Striking Statements

[16:53] Dr. Boroditsky mentions “…very egocentric of me to make the dimension of time chase me around every time I happen to turn my body…”

I think this ecogentricity with language, in general, is something that I think of often, connected to ideologies of perspective. This idea that everyone sees the world in the same way that I do, and not until we acknowledge that this is far from true do we begin to open our minds (and sometimes our hearts) in ways that allow us to accept and celebrate diversities. I am also humbled when I travel to places that do not cater to my English-speaking requisites, I flourish in these uncomfortable encounters and am reminded how egotistical English speakers can be. To see time through this same lens is an interesting topic of conversation.

[21:33] Dr. Boroditsky mentions “…once you have learned a language like this with grammatical gender, do you actually end up thinking of the sun and the moon as more male-like or female-like depending on what gender they are in your language… if you speak a language with grammatical gender this is an incredibly pervasive feature…”

Taking this conversation of gendered languages in a different direction, I want to highlight how gendered language can affect perceptions. There’s an omnipresence of gendered language deeply engrained in society that can affect behaviour and lead to biases (subtle or not). When male is always the default used in language (ie. mankind), although intended to be gender-neutral, a subtle gender conditioning takes hold. Man is the norm and woman is deviant. So, would the underlying language structures be the same in gendered languages?  

[26:05] Dr. Boroditsky mentions “…language allows us to construe and construct events…”

I am instantly drawn to the game of telephone, where you sit around in a circle and the first person leans over to whisper something in another’s ear and that message is passed all the way around the circle until it reaches the end and everyone laughs at how the message has changed and morphed into something completely unrecognizable. The retelling of a message through language can change in this simple game, it can be completely transformed and reconstructed through intentional or unintentional language choices, a revelation that reminds me to dig a little deeper, especially when engaging with social media. 

[39:40] Dr. Boroditsky mentions “…this cultural system of number words that are developed and refined over many generations and that we now take completely for granted because we learned it so long ago when we were kids we don’t remember learning it and yet it gave us entry into this whole word of number and math…”

This may have been the part of her presentation I was most in awe over. Mathematics has been portrayed as this universal language, something everyone uses and to some degree understands as it pervades how things just “are”. I was surprised to find that this is not the case, that there are cultures that do not use such mathematical terms or even necessarily need it in their everyday lives. As a teacher, it is critical we teach mathematical concepts (even at their most simple foundation) so that students will be successful in society. This makes me think that teaching math is vital because of the society that has been built around us to require it, therefore, the societies that do not need this entry into a mathematical world rely on other ways to communicate mathematical concepts (amounts, building, time). So, maybe next time a student says they don’t know why they need math (or math is stupid) I can ask them to move to those places.

[44:32] Dr. Boroditsky mentions “…cultures also reduce cognitive entropy, we are able to think about the world and conceptualize the world in many ways but we don’t usually do all of those different ways… thinking about linguistic diversity as this aspiration to think about how you could think about things differently, what are all the different things your mind can do…”

I love discussing and dissecting societal constructs, and this idea of cognitive entropy reminds me of social constructions. We can acknowledge that social constructs exist, that some are beneficial and others are not, but yet I find that as humans, the majority of people are happy to do things as they have been done because of a belief that it is the best way since it has “always been done that way”. Now, is this in fact the case or are we just lazy, and as many creatures, taking the path of least resistance is easiest (and most enjoyable)? Critical thinking is a competency at the forefront of my teaching practice, yet it is easier said than done. I encourage discovery, exploration, and dialogue over teacher-dominated projection of facts for students to passively receive knowledge. The idea of thinking about thinking is metacognition, and whether it is explicit or not, I think a lot of teachers attempt to improve this in their students.  

[57:45] Dr. Boroditsky mentions “…language continues changing and evolving and that’s its nature, it’s a living thing that we create, so whether it’s through technology or through being exposed to new experiences that’s just something that is always going to happen…”

Language, how it evolves, how it circulates, and sadly, how it disappears is fascinating. When I think about my role as a special education teacher, this evokes some controversy as the term special has evolved and along with it, has negative connotations and stigma. I found it intriguing (and a little hypocritical) that a MET course would teach that special should not be used when their own organization continues to offer degrees in Special Education. Similarly, I think there are many other terms that have evolved over history because of negative associations and how words, unfortunately, morphed into insults and derogatory phrases. But alas, let’s not just focus on the negative. The idea that it is a living thing, capable of reproduction, growth, and change, is an incredible thing. It is dynamic, fluid, and adaptable.   

Connections

Boroditsky (2017) highlights that language is never static, whether it changes through technology or is exposed to new experiences. Berkowitz (n.d) reflects on how technological change leads to a linguistic change in his episode on The Word Guy. It’s interesting to think about how often the original meaning of a word is a metaphor for the new (ie. cloud), or how words have become verbs (ie. Google). Based on these examples, advancements in technology have changed or evolved the meanings of words, therefore, changing language and text. Boroditsky’s latter point on exposure to new experiences can be highlighted through Innis (1951), who states that “sudden extensions of communications are reflected in cultural disturbances” (p. 32). The age of social media is at the forefront of this particular point, and how could it not be? The dawning of the world wide web was one thing to connect people on a global scale, what it has evolved into is another. With the rise of various platforms for instant communication abilities and various ways to share, post, like, chat, snap, upload, and comment (to name a few), the extensions of communication are vast. This dialogue on social media can also connect to another note from Boroditsky (2011), “A hallmark feature of human intelligence is its adaptability, the ability to invent and rearrange conceptions of the world to suit changing goals and environments” (p.65). 

“Language shapes even the most fundamental dimensions of human experience: space, time, causality, and relationships to others” (Boroditsky, 2011, p.64). I am again drawn to the idea of metacognition, thinking about thinking and how we can do things differently. Snyder (1996) claimed, “the space created by each writing technology permits certain kinds of thinking and discourages others” (p. 5). All of these notions of thinking and doing and thinking about what we are doing. It is this communication piece of doing and changing what we are doing; the reciprocal influences between communication needs, invention, and evolving practices. 

References

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65.

Innis, H. (1951). The bias of communication. University of Toronto Press. 

SAR School for Advanced Research. (2017, June 7). Lera Boroditsky, how the languages we speak shape the way we think [Video]. YouTube.

Snyder, I. (1996). Hypertext: The electronic labyrinth. Melbourne University Press.