
causal role of language, what's needed are studies that directly
manipulate language and look for effects in cognition.
"That
language embodies different ways of knowing the world seems
intuitive, given the number of times we reach for a word or phrase in
another language that communicates that certain je ne sais quoi we
can't find on our own." - Steve Kallaugher
One of
the key advances in recent years has been the demonstration of
precisely this causal link. It turns out that if you change how
people talk, that changes how they think. If people learn another
language, they inadvertently also learn a new way of looking at the
world. When bilingual people switch from one language to another,
they start thinking differently, too. And if you take away people's
ability to use language in what should be a simple nonlinguistic
task, their performance can change dramatically, sometimes making
them look no smarter than rats or infants. (For example, in recent
studies, MIT students were shown dots on a screen and asked to say
how many there were. If they were allowed to count normally, they did
great. If they simultaneously did a nonlinguistic task -- like
banging out rhythms -- they still did great. But if they did a verbal
task when shown the dots -- like repeating the words spoken in a news
report -- their counting fell apart. In other words, they needed
their language skills to count.)
All this
new research shows us that the languages we speak not only
reflect or express our thoughts, but also shape the very thoughts we
wish to express. The structures that exist in our languages
profoundly shape how we construct reality, and help make us as smart
and sophisticated as we are.
Language
is a uniquely human gift. When we study language, we are
uncovering in part what makes us human, getting a peek at the very
nature of human nature. As we uncover how languages and their
speakers differ from one another, we discover that human natures too
can differ dramatically, depending on the languages we speak. The
next steps are to understand the mechanisms through which languages
help us construct the incredibly complex knowledge systems we have.
Understanding how knowledge is built will allow us to create ideas
that go beyond the currently thinkable. This research cuts right to
the fundamental questions we all ask about ourselves. How do we come
to be the way we are? Why do we think the way we do? An important
part of the answer, it turns out, is in the languages we speak.
Corrections
and Amplifications
Japanese
and Spanish language speakers would likely say "the vase
broke" or "the vase was broken" when talking about an accident.
This
article says that Japanese and Spanish speakers would be more likely
to say "the vase broke itself."
- Lera
Boroditsky is a professor of psychology at Stanford University
and editor in chief of Frontiers in Cultural Psychology.
Related
Video
Yes We
Can Learn English
Learning
a Language Online
Keeping
Cajun Alive
Discuss:
Some interesting comments for this article
What about if one speaks several languages? Many of
us have travelled and learnt languages to be able to communicate? Will what we
will call our 'native' language be the only influencer in our thinking process?
What about our experiences in foreign countries? won't the environment we lived
in also influence that process? My personal experience will push me to say that
even though scientists might assess that language shapes our thinking, it is
not the only influencer. Cultural knowledge is also an important factor (www.linguapassion.com)---------------
·
--------------------------------------------------------------------
·
·
@ Lera Boroditsky: Please see my reply to Margaret
Glass's post. Also, I would like to mention that if you say "Aymara which
is spoken in South America" without any further qualification, it may give
your readers a false picture, as It is a language spoken since pre-Columbian
times only by the indigenous population around the Titicaca Lake region, i.e.,
occidental Bolivia, south of Peru, and northern areas of Chile and Argentina.
As you put it, one gathers the impression that Aymara is spoken in South
America across the board, which is certainly not the case.
This is one of the most interesting articles I've
read in years!
I've been thinking about that very notion for years now, unaware that there was
actual research being done on this very subject of "Does our language
determine how we see the world or does how we see the word determine our
language?"
My conclusion was: Our language determines how we see the world
Thought experiments - Computer programming:
The code (or language) used in computers determines which variables they
"see", understand, take into account, use in determining the result.
Using another code on the same machine would greatly influence the results;
some variables would not be taken into account, some of them won't even be
recognized.
Imagine a human being who does not have a word for Freedom, Synergy, Empathy,
or Love for example. He will see, understand, judge and behave very differently
than other people who do. You would need to reason with him/her for a
relatively long time to get to the conclusion of "give your children some
space" or "accept differences and don't be threatened by them"
for example; He/she would not do this "instinctively". He/she would
have fundamentally different paradigms of seeing the world around him/her.
That thought experiment lead me to the following conclusions:
1- Language for humans does not include all the words in the dictionary for
that official language nor the complete set of grammar rules it has. Human
language is the language he/she use everyday.
2- Not having a word for a concept in a certain language means not having the
concept altogether within the culture that uses this language.
Application - Conflict Resolution:
Many conflicts in the world could be better understood and even avoided if we
deeply understand the differences within the different languages of the
cultures in conflict:
1- The arab language has more than 12 shades of HONOR and only 1 word for BOTH
freedom and liberty for example. While freedom is important, honor seems to be
about 12 times more influential in decision making and behavior. In other
words, achieving freedom CAN NOT be done while compromising on honor and
therefore can not come at "any cost". The "honorable" way
of doing things is more important that the "right" way. (The shade of
"honorable" is only present in the arabic language and cannot be even
translated to english)
2- Deep similarities in languages would suggest both a very interesting notion
to be analyzed deeper and a possible common ground to build on to resolve such
conflicts. Take the word "VALUE" for example, that same word is used
for moral guidelines (A) and to determine the worth of goods and services (B)
in both the english and the arabic language (French too and I suspect many
other languages although I'm only familiar with those 3). It would suggest that
a moral value (A) is only as important as its value (B) in both cultures. And
that if in a certain culture, Honor has a higher value (B) than freedom or
democracy, Honor would be a more important value (A) in that said culture.
NOTE: This might be a bit surprising, but I did summarize my thought process
and chose only a couple of conclusions in an effort to keep my comment as
concise as possible. Sorry if that was still a bit long.
This is an interesting article and many of the
comments are also thought-provoking and educational.
Whether language affects culture more than the reverse is immaterial. Language
DOES affect the way we think. Therefore we can influence the way we think by
structuring language. Like anything else, such structuring can be used for
beneficial purposes or negative purposes (Orwell’s 1984) and might do both good
and bad at the same time.
A Japanese math professor once interrupted his lecture to explain that in
English we speak of continuous and discontinuous functions, but in Russian, the
root word represents discontinuous (or curtate) and the modifier represents
continuous functions. In the USA, many people tend to think that continuity is
the natural state of affairs and that discontinuous functions are the
exception. In Russia, it is probably the reverse. In this particular case, I
think the differences in the languages add value which we can benefit from if
we bring people with the different perspectives together in working on a
problem.
My limited experience with Chinese has been fascinating. In Chinese, there is
no word for “no”. The expression for “no” literally translates to “not yes”.
That seems consistent with their negotiating style.
Likewise, the Chinese names for the days of the week and the months of the year
are “one-day”, “two-day”, etc. and “one-month”, “two-month”, etc. Their words
for numbers are very decimal.
I think that leads to a more mathematical way of looking at the world. Very few
English-speaking children recognize the decimal nature of our numbers with
distortions such as ‘eleven’, ‘twelve’, and the “teens”. French uses “4 score”
to represent 80, etc.
Only some of our months were numerical, and that was in Latin and then screwed
up by Caesar. So now “September”, the “seventh month” has become our ninth
month and October, November and December are all also off by two.
There are numerous ways in which we could improve our mental abilities by
changing language and by changing teaching methods. For example, converting to
the metric system would be extremely helpful in the long-run, but we are
reluctant to invest for such improvement. With the difficulty we have in
converting to the metric system, it seems that language changes will be nigh impossible.
The comments talk about cultural/language differences in directness, precision
and other characteristics. When I taught math, I included some exercises in
estimating distances, dimensions, weights, etc. Our culture does not seem to
encourage the development of such estimates today. But I suspect that such
approximations had more value in the past.
English, like America, is a language that attracts
foreign sentences and phrases like bees to honey. If you can't do the math,
your talk with a rocket scientist is likely to be one dimensional - the words
you might know but the meaning is lost - doesn't translate well is quite common
in international business circles.
If you're new to international business - caution is always best utilized in
defining mutually used phrases that are very different in translation and
application. In England, "knock me up" , means wake me up, in
America, it means get me pregnant, leaving all kinds of opportunity and
disaster open to discussion.
If a language doesn't have a word or phrase for something - it does not mean
something does not exist, it means you are trying to accomplish something with
someone that can't embrace something that does not exist in their world while
it may be common in your world.
Margaret Glass Wrote: The "Correction" is
wrong, at least for Spanish. In Spanish, I would say "se rompió el
florero" (the vase broke itself) or "rompà el florero" (I broke
the vase). It does not make sense to say "el florero rompió" (the
vase broke) nor "el florero fue roto" (the vase was broken). As to my
"credentials" for saying this, I am originally from Cuba, lived for
several years in Spain and have had a business in Mexico for several years,
this plus the fact that my wife is Puerto Rican and I am close friends with
folks from Colombia, Costa Rica, Argentina, etc. This makes me pretty confident
in saying that (for Spanish) the original article got it right and the
"Correction" is incorrect.
Insightful piece. Emphasizes things my mom also
discussed with me growing up...
"Dear, you have to realize Korean language is indirect and not
descriptive, so this affects the culture and people. Which is why Koreans are
vague and indirect at times."
And when my cousin was a liaison/translator for the Korean army, he told me
that it was frustrating translating from Korean to English because there were a
few ways to translate and if he didn't know the writer's intent then it was 4 or
5 ways. Of course, there are certain words and descriptions not in English that
are in Korean, but these statements refer to a general structural difference
between Korean and English.
What struck me most about the article was its
reliance circular reasoning to make the point that "language shapes
thought." A facile switch of the predicate, and voila, a different
conclusion! Example: "Russian speakers, who have more words for light and
dark blues, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue." This
implies that the language has "shaped" or "constructed" (a
favorite word among academics) Russian speakers' ability to discriminate shades
of blue. But switch the predicate, and you have the more logical and
common-sense conclusion that "Russian speakers, who are better able to
visually discriminate shades of blue, have more words for light and dark
blues." In my view, the more interesting thing to investigate is WHY they
discriminate more blues: do they have more blues in their environment?
The research example of Japanese and Spanish speakers was underwhelming: it
seemed to merely reflect the habits of the particular speakers, via their
language, which is in turn a reflection of their particular perspective. The
MIT experiment seemed merely to show that when the brain has to process too
much information, processing ability will deteriorate. And the comment about
English sentence structure and our criminal-justice system is just plain
ignorant, as our justice system has roots stretching further back than our
modern English language (the Old Testament; Rome). Also, much of the world has
the same just system as ours -- even languages who have more flexibily in their
use of agents in their sentence structure!
Ironically, the author's own essay, taken in its entirety, may have been the
most persuasive evidence to prove her claim. The world of academia (though not
usually the hard sciences, so this is surprising coming from a cognitive
scientist) is pervaded by use of imprecise language and fallacious reasoning.
Perhaps the author's thought has been "shaped" by this world.
For those who want a more serious analysis of language and the role of
cognition, read Steven Pinker's writings on the topic.
Linda Lee
Being bilingual in Cantonese and English since I
was a toddler, I would disagree that in languages such as Chinese that you
think in pictures! The pictogrammes form a word that represents the concept.
The Chinese word for jealousy or inharmony is represented by the word for
woman, written twice, under a single roof. You would string together several
words to form a sentence, several sentences to form a paragraph, etc. The
average native speaker (as opposed to an artist) of Japanese, Chinese, Korean,
Thai tend to think in "words" not in pictures, and there is a way to
pronounce those words that would change their meaning in oral discourse.
I think the biggest difference in communication between you and your wife may
be direct vs. indirect communication modes. Japanese and Chinese cultures tend
to be closed, and their communication is indirect; meaning that rather than say
what they mean, they say what they mean in context. Instead of asking you to
shut the window, a person from those cultures may say "it is cold in
here". Being a member of the same culture, or having extensive exposure to
that culture, you would understand that you are being requested to shut the
window or turn on the heat.
Jack Vance wrote a wonderful Science fiction book on the subject decades ago -
"the languages of Pao"
----------------------------
Dear Dr.Lera,
I liked your article and the style. But I have few clarifications to seek.
As per Susan Langer ( Philosophy in a new key ) , our thoughts appear to us in
Symbols and language is used by us only to interprete it. Wrong or different
interpretation will , of course, change the thought from the symbol. But just
using a different language, to interprete a symbol , can't change the symbol
itself. In my mother tongue ( Indian language, Marathi ) reference to sexual
intercourse is a big taboo and we don't mention it while talking, whereas when
I speak English ( that too, American English) I may use the infamous four letter
word freely. But does it mean my mother tongue deprives me of the sexual
stimulation ( of course at 68, I don't need it so often ) , just due to the
language. I don't feel so , even in my language. How do you explain this ?
Arun Anant Bhalerao, currently at my daughter's place at 733, Center Drive Palo
Alto, Tel: 650-3252288
arunbhalerao67@gmail.com
The Indonesian language has multiple words for
banana but only one for both lemon and lime ("limon"). Forty years
ago in Indonesia I tried without success to explain to our maid the difference
between a lemon and a lime. She made gin and tonics sometimes with lime (my preference)
but often with slices of lemon. I sat down with her, sliced open a lemon and a
lime, and showed her that the flesh and smell of the lime are quite different
from a lemon's. She looked me right in the eye and said,"You can't tell
one kind of banana from another."
Roger Sullivan
In English we tell our children to be good. In
Swedish we tell them to be kind. In French we tell them to be wise. In Japanese
w tell them not to do things that will make people laugh at them. In English
morality is an absolute. In Swedish it is relative to how it affects others. In
French it is prudential and in Japanaese it is relative to a social norm .
