6 Interesting Sections:
[25:57] Dr. Boroditsky’s discussion on the simplicity and complexity of events and their description, as well as how these descriptions change our collective perception of events, is extremely interesting. We all have experience with this of course; when we make a mistake or break something as a child, the first description of events is always “oh, this thing broke”, rather than “I broke this thing”. We are aware from a very early age that how we describe events is almost as important as the details of the event’s occurrence itself: it’s how we shape the perception of what has happened, and can show us in either a favorable or unfavorable light, depending on how we describe it. hearing it talked about in this light, however, really shines a spotlight on media and governmental or authoritative descriptions of events; as academics, we are taught to question the validity of statements and texts, so it makes sense to question the choice of descriptors and the presentation of events in this light as well.
[29:28] Dr. Boroditcky’s point on the difference between lingusitc structures of “fault” or agency is intriguing; as an English speaker who has a little bit of language-learning history (I studied Spanish for 2 years during my undergrad, and have completed the TESL program at UBC), the concept of linguistic differences in the description of events seems like a no-brainer, but the fact that there are entirely different sentence compositions depending on intention was new to me. It makes complete sense; intention is the operative function in the series of events that Dr. Boroditsky is describing, so intention should be the focal point of how the events are described. However, the default in English is so heavily focused on the individual and their identity (it was THEM that broke the vase, almost implying that it for sure wasn’t ME that did it) that intention is almost an afterthought.
[33:58] I had never heard of different number-base systems before listening to this lecture. I have seen some individuals use the base-12 system that Dr. Boroditsky describes, but I never really knew the intricacies of it, let alone the possibility for other numerical systems, like the base-27 system she describes. Her description of the origin for some of these systems reminds me of the anthropological concept of the hidden obvious; systems that are so ingrained in our own culture that we are oblivious to them as we are a part of said culture (an example is street signs for parking; why do most signs tell us when we are NOT allowed to park, instead of when we ARE allowed to park? wouldn’t it be easier to show when it is acceptable rather than when it is unacceptable, and save us all the arrythamtic of if we are within an allowable time frame?). A base-12 system makes just as much logical sense as a base-10, and her description of base-20 in warmer climates because you are more likely to be able to see your toes was absolutely mind-blowing to me; it makes so much sense in such a climate, and the fact that we are within a certain culture or climate that we have a predisposition for one or another system is so obvious now that it has been pointed out!
[36:24] The discussion of groups of people with no language/words for numbers really spoke to me once Dr. Boroditsky likened it to an individual who can create or compose music; I am fairly tone-deaf myself when it comes to music, and try as I might I cannot for the life of me read music, so I can relate to the parallels to numbers in a similar vein.
[38:09] Similarly with above, the notation of non-speaking signers having difficulty with mathematics or numerical equations really resonates with me; if we lack the ability to communicate a concept, how are we meant to understand or participate in a system that is predicated on our understanding of this alien concept?
[46:16] I had heard of the whole “Freedom Fries” / “Liberty Cabbage” phenomenon prior to this talk, but after hearing Dr. Boroditsky discuss how language influences our perception and participation in reality, perhaps these linguistic changes are not as ludicrous as I had initially dismissed them to be. If we really are able to influence our perceptions and communications by changing the wording or vernacular that we utilize, why wouldn’t that extend to branding and the like? Who calls it tissues when Kleenex is so ubiquitous? Do we really mean medical plasters when we say Band-Aide? It makes me wonder how deeply ingrained these brands are within our consciousness simply because the terminology of our daily lives are so heavily intertwined with them, rather than the generic terms for these products.