In an early video, we discussed free will and determinism. Many agree that, scientifically, free will does not exist and brains are deterministic machines. As such, everything we do is the result of actions that came before, and the things that we do represent the only possible route of action that could have happened. Free will and determinism are not the topic of this post (although if you are interested in such topics I strongly recommend giving this article a read) but about a related issue. The question is this: does the language you speak determine anything about how you think and perceive?
Linguistic determinism is the idea that thought, perception and knowledge are constrained by the language that an individual uses natively or habitually. Proponents of this view claim that language limits what a person sees, feels and thinks. An example of this idea is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis:
"The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached... We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation." -Sapir (1958)
"We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees." -Whorf (1940)
These quotes suggest that meaning arises through shared symbols, which are the backbone of language. Moreover, languages are not just distinct from eachother, they create distinct societies and cultures. These distinct cultures can be considered separate worlds, as they represent and are represented by different symbol systems and structures.
This hypothesis is largely based on evidence from studies involving colour perception. For example this study tested native and English Setswana speakers colour categorisation, by presenting them with triads of coloured tiles and asking them to choose which one was least like the others. In Setswana, the term 'tala' is used to refer to colours that could be categorised into 'blue' and 'green' in English - therefore if three tiles are presented, two green-ish and one blue-ish, English speakers should be more likely to pick the blue-ish one as the odd one out than the Setswana speakers, who may perform closer to chance level. This is what the authors found, triads made up of colours which are perceptually similar but have different names in English are less likely to be reliably distinguished by Setswana speakers, and vice versa. In another study it was shown that speakers of a language called Berinmo, which has but five colour terms, categorised presented colours in line with those terms and not in line with what might be called 'universal' colour categories. Other studies on this topic can be found here and here. The first supports a weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, where language influences colour perception but is not the sole factor involved. The second rejects the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, claiming that there exist universal and objective colour categories.
Colour perception is not the only area that is believed to be affected by the language that an individual speaks. In English, time is generally described in horizontal terms (e.g. 'ahead' or 'behind' schedule; the clocks go 'forward' or 'back') whereas in Mandarin, time is generally described in vertical terms (e.g. shang (up) and xia (down)). It has been suggested that native Mandarin speakers responded quicker to statements that portrayed time in vertical rather than horizontal terms, whereas the opposite occurs for English speakers. This implies that language influences patterns of thought and understanding of metaphor. It is possible that other aspects of life are constrained and influenced by the words used to communicate an idea too. For example, gendered language has been linked to sexist views (see here, but also see here). Consider this: Finnish does not use separate words for 'he' and 'she', instead the term 'hän' is used to refer to both genders. Is it then a coincidence that Finland was the first sovereign country to have full rights for women? Another example, this time from literature. In '1984' Newspeak is used to control the types of concepts that could be discussed by the citizens of Oceania. Without a word for 'freedom' does the concept cease to exist?
What does this mean for our increased use of text language? R we gna bcum dumer cos we r usin wrds lyk this nd nt propr English? Not necessarily. Studies have been reported that show that use of text speak does not adversely affect children's grasp of grammar. However, that is not to say that the use of text speak does not affect how we communicate with others, for example here it was claimed that the use of text-speak among children creates a social barrier between themselves and their parents and teachers. This should not be surprising, language is a simple way of creating in- and out-groups. Using jargon seems to lead to the isolation of those who don't use such terms themselves, for example using terms like "affordances" at a party probably wouldn't make me very popular, as it is a jargon word used in psychology. Similarly, when football fans discuss the 'offside rule' it is almost a subconscious test of who is in the know and who is not. Language generates and maintains social groups, and is a powerful force in embodying how we think and understand the world. That is not to say that I believe that simply by speaking in a way that is natural to us that we are maliciously and intentionally isolating whole social groups. However, I am suggesting that language has an impact on our social relationships. We communicate with and speak to different people in different ways in different circumstances. And we do so because the language we use matters.
In a sense then, linguistic determinism must contain a kernal of truth. It has even been claimed that language – referred to as discourse in this context – is the only medium in which reality and knowledge can exist. Foucault (1969) defined discourse as “an entity of sequences, of signs, in that they are enouncements” where enouncements are not simply units of language, but refer to constructs which assign meaning and represent the relationships between an individual and the external world. The central idea is that social relationships between institutions and people, as well as individual actions and behaviours, are defined and restricted by enouncements which, because language creates meaning, constrict and govern social and mental behaviour.
So what of free will? If there existed a language that did not contain any self-referents, such as 'I' or 'me', would speakers of said language even have a sense of free will or agency? How reliant is our sense of freedom and identity on our capacity to express such concepts? Or did language develop including such concepts because they represent how we think? The direction is unclear, however linguistic determinism suggests that without a way of expressing the sensation of freedom, free will and agency, we would no longer conceive of or experience such ideas. Even if they do exist outwith language, if we cannot express their existence is it not possibly meaningless to claim they are real if we cannot comprehend and explain them in spoken language? Afterall, since the purpose of language is understanding and communication, we surely cannot claim to know or understand if we cannot articulate that knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment