Does the Language You Speak Determine How Much Money You Save?

By ⋅ October 24, 2011 ⋅ Post a comment
Play
Download
Behavioral Economist Keith Chen (Photo: Audrey Quinn)

Behavioral Economist Keith Chen (Photo: Audrey Quinn)

A new study from a Yale University economist concludes that people save more or less according to the language they speak.

Behavioral Economist Keith Chen is interested in how people make financial decisions. Last year, he started wondering if people whose native languages make fewer distinctions between the future and present might think differently about the future.

In Chinese, for example, there is no future tense. There are many ways for conveying the future, but you don’t do it through tense. In the movie Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon for example, a young female fighter beats up several men, and then warns them she’ll be back the next day.

“Tomorrow,” she says, “ I will uproot Wudan Mountain”

Except that in Chinese she doesn’t say “will” What she says literally translates to “Tomorrow, I uproot Wudan Mountain.” The word tomorrow indicates the future. The Chinese language doesn’t more than that.

So, is there any significance to that?

Chen says yes, but it’s subtle. In some languages, he says people are “slightly nudged every time [they] speak, to think about the future as something viscerally different from the present.” In Chinese, he says, that doesn’t take place. The present and future are the same.

Chen has concluded that having a separate verb tense for your future self might make your future self a little harder to relate to.

He knows it’s “kind of a crazy hypothesis, it’s a little bit out there.”

The flip side of this idea is that speakers who use the same verbs for the present and future might be a little better at thinking about the future– and maybe even better at saving for the future.

This is pretty controversial territory.

A lot us might feel like the way we use words affects our thoughts. Some bilingual speakers believe they think differently from language to the next.

But most linguists don’t buy this idea that we language we speak determines how we think.

Chen, however, persisted in his research.

He divided up world languages by whether they distinguish much between present and future tense.
He then compared speakers of those languages based on savings statistics.

He found “huge differences.”

For example, he found that people who speak languages requiring a separate future tense— English, Arabic, Greek, the Romance languages— are far worse at saving money than people whose languages don’t really distinguish between the future and the present, like Chinese, German, Japanese, or Norwegian.

After factoring in people’s education levels, their incomes, religious preferences, Chen found that the different-verbs-for-present-and-future people, were 30 percent less likely to have saved money in any given year.

By the time they reach retirement, these people will have saved on average more than $200,000 less than speakers of languages with no future tense.

Some linguists aren’t buying Chen’s conclusions.

John McWhorter, author of What Language Is (And What It Isn’t and What It Could Be), doubts whether verb tense and savings habits have much, if anything, in common.

Author John McWhorter (Photo: Audrey Quinn)

Author John McWhorter (Photo: Audrey Quinn)

McWhorter says studies like this one are prone to mistakes, because they survey too many languages without knowing enough about how these languages truly function.

For example, he says Chen placed Russian in the wrong category.

Still, McWhorter says he’d love to be proven wrong: “If somebody really could prove it…I would even be open to finding that my skepticism about the language-is-thought hypothesis is unfounded.”

Chen insists he did go into his research with a healthy amount of skepticism.

But he says all the data points to his conclusion: “I haven’t been able to find a counter-example in the world yet.”

Discussion

20 comments for “Does the Language You Speak Determine How Much Money You Save?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/pllorens Pamela Llorens

    I think this is a very interesting concept. I speak three languages and for example the verb “to be” in Spanish is two verbs and in English it is only one. I have to think differently about if I am sick or I am a professor in Spanish and not in English. It is a difficult concept for students to understand how Spanish separates the two . About money I don’t know since Spanish and Portuguese have a future tense, like English . But there are concepts like saber and conocer in Spanish and to know in English which are different. I do think differently in Spanish and Portuguese than I do in English.. Ayone else??

  • Anonymous

    Rather than attempt to rationalize economic inequality between peoples, we should reject it.  Our similarities are far more apparent than our differences.  (Our capacity for racism is certainly universal.)

  • Anonymous

    As a linguist, I must say that not only is this piece poorly written, Chen’s hypothesis is a totally ludicrous idea.  His methods are obviously questionable, making his conclusions untrustworthy.  This is just a rehashing of an old theory (Whorf-Sapir) that has been largely put to rest by the evidence.  Just because languages communicate the future tense differently (for example adverbially, like Chinese, versus inflections on the verbs as with most Indo-European languages), doesn’t mean that there isn’t a future tense!  Any human being with a normal brain is conscious of the concept of the future and can also comprehend cause-and-effect relationships (“save today, and I’ll have more tomorrow”). It would be far more fruitful to look for causes of an inability to save in the socio-economic sphere, something I would imagine an economist would know. This idea is a waste of time.

    • http://twitter.com/MaeyaCulture Maeya Culture

      good points

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dennis-Baron/1942132 Dennis Baron

    Chen’s linguistics does not compute. He treats English as a language with a distinct future tense and German as a language without one. Technically both English and German lack a distinct future tense. Each indicates futurity by using the present tense of an auxiliary verb plus the infinitive of the main verb. Alternatively, both languages may express the future by means of the present tense + an adverb or other contextual marker indicating the future: I will go to Boston tomorrow. I am going to Boston tomorrow. I go to Boston tomorrow. Languages without distinct future tenses (Chinese, for example) mark futurity with adverbs or other future-implying particles, or by context. But such markers still direct their speakers toward the future, so the cognitive difference doesn’t seem clear. In the paper more fully describing his work, Chen claims, “speakers of strong-FTR languages save less per year, hold less retirement wealth, smoke more, are more likely to be obese, and suffer from worse long-run health.” That’s a lot of weight for a verb tense to carry. In the end, Chen’s paper simply offers a good example of why economists have so much trouble predicting the future.

  • Anonymous

    As linguists, we often feel like a conspiracy of silence surrounds us in the media, so when we get attention like this we can’t help but welcome it at some level.  But it’s sad that something so transparently inaccurate gets touted as ‘controversial’.  The claims Chen makes here are about as controversial as evolution or global warming: i.e., people who’ve thought about the issue and researched are nearly unanimously agreed about what the real facts are, and in this case the real facts are that the evidence for language influencing thought is very tenuous (albeit not actually absent).  I mean, not only does he get his facts wrong (as mentioned in comments above, English lacks a formal future tense just like German), at least based on this article, it is not clear that he follows through on the obvious implications.  If language form influences savings rate, why has the savings rate varied so much throughout American history despite the fundamental linguistic continuity of the vast majority of the population? Consider:

    http://wallstreetpit.com/13428-total-us-savings-rate-lowest-in-recorded-history

    Without any disrespect intended, this research is rather crackpot and would not survive any peer reviewed journal in linguistics.   

    • http://www.facebook.com/maxiewawa Max Roberts

      Obviously research like this can’t survive being posted on PRI’s The World, let alone peer reviewed journals.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Shibasan Dean Chai

    As a native Chinese speaker, I completely disagree with Chen’s characterization of Chinese language based on that it ‘has no future tense’. Sure, we don’t modify our verbs, but we add words to convey the sense of time and progress. For example, ‘jiang’/'hui’ is the equvalent of ‘will’, and ‘yi’/'you’ is the equvalent of ‘already’. Any adult native speakers will put those words in their sentences. Why did Ang Lee chose such poorly written Chinese script for his movie is beyond me, but Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is a Hollywood movie not a Chinese movie, their actor and actress are not even native Chinese (Madarin) speakers.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/bekah.donaldson Bekah Palmer

    The missing link here is culture. Did the language exist first and develop the culture? No, the culture developed the language. 

    Perhaps there is a connection in this study; it is just not completely developed. The attitude towards saving (or, more broadly, toward the future) is something deeply ingrained into the cultural mindset of a people. Naturally, cultures that view the future as something distant will develop ways of talking about it that are grammatically distinct from the present. These cultures are also less likely to prepare for that distant future. Likewise, cultures that see the future as something very close at hand may not “grammatically” (yes, I know that adverb modifiers are grammar, too) differentiate between the present and the future, and because of their cultural view, are probably more likely to prepare for the future. The data is interesting. There is a broad trend that correlates savings with language structure. The conclusions are what need work.

  • Anonymous

    Language and culture are connected.  Maybe it’s culture not language.  Language is just a confounding factor.

  • Anonymous

    Language and culture are connected.  Maybe it’s culture not language.  Language is just a confounding factor.

  • Anonymous

    If one doesn’t learn to think differently when changing from one language to another, then one is missing something in both language and thinking skills. 

    Too often, “experts” feel too compelled to “defend” their status quo rather than dare to stretch the boundaries of revelation and innovation.  It is a well known precept that Change and Evolution are frightening to many people; especially to men, who are neither as “adaptive” nor as linguistically “sensitive” as women are. 

    Or I could say that Change and Evolution frighten and intimidate too many people, especially men. Then I know my words will make many men uncomfortable, indeed. 
    Positing whether language or culture came first and which might influence thinking more is rather a chicken and egg debate, but a person who really “gets into” learning languages learns more about the cultures they came from than a person who studies the culture but doesn’t develop the language skills to go with it. As a Writer, an Artist of language and culture, a word-smith and poet, a songster and bard, a trickster with a sardonic streak and a strong sense of satire, I would challenge any mere “linguist” to a duel of “willing-words” and “spell-binding”, or making people susceptible with the use of words alone, as all good “ad-men” once knew how to do. Thus, I completely agree with Mr. Chen’s premise that the separation created by the “future tense” from the present does indeed influence how one thinks about oneself in relation to the future.Notice that I didn’t say that “it will affect how one will think of the future”. Because I know how to Create affects and effects with words and adding that distancing, wispy, ineffective “will” to the sentence, which might be substituted with “may” or “might” or “could” (or “should” if one wants to add some verbal “weight” and compulsion to it), does indeed change the Power of that sentence. Power has many uses and is exercised in may ways. One of the very first things a writing student learns is to “write in the present tense” whenever possible if you want to “grab” your readers, exercise your Power over them, stimulate or motivate them to continue reading….. So I challenge any of those stodgy “linguists” to debate any decent writing teacher about whether using a future tense in language influences one’s thinking, feelings and actions, or does not. Better yet, I double-dog-dare you to do so! If any of you have the balls or guts to take on one of your old English Lit marms, go for it! Or sit down, shut up, stuff your pretentious psycho-babble and try not to dirty your bloomers every time some young upstart challenges your fusty old delusions.And how did that make you feel, darling?  

  • http://www.facebook.com/maxiewawa Max Roberts

    Whoops, I was going to point out that English doesn’t have a future tense either but it seems that everyone has already pointed that out.

    English uses “will” to indicate the future, Chinese uses “tomorrow” (and other ‘markers’). No difference.

    Looks like Mr Chen has come up with a hypothesis and just tried to prove it instead of testing it.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RLW5OOUS5JKYZ73WOYNCNAJG2U Kent

    Studies have shown that ; Children on playgrounds with soft asphalt are 75% more likely to faint.
    Of course soft asphalt and children fainting both occur in hot weather.
    Was cause and effect examined?

  • Keith Chen

    Hi all,

    Thanks for your thoughts on my study; if you would like to read more and learn details of my analysis and treatment of future-time reference in languages, the working paper is here:

    http://faculty.som.yale.edu/keithchen/papers/LanguageWorkingPaper.pdf

    Any comments and thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated,
    Keith.

  • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

    To Keith Chen: I am a professional linguist and you can read my blog posting on this issue here: http://languages-of-the-world.blogspot.com/2011/10/you-save-what-you-speak.html

  • Keith Chen

     

    Hey All,

    After
    reading your comments, I wanted to write to thank you all for your comments,
    and to clarify one very important point. 
    Many of you who have written have wondered why in my work I draw a
    distinction between English and German, and have pointed out that German and
    English have structurally identical future tenses. Ths is true: in most
    situations both English (which is a Germanic language) and German use what
    linguists call a de-volitive construction to form the future tense. In English
    this is “will”, and in German this is “werden”. 
    That is completely correct, but is not the main thrust of the
    categorization I use in my research; I don’t focus on HOW you signal future
    time, I focus on WHEN YOU MUST signal future time.  From this perspective, English and German are
    very different. For example, in German, it is natural to talk about future
    events that you have no control over in the presnt tense. So, a German can say
    “Es regnet morgen” or “Morgen ist es kalt”, which literally translate to “It
    rain in morning” and “Morning is it cold”, both in the present tense. You
    couldn’t say either of those things in English.

    This is
    an important distinction, and I can’t do it justice here: but it’s also the
    critical distinction that linguists who study the future tense make.  If you go look at my paper I summarize the
    relevant linguistics research, or if you want to better understand the coding
    you can also go directly to its source: a book called “Tense and Aspect in the
    Languages of Europe”, which was produced by the EUROTYP linguistics working
    group and edited by Osten Dahl.  The
    paper is here:

     

    http://faculty.som.yale.edu/keithchen/papers/LanguageWorkingPaper.pdf

     

    Thank
    you all again, and I’d be thrilled with any more thoughts or feedback you
    might have.

    Keith.

  • Keith Chen

     

    Hey All,

    After
    reading your comments, I wanted to write to thank you all for your comments,
    and to clarify one very important point. 
    Many of you who have written have wondered why in my work I draw a
    distinction between English and German, and have pointed out that German and
    English have structurally identical future tenses. Ths is true: in most
    situations both English (which is a Germanic language) and German use what
    linguists call a de-volitive construction to form the future tense. In English
    this is “will”, and in German this is “werden”. 
    That is completely correct, but is not the main thrust of the
    categorization I use in my research; I don’t focus on HOW you signal future
    time, I focus on WHEN YOU MUST signal future time.  From this perspective, English and German are
    very different. For example, in German, it is natural to talk about future
    events that you have no control over in the presnt tense. So, a German can say
    “Es regnet morgen” or “Morgen ist es kalt”, which literally translate to “It
    rain in morning” and “Morning is it cold”, both in the present tense. You
    couldn’t say either of those things in English.

    This is
    an important distinction, and I can’t do it justice here: but it’s also the
    critical distinction that linguists who study the future tense make.  If you go look at my paper I summarize the
    relevant linguistics research, or if you want to better understand the coding
    you can also go directly to its source: a book called “Tense and Aspect in the
    Languages of Europe”, which was produced by the EUROTYP linguistics working
    group and edited by Osten Dahl.  The
    paper is here:

     

    http://faculty.som.yale.edu/keithchen/papers/LanguageWorkingPaper.pdf

     

    Thank
    you all again, and I’d be thrilled with any more thoughts or feedback you
    might have.

    Keith.

  • Sarah Martin

    I’m a student in intercultural communications at NVCC, and I’ve been studying Israel recently. In a different context, speaking Hebrew or Arabic makes a huge difference on how much a customer saves while haggling, since people who speak the native language there are seen as more respectable as opponents to the shop keepers. Speaking like a local is very helpful to customers.

  • tim b

    To Professor Chen:

    Your ‘literal translation’ of the German “Es regnet morgen” is incorrect.  ‘morgen’ (small m), adverb, means ‘tomorrow’.  ‘Morgen’ (capital M), noun, means ‘morning’.  So arguably the German speaker is indicating future time by using the word ‘tomorrow’, similarly to the comment made about Chinese speakers earlier in the thread.