“We can plant ideas in each other’s minds using a finite set of words that we recombine into an infinite set of meanings” [00:43]
I’m thinking about this in the context of generative AI – a lot of the conversations around AI I’ve been involved in are situated around the idea of original production and what constitutes that. For example, can generative AI create new things or is it just remixing things – if all my experience with language is remix, what is remix, is remix creation? From an art copyright standpoint remix is creation after a point, this sentence centers the idea all language expression is remix.
“Whenever you utter a sentence, you are only uttering a tiny proportion of the information you know about the scenario” [07:15]
Thinking about text and technology, text as a construction, what you choose and select in terms of building materials and structure can result in many different spaces. Different places in the world with different contexts build homes in many ways – mitigating heat or trapping warmth, indoor outdoor living, or stark divides between interior and exterior. It makes sense that different places in the world would develop different structural needs for language in the same way.
“In the 1970s and 1980s in cognitive science it became essentially taboo, to think about how language might shape the way you think” [09:50]
This is fascinating to me because it’s one of those things that seems so obvious… For example, when testing for reading comprehension you construct tests to explore a certain competency, but you can’t test what isn’t articulated and different languages would articulate different things – wouldn’t the difference result in differing priorities or pathways for learning?
Later Dr Borditsky speaks about “what we attend to” which I think is an interesting idea – sort of like the affordances of technology we need to consider what we are afforded by our use of language.
“The other thing that language does for us is helps us construe and construct events” [26:05]
Again, with these concepts of construction, assembly. This comes up for me a lot in work. I work a lot via text, emails, texts, MS Teams. It’s interesting to note in these written formats that I see a lot of this passive voice rearing its head in times when mistakes have been made. I do find myself deliberately constructing space between my team and events when I need to articulate there’s no causal link between a mistake and our team, for example. I’m also a guilty reader of online advice columns and when the passive voice creeps in you know the author has been up to some truly heinous misdeeds.
“But on the other hand, cultures also reduce cognitive entropy” [44:30]
This is connected to a Derek Bruff newsletter I read last week around creativity, divergent thinking, and AI. Bruff mentions that problem solving is generally a combination of divergent thinking (brainstorming) and convergent thinking (what of these options is the best) (Bruff, 2024). He indicates AI can be a wonderful tool for brainstorming but can also make it difficult to come up with out of the box ideas – like Borditsky mentioned once you have the tool or idea it’s difficult to come up one more level back to that divergent thinking, to reinvent the wheel so to speak.
“Depending on the level that you define universality, there are of course things that you find across all languages” [51:50]
Borditsky goes on to list some areas of universality but starts with the idea of human languages being learnable by humans – I find that a fascinating way of starting that response. This again takes me back to natural language processing and the increasingly blurry line between human and machine language. We’re in the midst of a really significant change to those boundaries and while I’ve been considering the impacts these changes will have on machine language, I think I’ve not been considering what might be coming back the other way in terms of impacts on human language. In the defining terms activity we thought about this – ways that words have been evolving in light of the internet.
References
Bruff, D. (May 16 2024). Creativity, divergent thinking, and AI. Intentional Teaching Newsletter.
SAR School for Advanced Research. (June 7 2017). Lera Boroditsky, how the languages we speak shape the way we think [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuuHwbuQOg
The quote you chose [7:15] “Whenever you utter a sentence, you are only uttering a tiny proportion of the information you know about the scenario,” really resonates with me. It highlights how much we rely on context and shared understanding when we communicate. When I speak, I make several assumptions about the listeners and their cognitive grasp of my words. I assume they have some background knowledge about the topic, can infer meaning from the context, and can fill in gaps based on their experiences and understanding.
Furthermore, I depend on the listeners to pick up on non-verbal cues and the nuances of my language. I trust that their cognitive processes will interpret these cues accurately, filling in the details that I leave unsaid. This dynamic interplay between what is spoken and what is understood is crucial for effective communication but also highlights the potential for miscommunication if the assumptions I make about the listener’s knowledge and interpretive abilities don’t hold true.
Hi Carol!
Excellent points! I think that’s a great space to consider the differences between written and spoken language – what do we do in writing to help support that space where non-verbal cues like body language would help make our meanings clear…
I enjoyed the quote you selected about how language shapes our understanding of events. I agree with how passive voice can subtly influence our interpretation while reading. Text messages can often be misunderstood because readers might infer a narrative that isn’t intended.
I’ve had discussions about this before with people, and it’s interesting how many factors like generation gaps, punctuation use, and communication style can drastically change the perception of a conversation. For example, I recall a situation where one of my friends always typed in complete, proper sentences, while another friend did not. When the second friend received a message with full sentences, she interpreted it as negative and thought she had upset the first friend. These nuances in communication can really lead to misunderstandings.
I’m curious if there are strategies to mitigate this. While emojis and slang can add clarity in informal contexts, I wonder how to maintain professionalism in emails without seeming passive or passive-aggressive?