For anyone who would like to know...
High-context languages are those that depend upon a pattern of context to develop concepts from/as content, rather than allowing the specific words to clearly define concepts that are then used in context to present content.
English:
I love my mom.
I love my wife.
I love my dog.
I love my job.
I love bicycling.
I love football.
I love ice cream.
I love naps.
I love (nearly infinite possibilities).
The overall meaning is a concept derived from the context, not the main semantics and their definition applied to the context. High-context languages depend upon context first.
In the above examples, love is not the definer of concept. The context of usage of the word love determines the definition. In low-context languages, definition of words is preeminent, and those definitions determine context.
So in English, words can be used exhaustively without ever really having more than a conceptual understanding of their meaning. Clear definitions and applications of individual semantics aren't the focus to determine content of thought and speech. Context is the priority before such true meaning.
So English-speakers have their thought and speech developed to consider generality before specificity, and specificity can be highly subjective at some variable point for all thinkers and speakers. That's because context predominantly determines content for concept.
Thought and speech (or other expression, especially writing) is logos. Rhema is the content; the thing thought and spoken about, the subject matter or substance of thought and speech.
High-context languages use context to determine concept to establish content. Content is rhema, whereas concept is logos. So those languages are literally patterning thought to determine rhema from logos.
This is invariably how man's own logos produces another rhema that is distinct from God's by any margin or variance, even when using the translated words of scripture. And that's one of the fundamental reasons why there are so many versions of singular doctrines.
Individual minds determine concepts based upon context that is then assigned as content. That's the opposite of hearing God's rhema for faith. So the faith that comes from high-context logos (thought and speech) has some/most/all of its origin in false rhema (content).
This occurs at the sub-cognitive level. The sub-conscious is part of the heart, just as the conscious is. Language is both sub-conscious and conscious. We dream with the inclusion of language, and all dreams are sub-cognitive.
Language is in our hearts, and high-context language shapes and patterns the heart, beginning at the limbic level of sub-consciousness. That's why everybody has a difficult time with any variance in context between languages in culture.
Those with high-context language develop low-context culture to compensate. The inverse is true, as well. That's why, for instance, asian low-context languages and their high-context cultures don't align with ours as readily as European and others that are similar. It's not race-based. It's language and culture based. "They" don't "get" our humor and figures of speech. That's because they have fundamentlally different patterns of thought.
Greek is possibly the lowest-context language ever, while English is possibly the highest-context language ever. This affects not just translation, but the overall meaning in differently-functioning minds.
That's why I refer to Greek with specific definitions and applications for usage. It's to pursue God's rhema before allowing language to pervert my logos of thinking and speaking (expressing). And that's why others, at least initially, have difficulty understanding.
It's because I relentlessly pursue God's rhema over my own nebulous logos, which can express any other content as mere concept from context.
Languages all came from Babel. The enemy has seized upon that confusion, and it's no accident that English is the modern predominant first-world mechanism to determine all thought and expression, and to drive all culture to compensate.
This is infinitely more fundamental and important to understand than what someone THINKS they actually know. That logos has established its own pattern of developing according to an assigned content as rhema, and it's only a concept.
I've spent many years battling over Theology Proper, because modern English and its increasingly shallow usage and understanding has turned the Trinity into a very low concept of "three guys on a couch". A false logos leads to another rhema, and it may not even be salvific.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
Our very foundational substantial reality of existence (hypostasis) that underlies our essential being (ousia) is determined by whatever is in our hearts.
English and other high-context language forms the heart with content that is NOT God's rhema, and patterns a lifetime of thought to determine its own content AS rhema instead of hearing God's for faith.
It can't override God's grace to bring faith, but it is an obstacle both before and after.
