There are broadly two styles or paradigms to answer this. One assumes that all languages are the same and that differences are minor and superficial. The other assumes no such thing and is open to the possibility that worldview can be shaped by language. These two views are respectively called cloak-vs-mold
If you are drawn to the first you will prefer
If you are more drawn to the second you may find the following interesting.
(Where the terms are widely discussed I've not put a link – let google be your guide!)
All the above can be treated as detailed exegesis on Wittgenstein's :
The limits of my language are the limits of my world
Or the always oblique and punchy Nietzsche
You say you don't believe in God yet you believe in grammar?!
Also here's a decent summary of the divergence of the two camps.
And an answer of mine illustrating how a seemingly philosophical problem is really a linguistic one.
Note: Your statement
What is a matter
seems ungrammatical to me.
Whereas as a rule I almost never quibble about other people's grammar, in this case it is sufficiently ambiguous that I need to point out that it's two alternative corrections are really far apart.
- What is matter?
- What is the matter?