[03:43] Dr. Boroditsky states, “In a lot of languages, you have to change the verb depending on how you came about this information. This is called evidential information.”

This statement resonated with me as a multilingual learner because I see it clearly in my own experience translating between my native language, Albanian, and English. Although I am fluent in both languages and have spoken them since childhood, I often struggle when trying to translate something my family says in Albanian directly into English. The challenge is not vocabulary alone, but finding words that fully capture the original meaning. In English, a verb usually remains the same regardless of how the speaker came to know the information. For example, I might say, “He came to the door,” without indicating whether I saw it, heard it, or inferred it, as the statement is presented simply as a fact. In Albanian, however, the verb form can change depending on how that information was obtained, meaning I would not always use the same verb in the same situation.

For example:

Ai erdhi te dera: This means “He came to the door” and suggests that I know this directly, such as by seeing it happen.

Ai qenka ardhur te dera: This can be translated as “He apparently came to the door” or “So he came to the door after all,” and it shows that I learned this information indirectly, perhaps because someone told me or I realized it afterward.

This difference demonstrates how some languages include the source of knowledge within their grammar, while English does not. As a multilingual learner, noticing these distinctions has helped me better understand why many English Language Learners may find aspects of the language challenging, especially when they apply grammatical rules from their native languages that do not transfer directly. Recognizing this has informed my teaching because it has made me more aware that language carries meaning beyond vocabulary and grammar. As a result, I am more intentional about slowing down my explanations, avoiding assumptions about what students already understand, and explicitly explaining how meaning is constructed in English.

[16:47] Dr. Boroditsky discusses the concept of time for an Indigenous group in Australia, stating: “for them, time always goes in the same direction regardless of how they’re facing. For us, we make time chase us around.”

This statement by Dr. Boroditsky highlights a Western tendency to position ourselves at the center of experience, where abstract concepts like time are understood in relation to our own bodies and movement. In contrast, the Indigenous perspective she describes frames time as fixed and stable, with people moving within it rather than time revolving around them.

This distinction reveals how deeply worldviews are embedded in both language and culture. Western ways of thinking often prioritize the individual and reinforce an egocentric orientation to the world, where concepts are shaped around personal perspective and control. When these assumptions become normalized, they can influence how we speak, think, and understand our relationship to the environment and to larger systems beyond ourselves. By comparing this with an Indigenous worldview that focuses on the land and surroundings, Boroditsky encourages a shift away from self-centered thinking toward a more holistic understanding of the world, one that recognizes how we are shaped by our surroundings rather than always shaping them. This idea reflects Boroditsky’s broader argument about language and thought, where she states that “each (language) provides its own cognitive toolkit and encapsulates the knowledge and worldview developed over thousands of years within a culture. Each contains a way of perceiving, categorizing, and making meaning in the world, an invaluable guidebook developed and honed by our ancestors” (Boroditsky, 2011, p. 65). Therefore, language is not just a way of communicating; it’s also a reflection of cultural knowledge and values passed down over generations. Understanding these differences reinforces the importance of engaging with multiple cultural perspectives, especially those that challenge dominant Western assumptions, and recognizing that no single way of seeing the world is universal.

[25:35] Dr. Boroditsky discusses the intersection between gender, language, and personification when referring to artwork. She states that “78% of the time, you can predict the gender in the personification (of art) by the gender of an artist’s native language.”

This statement stood out to me because at first, I assumed she would be discussing the role of gender in language in a negative or limiting sense. She began by mentioning how the worst hurricanes are often named after women, and when she shifted to the personification of art, I expected her to focus on stereotypes or societal biases tied to gender. Instead, she highlighted the influence of an artist’s native language on how they personify objects, revealing a perspective I had never previously considered. Since English does not assign grammatical gender to most nouns, I had never thought about how other languages inherently shape the way people conceptualize objects or artwork. This made me think about how much our language shapes the way we experience and interpret the world without us even noticing. It’s not just about grammar or words; it’s about how we naturally assign qualities, personalities, or even emotions to objects and ideas. Knowing this helps me appreciate how culture and language are connected and reminds me that people from different linguistic backgrounds might see the same thing in very different ways. It also makes me more aware of my own assumptions as a speaker of English, and how my perspective is influenced by a language that doesn’t use gender in the same way.

[29:35] Dr. Boroditsky states, “In English, we don’t distinguish between things that are accidents and things that are intentional.”

This statement stood out to me because it helped me better understand the challenges English language learners face in my classroom. For example, in Spanish, as Dr. Boroditsky notes, there are grammatical ways to indicate whether something was intentional, while English does not have this built into the language. This means that when my students read a statement or excerpt, it’s easy for them to become confused. I have even noticed this while lecturing during our novel studies; some ELL students look puzzled, even when I think I am explaining something very simply. I had never paused to consider that what seems straightforward in English may not translate easily into their native language. Something as simple as intent can be embedded in many languages, so when my students misunderstand or are confused by what I consider a simple statement, it may be because a crucial element is missing, and they cannot make a direct translation from what they are hearing into their own language.

This also reminds me that learning is not only about words. As Alexander MacDonald explains, children often mimic the physical patterns in front of them before they can even speak (TEDx Talks, 2016), demonstrating that understanding can come through observation and experience, not just verbal explanations. For ELL learners, this helps me see that comprehension isn’t always about translating words directly; they are constantly making sense of gestures, context, tone, and other cues alongside the language itself, ultimately demonstrating that meaning is often embodied and physical, not just verbal, and that learners may grasp concepts in ways that don’t immediately match English grammar or vocabulary. Realizing this encourages me to be more intentional in my teaching, to clarify meaning when necessary, and to approach my students’ learning with empathy and patience, recognizing the many ways they process and internalize new information.

[41:15 ] Dr. Boroditsky asks, “Do we talk about lies, or falsehoods, or misstatements, or alternative facts?”

This statement by Dr. Boroditsky resonated with me because it highlighted some main challenges of the English language, challenges I even encounter within my own family. She mentions “bad linguistic neighbourhoods,” which is something native English speakers can often understand because we are familiar with the connotations words carry, whether positive or negative. For example, a smirk is technically a type of smile, but its connotation makes it feel very different, usually negative, suggesting someone is being mean or sneaky. However, if I were trying to explain a smirk to a non-English-speaking relative, I would likely have to describe it as a kind of smile, but the nuance and negative tone are much harder to convey. While I understand the difference, I struggle to put it into words in a way that someone unfamiliar with English can fully grasp.

Dr. Boroditsky extends this idea to words like “lies, falsehoods, misstatements, or alternative facts.” On the surface, these terms may all describe the same concept, but their connotations and the weight they carry are very different. This subtlety is nearly impossible for someone learning English to understand without extensive exposure to cultural and linguistic context. Hearing her talk about this made me realize how much I take for granted as a native speaker and how challenging it can be for English language learners to navigate these “neighbourhoods” of meaning. It also reminded me, as a teacher, to be more deliberate with my word choices, to clarify meaning when necessary, and to develop more empathy for students who need to translate words and the cultural and emotional weight they carry.

[44:30] Dr. Boroditsky mentions, “Cultures also reduce cognitive entropy. We are able to think about the world and conceptualize the world in many different ways, but we never think to do that. We just think to do things the way we’re used to doing them in our languages and our cultures.

One of the final statements by Dr. Boroditsky that resonated with me deeply because, as someone with two worldviews, both Canadian and Albanian, I have experienced both the benefits and the challenges of navigating multiple cultural perspectives. Growing up in the Albanian language and culture, I noticed that many aspects of life, social customs, celebrations, and values are quite structured and rigid. For a long time, I assumed that Canadian culture was much more relaxed in comparison. However, I’ve come to realize that rigidity is not limited to one culture; it can exist anywhere if we only view the world through a single lens. When we remain confined to what we know, we place ourselves at the center of everything, limiting our ability to connect with people who hold different worldviews or come from other cultures. We rarely question the assumptions we’ve internalized, our concept of time, our language, our values, because they are familiar and comfortable. We continue focusing on ourselves and our immediate surroundings without exploring alternative perspectives.

Therefore, Dr. Boroditsky’s point about culture being, in some ways, a limiting factor really resonated with me as she reminds us of the importance of stepping beyond the boundaries of our own experience, questioning what we take for granted, and considering the world in new and diverse ways. Holding multiple cultural perspectives has broadened my understanding, but it has also shown me the importance of remaining curious, reflective, and open to ways of thinking that differ from my own.

References:

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

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

TEDx Talks. (2016, February 26). Oral tradition in the age of smartphones: Alexander MacDonald [Video]. YouTube.