How language shapes our fundamental perceptions of the world
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
For a striking example of how language shapes thought, Boroditsky points to Aboriginal languages in Australia that don’t use terms like “left” and “right.” Instead, they use cardinal directions—east, west, etc. “There is an ant on your southwest leg,” a speaker might say.
Studies have found that speakers of such languages are remarkably good at staying oriented, even when inside a building. When asked to lay out a series of cards that included earlier and later events, members of the community will arrange the cards from east to west (the direction of the sun) no matter which direction they are facing. English speakers, meanwhile, will lay them out left to right (the way English is written), while Hebrew speakers will lay the cards out right to left (the direction of Hebrew)
If your language doesn't have a subjunctive (1.
relating to or denoting a mood of verbs expressing what is imagined or wished or possible.) Can you have regret or express and work for a better future?
Comments
Buddhist thought is rich with language regarding our phenomenal, subjective experience. The language we use to describe our subjective mental experience is slowly being changed to an objective physical one, mind is often synonymous with brain now.
I wonder and worry if we will we lose our ability to see and understand our inner world?
According to this fellow, we've been forming our introspection for a while - fascinating TED talk here > > >
Is the suggestion that we can't experience emotions which we don't have a name for, or rather that some feelings are left unnamed in certain languages? Is this really about the development of thought and language?
Language certainly shapes a people... Dutch is quite guttural, simple and not very poetic, and it creates a very down-to-earth, practical mind-set.
@Kerome. I think you have made a good point. I also wonder about the knowledge and precision of language use in how it shapes us.
Well, fortunately most of the civilised world uses the Queen's English, like what is spoke by us bleedin' cockerneys.
I guess its not totally clear about emotions for me, but at least for sense perceptions the science seems to be saying that if we don't have words for things we don't notice them.
Interesting. I wonder what things we are not noticing?
@person. Maybe it is because actual noticing based on direct experience often comes without a label. But then experienced meditators seem to have a way of noting all their own.
It does make you wonder doesn't it. We're probably not noticing farperbleupens or the color rexorparxen.
Interesting, which comes first the noticing or the labeling?
Good counter information. It also means though that we are malleable, so its seems possible to go backwards too.
I find language really fascinating. When I think about languages where one word can express an entire sentiment/sentence/idea, I wonder when and why we got so wound up in so many words. Why do we need so many words to express something? Most of them seem so unnecessary. English (generally speaking) has more words than any other language. That is largely due to it being a huge conglomeration of many areas in the world all rolled into one. But it seems like the more words we use, the more we lose the meaning behind the words. We are trying to hard to be so precise that by the time we are done the meaning is lost in all the words.
While looking at Native language there are far fewer words, yet more is conveyed in them. Their method of speech is one thing that they were mocked for, called savages for, assumed less intelligent for. But it seems the case is quite the opposite. If one can communicate deeper meaning with fewer words, allowing for more quiet space and less noisy jabbering, that seems a sign of higher intelligence, not lower. Tibetan seems much the same, where a single word can convey so much more.
So yes, I think it greatly influences our perception of the world. I think if nothing else, it makes those of us with 'larger' vocabulary languages feel superior to others. We use so many adjectives and other describing words, and if you listen to yourself and others speak, and listen to your mind, so much of it serves to solidify the self.
I have discovered that a Mexican, Spanish-speaking deaf mute, using sign language, can make themselves understood, and also understand a complete foreign stranger (say, a German) who is also communicating in sign language...
The researcher, Lera Boroditsky, who's work the OP article is based off of gave a presentation at the most recent Mind and Life conference with HHDL. At the end of her time in Q & A Thubten Jinpa brought up the point I think you're making about our common humanity. Listening to her response starting at 1:53:00 will give you a better sense. But basically she says the point isn't to describe how different we all are but to say that we normally think we are seeing reality when in fact the world we see is a construct informed by many things, language and culture included.
And so? How does this inform our practice?
For me, I think it makes the world a little less solid, it speaks toward the emptiness of our conceptual framework.
Yes, perhaps introducing some uncertainty into habitual assumptions about what is going on "in here" and "out there", and the relationship between them.
)
What I sometimes do is deliberately label objects, eg "car", "house", it's interesting because this perception/naming process is usually unconscious and unnoticed.
( don't worry, I don't say the words out loud in public
Oh yes. I have loads of regret.
I have mixed feelings about these kind of theories. Sure, language does shape our perceptions of the world but so do our perceptions shape the language. Not to mention cultural differences and even individual ones.
Pointing out differences between language groups seems a bit outdated to me. Maybe it's only because I used to be hyper-fascinated by this but it didn't seem relevant in my own life and experiences with language. (Another reason is that I live in denial when it comes to my native language. I like the language but I don't want it to define me...)
Fundamentally, we are all on the same boat - and if it sinks, does it matter in which language you cuss?
While no good for giving specific directions, I find music to be a very complete universal language.
But you're still talking to your 'self' @SpinyNorman
The ways we approach language can have a great deal of influence on our perceptions of the world, I think; and I'm interested in the ways philosophy approaches this question, especially the similarities between Western and Eastern philosophy.
In reading about Wittgenstein and his ideas about language presented in Philosophical Investigations, for example, I'm reminded a lot of the early Prasangika Madhyamikas. For example, the Wikipedia article on Philosophical Investigations summarizes one of Wittgenstein's arguments about language, meaning, and use as "meaning is use"—i.e., "words are not defined by reference to the objects they designate, nor by the mental representations one might associate with them, but by how they are used." This is reminiscent of a famous line by Chandrakirti in Clear Words (composed sometime in the 7th century CE): "Words are not like policemen on the prowl: we are not subject to their independence. On the contrary, their truth lies in their efficacy; they take their meaning from the intention of the one using them."
In addition, the idea that one of the consequences of Wittgenstein's argument is "there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed" is similar to the logical consequence of Chandrakirti's argument, which is that in debate, "It follows that we have merely invalidated our adversary's thesis. We need not accept the antithesis of the logical fault we have exposed" due to the fact that Prasangikas advance no thesis of their own. So just as one doesn't need to postulate that there's something existing on its own side called 'good' that exists independently of good deeds, one doesn't have to accept or advance a thesis of their own in order to invalidate that of another; and whereas Wittgenstein's argument can be seen as a rejection of Platonic realism, Prasangika in general can be seen as a rejection of the notion that all things and phenomena possess some kind of inherent, self-existing identity or essence (not unlike the Platonic idea of forms) without at the same promoting or being forced to accept the notion that things and phenomena are inherently nonexistent.
Just something I thought relevant and worth sharing, at any rate.
Nice to have you here contributing again.
From what I understand of Chandrakirti he's a proponent of Nagarjuna's four fold negation. So I wonder if he might also say that though words are not innately connected to their objects they are also not unrelated, and then both and neither. I'm not familiar to Wittgenstein so do you know if he has any sort of additional caveat saying something similar. Because I would agree that "words are defined by how they are used" we couldn't call a phone a bagel and then eat it for breakfast.
Or maybe I'm off base and just get uncomfortable with words that sound like total negation and that's not what is being said at all here.
I think the labelling itself is a form of "selfing", that's why it's revealing to do it consciously some times.
On my travels round 'interesting stuff' on the internet; an article I found, on this subject:
Thanks everyone
My primary interest in language is its awakening potential. Perhaps in poetry, humour or the multiple unfoldings of right speech ...
As we are a word based collective, language is our transmission methodology. As @federica link showed, language can change our brain, should we be lucky enough to have one. Our mood, physiology and I would suggest spiritual unfolding can all hinge on the right word, said in the right way at the right time.
For me a big part of effective language comes from our capacity to listen and then listen a little deeper ...
“When the mind is at peace, the world too is at peace. Nothing real, nothing absent. Not holding on to reality, not getting stuck in the void, you are neither holy nor wise, just an ordinary person who has completed their work.”
Layman Pang
Oh with you on that one, brother!
Indeed. I am reminded of the pithy saying, "Most people don't listen to understand, they listen to respond."
We need to do more of the former, and less of the latter.
Where does Body Language fit in with all of this, @lobster?
because as you may well know, Body Language plays the GREATER part in person-to-person communication....
This is the best, most splendorific, positive, uplifting, hopeful, inspiring, brilliant, wonderful article I've read in a while.
Oh. So you like it then.
From my understanding body being, body presence, a sort of stillness can be used as transmission more reliably than words. I learned nothing from my teachers words, which practically never were 'spiritual'.
Again from experience I watch for awareness and attention in physical being as an indication or outer reflection of inner repose.
Exactly.
In the higher sense you can not genuinely respond until you you have digested what is said.
In a text orientated conversation like this, the emojis, flowery, evocative and confrontational aspects of a post can be classed as the trivial, the real body of the communication may be in not getting a response or closing down a pattern ...
Such subtleties may be largely invisible but again we can become aware of what we are saying, why and how ... as well as interacting of course ...
-In my opinion, of course you can. I side with the philosopher Wittgenstein (who worked on the philosophy of language) on this: Language is a tool. As a side note, our cognition is based on binary opposition. If a person has rejoiced, she knows what regret is. If a person understands the concept of the past (read: the idea of yesterday) she will understand the concept of tomorrow (read: the future).
This is one of the reasons I like going on silent retreats, you rapidly realise how much of what we say is redundant.
If I'm honest my motives were selfish, I was trying to increase my cognitive ability and frontal lobe capacity. And it works!
"The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side."
source? Link? You can't make outrageous claims of that kind without some kind of fundamental mathematical proof to back it up.
C'mon, you know the score, you bin here long time....
It's in the Triangle Sutta.
"Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."
~Albert Einstein~
From what I gather the world according to Quantum Physic is made up of vibration, and it's possible different vibrational frequencies are produced by different words/sounds (we are just vibrating bundles of electrically charged energy flux) .... What we hear is vibrations, what we see is vibrations, and what we feel is vibrations...
You know the expression When something strikes a chord within ....well if the chord is struck enough times, it's possible it could become part of the vibrating bundle of energy mass AKA 'the self' ie, ones "conditioning"....
Perhaps this is why the Buddha supposedly said ....
Sabba dhamma nalam abhinivesaya
I think I'd agree with that. Dependent co-arising, along with emptiness, is the cornerstone of Madhyamaka, so interdependence has its place in linguistics as well. Words aren't the objects or ideas they're pointing towards, but they're also not unrelated to them either.
I think that Nagarjuna's logic of emptiness was a much needed counter to the growing body of speculative metaphysics dominating Buddhist thought at the time, and, like the Buddha's teachings on emptiness, was directed towards the removal of clinging. In fact, I believe that clinging to views was what Nagarjuna considered to be the biggest obstacle on the path to awakening, and I think this idea is supported by the verse: "When there is clinging perception, the perceiver generates being. When there is no clinging perception, he will be freed and there will be no being." (MMK 26:7).
In the case of Chandrakirti, I think the primary idea behind that line is the non-reification of conceptual perceptions. We use words to communicate, but we shouldn't cling to them as realities in and of themselves, if that makes any sense.
Wow... that video actually left me speechless; it's beautiful.
You can, I think, have regret. Maybe you can't express it. But, I do think the absence of the subjunctive would make you more mindful, because you're more emerged in the indicative. You can work for a better future because everyone can acknowledge a need for change no matter the language barrier -- after all, this man's family created a better future for themselves by leaving Vietnam.
Language in general does inform your behaviour and thinking. It's an amazing thing. It's great that we have the subjunctive so we can express our regrets and wants, but we should be focusing on the indicative more if we want to be happy.
Thanks for sharing.
This completely blew my mind.
Processing the present, leads us from scarecrow to ... Buddha Diploma? Nowhere real?
As an experiment I totally changed my use of language using cognitive reframing
Basically the negative use of any language internal or externally with others was reframed positively. Powerful transformative technique when 'no' is not an option ...
... and now back to 'the three wise monkeys' ...
It is hardly surprising that language determines reality ... except for Gnostics/Buddhas/the Awake, where knowing is Real ...
May all Beings Benefit. That's all folks ... as they say in the Dharma movies ...
It took me quite a while to understand that many of my peculiar experiences
were the result of my clairsentient abilities, as I would be told much later.
Perhaps a little off-topic but germane nonetheless?
The Inner Senses - An Introduction & Overview
http://www.paulhelfrich.com/library/Helfrich_P_The_Inner_Senses.pd
If yous would delve further, have a go at this:
http://www.gestaltreality.com/downloads/Compilation of Exercises - Seth and Jane Roberts.pdf
The key is love, for love illumines bussing navels.
- Wang Shaoming (1945-), unnervist
@essem, ...'Love illumines bussing navels'....? What on earth does that mean - ?!
And what exactly is an 'unnervist...?
The first link comes up with "Oops, page not found".
Could you please give an outline or synopsis of the second document? It's 120 pages long, and heavy reading.
What is it all about?
You probably weren't using it ... [too wikid? ... breath deeply and recognise the joke is on us - personally I never had a mind worth keeping ... ]
Internal and external languages, including very grounded/precise/inflexible language can be discombobulated - dharma style ...
I am a notorious miscommunicator. I mean well but end up exasperating the humourless dharma police, non ignorant and clairsentients ...(whatever they be)
I need an unnervist for my closet connection, where I keep yidams, boddhisattvas and my sardine can collection ... Not sure if they will illumine bussing marines but I live in hope ...
My head! Ohh, let's not get into Derrida here.
I have corrected the link. Was missing an 'f'. Briefly scanned the nonsense teachings for those with imagined super powers eg.
8. disentanglement from camouflage (conceptual) – used to temporarily break up camouflage patterns, for example, suspending the laws of physics via levitation, teleportation, or shapeshifting.
Ha. Ha. Ha. Really?
... and now back to the art of communication for wer-lobsters, shapeshifting Sethists and others ...
Reading this article, I immediately associated the phenomenon of Trump with his exploitation of angry speeches and the cultural differences I notice as a person of German origin living in the US where so much is glossed over and given a perpetual positive spin.
Fear mongering in that kind of environment, where there is a disconnect with actual reality, falls on extra fertile ground.
Truthful language and realistic evaluation is frowned upon, because -- as everyone's mother has taught them, "if you can't say anything positive, don't say anything at all".