To What Extent Do Some of the Aspects of Language Have an Influence on Perception - Research Paper Example

To what extent do some of the aspects of language influence perception? Language is a basic part of human life. It is a way of transmitting how we feel, what we think, what we experience and what we see. It allows us both to be able to express ourselves and to understand others. Language commonly involves the interaction between more than one person, requiring both an emissary and a receiver. This takes us to the questions: how does this process carry on and influence both sides? Is language affected and influenced by extraneous factors? Once language is implied, does it have an effect on the way perception is constructed? More widely, what role do aspects such as cultural backgrounds, paradigms, status and emotions play when constructing language and interpreting it? If we define perception as the way in which we view the world, then how does language shape the way we approach it? Do our language structures condition the way we relate our perception, the way we see it and/or what we see in it? Before analyzing what elements influence the construction of language, and how language affects perception, we have to look at the question: does language happen before we think or do we think because we have language? According to L. S. Vygotsky, there’s an argumentative relationship between language and thought. The structures of language become structures of thought, which at the same time reshape our language. However, we have to bear in mind that perceiving does not mean knowing. Perceiving has to do with receiving and interpreting a factor of reality; it often gives us a phenomenon of reality. This always happens through a channel, which in this case is language. Language, in this context, serves as a codifier for reality; in a way, as Rojas Figueroa says, language creates reality. It translates the world into an agreed-upon structure, which is then shared. But by transmitting reality, language is, at the same time, also creating it because language involves a selection process of how to narrate and determine reality, since there are many different languages as well as many interpretations to any single language. It is perhaps accepted that perception and language are subjective; how is perception translated into language; can two people ever really agree on what they perceive? If not, can we say that people who come from different cultures are always living in different worlds? According to Amy Stafford in the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis, language is not just a way of expressing ideas, but is “the very thing which shapes those ideas.” A person is unable to think outside the restrictions of his/her language, and resultantly the speakers of different languages have different and multifarious world views. Even though this approach seems quite appealing, we have to ask ourselves if language is really that deterministic. If it is true that language influences perception to the point where it creates different worldviews, how is it that we have examples of successful cross-cultural interaction? For example world trade agreements, joint ventures, marriages etc. All these processes require a common belief before they actually happen, therefore, we cannot make the assertion that we can only think because we have language (or in a certain way because of that language) and that we cannot think outside the confines of our language. In connection, when we consider situations where we cannot express ourselves in words, yet there is an experience, a feeling, or a perception behind it, we come to the conclusion that there are certain events where language can simply not suffice. For example, after we have a dream, we often have difficulty describing the events within the dream. This is a situation where you can only say, “I don’t know how to express it” or “I don’t know how to say it”. This shows not only that there may be things we cannot perceive, but also that there are limits to what our language can capture and that we also think despite the language. We might say that reality is a domain of codes. These codes can be taught, learned, modified and adapted. In one of McKenna’s experiments, he compared sounds made by a monkey to the sounds made by a human. His aim was to show that the monkey words mean nothing to us because we cannot understand them and, therefore, it is not seen as a language. Given that, our language would also be nothing but noises, like monkeys make, without the same perceptional codes and understanding. However to a certain extent, noises without meanings could also be understood. Music for example, could be interpreted in various ways depending on the way we perceive it. (Write page number here) In McKenna’s opinion Meaning is a crude form of telepathy – “as you listen to my voice, my thoughts become your thoughts and we compare them.  This is communication, understanding.” (Write page number here) Communication and understanding can occur only when there is a meaning and a common belief. This would mean that language is the key in a relationship to share perception, and that when the code is not mutual then it can leave perception incomplete, altered and/or non-existing. That is to say we need language in order to share our perceptions as well. McKenna however also highlights another aspect of language. “Language has infested matter; it is replicating and defining and building itself. And it is in us” (write page number here). Language is not a fixed factor, and in fact, certain languages can gain in new codes and words, for example Latin and all the languages that have been influenced by it. If we take the example of Latin and its influence on other languages (e.g. French, Spanish, Portuguese) we can see how these new versions create new differences, new contrasts. All these languages, we might say, though were influenced by Latin, have their own flavour, so to speak, added to them continuously. Languages are not strictly set up and are constantly changing and evolving. However, interestingly while we create languages that are so distinct, we might also be creating “universal languages”, such as law, science, computer languages. These new ‘universal languages’ might also influence standards of language and to appear to minimize its effect on perception. The fact that makes these languages “universal” is that they can be applied and/or used anywhere. However, we cannot avoid recognizing the “exclusionary” factor of these languages: they require specialization in order to be acquired, therefore, someone who has not studied computer science may have a very different perception of what a computer can do, how it works and what can it achieve. Coming back to the earlier point, if language is under constant modification and construction, then we have to recognize in it the presence, among other factors, of our views or perceptions, emotions, cultures and paradigms. These elements are shaped through the influences of our world in order for us to create an image of our society, our environment, our cultures, ourselves; such a perception will then help us build the way we react to it. We can say that what we perceive through the use of our senses is translated by us via our language. This further enables us to claim that there is a double relationship between language and perception, or that there are two levels of connection between language and perception: the individual one; and when there is a linguistic interaction between more than one individual. On the individual level, perception is translated into language. But, how do we codify or construct what we perceive as individuals? Boroditsky has done specific research on this issue in her lab at Stanford and MIT. She demonstrated how people who speak different languages actually do end up thinking differently with even the grammar having an effect on their perception. Boroditsky noted that the language that people use to refer to time in different cultures has an effect on the idea of time itself: English speakers are likely to talk about time by the use of horizontal spatial metaphors (next week is ahead of us, and the previous week is behind us), while in Mandarin vertical spatial metaphors are used (next week is the “down week” and the previous week is the “up week”). This led Boroditsky to wonder if this was also reflected in thought. This can be proven via a simple experiment: A person is told to stand and a specific spot is pointed at indicating that the spot is “today”, and then is asked to point out where s/he would put yesterday and where s/he would place tomorrow. Boroditsky points out that when English speakers are asked to do this, they nearly always point horizontally. But Mandarin speakers often point vertically, about seven or eight times more often than do English speakers. Language it would seem is a cultural system and as such, it not only classifies objects, but also ideas. Now considering the second level of language (or the second relationship between language and perception), that in which more than one person interacts, the first thing we need to identify has to do with which codes of interpretation we have. Stafford states that the society plays a role in the formation of language, claiming that even aspects of society that are not directly associated with language have an effect on the development of language; “A society where horses are revered will have many words for horses and horse things - not because horses talk, but because people talk about their horses.” She states that anything that is considered important in a society is easily discernable by the fact that the vocabulary of that society’s language will highlight it. Take for example the fact that the Eskimo languages have many words for snow, similarly the Americans for cars and the Norwegians for fish. However, as Stafford points out this should not be taken to mean that other cultures cannot perceive the items which are described with specific vocabulary in one culture. It just goes to show how important a certain thing/item is in a culture, and not the superiority of perception of one culture over another. If the language differs, and if this has an effect on the way we think, we can assume it also has an effect on the way we interpret what is being told to us. So, the pre-conceptions we have, which have been influenced by language, will come into action when trying to ‘read’ what we’re being told. In another of Boroditsky’s experiments she wondered whether the presence of object gender (masculine and feminine) in grammar made people from different culture perceive things in different ways. In a study Germans and Spanish speakers were asked to describe objects that had opposite gender assignments in their respective languages. Boroditsky states that the way in which they described the objects was predicted by the grammatical gender assigned to them. “For example, when asked to describe a ‘key’ – a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish – the German speakers were more likely to use words like ‘hard’, ‘heavy’, ‘jagged’, ‘metal’, ‘serrated’, and ‘useful’, whereas Spanish speakers were more likely to say ‘golden’, ‘intricate’, ‘little’, ‘lovely’, ‘shiny’, and ‘tiny’.” So, the images and constructions of reality change across culture because of language. This becomes evident in things such as art. According to a local in Mexico, one of the main figures in traditional art: death, is always represented as a woman, this is similar to how it is identified in Spanish grammar as well. This leads us to the interesting observation that the way a person who communicates perceives a particular aspect of reality will then be reflected in the way it is transmitted. At the same time, the person who receives the information will use his/her own codes and perceptional determination to ‘read’ the message, and will be also influenced by the way that has been selected to transmit the information. With the help of language not only do we learn about new things, but we are also reinterpreting things/objects that we have learned about previously, as Kenneally puts it, “The problem is that after a category has been learned, it can distort the memory of specific objects, getting between us and the rest of the non abstract world.” (3) In the form of words, language becomes a code for thought, memory and feelings as well as for defining what we see and what we do not. The fact that words help us “see” in a way is further suggested by the way our brains are wired, so to speak, according to Rigier, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Chicago, as language function is processed predominantly in the left hemisphere of the brain, which receives visual information directly from the right visual field, “So it would make sense for the language processes of the left hemisphere to influence perception more in the right half of the visual field than in the left half” (qtd. in Harms) Previous studies had already made evident that people who refer to colours with a wider variety of words could perceive the difference between colours more easily. Rigier’s study took into account, which side of the visual field are colours presented to, and found that language “appears to sharpen visual distinctions on the right field and not in the left visual field” (qtd. in Harms). In this case, our language is affected by our physical ability; the better we can discern colours, the better our ability to describe them through language. Referring to the non-verbal aspect of language we can talk about natural-universal symbols. Language reflects the messages from our senses. The most obvious function of language is that it is transactional. Transactional here means something to get things done. In every sentence we say there is always a message. This message is not only meant to give information but also to express the feelings of the sender and to affect, not just inform the receiver. We could think that when it comes to expressing emotions (happiness, anger, sadness, etc.) there should be a universal action of it: laughter, tears, etc. But, then again we can see how language is not neutral, and culture can affect it. For example, speaking loudly could be taken as a sign of either enthusiasm or anger in Western countries; although, in China it does not necessarily transmit that emotion. Moreover, the same loudness can be considered rude in many countries, but because of the tonal nature of Mandarin, it does not carry that implication in China. We can also think of the gestures and body language implied in different cultures, for example in China, two girls holding hands are friends, in Mexico they may be considered a couple. So, when these codes differ, when there is a different meaning assigned to the same situation, we have conflicts in interpretation and perception. Even personal experiences are interpreted through the confines of one’s language, Stafford claims: two people from different language groups may be fully aware cognitively of what is occurring, their interpretation of the event can be completely distinct depending on the cultural guidelines their language contain. According to Gentner, “by giving us a framework for marshalling our thoughts, language does a lot for us” (qtd. in Kenneally, 2) but this may also mean that language has the ability to capture and wrap our thoughts. On the other hand, we can see how that can also show an intersection between the two factors; when people learn other codes and when they acquire new language structures they also acquire a new way of perceiving. This enables them to relate to the perceptions of others better. Boroditsky, in her experiments, “… taught English speakers different ways of talking about time. In one example study, English speakers were taught to use size metaphors (as in Greek) to describe duration (e.g., a movie is larger than a sneeze), or vertical metaphors (as in Mandarin) to describe event order. Once the English speakers had learned to talk about time in these new ways, their cognitive performance began to resemble that of Greek or Mandarin speakers. This suggests that patterns in a language can indeed play a causal role in constructing how we think.” Overall language carries a series of influences and aspects such as cultural backgrounds, paradigms, and emotions, which have an affect on the way it is shaped and structured. These elements play a significant role when constructing language and on our interpretation towards reality. Language could influence perceptions at two levels. Verbally language affects our perception when it becomes a code for thought, memory and feelings as well as for defining ‘what we see and do not’. Non-verbal on the other hand is implied when talking about natural symbols, for example expression of emotions in terms of crying and laughing. When this is implied it also has an effect on the way in which we perceive the world. Thus we can say that language translates the world into an agreed upon structure which is then shared through verbal or non-verbal formats. As a result, as a person transmits his message, the contents would be reflected based on the way he perceives the world. The person that receives the information will use his own codes and perceptional determination to ‘read’ the message, and will also be influenced by the method and expression that has been selected to present this information. So as a conclusion by transmitting reality, on the same time language is also creating it since it involves determination of how to narrate the phenomenon. We can thereby say that language not only helps us in perceiving the world around us, it also affects the way in which we perceive the world and interpret it. Without language we cannot fully describe who we are culturally either, as it is our language that explains our cultural nuances in a lot of situations. In short we can say that language affects our perceptions very deeply and significantly, as it is not we who make our language what it is, but our language that helps us define who we are. Bibliography: Abel, Reuben. Man is the Measure: A Cordial Invitation to the Central Problems of Philosophy. New York: Free Press, 1976. Print. Alchin, Nicholas. Theory of Knowledge. London: John Murray Publishers, 2003. Print. Abram, David. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World. New York: Vintage, 1997. Print. Boroditsky, Lera “How does Language Shape the Way we Think?” Edge. n.p. 12 June 2009. Web. 22 December 2009. Colunga-leal, Eliana. “Interactions Between Language and Non-Linguistic Perception.” Indiana University Cognitive Science Program, Technical Report # 195. Indiana University, 23 June 1997. Web. 21 December 2009. Feyerabend, Paul. Treaty Against Method. London: Verso, 1975. Print. Figueroa, Alejandro Roja.”Corporeality and Quality in Learning: Changing Paradigms.” UNESCO, Chile. 2004. Presentation. Harms, William. “Words Help us See and Talk.” The University of Chicago News Office. University of Chicago, 31 January 2006. Web. 21 December 2009. Heidegger, Martin. "Building Dwelling Thinking." Poetry, Language, Thought. Trans. Albert Hofstadter. New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1971. Web. 21 December 2009. < http://mysite.pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Heidegger.html> Jimenez, Chantale. “How Language Influences our Perceptions and our View of the Universe.” CSMS Magazine: Taking Cross-Cultural Awareness to a New Level. CSMS Magazine, 15 April 2009. Web. 20 December 2009. Kenneally, Christine. “When Language can Hold the Answer.” Science, the New York Times. The New York Times, 22 April 2008. Web. 22 December 2009. Lagemaat, Richard Van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. McKenna, Terence. The Archaic Revival: Speculations on Psychedelic Mushrooms, the Amazon, Virtual Reality, UFOs, Evolution, Shamanism, the Rebirth of the Goddess, and the End of History. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1991. Print. Petrovski, A. General Psychology. Moscow: Progreso, 1980. Print. Stafford, Amy. “Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.” EMuseum, Cultural Anthropology. Minnesota State University Mankato, n.d. Web. 21 December 2009. Vygotsky, Lev Semyonovich The collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Volume I, Problems of General Psychology, including the volume Thinking and Speech. Trans. Sobranie Sochineraii. Eds. Robert W. Rieber & Aaron S. Carton. New York: Plenum Press, 1987. Print. Read More