Paper 4 Question 2: Can Language Shape How We Think?

       The text from a Stanford University online magazine is concentrated on Lera Boroditsky, a Stanford researcher, who has found evidence to prove that language shapes the way we think.  This is a groundbreaking discovery, as there have been numerous debates and studies about how language interacts with thought.  This discovery would advance the hypothesis that language influences self-identity and how we perceive the world around us.

Lera Boroditsky’s work is supported by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.  This idea was developed by Benjamin Lee Whorf and Edward Sapir in 1929, but became highly popular in the 1950s.  This hypothesis supports the idea that the lexis and grammar of a language directly impacts and molds the thoughts and worldview that a person has.  This idea can simply be explained by comparing the Inuit tribe’s language to that of the English language when talking about the word “snow.”  In English, we only have one word for the word “snow”: “snow.”  However, within the Inuit’s language, they have three words to describe snow’s various properties and over fifty words describing the type of snow.  For instance, the word “kanevvluk” means “fine snow” and “muruaneq” means “soft deep snow.”  Therefore, the Inuit’s perception of snow is different from English because they are able to describe snow in a multitude of ways, thus demonstrating the subtle nature they think about snow.  Also, it reflects their attention to detail, which is different from English.  This idea is summarized by the phrase “linguistic determinism,” which means that the structure of the language determines the thought process of the speakers.

The idea of linguistic determinism and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis are reflected within the text.  This can be seen when Boroditsky describes how languages respond to accidents.  For instance, she said that in English if someone accidentally breaks a cup by dropping it on the floor, another person would describe the event by saying that “‘She broke the cup.’”  However, in languages such as Japanese and Spanish, they have a different understanding of the event.  If it was an accident, someone would say that “‘The cup broke itself.’”  Essentially, this example displays the mentality of different cultures.  People who speak English tend to see an accident and attribute blame, whereas in some other languages, there is no fault assigned to anyone.  This demonstrates how a person’s language affects the interpretation of the same situation differently from another person who speaks another language.  

These ideas can be supported by the “blank slate” or tabula rasa theory by John Locke.  Within this theory, Locke explained that the mind at birth was a “clean slate” in which all experiences developed.  This goes together with the behaviorism theory that B. F. Skinner advanced.  Here, it is understood that children learn and develop their mind and thought processes by watching and imitating those around them.  

This idea is supported in the text through the example of time.  Boroditsky explained that some languages use “temporal information in every utterance.”  She used the example of the Yagua language of Peru where they have “5 distinct grammatical forms of the past tense” which each relate to certain time periods.  This supports the tabula rasa and behaviorism theory since these people who speak the language have grown up with these rules, and do not think in different forms like other languages.  Therefore, the language that they are raised with impacts their ability to think about certain concepts.

All of these ideas combat the theory of universalism.  Universalism was advanced by Rik Pinxten.  This theory explains that all humans share the same cognitive processes, like memory and perception, so ideas can be translated easily between languages.  Boroditsky’s evidence refutes this theory as demonstrated by the example of Indonesian and tenses.   For instance, the verbs in this language never change tense, and therefore do not reflect time changes.  For instance, the word “make” can refer to the past, present, or future.  Therefore, the translation does not go seamlessly between languages, and there can be various misunderstandings.  This disproves universalism and the idea of linguistic reflectionism.  

All in all, it is clear that language has a tremendous impact on a person’s self-identity and the way they perceive the world.