Interestingly, the inspiration for this paper came from one of my softball practices a few months ago. We had a special day of practice in which we underwent “vision training”, a process that was meant to help us see the ball better and in turn improve our hitting.
The man who was teaching us the new vision skills had been involved in his job for several years. He claimed that it is harmful to continuously stare at the ball when it is in the pitcher’s hand because the receptors in the eyes tire out and do not see as clearly after a while. To avoid this problem, he recommended a skill called scanning, in which the batter uses their eyes to scan back and forth across the field before focusing on the pitch. This method is supposed to keep the batter’s vision clear.
Despite the fact that scanning is possible to do in any direction, the trainer claimed that nearly all of the athletes he had ever worked with scanned the field from left to right before looking at the pitcher. He suggested that this was a result of the athlete’s reading habits. He had worked mainly on the east coast with athletes who spoke English (and therefore read in a left to right direction).
I found this to be extremely interesting because many languages other than English are not written or read in a left to right direction but in the opposite way, or even from top to bottom. I questioned whether the famous Japanese baseball player, Ichiro, would scan from right to left because that is the way in which Japanese is often written. Can the structure of a language really influence the way that we think? To what extent can our language impact the way we look at the world around us?
The concept that native language influences the way in which people think about concrete objects dates back to the Whorf hypothesis (sometimes also called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis). In this hypothesis, the grammatical categories of a language influence how a person understands and views the surrounding world. In a sense people are “mental prisoners”, whose minds are restricted and defined by the constraints of their languages (Stafford, n.d.). The Whorf hypothesis is based on two theories: (1) linguistic relativity and (2) linguistic determinism. Linguistic relativity proposes that the languages of distinct cultures create different representative systems; language essentially molds culture. Linguistic determinism suggests that language influences a person’s thought process; what a person thinks is determined by the language that he or she speaks and in turn influences how he or she acts (Singh et al., 2003).
Whorf also suggested that the impact that language has on thought is not conscious. He claimed, “the forms of a person’s thoughts are controlled by inexorable laws of pattern of which he is unconscious. These patterns are the unperceived intricate systematizations of his own language....every language is a vast pattern-system, different from others, in which are culturally ordained the forms and categories, but also analyzes nature, notices or neglects types of relationships and phenomena, channels his reasoning, and builds the house of his consciousness” (as cited in Singh, 2003, p. 24). In this way, speakers are unaware of both the differences in their language relative to others, and how their language alters their perceptions.
Essentially all psychologists and linguists agree that the Whorf hypothesis in its strongest form is too extreme to explain cross linguistic differences, as many note the significant impact of culture, environment, and other factors on how people think (3). Language is not the single determining factor of a person’s cognition. However, studies have demonstrated that although the language spoken by an individual does not determine everything about the way he or she thinks, it can clearly influence the individual’s world view in several important ways. Through examining different realms of research relating to the influence of language on thought, this paper will attempt to confirm that differences between languages in grammar, written form, and structure cause speakers of different languages to experience different perceptions of visual stimuli and in some situations even acquire distinct aesthetic preferences.
How does the directionality of written language influence our visual preferences?
Can the way we read and write really change how we see the world? Studies have shown that the way in which language is written can have a notable effect on visual tendencies. A study comparing French readers and Israeli readers demonstrated that the manner in which people read may influence their aesthetic preferences (Chokron, De Agostini, 2000). A group of one hundred and sixty two subjects, half of which were French (left to right) readers, and half of which were Israeli (right to left) readers, were examined to study whether the direction in which they read would have a significant influence on their aesthetic preferences. The group was selected to create a representative sample in terms of gender and age, and subjects were all monolingual and were tested in their native countries in order to standardize the experiment.
The French and Israeli subjects were given thirty pairs of mirror stimuli placed on top of one another, and were asked to state which picture in each pair was more aesthetically pleasing. Three types of pictures were shown: landscapes, moving objects with a one-way directionality, and static objects with a one-way directionality.
The results demonstrated that the French left to right readers preferred static and mobile objects with a left to right directionality, whereas the Israeli right to left readers preferred objects with a right to left directionality. This suggests that the directional orthography of a written language can impact a person’s aesthetic preferences for direction in visual stimuli.
In further analysis of the data, it was discovered that French children tended to only have a preference in examining mobile objects, while adults had a preference for both mobile and static objects. Likewise, Israeli adults had a preference for both mobile and static objects, while children seemed to have no preference at all. In viewing landscapes, readers did not tend to have a preference. This suggests that perhaps the cultural experience of reading a written language has a strong effect on the way that humans view discrete objects and motion. Adults naturally have more exposure to a written language as they grow older, as children may lack extensive exposure to written language at a young age. Because adults have more exposure to language than children, language may have a stronger influence on the way that adults think. This interaction between written language and culture (the extent of exposure to written language) could result in cross-linguistic differences in aesthetic preferences.
This evidence also opposes a prior theory claiming that preference for the position of stimuli results from the cerebral lateralization of the brain. Previous studies attributed visual preferences to the left brain being specialized for language-related functions in the majority of right-handed people (Chokron, De Agostini 2000). Because only right-handers were tested in the experiment, the difference in aesthetic preference can be attributed to language rather than cerebral dominance of one hemisphere of the brain.
Additional studies have demonstrated that when shown a picture, subjects can more rapidly match the picture to a sentence when the positions of the objects in the picture match the positions of the objects in the sentence. For example, Italian speakers have been determined to more easily match objects to sentences when the subject of the sentence is on the left and the object of the sentence is on the right, while Arabic speakers match the pictures to the sentences more quickly if the objects are in the opposite places (Maass, & Russo, 2003). The subjects also were more likely to draw pictures that corresponded to the directionality of their language. For instance, Italian speakers tended to draw subjects on the left and objects on the right, while the Arabic speakers did just the opposite. These findings have been attributed to the directionality of Italian and Arabic as written languages. Italian is written left to right, whereas Arabic is written right to left. In this manner written language seems to influence visual preferences, because it is easier for people to look at and think about objects if they correspond to the way that their native language is written.
Counterevidence has been presented however, that it is not language, but perhaps some universal characteristic in humans that causes them to think about objects as being in a certain place. One study, using English and Arabic speakers, found that when asked to draw pictures of agents performing tasks, neither group had a significant preference that was dependent on language or sentence structure (Altmann, et al, 2006). Most subjects preferred to draw objects on the right side of the paper, particularly with objects that were static. However, it is interesting to note that the subjects were not given complete verbal sentences to draw the pictures, but rather just verbs and a stick figure model. They were given a card with things like “kicks”, “is kicked”, “spray”, “is sprayed”, rather than fluid sentences and were asked to draw a picture when just shown one verb and the stick figure. The participants were forced to construct the sentence in their mind, which could lead to disparities and mistakes of which the scientists were unaware. The sentences drawn were not necessarily standardized.
Many additional researchers (especially in earlier experiments) have found that people regardless of native language prefer objects on the right side, particular with materials lacking motion. They have also found a preference for left to right directionality in thought and have attributed this trend to the structure of the brain. In many experiments, these events have been associated with asymmetrical hemispheric activation (the left hemisphere being more active than the right hemisphere) in using language processing skills (Chokron, & De Agostini, 2000). However, it is important to take into account that the data from these experiments often only used English speakers, or speakers of one language. Therefore the results may have in fact suggested a connection to language that was overlooked because it was not the focus of the experiment, and interpretations of data may have been flawed. Although the data from this experiment (unlike many previous studies), takes into account that speakers of different languages may perceive things differently, the data is not entirely compelling, claiming that “there was considerable individual variation in bias strength among individuals of both groups,” and that “English speakers showed a significant bias for drawing agents on the right when illustrating passive verbs, but their rightward bias for the positions of agents when illustrating active verbs did not reach significance.” (Altmann et al., 2006).
The data from this stick figure and verb experiment seems less valid than the previous studies mentioned, however, if it is accurate, it may provide some interesting insight into visual preferences. It is likely that language is not the only factor responsible in determining how people prefer to look at visual stimuli or how people draw, but one of many. It is important not to assume that language is the all-determining factor in how people think. Perhaps an interaction of cerebral dominance, culture (such as our exposure or lack of exposure to language) and language itself governs preferences for visual directionality. The extent to which language alone influences how humans view things is difficult to determine because it is very difficult to isolate language from culture and potentially innate human abilities. The overall consensus seems to be that both language and the structure of the brain seem to influence skills involving directionality with language being the stronger and more influential factor (Maass A., & Russo A., 2003).
It appears clear in a great amount of the recent data that humans tend to prefer visual stimuli that coincide with the structure of their written language. In this sense, the written languages a person is exposed to can influence their aesthetic preferences and whether they perceive a directionality in the world.
How does grammatical gender influence our perceptions of objects?
Studies have also shown that the presence of grammatical gender in a language can influence the way in which people perceive objects. In many languages grammatical gender deems words as either feminine or masculine (and in some languages neuter,vegetative, and other genders (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2002)), and associates these words with matching gendered pronouns and articles. Grammatical gender exists in several languages such as German, Spanish, Russian and French.
In one study, German and Spanish subjects (who both understood English) were given a list of twenty-four objects (in English) that contained opposite genders in German in Spanish (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2002)). For example, the list contained a sun, which in German is feminine and in Spanish is masculine, and a key, which is feminine in Spanish and masculine in German. When asked to describe the objects, the subjects tended to describe them with adjectives that agreed with the grammatical gender. For instance, Spanish speakers described the key (in stereotypically feminine terms) as “golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny, and tiny” while German speakers described it (in stereotypically masculine terms) as “hard, heavy, jagged, serated, and useful”. These descriptions occurred consistently throughout the experiment. Because there is no inherent gender in the random objects used in the experiment, the data suggests that grammatical gender of a word alone influences the way that people think about objects.
This study was also repeated with pictures to demonstrate that even without words or labels or any visual influence of language, speakers of different languages thought about objects in different ways. Subjects were shown to match pictures of objects with a specific grammatical gender to people of the same biological gender. Both the Spanish speakers and the German speakers rated objects that were grammatically feminine to be more like biological females and objects that were grammatically masculine to be more like biological males (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2002).
German and Spanish speakers were also more likely to remember objects that were given English human names that matched their grammatical gender. For example, an apple named Patrick would be easier for German speakers to remember than Spanish speakers because an apple is grammatically masculine in German and feminine in Spanish. Both Spanish and German speakers consistently remembered English names for objects whose gender matched the grammatical gender of the object in their native language, and did not consistently remember the human names given to objects when the genders of the name and the object did not match. English speakers tested in the same experiment could recall the names as consistently as the German and Spanish speakers did with matching genders, and better than German and Spanish speakers when the genders did not match (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2002).
Bilingual speakers of German and Spanish were also tested. Results demonstrated that the degree to which the subjects assigned an object to a corresponding German grammatical gender or a corresponding Spanish grammatical gender was dependent on each person’s background. Subjects choices reflected their skill in the language, whether they had been born in a Spanish-speaking or a German-speaking country, how many years they had studied each language, and how much earlier they had started learning one language than the other. This suggests that exposure and immersion in a language is a cultural influence that affects how much language influences perceptions of objects as corresponding with their grammatical genders. Once again the significance of the overlap between language and culture is demonstrated (Boroditsky, Schmidt, & Phillips, 2002).
Interestingly enough, unlike many previous studies regarding grammatical gender, the tests were conducted in English. This suggests that the perception of objects as having gender is a part of the way a person thinks. The subjects thought of the objects as feminine or masculine even when communicating in a language that was not their native language that also did not have a grammatical gender.
Several arguments have been raised against this concept, stating that differences between grammatical genders do not influence thought, but rather the culture of the languages does. For example, a society whose moon has a grammatical gender of masculine, may tend to tell myths and stories to children growing up in which the moon is assigned masculine characteristics (Chris, 2005). However, an additional study by Boroditsky, Schmidt, and Phillips (2002), adjusted for this possible confounding factor by attempting to isolate language from the influence of culture.
In this study, tests were given to English speakers only, and a fake language called Gumbuzi was used. The subjects were told that the Gumbuzi language had words that were both soupative and oosative (Soupative and oosative were two completely random categories chosen). Next the subjects were shown drawings of four males, four females, and twelve inanimate objects, and were taught which would be considered soupative and oosative until they had mastered them. Each category (soupative and oosative) always contained one gender. For example, in one group there would be pans, forks, pencils, ballerinas, and girls. In the other would be pots, spoons, pens, giants, and boys. The gender neutral words were sometimes present in one category and sometimes present in the other to make sure that people would not be biased toward a certain set of words as being associated with feminine and masculine qualities. (So the pans, forks, and pencils would sometimes be with ballerinas and girls and at other times would be with giant and boys). The subjects were later shown unlabeled pictures of the objects and asked to state adjectives to describe the objects in the pictures. The results demonstrated that similarly to the experiment with German and Spanish speakers, the subjects generated more masculine adjectives to describe objects when they were grouped with biological males and more feminine adjectives when grouped with biological females. Subjects also rated pictures that were within the same group (soupative or oosative) as being more similar.
The studies of subjects who learned the Gumbuzi language demonstrate that language can have an influence on how people think even when the people have not been exposed to any cultural factors that connect to the language. This study, alongside the mass amounts of data collected by Boroditsky et al., provides compelling evidence that the grammatical gender of language has a notable effect on the way in which humans perceive objects that surround them.
How do counting words and pluralisation influence our perceptions of visual objects?
Studies by Lucy and Gaskins (1996) of the Yucatec Maya language demonstrate that the way in which we describe inanimate objects (such as whether we pluralise them or whether they are defined by a name or by the material they are literally made out of) may influence how we perceive and think about these objects.
Yucatec Maya, a language spoken in southeastern Mexico, describes inanimate objects differently than the English language. English (as well as several other languages) is said to have what is called a “count-mass syntax”. English use “count nouns” to describe discrete objects such as books and “mass nouns” (collective nouns) to describe entities that inherently consist of more than one thing, such as the word “sand”. In the English language, count nouns are pluralised while mass nouns are not (Thomas et al, 2003). In Yucatec Mayan, only animate objects (such as animals) are pluralised. Inanimate discrete objects (such as a books), and inanimate, tangible substances with “malleable form” such as sand are not pluralised. In this sense, Yucatec Mayan differs in a big way from English in the sense that inanimate discrete objects are not pluralised.
Lucy’s experiment examined whether this difference in the structure of Yucatec Mayan and English resulted in a significant effect on how people perceive and recall visual stimuli. He showed the two groups of speakers a series of pictures. In Picture 1, there was a hut next to four trees and a well. There was also a boy, a hen, a bottle, and a man feeding corn to three pigs. The subjects were asked to describe the picture. Next, Lucy had the speakers describe Picture 1 while not looking at the picture, testing their memories of what was in the picture. Then Lucy showed other similar pictures to the subjects. Picture 2 was missing the boy, Picture 3 had no bottle, Picture 4 included a broom, Picture 5 had extra corn by the hen, and Picture 6 had extra corn by the pigs. The subjects were asked to choose which picture was most similar to Picture 1. In the last task, the speakers were given all six pictures and were asked to choose which was the original Picture 1.
Lucy found that in all of the tasks, the English speakers were consistent in giving numbers of all of the objects in the picture (both animate and inanimate discrete objects) with the exception of the corn. The Yucatec Maya speakers did not remember number as well as the English speakers, but remembered plurals for the animate objects better than the inanimate objects. This suggests that pluralisation, or the lack thereof, can have a substantial effect on how a person views objects. The Yucatec Mayan speakers perceive the picture scenes as different from the English speakers by not noticing variation in number as much as English speakers due in inanimate discrete objects because they do not pluralise these objects as in the English language. The fact that both English speakers and the Yucatec Maya speakers usually failed to notice the relative increase in corn is consistent with the fact that neither language pluralises mass objects like corn.
Yucatec Mayan also does not have a boundary in describing count objects versus mass objects like English does (Boroditsky, 2001). Yucatec Mayan describes almost all nouns in terms of what they consist of, using classifiers to describe them. What would be considered a “candle” in English, would be considered, “one-long-thin wax” in Yucatec Mayan (Boroditsky, 2001). In a sense, the Yucatec Mayan word could be used to describe several long thin objects made of wax, not just candles. On the other hand, English words are more likely to be used to describe other objects with similar shape and function. A table is a table whether it is made out of wood or plastic.
When speakers of Yucatec Mayan were shown a series of discrete objects, they tended to see discrete objects that were made of the same material as being more similar. English speakers tended to see discrete objects with similar shapes as being more alike. For example, if Yucatec Mayan speakers were shown a plastic comb with a handle, a plastic comb without a handle, and a wooden comb without a handle, they would see the two plastic combs as being more similar. English speakers, on the other hand, were more likely to say that the two combs resembing each other in shape would be the most similar (Boroditsky, 2001).
The study suggests that as a result of the way the two cultures use language to describe discrete objects, English speakers recognize discrete objects more by their shape, while Yucatec Maya speakers recognize discrete objects more by their material composition. The essence of the object is conceptualized differently by Yucatec Maya speakers and English speakers. The fact that Yucatec Mayan forces speakers to refer to the substances present in an object when they name it, while English does not require this action causes speakers of each language to perceive the objects differently.
Interestingly, the ability to discriminate between material substances and discrete objects is one that has been found in young children. One study showed that English-speaking children who had not yet learned languages were able to distinguish between material substances such as clay, and sand, and discrete objects with specific shape. When given a noun and shown a discrete object, the children tended to give meaning to the objects in its shape. When given a noun and shown a material substance, the children projected the word onto the material substance rather than the substances shape (Imai, & Mazuka, 2007).
The study suggests that the ontological distinction between objects and substances is an innate factor that occurs prior to language acquisition in human beings. However, language can cause its speakers to attend more to one of these categories. In the English language, discrete objects are almost always recognized by shape, while material substances (like sand or mud) are referred to by the substance they are. With the Yucatec Maya language, all objects (both discrete and material substances) are referred to by their contents. It seems that as we acquire language, we learn to think about discrete objects in the context of our language, and this influence and changes the whether we conceptualize these objects more by their shape or by their constitution.
How can different meanings of words/absence of words influence the way we think about objects?
What happens when an object is described by one word in one language but by two different words in another language? Does this cause the speaker of one language to view the object as a single entity and the speaker of the other language to view it as two separate entities?
In the Japanese language, there is no general word to describe water, but rather two different words to describe water as hot or cold. “Mizu”, or “tumetai mizu” refers to cold water, and “o-yu” or “atatakai o-yu” refers to warm water (Busbin, 2007). Curtis Hayes (1996) demonstrated that people who speak Japanese perceive the concept of water as different than those who speak English. His studies suggest that the way that people who speak Japanese construct their idea of water is heavily influenced by their language. People who speak only Japanese think of only hot or cold water, rather than just water. Their language does not include a general word for water, which causes some scientists to argue that Japanese monolingual speakers cannot conceptualize a general view of water, but can only see it in terms of being hot water or cold water. (3).
Kazuko Busbin, Japanese professor at Stanford University and native Japanese speaker claims that learning the concept of water in English was not difficult to grasp, despite the fact that Japanese contains two different words to describe what English only uses one word to describe. Busbin suggests that hot and cold water may have served a different function historically in the Japanese society, therefore creating distinctions in words and vocabulary. This would argue that the language evolved from the culture, and that the concept of hot and cold water as different entities did not evolve from language.
Perhaps the concept of water alone was not hard for Busbin to grasp because the use of adjectives in English to modify water served as a simple replacement to the use of different words for water in Japanese. (It is also important to note that Busbin is one person; if this experiment was actually tested there could be a great deal of variation between individuals). In a sense, English speakers view hot water and cold water as two different things as well; however they see them both as being part of a larger, more general category of water. English uses adjectives to modify the water instead of entirely different words. The fact that Japanese speakers can opt to use the adjectives “tumetai” (cold) and “atatakai” (hot) to emphasize hot and cold water suggests a similarity to English in using adjectives to modify the water. It is unlikely that if Japanese speakers saw mizu and o-yi as two completely different entities that they would use opposing adjectives to describe them. They describe them as if mizu and o-yi were opposites of one single entity, as part of a bigger whole. The use of adjectives to modify the already distinguished hot and cold water in Japanese suggest that there is a link between these words and that Japanese speakers do see hot and cold water as similar rather than completely independent of one another.
It also seems probable that although Japanese speakers have two different words for hot and cold water, that they would detect a similarity in the composition of water that would allow them to see hot and cold water in the same light. For example, if a Japanese speaker were to heat a teakettle filled with water to make tea, they would first put in cold water (mizu), and hot water (o-yu) would come out. Clearly, even if Japanese speakers thought of mizu and o-yu as two different materials, they would be able to understand that a link existed between the two. Hot water and cold water share several similar characteristics; they are both wet, clear, liquids that can be consumed, and used for washing or several other activities. These characteristics can be observed in the absence of language. Comparing hot and cold water is not the same as comparing a cat and a dog. The research suggesting that Japanese speakers cannot conceptualize the idea of just water seems flawed and illogical, and in this case language does not seem to cause a substantial difference in conceptualization. It would be interesting to do more research in this area to determine whether there is an important effect resulting from the use of two different words for water.
How can Color Naming Words Influence our Perception of Color?
If we call a colors by two different names does it cause us to view these colors differently? If the boundaries of what is considered a color in one language overlap with the boundaries of what is considered another color in a different language, how does this affect our perception of the color?
Cross-linguistic differences have been shown to influence how humans view color. In past studies, color naming has been found to be somewhat universal, as many languages possess the same focal colors with similar boundaries. However, there is a wide spectrum of color description variation across languages. For example, In Bassa (of Sierra Leone) and Dani (of New Guinea), there are only two color words, one to describe black and cool colors, another to describe white and warm colors. English seems to fall toward the middle of the spectrum, having 11 basic colors (Gritchka, 2002).
A study at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology by Winawer and others (2007) suggests that Russian speakers perceive different shades of blue as more different than English speakers. In Russian, there are two words for blue: “goluboy” (meaning light blue) and “siniy” (meaning dark blue). Similar to how Japanese has different words for water, Russian has complete different words for blue, rather than regarding them both as variations of one color blue.
The subjects of the experiment (Russian speakers and English speakers) were given sets of three blue squares, each set containing two squares that were similar to each other, and one square that was supposed to stick out as being different. The scientists attempted to determine whether the Russian speakers would complete the task more quickly than English speakers, particularly when the two shades of blue spanned the barrier between goluboy and siniy (Hopkin, 2007). Russian speakers were found to perform better when distinguishing between different shades of blue, suggesting that they perceive light and dark blue as two completely different colors.
Results demonstrated that the Russian speakers performed especially well (and much better than the English speakers) when the colors were very close together and overlapped the boundary between siniy and goluboy (Winawer, et al., 2007). This emphasizes that Russian speakers indeed perceived siniy and goluboy as two different colors while English speakers saw them as more similar and harder to discriminate between.
The quicker performance by the Russian speaking subjects continued when they were asked to perform spatial tasks, but disappeared when the subjects were forced to repeat numbers in their head while performing the task (Hopkin, 2007). This effect demonstrates that verbal interference hindered their ability to discriminate as well between colors, and suggests that language processing skills are crucial to this distinction.
This study suggests that because Russians are forced to distinguish between “goluboy” and “siniy” in using everyday language while examining everyday objects, they can better detect the differences between the colors. Because this distinction is not required in English, English users cannot as readily perceive the differences between different shades of blue. This suggests that language played a key role in allowing the rapid discrimination between the shades of blue, and in general affects how we perceive different colors.
A counterargument to this claim has been presented. Most languages with a variety of words for blue (only about 5% of languages) are found at high northern latitudes, and there may be a physiological effect that makes people at these latitudes more proficient at seeing different shades of blue (Ani, 2007). There is no direct evidence to support this claim, however, interesting studies of people living in the tropics demonstrate that they cannot really distinguish between the colors green and blue. This difficulty has been attributed to climate, as bright sunlight can damage the retina, causing the lenses of the eyes to be more yellowed (Hopkin, 2007). This suggests that perhaps, physical factors could play a significant role in color perception. Perhaps people living at medium latitudes have slight sun damage which keeps them from perceiving differences between blue. Based on eye sensitivity to focal points of certain colors, perceptions could differ. Or perhaps the northern latitude consistently have more different types of blue in the environment, while the tropics lack very different blue and greens.
Previous studies also suggest that cross-linguistic differences color perception may result from “evolutionary tuning” of colors that are present in the environment, rather than from the structure of language (Kay, & Regier, 2006). Possibly, just as we lose the ability to discriminate between phonemes that we never hear as infants, we lose the ability to discriminate the colors we do not see often.
Because the Russian and English speakers tested by Winawer lived in similar environments (Boston), the climate effects are standardized (assuming that the subjects lived in Boston for their entire lives). Therefore, it does not seem likely that the subjects’ immediate environment altered their lenses and their color perception in this experiment. However, the evolutionary argument is still possible, if over time the eyes of people living at different latitudes adjust accordingly. Unfortunately, there has been no substantial research of the subject, and the theory is one that is difficult to test. It is also important to note that in this experiment, the Russian advantage vanished when the subjects were asked to perform a verbal task (reciting numbers in their head). This suggests that the ability to discriminate better than English speakers was language-related rather than a product of environment or genetics.
In Summary:
Although there is no way to prove indefinitely that language changes how the world is perceived, the studies mentioned provide substantial evidence that language does play a key role in shaping human thought. The research demonstrates that in a variety of situations, language has a significant effect on the way in which people perceive visual stimuli. From the differences in directionality of written language, to grammatical gender, to disparities in word definitions and sentence structure, native languages can truly alter the way in which their speakers view and understand their surrounding environment.
It is apparent that although language can influence how we view visual stimuli, it is not fully responsible for how we see the world. Because cross-linguistic differences can result from several influences, in many cases, it is difficult to determine whether the way people view the world is a result of language, or other factors such as culture or physical environment. Many who argue against the idea that language influences thought say that culture influences language. For example, the fact that a language only has specific words is reflective of the culture and environment of the people who speak the language. The language is formatted to fit the surrounding circumstances of the people. The culture influences the language rather than the language influencing the culture.
It is important to separate cultural influences on language when examining whether or not a certain element of language influences human thought and perception of visual stimuli. Many of the studies mentioned gave multiple possible explanations of the data because in most cases it is nearly impossible to completely isolate the effects of language from the effects of other factors. However, by performing standardized experiments and controlling possible confounding factors, it is easier to rule out factors other than language that may influence data in a misleading way. The majority of the experiments discussed went to great efforts to ensure the reliability and validity of the data, and to organize studies in which language would be the determining factor in how subjects responded.
However, outside of the laboratory and in the real world, our language cannot act independently of our culture and our environment to impact our perceptions and the way we think. No one element determines or constrains human thought. The interaction of several factors simultaneously shape how we respond to visual stimuli. Language works alongside our culture and the other influences of our environment to mold a world view that is unique to all languages, cultures, genders, ages, and individuals.
Studying how language impacts the way in which people view the world can serve an incredibly important function. The ability to understand others, and the importance of being able to step outside our own perspectives to see things in the eyes of others is crucial to successful communication. The fact that language can influence our point of view can help us to comprehend how others may see the world differently. In a day and age when communication is necessary and extremely significant, understanding how language operates is essential.
Works Cited/References:
1. Altmann, L. J. P., Saleem, A., Kendall, D., Heilman, K.M., Gonzalez Rothi, L. J. (June 2006). Orthographic directionality and thematic role illustration in English and Arabic. Brain and Language, 97, 3, 306-316. Retrieved on December 8, 2007 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WC0-4J3NY1H-1&_user=145269&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=145269&md5=f3915b6495fc01a364f4226c8b072984
2. Ani (May 1, 2007). Why spoken Russian can help perceive colours better than English. Retrieved on December 9, 2007 from http://in.news.yahoo.com/070501/139/6f7aw.html.
3. Author unknown (n.d.) Current interpretations of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Retrieved on December 5, 2007 from http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4110/whorf.html .
4. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Linguistic relativity. Article 00567, Retrieved on November 28, 2007 from http://www-psych.stanford.edu/%7Elera/papers/ECS-proofs.pdf
5. Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L.A., & Phillips, W. (2002). “Sex, Syntax, and Semantics”. Massachussetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved on November 28, 2007 from http://www-psych.stanford.edu/%7Elera/papers/gender.pdf
6. Chokron, S., & De Agostini, M. (September 2000). Reading Habits Influence Aesthetic Preference. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 1-2, 45-49. Retrieved on November 29, 2007, from .http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6SYV-414N3N5-5&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c68de114591df3d1377f342c6c5e169
7. Chris. (2005, August 10). The systematizing moon and the empathizing sun. Retrieved on December 3, 2007 from http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/08/systematizing-moon-and-empathizing-sun.html
8. Gritchka. (2002, December 23). Colour terms in language. Retrieved on December 9, 2007 from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=906954
9. Hopkin, M. (2007, April 30). Seeing the blues. Nature, 10.1038. Retrieved on December 9, 2007 from http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070430/full/news070430-2.html
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=906954
10. Imai, M., & Mazuka, R. (2007). Language-Relative Construal of Individuation Constrained by Universal Ontology: Revisiting Language Universals and Linguistic Relativity. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 31, 3, 385-413.
11. Kay, P., & Regier, T. (2006). Language, Thought, and Color: Recent Developments. Retrieved on December 10, 2007 from http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/tics.pdf.
12. Lucy, J.A. (1996). Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved on November 27, from http://books.google.com/books?id=loptW4eV4IkC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=lucy+and+gaskins+yucatec+mayans&source=web&ots=xkWDPm3aIM&sig=5NHZ6vQ9rVNI5-tiNYe9OSC9Uo8#PPA246,M1
13. Maass A., & Russo A. (July 2003). Directional Bias in the Mental Representation of Spatial Events: Nature or Culture? Psychological Science, 14, 4, 296-301. Retrieved on November 29, 2007 from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showFullText?submitFullText=Full+Text+HTML&doi=10.1111%2F1467-9280.14421
14. Stafford, A. (n.d.). The Whorf hypothesis examined. Retrieved on December 5, 2007 from http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html
15. Thomas, L., Wareing, S., Singh, I., Stilwell Peccei, J., Thomborrow, J, & Jones, J. (2003). Language, Society, and Power. Routledge. Retrieved on November 30, 2007 from http://books.google.com/books?id=BPRkvgWXVhcC&dq=quoted+in+gumperz+and+levinson+%221996+21%22+unconscious+whorf.
16. Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, A., Wade, A.R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007, May 8). Russian Blues Reveal Effects of Language on Color Discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (19), 7780-7785. Retrieved on December 9, 2007 from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1876524
Well what a sexy paper! :D
ReplyDelete