Lera Borditsky’s lecture on the ways in which the language we speak connects with the way we look at the world was an engaging, humorous, and thought-provoking exercise. As I watched it I had to pause the video several times to consider some of the points she made and how the way in which I view the world around is so dependent on the tools that my only language, (English, of course), affords me.
Perhaps it is because I only speak one language that I have always found the nature of language to be a fascinating topic. At one point in my undergraduate journey I was majoring in literature and dabbled in Russian novelists and, although I’m sure I missed many of the more nuanced and subtle points, it always struck me as curious as to how the Russian language, with its flexibility, expressiveness, and depth, (when combined with Russia’s culture of storytelling, epic narratives, social turmoil, and inclination to collectivism over individualism), contributed to the gravity and importance of Russian novelists in the 19th and 20th centuries. While I won’t profess to be an expert, or even particularly informed, about the influences of the novels and novelists, I have always appreciated the fact that there was a world of precision, tones, and sophistication that I would never be cognizant of due to the confinement of only knowing English.
A number of years ago I read a terrific book, ‘The Wayfinders’, by UBC associated professor Wade Davis. Based on his Massey lecture, he explored the nature of languages, particularly endangered ones in remote parts of the planet, and how they connected to culture, knowledge, and society. Like Borditsky’s lecture, Davis’ book opened my eyes to how much information was communicated through language not only through the exchange of information but what language existed for information. There are many non-English languages that have terms that reflect the importance of certain aspects of culture, society, and survival that are predicated on the environment and nature of local regions that simply don’t factor into my daily Western, English-language reality.
Moving on, I’ve selected several quotes from the lecture that I connected with, little ‘aha’ moments that made me stop, reflect, and consider. I will be interested to read the posts of other students in this course to see what little gems that others consider profound or interesting.
- [3:46] “You have to change the verb depending on how you came to know about this information. This is called evidential information. You have to mark your evidence, so if this something you witness with your own eyes, that would be one form of the verb but if it’s just something you’ve heard about, you inferred, that would be a different for a verb, and, again, languages differ in the kinds of evidence they require people to mark.”
Specificity is important in the context of languages, and some languages require more and different types of specificity. In common English, it seems that we don’t need to provide evidence of where we learned something from, (unless you’re writing academic papers that require citations). We can simply state what we know, and the receiver of that information has to either take us for our word or not. Of course, one can add information to provide context or support, (“my buddy tells me that…”, or “from what I’ve heard from Fox news…”). Of course, this can cut both ways. While English does not require us to provide evidence of where we learned information from, I believe that it does emphasize the reliability and consistency of the source of information. If that individual has been false, knowingly or unknowingly, it affects the reliability and validity of the information being shared.
- [5:02] “In some languages you can’t say ‘left of’ because words like left and right aren’t used and instead everything gets put into some kind of absolute directions like north, south, east, west space, so I would have to say ‘I live in the house northwest of the big tree, or volcano-ward, or seaward from the big tree, so then I have to, of course, know where the volcano is and where the sea is relative to my house.”
Relativity is important here. My perception of space and time is contingent upon my experiences of where I am, who I associate with, and when I happened to exist. Of course, that means that what i consider to be ‘definite’ is only ‘definite’ within my own assumptions. I am aware that my left is not necessarily your left if you are facing me, but may be depending on our relative orientation. On the other hand, if there are more concrete and certain terms, (such as north, west, east, and south), then that removes the relative uncertainty of direction. Even terms like “just past…” or “near…” rely upon the ambiguities and current relevant position of the speaker – a pretty self-centered approach. By defining terms, such as proximity or distance, in more universal terms I imagine that we could eliminate a lot of confusion or uncertainty, however we would have to remove our own individuality or ego from the equation. Certainly, the position of a volcano or the sea provides a good deal more stability with reference to the location of something than where I happen to be looking.
- [9:05]
-
- “To have a second language is to have a second soul. (Charlemagne)
- “A man who knows languages is worth four men” (Charles V)
- “I speak English to my accountants, French to my ambassadors, Italian to my mistress, Latin to my god, and German to my horse.” (Frederick the Great)
The history geek in me loves this one, although not a direct quote from Borditsky. I can imagine how the understanding of a second language would expand one’s world view, and therefore their appreciation, of different issues and ideas, (Charlemagne). I also understand the simple pragmatism of having one individual at one’s disposal who could understand multiple languages. But it is the final quote that really tickles my historical funny bone. English, in this context is a practical, number-literate language from a culture that, (at the time of Frederick), would have been emerging as an industrial, and therefore numerate and economical, culture. French, of course, has been the language of diplomacy and refinement, (thanks to Louis XIV), Italian is widely considered the language of romance, (literally, ‘from Rome’ and in terms of intimacy), and Latin continues to be the official language of Catholicism, centred within the Vatican and Rome. My wonder is why German is spoken to his horse? Perhaps, as Frederick’s mother language and with consideration to the unique nature of the relationship between humans and their horses this mattered?
- [13:18] “…studies the Aymara group that lives in the Andes, and for the Aymara, in their language, the future is behind, the past is in front and when they looked at the way people gesture, they way they move their bodies when they’re thinking about the past and the future, they actually gesture in front of them when when talking about the past. So, you might say ‘that was a long time ago’ and they gesture behind them when talking about the future. This is, of course, because the past is known, it’s manifest, you see the if the future is unknown that’s why it’s behind your head.”
This is a quote that really helped me challenge some of my assumptions. Of course, I would think, the future is ‘ahead’ of us and the past ‘behind’. I don’t know where this assumption came from, (that is a particular result of having a singular knowledge and worldview), but it just seemed to be there. In her example, the complete opposite makes total sense. We can ‘see’ the past – the structures, decisions, ancestors, etc., so it should appear where our asymmetrical bodies can ‘see’, from the front. Likewise, it makes a lot of sense to have the future, being an unknown and invisible, ‘behind’ us where we could not see. My wonder is if this a more common worldview and language reality of indigenous cultures elsewhere?
- [18:22] “When you teach people to talk a new way you’re teaching them to think a new way as well”
If information is the work, then language is the tool. The process of disseminating different types of information requires different tools, i.e. terms, syntax, and grammar. We know that if there are new types of information/work, then new tools/language will be required. But what if the language dictates the work? The opportunities, or lack thereof?
For example, what if the electric drill suddenly manifested itself in the 19th century? (Let’s ignore the realities for the sake of hypothetical mind experiments). How would construction, engineering, and design change? Of course they would. New tools allow new ideas, new efficiencies, and innovations that would simply not be available otherwise.
- [50:47] “…communication between any two people who even speak the same language still has a lot of problems… so I don’t know if you are married but most people who are married have experienced some of this and one of my favourite quotes from George Bernard Shaw is that he says “the biggest problem with communication is the illusion that is has occurred”.
This one, I think, speaks for itself. Like the old saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. Similarly, effective communication is dependent on who is receiving the message, and how they interpret it. Language is important, but so is context, emotions, focus, bias, experience and so on. Whatever the intention, the efficacy of language is only the fidelity of the message.