Language and Thinking
Language and Thinking
Introduction
Language and thinking is a debatable issue in United States and other countries. Scholars have varied views regarding how language impacts thinking. Some think language affects thinking as ones language shapes his or her reasoning. Others believe language does not impact thinking. The difference in views has made it difficult to determine how language affects thinking. The idea that language impacts thinking has been there since 1930s. Linguistics have examined the relationship between language and thinking such as Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf and Sapir studied different speakers to determine how language affected their thinking and concluded that language affected their thinking differently. People reacted different to Whorf and Sapir conclusion about language and thinking. Some people did not agree with Whorf and Sapir argument as the researchers did not provide evidence to support their conclusion. Researchers have abandoned Whorf and Sapir argument and conducted studies to determine the connection between language and thinking. A body of empirical evidence has emerged showing how thinking is shaped by language. However, scholars have presented varied findings concerning language and thinking. Some support relationship between thinking and language and others do not. Scholars have attributed the difference in research findings to lack of a diverse sample. More studies on thinking and language are still being conducted to show how thinking is affected by language and overcome the limitations of the present studies.
Discussion
Language determinism
In Language determinism, language and language structures restrict and determine people thoughts or knowledge. Determinism is the notion that all viewpoints result from previous events (Harley, 1995). Whorf and Sapir claim that people experience the world based on the grammatical structures they use. For instance, people speaking different languages may see differently numbers of bands when looking at a rainbow. Rainbows do not have a color continuum and empirical stripes, but people see many bands depending on the color words in their languages. Therefore, our languages determine the way we view the world. Whorf and Sapir claim that linguistic relativism consists of 3 key ideas (Holmes & Wolff, 2011). First, the researchers assume that language can vary in the meaning of words and syntactic construction. Whorf and Sapir assumption is supported v by linguistic, psychological and anthropological researchers. Second, the investigators believe that the semantics of a language can affect the way the speakers of the language see the world and conceptualize it. It also shapes thoughts. Third, the investigators claim that language can affect thinking and speakers of various languages think differently. In linguistic determinism, the role of language shaping thoughts is believed to be so strong that it can overwrite the existing perceptual and conceptual abilities (Pinker, 1994). Language determinism differs from language as it differentiates language from the conceptual system. The advocates of linguistic determinism believe that variations in language lead to differences in thought. This shows a close linkage between language and thought and loose relation between thought and the world. This is because language determines thought but not the world (Holmes & Wolff, 2011).
Linguistic diversity
Majid, Bowerman, Kita, Haun and Levinson (2004) examined language diversity. The researchers determine whether the frames of reference can restructure cognition. Frames of reference refer to coordinated systems utilized to compute and state the location of objects in relation to other objects. The frames of reference are innate concepts found in neurocognition. The use of reference frames differs from one culture to another. Children acquire different references with ease. Language plays a key role in restructuring and structuring. Therefore, the researchers determine the relationship between the neurocognitive underpinnings of spatial cognition and concepts people use daily. Majid, Bowerman, Kita, Haun and Levinson (2004) did research to determine how the frames of reference differed in English, Dutch and Japanese cultures. The researchers used the perspective of the viewer in the relative FoR. Majid, Bowerman, Kita, Haun and Levinson (2004) noted that the viewers gave different descriptions.
Some believed the fork was on the left of the spoon and vice versa. They used an external framework in absolute FoR. They also used cardinal directions to describe the direction of the fork. Arrernte speakers (Australia) use cardinal directions to describe the position of objects. Tzetal speakers (Mexico) use the uphill-downhill axis to describe object direction. Also, the researchers determined the participant’s memory for spatial cognition using a chip task. The researchers required the participants to identify a collection of four cards similar to the cards they had seen before. The participants included Dutch speakers and Tzeltal speakers. The results differed from culture to the other. Dutch responses were relative and Tzeltal responses were absolute. The researchers linked the inconsistency in Tzeltal responses to the use of unschooled peasants. In addition, the researchers examined path direction and memory for motion using Eric maze. A toy man was moved along a path and then rotated 180°. The investigators required the participants to select the path followed. The Dutch subjects provided relative responses and Tzeltal absolute responses matches for the FoR. The findings were similar when the researchers tested for spatial cognition. Therefore, the frames of reference varied across cultures (Evans & Levinson, 2009).
Gender and affects storage of inanimate objects
Boroditsky, Schmidt and Philips (2003 claim that different languages have grammatical gender systems. Different cultures assign nouns to a gender. Most languages have masculine and feminine gender. Other languages assign various genders including neuter, vegetative etc. The assignment of nouns to genders influences how people speak. Speakers are supposed to indicate objects as gendered when using a language that has grammatical gender. They can use articles, adjectives, nouns and gendered pronouns to mark the objects. Assigning gender to inanimate objects influences mental representation. Boroditsky, Schmidt and Philips, 2003) claim how people represent objects might be affected by the grammatical gender of the labels. People concentrate on various property of a noun’s referent that is either female or masculine when learning grammatical gender.
For instance, if the sun is male one can remember the sun by associating it with masculine words such as powerful. In contrast, if the sun is male one can remember it by associating with female qualities such as its warming and nourishing features. The speaker should indicate objects as gendered using articles, pronouns and adjectives. Grammatical gender affects meaning as exemplified by Russia, Germany and Spanish speakers. In one research, Russian speakers were requested to personify the days of the week. The Russian soakers personified the days according to gender. The masculine days included Monday, Thursday and Tuesday. The feminine days consisted of Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. In another research, German and Spanish speakers grouped nouns as feminine or female. ½ of the nouns were masculine in German and feminine in Spanish. Also, the other half were feminine for Spanish and masculine in Spanish. Therefore, gender affected mental representation of inanimate objects and thinking. It depended on the type of language as those who spoke languages with grammatical gender system observed the gender naming rules (Boroditsky, Schmidt & Philips, 2003).
How vertical and horizontal representation of time affects thinking
Further, Boroditsky (2001) determined how language influences thinking using spatial metaphors. He claimed that using spatial metaphors to describe time had an instant and long term impact on how individuals reason about time. The researcher utilized a sample of 26 and 20 English and mandarin speakers respectively. The subjects answered questions on spatial priming and target questions concerning time. The researcher used horizontal and vertical spatial relationships as spatial primes. He argued that individuals should comprehend spatial metaphor after perceiving horizontal spatial time and vice versa. Boroditsky (2001) utilized a wide range of terms including earlier and later to test reasoning about time. People use spatial; metaphors to think about time if the metaphors utilized in a native language do not have a lasting effect on thinking. The researcher expected the mandarin speakers to answer temporal questions faster if their language did not have a lasting effect on thinking about time. He expected the mandarins to answer questions faster after solving vertical spatial primes than horizontal spatial primes. Alternatively, he expected the English speakers to answer the target questions faster after resolving horizontal spatial primes. Also, the researcher hypothesized that language is essential in shaping thinking if the mandarin depicted a vertical bias in reasoning about time. The research findings revealed that the spatial primes affected the subjects differently. All the participants answered spatial temporal questions quickly after resolving horizontal primes than vertical primes. They answered questions framed using before/ faster. Boroditsky (2001) concluded that spatial knowledge aids in processing of spatiotemporal metaphors online. The subjects showed difference when answering questions framed using earlier/later. English subjects answered the purely temporal questions quickly after they resolved horizontal primes compared to vertical primes. On the other hand, mandarin subjects answered purely temporal questions faster after they resolved vertical primes compared to horizontal primes. Boroditsky (2001) argued that mandarins use vertical metaphors to describe time and answered the temporal questions faster than when using horizontal primes. English speakers use horizontal metaphors to describe time and hence the reason they answered questions faster after they resolved horizontal primes.
Additionally, Boroditsky (2001) noted that language affects thinking and determines how people think. The mandarin and English subjects thought differently regarding time. English subjects knew faster that March comes earlier than April because of horizontal spatial metaphors. They used horizontal spatial metaphors to explain time, and this affected their thinking. Also, mandarin speakers noted faster that March comes earlier than April because of vertical primes and vertical metaphors they used to explain time. Hence, the experience people have with their language influences their thinking (Harley, 2008).
Learning a new language influences how one thinks as evidenced by Mandarin –English speakers. Participants who learned English earlier had less vertical bias compared to those who started to learn English late. The participants did not show more of a mandarin’s reasoning when thinking about time. Participants who learned English late showed more of a mandarin reasoning as mandarin (first language) influenced their thinking. They should a larger vertical bias in English than in mandarin (Boroditsky 2001).
Thinking without language, advantages and disadvantages
Researchers claim that people can think without language (Tsoi, nd). Speakers of a particular language understand concepts not found in their languages (Harley, 1995). Linguistics believes that thought and language is independent. The variations in the syntactic structure and the lexicons available in various languages do not determine how people think. People have thought first and use language to express the thought. Researchers have used an example of a younger child to show how language and thought are independent. Infants have the ability to do various things during the first day (Eysenck & Keane, 2010). They can project their arms in the direction of a moving object. The reaching behavior of the child shows his ability to process specific type of information linked to the situation. The action of the baby cannot be considered reflexive as there should be a rational cognitive process. Sachs and Truswell and other researchers have shown that children who can pronounce single words can comprehend speech structures that have more than a single word (Levy, 1996). Thus, the children have thought that is involved in the understanding of the speech. Additionally, higher animals like an ape and birds have the cognitive ability though they lack language. The cognitive ability enables them to solve problems. The animals can use language well if taught. Independence of thinking and language has various advantages.
First, independence of thinking and language enables all people to think regardless of their ability to speak. It enables the deaf to think as they do not have to rely on language to speak (Tsoi, nd). Second, it makes it easy for speakers to think without being impacted by language. Depending on language means one has to understand the language and its structures so as to think. This means that one does not have to be familiar and fluent in another language in order to understand it. On the other hand, independence of thinking and language can affect thinking because of insufficient information and knowledge. The speaker might not have enough knowledge and information to think about events and describe them (Goldstein, 2011).
Conclusion
In conclusion, language affects thinking in different ways. Studies done on effect of language on thinking have shown that thinking and language are not independent. The studies have shown that the speaker’s language influences their thinking. This is shown by the Mandarin, Greek, Spanish, Russian and English speakers. The researchers noted that the language structures of the speakers duffer and influenced how they perceived the world and their experiences. Also, gender affects thinking by affecting representation of inanimate objects. On the other hand, language does not influence thought as thought is independent of language. Young children can speak some words and stretch their arms towards rather direction of an object moving though they have not learned any language. The children have the cognitive ability that enables them to perform some actions like moving the hand.
Reference
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L.A., & Philips, W. (2003). Sex, Syntax and semantics. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Boroditsky_ea_2003.pdf on 1/12/2012
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. (2009). The Myth of Language Universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Cambridge university press
Eysenck, M. W., & Keane, M. T. (2010). Cognitive Psychology. A student’s handbook. (6th ed). Hove: Psychology Press
Goldstein, E.B. (2011). Cognitive Psychology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Harley, T (1995) Language, Thought and the Precursors of Language. In The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory, ed. Harley, T Hove, Taylor and Francis, pp.311-350
ISBN: 0863773818
Harley, T. (2008). The psychology of language. 3rd ed. Hove: Psychology Press
Holmes, K.J., & Wolff, P. (2011). Linguistic relativity. Retrieved from http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~kholme2/WHwires.pdf on 1/12/2012
Levy, Y. (1996). Modularity of language reconsidered. Brain and Language, 55(2), 240-263. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. London: Penguin.
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M. & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language
restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3):108–114.
Tsoi, T. (nd). The Relationship between Language and Thought. Retrieved from http://www.thomastsoi.com/wp-content/downloads/The%20Relationship%20between%20Language%20and%20Thought.pdfon 1/12/2012
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
