(God I am such a sucker for these linguistic-type discussions. Argh.)
@Matty
I understand a little more where you are coming from. I guess we each read into Alyks' words a little differently.
Whether it is a cultural or linguistical difference is a very difficult topic. I think it can't be completely dissected without going inside a native speaker's head. And even then, different native speakers will have different opinions (depending on age, social class, education background, their second language exposure etc).
Whatever you say will wake up some sort of reaction/feeling in the listener. If what you're trying to convey just merely ends up confusing them (even if it is proper Japanese, just in the wrong situation), it's probably not something you want to adopt. In your example of the sneezing, people might be surprised at your expression, but will definitely understand it.
Maybe a better way to think of it is that while you don't have to adopt the stereotypical Japanese view of things, you do have start thinking inside the Japanese language and adopt the structures it uses (the linguistical differences). Once you can correctly use the language/phrases (such as おだいじに), you can then decide when/how you want to use the language to demonstrate your identity (cultural differences).
It's true that given cultural differences, something you try to convey (even if the language is correct) might just confuse people if it makes them draw on a cultural blank. However, I think if the speaker learns more about Japanese cultural and thinks in a creative way they should be able to find a way to express what they want. Try to find a Japanese cultural equivalent (for example: American gangsta vs yakuza/yanki). In the end though, this might revert back to then adopting a Japanese perspective, which was what you were arguing against in the first place.
Hmm, difficult topic isn't it? I guess I will just stand by my statement that people should try thinking in the language. When asserting your own identity, do it inside the rules of language, but assert yourself by consciously choosing when and how to use parts of the language. I don't think anyone can make some sort of rule by when something is either more simply a linguistical or cultural difference; it's something that is likely case by case. But in general cultural differences is probably made up of things like discourse structure and time/place/manner.
@Dragg
I think you make some great points, but I still have to disagree with the notion that it is difficult to say. The other thing I would add is that while those concepts may have originally influenced language, everybody now speaking the language uses it unconsciously just as means to communicate their feelings. If you argue that the original influence is still there and makes it difficult to convey a concept, you are in turn arguing that every native speaker would also have difficulty to express the concept. This is very hard to argue. (Off topic, but if something is difficult to express, it is probably because of the culture and not because of the language).
If things do not translate well, that does not mean they can not be expressed inside that language. Of course if you start by thinking "how can I say 'I miss chocolate'?", then you will have difficulty in expressing it in Japanese. So try to think more abstract. "I haven't eaten chocolate in a long time. I would really like to eat some. It makes me feel sad that I haven't been able to eat in a long time." Then think, what would a native speaker of the language say in this kind of situation?
Again, I really want to push this idea: to us native English speakers, an idea or concept may seem hard to express in the foreign language, but that doesn't mean the language is innately lacking the concept.
Hell, I will concede that it is difficult to learn certain concepts/expressions that don't transfer well from one language to another. But to say something can not be expressed in the language is not fair and probably due to a lack of exposure.
@Matty
I understand a little more where you are coming from. I guess we each read into Alyks' words a little differently.
Whether it is a cultural or linguistical difference is a very difficult topic. I think it can't be completely dissected without going inside a native speaker's head. And even then, different native speakers will have different opinions (depending on age, social class, education background, their second language exposure etc).
Whatever you say will wake up some sort of reaction/feeling in the listener. If what you're trying to convey just merely ends up confusing them (even if it is proper Japanese, just in the wrong situation), it's probably not something you want to adopt. In your example of the sneezing, people might be surprised at your expression, but will definitely understand it.
Maybe a better way to think of it is that while you don't have to adopt the stereotypical Japanese view of things, you do have start thinking inside the Japanese language and adopt the structures it uses (the linguistical differences). Once you can correctly use the language/phrases (such as おだいじに), you can then decide when/how you want to use the language to demonstrate your identity (cultural differences).
It's true that given cultural differences, something you try to convey (even if the language is correct) might just confuse people if it makes them draw on a cultural blank. However, I think if the speaker learns more about Japanese cultural and thinks in a creative way they should be able to find a way to express what they want. Try to find a Japanese cultural equivalent (for example: American gangsta vs yakuza/yanki). In the end though, this might revert back to then adopting a Japanese perspective, which was what you were arguing against in the first place.
Hmm, difficult topic isn't it? I guess I will just stand by my statement that people should try thinking in the language. When asserting your own identity, do it inside the rules of language, but assert yourself by consciously choosing when and how to use parts of the language. I don't think anyone can make some sort of rule by when something is either more simply a linguistical or cultural difference; it's something that is likely case by case. But in general cultural differences is probably made up of things like discourse structure and time/place/manner.
@Dragg
I think you make some great points, but I still have to disagree with the notion that it is difficult to say. The other thing I would add is that while those concepts may have originally influenced language, everybody now speaking the language uses it unconsciously just as means to communicate their feelings. If you argue that the original influence is still there and makes it difficult to convey a concept, you are in turn arguing that every native speaker would also have difficulty to express the concept. This is very hard to argue. (Off topic, but if something is difficult to express, it is probably because of the culture and not because of the language).
If things do not translate well, that does not mean they can not be expressed inside that language. Of course if you start by thinking "how can I say 'I miss chocolate'?", then you will have difficulty in expressing it in Japanese. So try to think more abstract. "I haven't eaten chocolate in a long time. I would really like to eat some. It makes me feel sad that I haven't been able to eat in a long time." Then think, what would a native speaker of the language say in this kind of situation?
Again, I really want to push this idea: to us native English speakers, an idea or concept may seem hard to express in the foreign language, but that doesn't mean the language is innately lacking the concept.
Hell, I will concede that it is difficult to learn certain concepts/expressions that don't transfer well from one language to another. But to say something can not be expressed in the language is not fair and probably due to a lack of exposure.
