Beth being interesting? You be the judge.

A few posts back I mentioned “why people do things”. Now, the analysis was incredibly vague and inconclusive (which should be expected from me), but I’d like to go a little deeper with an example.

Over at Indecision, Beth lays out a great summary over the history of the English language. So I think this is a good opportunity to explain how exactly the structure of society has tangible effects on how people make choices, as well as how those decisions feed back into society.

I won’t cover everything that she brought up, nor speak about the more specific historical facts, but I will note some interesting things.

 Firstly:

“The first, Old English is defined as the period between 450 and 1100 AD.  The languages of the invading Germanic tribes were similar, and slowly blurred together as time passed, forming Old English…Middle English is defined as 1100-1500. The main difference between this and the former was the invasion of the Normans, who brought with them a type of French…Modern English is classes as quite a broad period, spanning from 1500 to present. Within this, there have been many dramatic shifts. The biggest alterations from Middle English were the invention of the printing press, which standardised the English language…Today, there still remains about 10,000 french words in the English language, as well as many German, Greek, Latin, Arabic and Scandinavian. A little known and interesting fact is that upon their journey across the Atlantic, many English words were "frozen" and terms we consider to be Americanisms such as "trash" and "fall" were actually first used in Britain.”

Now the multitudes of different causes and effects here show exactly what I’m talking about. Notice that the geographical position largely affected the form of the language. If, for instance, England were located in the Pacific it would more than likely NOT have an alphabet that was a direct descendent of the Latin alphabet, but perhaps one similar to, say, the Chinese writing system. Furthermore, it would probably have a phonetic system similar to that of East Asian countries, and the influences of, say, the German, French, Scandinavian, etc., languages would be much less pronounced (if it would exist at all).

Notice other aspects of it. English moving in different directions once being separated by UK English and US English is another, as well as the effect of a printing press and the standardization of languages.

I could go deeper (especially with the printing press), but I’d like to move onto more contemporary effects of differing languages.

Today, if Germans wanted to travel to England, they wouldn’t have to create raiding parties and travel days and weeks by boat.

They fly.

Notice the importance of this. Globalization is affecting the choice of languages and whether or not people of differing languages meet. Now it’s much more common to get in touch with someone who speaks a different language. In fact, with the advent of the computer all you need is a public library.

However, barriers still exist, which is why the average European knows multiple different languages, and the United States is largely mono-linguistic. So geographical concerns still make a difference. If your own country is surrounded by neighboring countries with different languages, you have a tendency to speak more.

Which leads me to a few very interesting points. Here’s a paper from Edward Lazear, and an excerpt:

“Trade between individuals is facilitated when all traders share a common

culture and language. A common culture allows individuals to

trade with one another without intermediaries. In the case of language,

this is most clear. If two agents speak the same language, they

can negotiate a contract without the use of a translator. A common

culture allows the traders to have common expectations and customs,

which enhances trust.”

Which, empirically he verifies and finds that:

“The theory is tested and confirmed

by examining U.S. census data, which reveal that the likelihood

that an immigrant will learn English is inversely related to the proportion

of the local population that speaks his or her native language.”

Which is what you’d expect. For people who live in those areas, it’s much less tempting (and less vital) to learn a new language if people there can understand you and communicate with you.

Fuckin' interesting stuff.

But moving on. One point that’s similar to Lazear’s conclusion that I wanted to mention was actually very related to a seemingly unrelated topic. Why do we have money? Well, the reasons as to why it was started and why it continues are rather different, but most monetary economists agree that one major cause behind both is known as the “Double Coincidence of Wants”. In other words, in a barter system I’d have to have what you want, and you’d have to have what I want. Which is a double coincidence. Money eliminates one. Now, if I have money, you just have to have what I want, since people generally accept money in return.

What does this have to do with language? Well, consider the referees in FIFA. There can be very strange match ups, and the probability that they have referees that speak both Romanian and Japanese is tiny, not to mention the fact it may only be needed for one game. Solution? All referees speak English. Now they all share a common language in which they can communicate, but at the same time they can specialize in, say, Japanese. The referees that can speak both Japanese and English can be in used in every Japanese game, instead of the one where they speak both Romanian and Japanese, or Swahili and Japanese, or whatever. 

This isn’t the only example. Wonder how flying planes works in a multilingual world? If one plane flies from, say, England to Germany they don’t have to speak both English and German. Now, thanks to international laws, English is the common language. Which is incredibly helpful. If a plane malfunctions and needs to land sooner than it’s actual destination, it doesn’t have to worry about flying erratically into an airport where the people in the control tower can’t speak their language.

All interesting stuff, and if I find time I’ll post more about it later. Perhaps about the benefits and costs of a mono-linguistic society? Who knows. As for now food.


Update: I just wanted to stress the importance of how these different geographical positions, different turns in history, the double coincidence of wants, etc., are all structural aspects that affect languages, and also how languages feed into those structures. Also, I'd like to go into what Beth calls the "monopoly" at some point, but not now.

You just had to ask.

I have a rather ambitious goal for this post. So ambitious, in fact, that I might as well consider this the first part in some sort of series, or at least an ongoing theme.

A friend of mine, Beth, asked me to describe “why people do things”.

That’s so vague that it just might work. I’m going to answer a vague question with a hopelessly complex but inconclusive collection of nonsense. The idea, however, can be summed up in one sentence. If you want to understand why people are a certain way, then you need to throw yourself completely into their circumstances. That means everything. The visible, the invisible, all of it. I’m going to take a sort of Rawlsian approach in the sense that I’ll start with the general aspects of what makes people and work my way to the specifics. The reason that I hope to do this is so that I can slowly introduce different variables and circumstances in order to show what distinguishes people and why.

Let’s start with the most general. Let’s have a formless, intangible life form. Superficially it may seem that we can’t discern any interesting information out of it. However, that’s exactly the opposite of the case. We know it’s alive, so it’s very plausible to say it will die. It’s also reasonable to say that it will have to sustain itself, and future generations, etc. Every one of these points tells us a considerable amount. How is a society formed in which the people live 10 days? What about ten trillion years? What about a species that has a birth rate in the hundreds of thousands? All of these, as ridiculous as they may be, will change how this species interacts, and how their society will be formed.

Let’s make it a little more specific. Now we have a generic, absolutely bland, and insipid cutout of a human being. We know nothing about this person. So far, the only thing we can concretely say is that it IS a person. Like our last example, we can gain a considerable bit of information. We know, for instance, that it’ll have human tendencies, and won’t, say, lay eggs.

However! Don’t take that lightly!

Very much like our beginning life model, these minor distinctions dramatically change potential social and economic institutions, and could be the difference between a war mongering mole people, and humanoid teenage mutant ninja turtles. Everything makes a dramatic difference.

Now, let’s take off the veil of ignorance. This is very important! What we’ll do next will separate INDIVIDUALS from each other. Beforehand we were speaking generally, and therefore everything caused major changes in EVERYONE. Now, let’s introduce things such as gender, race, age, height, mental and physical aspects, etc. (I’ll leave out things like creed and the like till later.) Well, now we have physical and mental differences between people. What next? As anyone can tell, all of these make very considerable differences. We now have people who are 6’ 5”, Asian, female, and 42, as well as people who are 4 foot, constantly sick crybabies who complain all the time (you know who you are).

I won’t go into very great depth as to what these differences do. I imagine at this point it’s fairly obvious. I’ll just move onto the next stage, and note that this is the one that’s considered most often in all areas of the social science.

We have humans that have perceivable (and certainly some imperceptible!) differences between each other. What now? Well, now we throw them on different parts of the world and time periods and see how it goes. Some will be left in tropical areas, some in nearly barren wastelands, some in ancient periods, and some in more contemporary settings. What this does is give them environments and circumstances in which these differences in time, body, mind, landscape, etc., all make a difference.

Things have just become considerably more complex.

Now, people in certain areas will have to form their societies given these circumstances. They now have to take into consideration their physical and environmental constraints. Not only that, but they also have to take into consideration each other. 

This is where the brunt of the conversation comes in regarding economics. In fact, this is entirely what economics is, given the generic definitions I mentioned before. Why do people in South America grow bananas, and why do people in the United States grow corn? It’s much more reasonable to do so, and more can be produced. Why do people show consistent and systematic bias in their decisions? Why do certain countries grow, while others don’t? Why does the tragedy of the commons exist? Why do we have people doing the things they do at all? It’s the constraints and restrictions surrounding them. Some may be religious, because they were raised in a religious household, and therefore change their decisions according to that. They could belong to a society in which democracy is highly limited and therefore autocratic rule and lack of economic growth is pervasive. You could have a friend in which you gave money to, but didn’t put any restrictions on. How will they react? How could contracts between two people work at all? Why does that prick hit on you? Why’d your friend lie to you? There are so many structural reasons that affect our reasoning that it makes life considerably complex, but at the same time enriches it dramatically!

So, why do people act certain ways and do things? They’re a result of everything that makes them, them. The mental aspects, the cultural and social, the structural, the environmental, and on and on.

That’s the majority of it. Now, if you just want to know why people are so hard? It’s because people are pricks.