[02:30] Dr. Boroditsky describes how the use of verbs can differ between languages, which may alter the meaning and interpretation of a statement. For example, she highlights the distinction between languages with varying degrees of specificity for tenses when using verbs, such as whether an action is ongoing, completed, or hypothetical. This concept resonated with me because, as a native English speaker learning Japanese, I’ve noticed how verb conjugation plays an important role in conveying nuanced meanings. In Japanese, verbs can not only indicate tense but also incorporate layers of politeness, formality, and even the speaker’s relationship to the subject or listener. For instance, プレゼントを差し上げます。(Purezento o sashiagemasu), meaning “I will give you a gift,” is highly formal and used when speaking to someone of higher status, such as a superior or a customer. This differs compared to プレゼントをあげる(Purezento o ageru). This is more neutral and commonly used in casual speech when addressing someone of equal or lower status.These differences reveal how deeply cultural perspectives and ways of thinking are embedded in linguistic structures.
[08:10] Here Dr. Boroditsky raises the question of “to what extent do language and culture guide what we see in the world?” She illustrates this idea with the example of how different languages organize time. For instance, in languages like English, which are written left to right, people tend to conceptualize time as moving from left to right when placing photographs in sequential order. Conversely, in languages like Arabic or Hebrew, which are written right to left, time is often visualized as flowing in the opposite direction.This idea stood out to me because, while growing up and learning Chinese, I found it strange and initially disorienting to read and write vertically, and with books read from right to left instead of left to right. It was a stark contrast to my experience with English, where text seemed naturally aligned from left to right. However, despite learning a language with different spatial organization, my conceptualization of time did not shift—it remained aligned with the left-to-right flow of English. This may be because English was my first language, and its cognitive patterns had already become deeply ingrained.
[19:40] In this portion of her presentation, Dr. Boroditsky identifies how English speakers may better distinguish between blue and green compared to other languages. This is consistent with my experience learning Japanese, where the word for “blue” (青, ao) is often used for objects that would typically be considered green in English. One example is the pedestrian crosswalk light, which flashes green but is commonly referred to as ao shingō (青信号), or “blue light,” in Japanese. Similarly, green apples and even fresh greenery are sometimes described using ao. These differences have occasionally led to confusion in conversations with my wife (who is a native Japanese speaker)! For me, this example underscored how learning a new language is not just about vocabulary but about understanding a different way of interpreting the world around us.
[32:50] Further in her analysis, Dr. Boroditsky explores how language influences what people pay attention to and remember about their environment. She describes an experiment where participants were shown videos of a subject popping a balloon, and where language cues were given beforehand. For example, participants read statements like “The toast burned” or “She burned the toast,” which subtly emphasized either the agent (who caused the action) or the event outcome. These linguistic differences shaped what participants focused on while watching the video. Those primed with agent-focused phrases like “she burned the toast” were more likely to pay attention to and recall details about who caused the balloon to pop. In contrast, participants exposed to outcome-focused phrases like “The toast burned” were more inclined to remember the event itself (the popping of the balloon) without focusing as much on who was responsible. This part stood out to me because, as a Law 12 teacher, the concept of witness memory is particularly fascinating. It made me wonder how a witness might recall an event depending on the language used during questioning. For example, asking “Who broke the vase?” versus “What happened to the vase?” might elicit entirely different memories and details, even if the event being described is the same (which is why leading questions are typically only permitted during cross-examination). Consequently, understanding how language shapes memory could have significant implications for evaluating the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
[44:40] Another point by Dr. Boroditsky that stood out to me is how “we are able to think about the world and conceptualize the world in many different ways, but we usually don’t do all of those different ways” because we are accustomed to our own cultural worldviews. This aligns with my own experience as a Social Studies teacher, where discussions often delve into political and historical topics that reveal how deeply ingrained cultural perspectives shape our understanding of complex issues. For example, when teaching about global conflicts such as the war in Ukraine or the more recent conflict between Israel and Palestine, students often approach these topics through the lens of their own cultural assumptions, which can sometimes limit their ability to empathize with or fully grasp opposing viewpoints. As well, a parallel can be drawn to Christine de Luca’s (2014) discussion on the political relationship with language and power, where the dominance of a particular language or culture can absorb and alter a ‘mother tongue,’ leading to changes in dialects and shifting identities. This illustrates how power dynamics in language not only shape communication but also affect the way individuals perceive and engage with their world.
[50:30] Finally, toward the conclusion of her presentation, Dr. Boroditsky addresses a thought-provoking question from the audience about the challenges UN translators face when working across languages that lack direct equivalents for certain vocabulary or phrases. She explains how these linguistic gaps can alter the meaning of what is being translated, as translators are often forced to choose approximations or reinterpretations that fit within the cultural and grammatical context of the target language. This process, while necessary, can subtly shift the tone, emphasis, or even intent of the original message, illustrating the complex interplay between language and meaning. This reminded me of how in my Social Studies classes, we often examine historical treaties or international agreements where the nuances of translation have led to significant misunderstandings or disputes. For example, differences in wording between what was expressed and what was written in BC’s Douglas Treaties caused significant legal disagreements over interpretations of its obligations and rights.
References
SAR School for Advanced Research. (2017, June 7). Lera Boroditsky, how the languages we speak shape the way we think [Video]. YouTube.
Wikitongues. (2014, September 21). WIKITONGUES: Christine speaking Shetlandic [Video]. YouTube.