Lera Boroditsky’s approach to understanding how languages shape the way we think provides some relatable points as someone who is bilingual. As a 1.5 generation immigrant, I often ponder the impact of my multilingual experiences. Boroditsky’s talk provides answers to some of my personal questions.
1. Learning a New Way to Talk and Think
[18:22] Dr. Boroditsky mentions: “When you teach people to talk a new way, you are teaching them to think a new way and that language can change how people think by changing how they talk.”
As a multilingual learner, I can relate to this. Every time I picked up a new language, it helped me widen my perception of the world by merging different cultural aspects. Learning Japanese, for instance, required me to adapt to its unique structures and politeness levels, which, in turn, made me more adaptable and fluid in different social situations.
2 & 3. Memory and Attention Shaped by Language & Gendered Languages
[24:11] Dr. Boroditsky says, “Kids who are learning Spanish or French as their first language very early on started finding voices that are appropriate to the grammatical gender in their language”
[30:45] Dr. Boroditsky mentions that linguistic structures can shape memory and attention.
The first time I was introduced to gender assignment to certain nouns was when sitting in French 101 class as an elective course in my first year university. Korean does not use grammatical gender, so my cognitive process when thinking in Korean does not involve gendered attributes for objects. I had a hard time grasping the concept and had a hard time remembering why certain nouns have certain gender assignment.
In English, cultural personifications influence my perceptions. For instance, referring to a ship as “she” or thinking of the Earth as “Mother Earth” subtly impacts how I perceive and describe these entities.
For example, gendered languages, where nouns have genders, influence how speakers think about objects and people, often assigning gender-specific attributes to them.
As a multilingual speaker of Korean and English, with a background in Japanese, I’ve observed firsthand how language shapes thought and memory. Korean does not use grammatical gender, so my cognitive process when thinking in Korean does not involve gendered attributes for objects. However, using English, I notice that cultural personifications still influence my perceptions. For example, referring to a ship as “she” or thinking of the Earth as “Mother Earth” subtly impacts how I perceive and describe these entities.
By understanding how different languages influence perception and memory, I can better appreciate the cognitive flexibility required to navigate multiple linguistic and cultural frameworks. This awareness enhances my ability to adapt my thinking and communication style to different contexts, enriching my interactions and understanding of the world.
4&5. Multiple Ways to Describe Events in English
[29:31] Dr. Boroditsky mentions that “in English, we don’t strongly distinguish between things that are accidents and things that are intentional.”
She provides the example of English speakers saying, “I broke my arm,” which does not imply intent. In many other languages, this construction would suggest intentionality. Instead, they would use a phrase indicating that the arm broke on its own or that it happened to the person without direct intention, such as “The arm broke.”
Unlike Korean and Japanese, English sentences almost always begin with a subject. For example, in English, you say, “I put the garbage away.” In Korean and Japanese, it would be awkward to explicitly say “I” unless you are intentionally revealing who performed the action. The subject “I” is often omitted because it is implied, which would not make sense in English without the subject.
Moreover, [30:33] Dr. Boroditsky discusses the difference between how English and Spanish handle accidental verses intentional actions. She explains that English lacks in “distinguishing between accidents and intentional actions” in its grammar; however, Spanish makes this distinction more explicitly and often mentions the agent when the action is intentional. The difference in language structure can influence what [30:53] “people attend to and remember when they witness events themselves.”
“Spanish is only talking about who did it when it’s intentional when it’s accidental less so you’re less likely to mention that someone did something you more likely just to talk about the outcome so does that make a difference for the kinds of things that people attend to and remember when they witneess events themselves
From what I understand, the necessity of stating the subject in English can lead to a more individualistic expression, emphasizing the role of the self in actions and events. This linguistic structure highlights the individual as the agent of action, which aligns with Western cultural values that often emphasize individual responsibility and agency.
In contrast, the omission of the subject in Korean and Japanese reflects a more collectivistic or context-dependent approach, where the focus is on the action or event itself rather than the individual performing it. In these languages, it is common to omit the subject if it is implied or understood from the context, thus shifting the emphasis from the individual to the collective action or outcome.
Again, going back to the vase example, in Japanese, passive constructions like “The vase was broken” (花瓶が壊れた) are common and often used to mitigate direct blame. This linguistic choice supports the cultural emphasis on solidarity and maintaining group harmony by focusing on the event itself rather than singling out an individual, which helps prevent conflict and preserve relationships within the group. Such constructions can diffuse potential conflicts by not explicitly pointing fingers at anyone, thereby maintaining social harmony.
6. Linguistic Diversity and Cognitive Flexibility
[45:00] Dr. Boroditsky mentions: “There are so many languages and they differ so much. This linguistic diversity is a real testament to the ingenuity in the sophistication and the flexibility of the human mind. We’re able to invent not one perspective on the world but thousands, and many more because we’re constantly changing the language, inventing language, moving into new directions.”
Overall, this quote sums up my belief that each language offers a unique way of seeing and describing the world. As the number of multilingual speakers rises, more people develop multiple perspectives, enhancing their understanding and interaction with the world in diverse ways. On a personal level, each language I speak offers a distinct lens through which I perceive and interpret the world. This diversity in language has shaped my cognitive flexibility and broadened my understanding of different cultures and perspectives.
By learning multiple languages, I’ve gained insights into various cultural contexts and ways of thinking, which has enriched my cognitive processes and problem-solving abilities. For instance, speaking Korean, English, and Japanese allows me to switch between different cultural norms and communication styles, enhancing my adaptability and empathy.
Linguistic diversity does not merely represent a variety of communication tools but also signifies the myriad ways humans can conceptualize and engage with the world. This flexibility in thought is crucial in a globalized society where cross-cultural interactions are increasingly common.
Boroditsky, L. (2017, May). How the languages we speak shape the ways we think [Video]. YouTube. SAR School for Advanced Research. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGuuHwbuQOg&ab_channel=SARSchoolforAdvancedResearch