Do different languages confer different personalities ответы егэ

Задание №8916.
Чтение. ЕГЭ по английскому

Прочитайте текст и запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Показать текст. ⇓

The author concludes that there is evidence that
1) a second language will turn you into a different person.
2) a second language improves your chances to socialize.
3) one’s world outlook depends on one’s native language.
4) people may feel differently working in different languages.

Решение:
The author concludes that there is evidence that people may feel differently working in different languages.
Автор приходит к выводу, что есть свидетельства того, что люди могут по-разному чувствовать себя, работая на разных языках.

«But strong Whorfian arguments don’t need to be valid for people to feel differently in their different languages.»

Показать ответ

Источник: ФИПИ. Открытый банк тестовых заданий

Сообщить об ошибке

Тест с похожими заданиями

According to the article, the choice
between languages for a bilingual person …

Прочитайте текст и выполните задания 12 – 18. В каждом задании запишите в поле ответа цифру 1, 2, 3 или 4, соответствующую выбранному Вами варианту ответа.

Do different languages confer different personalities?

The advantages of bilingualism include better performance at tasks which involve the brain’s ability to plan and prioritize, better defense against dementia in old age and the ability to speak a second language. One advantage wasn’t mentioned, though. Many multilinguals report different personalities, or even different worldviews, when they speak their different languages.

It’s an exciting notion, the idea that one’s very self could be broadened by the mastery of two or more languages. In obvious ways (exposure to new friends, literature, etc.) the self really is broadened. Yet it’s different to claim to have a different personality when using a different language. So what’s going on here?

Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist, held that each language encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers. This idea has its sceptics but there are still good reasons to believe language shapes thought.

This influence isn’t necessarily linked to the vocabulary or grammar of a second language. Most people aren’t symmetrically bilingual. Many have learned one language at home from parents, and another later in life, usually at school. So bilinguals usually have different strengths and weaknesses in their different languages –  and they aren’t always best in their first language. For example, when tested in a foreign language, people are less likely to fall into a cognitive trap (answering a test question with an obvious-seeming but wrong answer) than when tested in their native language. In part this is because working in a second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people feel different when speaking them. And no wonder they feel looser, more spontaneous, perhaps more assertive or funnier or blunter, in the language they were reared in from childhood.

What of bilinguals raised in two languages? Even they don’t usually have perfectly symmetrical competence. But even for a speaker whose two languages are very nearly the same in ability, there’s another big reason that person will feel different in the two languages. This is because there is an important distinction between bilingualism and biculturalism.

Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those bicultural bilinguals, we should be little surprised that they feel different in their two languages. Experiments in psychology have shown the power of ‘priming’ –  small unnoticed factors that can affect behavior in big ways. Asking people to tell a happy story will put them in a better mood. The choice between two languages is a huge prime. Speaking Spanish rather than English, for a bilingual and bicultural Puerto Rican in New York, might conjure feelings of family and home. Switching to English might prime the same person to think of school and work.

We are still left with a third kind of argument. People seem to enjoy telling tales about their languages’ inherent properties. A group of French intellectuals once proposed that French be the sole legal language of the EU, because of its unmatchable rigour and precision. Some Germans believe that frequently putting the verb at the end of a sentence makes the language especially logical. But language myths aren’t always self-flattering: many speakers think their languages are unusually illogical or difficult –  “Only in English do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway; English must be the craziest language in the world!” What such pop-Whorfian stories share is a tendency to exoticize languages. We also see some unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes and self-stereotypes: French, rigorous; German, logical; English, playful. Neo-Whorfians continue to offer evidence and analysis that aims to prove that different languages push speakers to think differently. But strong Whorfian arguments don’t need to be valid for people to feel differently in their different languages.

Johnson took a look at some of the advantages of bilingualism. These include better performance at tasks involving «executive function» (which involve the brain’s ability to plan and prioritise), better defence against dementia in old age and—the obvious—the ability to speak a second language. One purported advantage was not mentioned, though. Many multilinguals report different personalities, or even different worldviews, when they speak their different languages.

It’s an exciting notion, the idea that one’s very self could be broadened by the mastery of two or more languages. In obvious ways (exposure to new friends, literature and so forth) the self really is broadened. Yet it is different to claim—as many people do—to have a different personality when using a different language. A former Economist colleague, for example, reported being ruder in Hebrew than in English. So what is going on here?

Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist who died in 1941, held that each language encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers. Often called “Whorfianism”, this idea has its sceptics, including The Economist, which hosted a debate on the subject in 2010. But there are still good reasons to believe language shapes thought.

This influence is not necessarily linked to the vocabulary or grammar of a second language. Significantly, most people are not symmetrically bilingual. Many have learned one language at home from parents, and another later in life, usually at school. So bilinguals usually have different strengths and weaknesses in their different languages—and they are not always best in their first language. For example, when tested in a foreign language, people are less likely to fall into a cognitive trap (answering a test question with an obvious-seeming but wrong answer) than when tested in their native language. In part this is because working in a second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people feel different when speaking them. And no wonder they feel looser, more spontaneous, perhaps more assertive or funnier or blunter, in the language they were reared in from childhood.

What of “crib” bilinguals, raised in two languages? Even they do not usually have perfectly symmetrical competence in their two languages. But even for a speaker whose two languages are very nearly the same in ability, there is another big reason that person will feel different in the two languages. This is because there is an important distinction between bilingualism and biculturalism.

Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those bicultural bilinguals, we should be little surprised that they feel different in their two languages. Experiments in psychology have shown the power of “priming”—small unnoticed factors that can affect behaviour in big ways. Asking people to tell a happy story, for example, will put them in a better mood. The choice between two languages is a huge prime. Speaking Spanish rather than English, for a bilingual and bicultural Puerto Rican in New York, might conjure feelings of family and home. Switching to English might prime the same person to think of school and work.

So there are two very good reasons (asymmetrical ability, and priming) that make people feel different speaking their different languages. We are still left with a third kind of argument, though. An economist recently interviewed here at Prospero, Athanasia Chalari, said for example that:

«Greeks are very loud and they interrupt each other very often. The reason for that is the Greek grammar and syntax. When Greeks talk they begin their sentences with verbs and the form of the verb includes a lot of information so you already know what they are talking about after the first word and can interrupt more easily.»

Is there something intrinsic to the Greek language that encourages Greeks to interrupt? Consider Johnson sceptical. People seem to enjoy telling tales about their languages’ inherent properties, and how they influence their speakers. A group of French intellectual worthies once proposed, rather self-flatteringly, that French be the sole legal language of the EU, because of its supposedly unmatchable rigour and precision. Some Germans believe that frequently putting the verb at the end of a sentence makes the language especially logical. But language myths are not always self-flattering: many speakers think their languages are unusually illogical or difficult—witness the plethora of books along the lines of «Only in English do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway; English must be the craziest language in the world!» What such pop-Whorfian stories share is a (natural) tendency to exoticise languages. We also see some unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes and self-stereotypes: French, rigorous; German, logical; English, playful. Of course.

In this case, Ms Chalari, a scholar, at least proposed a specific and plausible line of causation from grammar to personality: in Greek, the verb comes first, and it carries a lot of information, hence easy interrupting. The problem is that many unrelated languages all around the world put the verb at the beginning of sentences. Many languages all around the world are heavily inflected, encoding lots of information in verbs. It would be a striking finding if all of these unrelated languages had speakers more prone to interrupting each other. Welsh, for example, is also both verb-first and about as heavily inflected as Greek, but the Welsh are not known as pushy conversationalists.

Neo-Whorfians continue to offer evidence and analysis that aims to prove that different languages push speakers to think differently. One such effort is forthcoming: “The Bilingual Mind” by Aneta Pavlenko, to be published in April. Ms Pavlenko speaks to François Grosjean here. Meanwhile, John McWhorter takes the opposite stance in «The Language Hoax», forthcoming in February. We’ll return to this debate. But strong Whorfian arguments do not need to be valid for people to feel differently in their different languages.

By R.L.G. | BERLIN

LAST week, Johnson took a look at some of the advantages of bilingualism. These include better performance at tasks involving «executive function» (which involve the brain’s ability to plan and prioritise), better defence against dementia in old age and—the obvious—the ability to speak a second language. One purported advantage was not mentioned, though. Many multilinguals report different personalities, or even different worldviews, when they speak their different languages.

It’s an exciting notion, the idea that one’s very self could be broadened by the mastery of two or more languages. In obvious ways (exposure to new friends, literature and so forth) the self really is broadened. Yet it is different to claim—as many people do—to have a different personality when using a different language. A former Economist colleague, for example, reported being ruder in Hebrew than in English. So what is going on here?

Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist who died in 1941, held that each language encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers. Often called “Whorfianism”, this idea has its sceptics, including The Economist, which hosted a debate on the subject in 2010. But there are still good reasons to believe language shapes thought.

This influence is not necessarily linked to the vocabulary or grammar of a second language. Significantly, most people are not symmetrically bilingual. Many have learned one language at home from parents, and another later in life, usually at school. So bilinguals usually have different strengths and weaknesses in their different languages—and they are not always best in their first language. For example, when tested in a foreign language, people are less likely to fall into a cognitive trap (answering a test question with an obvious-seeming but wrong answer) than when tested in their native language. In part this is because working in a second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people feel different when speaking them. And no wonder they feel looser, more spontaneous, perhaps more assertive or funnier or blunter, in the language they were reared in from childhood.

What of “crib” bilinguals, raised in two languages? Even they do not usually have perfectly symmetrical competence in their two languages. But even for a speaker whose two languages are very nearly the same in ability, there is another big reason that person will feel different in the two languages. This is because there is an important distinction between bilingualism and biculturalism.

Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those bicultural bilinguals, we should be little surprised that they feel different in their two languages. Experiments in psychology have shown the power of “priming”—small unnoticed factors that can affect behaviour in big ways. Asking people to tell a happy story, for example, will put them in a better mood. The choice between two languages is a huge prime. Speaking Spanish rather than English, for a bilingual and bicultural Puerto Rican in New York, might conjure feelings of family and home. Switching to English might prime the same person to think of school and work.

So there are two very good reasons (asymmetrical ability, and priming) that make people feel different speaking their different languages. We are still left with a third kind of argument, though. An economist recently interviewed here at Prospero, Athanasia Chalari, said for example that:

Greeks are very loud and they interrupt each other very often. The reason for that is the Greek grammar and syntax. When Greeks talk they begin their sentences with verbs and the form of the verb includes a lot of information so you already know what they are talking about after the first word and can interrupt more easily.

Is there something intrinsic to the Greek language that encourages Greeks to interrupt? Consider Johnson sceptical. People seem to enjoy telling tales about their languages’ inherent properties, and how they influence their speakers. A group of French intellectual worthies once proposed, rather self-flatteringly, that French be the sole legal language of the EU, because of its supposedly unmatchable rigour and precision. Some Germans believe that frequently putting the verb at the end of a sentence makes the language especially logical. But language myths are not always self-flattering: many speakers think their languages are unusually illogical or difficult—witness the plethora of books along the lines of «Only in English do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway; English must be the craziest language in the world!» What such pop-Whorfian stories share is a (natural) tendency to exoticise languages. We also see some unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes and self-stereotypes: French, rigorous; German, logical; English, playful. Of course.

In this case, Ms Chalari, a scholar, at least proposed a specific and plausible line of causation from grammar to personality: in Greek, the verb comes first, and it carries a lot of information, hence easy interrupting. The problem is that many unrelated languages all around the world put the verb at the beginning of sentences. Many languages all around the world are heavily inflected, encoding lots of information in verbs. It would be a striking finding if all of these unrelated languages had speakers more prone to interrupting each other. Welsh, for example, is also both verb-first and about as heavily inflected as Greek, but the Welsh are not known as pushy conversationalists.

Neo-Whorfians continue to offer evidence and analysis that aims to prove that different languages push speakers to think differently. One such effort is forthcoming: “The Bilingual Mind” by Aneta Pavlenko, to be published in April. Ms Pavlenko speaks to François Grosjean here. Meanwhile, John McWhorter takes the opposite stance in «The Language Hoax», forthcoming in February. We’ll return to this debate. But strong Whorfian arguments do not need to be valid for people to feel differently in their different languages.

• ProsperoBooks, arts and culture

  Multilingualism

  Johnson: Do different languages conferdifferent
  personalities?

  Nov 5th 2013, 12:06 by R.L.G. | BERLIN

  LAST week, Johnson took a look at some of

  the advantages of bilingualism. These include

  better performance at tasks involving

  «executive function» (which involve the brain’s

  ability to plan and prioritise), better defence

  against dementia in old age andthe obvious

  the ability to speak a second language. One

  purported advantage was not mentioned,

  though. Many multilinguals report different personalities

  (http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/07/language_and_psychology)
  , or even

  different worldviews, when they speak their different
  languages.

  Its an exciting notion, the idea that ones very self could be
  broadened by the mastery of two

  or more languages. In obvious ways (exposure to new friends,
  literature and so forth) the

  self really is broadened. Yet it is different to claimas many
  people doto have a different

  personality when using a different language. A former Economist
  colleague, for example,

  reported being ruder in Hebrew than in English

  (http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2010/07/language_and_psychology)
  . So what

  is going on here?

  Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist who died in 1941, held
  that each language

  encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers.
  Often called Whorfianism,

  this idea has its sceptics, including The Economist, which
  hosted a debate

  (http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/190) on the subject in
  2010. But there are

  still good reasons to believe language shapes thought.

  This influence is not necessarily linked to the vocabulary or
  grammar of a second language.

• Significantly, most people are not symmetrically bilingual. Many
  have learned one language

  at home from parents, and another later in life, usually at
  school. So bilinguals usually have

  different strengths and weaknesses in their different
  languagesand they are not always best

  in their first language. For example, when tested in a foreign
  language, people are less likely

  to fall into a cognitive trap
  (http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/05/foreign-

  languages-and-thinking) (answering a test question with an
  obvious-seeming but wrong

  answer) than when tested in their native language. In part this
  is because working in a

  second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people feel
  different when speaking

  them. And no wonder they feel looser, more spontaneous, perhaps
  more assertive or funnier

  or blunter, in the language they were reared in from
  childhood.

  What of crib bilinguals, raised in two languages? Even they do
  not usually have perfectly

  symmetrical competence in their two languages. But even for a
  speaker whose two

  languages are very nearly the same in ability, there is another
  big reason that person will feel

  different in the two languages. This is because there is an
  important distinction between

  bilingualism and biculturalism.

  Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those
  bicultural bilinguals, we

  should be little surprised that they feel different in their two
  languages. Experiments in

  psychology have shown the power of primingsmall unnoticed
  factors that can affect

  behaviour in big ways. Asking people to tell a happy story, for
  example, will put them in a

  better mood. The choice between two languages is a huge prime.
  Speaking Spanish rather

  than English, for a bilingual and bicultural Puerto Rican in New
  York, might conjure

  feelings of family and home. Switching to English might prime
  the same person to think of

  school and work.

  So there are two very good reasons (asymmetrical ability, and
  priming) that make people

  feel different speaking their different languages. We are still
  left with a third kind of

  argument, though. An economist recently interviewed here at
  Prospero, Athanasia Chalari,

  said
  (http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/10/quick-study-athanasia-chalari-

  sociology-greek-economic-crisis) for example that:

  Greeks are very loud and they interrupt each other very often.
  The reason for

  that is the Greek grammar and syntax. When Greeks talk they
  begin their

  sentences with verbs and the form of the verb includes a lot of
  information so

  you already know what they are talking about after the first
  word and can

  interrupt more easily.

  Is there something intrinsic to the Greek language that
  encourages Greeks to interrupt?

  Consider Johnson sceptical. People seem to enjoy telling tales
  about their languages’ inherent

  properties, and how they influence their speakers. A group of
  French intellectual worthies

  once proposed
  (http://www.euractiv.com/culture/group-pushes-bolster-french-lang-news-

  217790) , rather self-flatteringly, that French be the sole
  legal language of the EU, because of

• its supposedly unmatchable rigour and precision. Some Germans
  believe that frequently

  putting the verb at the end of a sentence makes the language
  especially logical. But language

  myths are not always self-flattering: many speakers think their
  languages are unusually

  illogical or difficultwitness the plethora of books along the
  lines of «Only in English do you

  park on a driveway and drive on a parkway; English must be the
  craziest language in the

  world!» What such pop-Whorfian stories share is a (natural)
  tendency to exoticise languages.

  We also see some unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes
  and self-stereotypes:

  French, rigorous; German, logical; English, playful. Of
  course.

  In this case, Ms Chalari, a scholar, at least proposed a
  specific and plausible line of causation

  from grammar to personality: in Greek, the verb comes first, and
  it carries a lot of

  information, hence easy interrupting. The problem is that many
  unrelated languages all

  around the world put the verb at the beginning of sentences
  (http://wals.info/feature/82A?

  tg_format=map&v1=c00d&v2=cd00&v3=cccc) . Many
  languages all around the world are

  heavily inflected, encoding lots of information in verbs

  (http://wals.info/feature/combined/22A/58A?tg_format=map) . It
  would be a striking

  finding if all of these unrelated languages had speakers more
  prone to interrupting each

  other. Welsh, for example, is also both verb-first and about as
  heavily inflected

  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial_Welsh_morphology#Verbs)
  as Greek, but the

  Welsh are not known as pushy conversationalists.

  Neo-Whorfians continue to offer evidence and analysis that aims
  to prove that different

  languages push speakers to think differently. One such effort is
  forthcoming: The Bilingual

  Mind by Aneta Pavlenko, to be published in April. Ms Pavlenko
  speaks to Franois Grosjean

  here
  (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-bilingual/201310/the-bilingual-mind)
  .

  Meanwhile, John McWhorter takes the opposite stance

  (http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199361588.do) in «The
  Language Hoax»,

  forthcoming in February. We’ll return to this debate. But strong
  Whorfian arguments do not

  need to be valid for people to feel differently in their
  different languages.

This is the question that a reporter for The Economist posed in the November 5, 2013, issue. Here’s his findings:

LAST week, Johnson took a look at some of the advantages of bilingualism. These include better performance at tasks involving “executive function” (which involve the brain’s ability to plan and prioritise), better defence against dementia in old age and—the obvious—the ability to speak a second language. One purported advantage was not mentioned, though. Many multilinguals report different personalities, or even different worldviews, when they speak their different languages.

It’s an exciting notion, the idea that one’s very self could be broadened by the mastery of two or more languages. In obvious ways (exposure to new friends, literature and so forth) the self really is broadened. Yet it is different to claim—as many people do—to have a different personality when using a different language. A former Economist colleague, for example, reported being ruder in Hebrew than in English. So what is going on here?

Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist who died in 1941, held that each language encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers. Often called “Whorfianism”, this idea has its sceptics, including The Economist, which hosted a debate on the subject in 2010. But there are still good reasons to believe language shapes thought.

This influence is not necessarily linked to the vocabulary or grammar of a second language. Significantly, most people are not symmetrically bilingual. Many have learned one language at home from parents, and another later in life, usually at school. So bilinguals usually have different strengths and weaknesses in their different languages—and they are not always best in their first language. For example, when tested in a foreign language, people are less likely to fall into a cognitive trap (answering a test question with an obvious-seeming but wrong answer) than when tested in their native language. In part this is because working in a second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people feel different when speaking them. And no wonder they feel looser, more spontaneous, perhaps more assertive or funnier or blunter, in the language they were reared in from childhood.

What of “crib” bilinguals, raised in two languages? Even they do not usually have perfectly symmetrical competence in their two languages. But even for a speaker whose two languages are very nearly the same in ability, there is another big reason that person will feel different in the two languages. This is because there is an important distinction between bilingualism and biculturalism.

Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those bicultural bilinguals, we should be little surprised that they feel different in their two languages. Experiments in psychology have shown the power of “priming”—small unnoticed factors that can affect behaviour in big ways. Asking people to tell a happy story, for example, will put them in a better mood. The choice between two languages is a huge prime. Speaking Spanish rather than English, for a bilingual and bicultural Puerto Rican in New York, might conjure feelings of family and home. Switching to English might prime the same person to think of school and work.

So there are two very good reasons (asymmetrical ability, and priming) that make people feel different speaking their different languages. We are still left with a third kind of argument, though. An economist recently interviewed here at Prospero, Athanasia Chalari, said for example that:

Greeks are very loud and they interrupt each other very often. The reason for that is the Greek grammar and syntax. When Greeks talk they begin their sentences with verbs and the form of the verb includes a lot of information so you already know what they are talking about after the first word and can interrupt more easily.

Is there something intrinsic to the Greek language that encourages Greeks to interrupt? Consider Johnson sceptical. People seem to enjoy telling tales about their languages’ inherent properties, and how they influence their speakers. A group of French intellectual worthies once proposed, rather self-flatteringly, that French be the sole legal language of the EU, because of its supposedly unmatchable rigour and precision. Some Germans believe that frequently putting the verb at the end of a sentence makes the language especially logical. But language myths are not always self-flattering: many speakers think their languages are unusually illogical or difficult—witness the plethora of books along the lines of “Only in English do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway; English must be the craziest language in the world!” What such pop-Whorfian stories share is a (natural) tendency to exoticise languages. We also see some unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes and self-stereotypes: French, rigorous; German, logical; English, playful. Of course.

In this case, Ms Chalari, a scholar, at least proposed a specific and plausible line of causation from grammar to personality: in Greek, the verb comes first, and it carries a lot of information, hence easy interrupting. The problem is that many unrelated languages all around the world put the verb at the beginning of sentences. Many languages all around the world are heavily inflected, encoding lots of information in verbs. It would be a striking finding if all of these unrelated languages had speakers more prone to interrupting each other. Welsh, for example, is also both verb-first and about as heavily inflected as Greek, but the Welsh are not known as pushy conversationalists.

Neo-Whorfians continue to offer evidence and analysis that aims to prove that different languages push speakers to think differently. One such effort is forthcoming: “The Bilingual Mind” by Aneta Pavlenko, to be published in April. Ms Pavlenko speaks to François Grosjean here. Meanwhile, John McWhorter takes the opposite stance in “The Language Hoax”, forthcoming in February. We’ll return to this debate. But strong Whorfian arguments do not need to be valid for people to feel differently in their different languages.