Out of Write, Out of Mind

The protagonist of a book I recently read, believed that the best books are ones that tell you what you already know. Ironically, this very book left me wanting to know more. Set in a totalitarian regime, 1984 by George Orwell managed to arouse my curiosity by introducing me to the concept of using language to control thoughts. The novel talks about ‘NewSpeak’, a language developed and promoted by a dictatorial power with the aim to constrict people’s vocabulary in order to restrict their ability to think.

“Every year, fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller” -1984 by George Orwell

In other words, NewSpeak is based on the assumption that people can only perceive those aspects of their worlds for which their languages have words. Does this assumption hold true beyond the book? Can words, or their absence, shape the way we think? If yes, then can reality truly be called objective?

One way in which cultural theorists have attempted to answer these questions is through Linguistic Relativity, advanced by Edward Sapir in 1929 and further developed by Benjamin Whorf. This broad, scary term simply means that ‘diverse languages influence the habitual thought of people who speak them’. This implies that a stimulus, kept constant across cultures, will be perceived dissimilarly through the lens of language.

Hence, reality, while objective in physical terms, when passed through the filter of language, is subjectively re-constructed. In the words of Edward Sapir, ‘The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached.’

A study centred around the use of pronouns found that language can enable or disable perceptual distinctions to form between the self and the other. Countries with languages which mandate the use of subject pronouns, such as English or French, tend to be more individualistic as compared to countries with languages like Spanish or Hindi, where the omission of pronouns is acceptable. For example, ‘It is raining’ in English can be said without the use of pronouns as ‘ बारिश हो रही है ’ (literally translated as ‘rain happen stay is’, i.e. no pronouns) in Hindi or as ‘Esta lloviendo’ (is raining) in Spanish. This kind of linguistic emphasis on the subject pronouns translates to a perceptual emphasis on individual responsibility, leading to a more individualistic way of thinking.

Another distinction, which is of great significance in light of the feminist movement today, is one based on gender. Gender norms in language, much like those in the larger world, vary across cultures. Languages like Hindi are called gendered wherein gender is attributed to both animate and inanimate objects. English, on the other hand, is a naturally gendered language with gender being attributed to only animate objects. Languages like Mandarin are genderless. A study found that countries with gendered languages, such as India, Nepal, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Syria or the UAE, have the highest level of gender inequality. Such countries continue to score poorly on the variables such as the Global Gender Gap and the Human Development Index despite taking into account other social influences such as religion or the government system.

Interestingly however, countries such as Iceland, Norway, or Sri Lanka, which speak naturally gendered languages showed lower inequality than countries with genderless languages, especially in the area of political representation. This is because while genderless terms tend to be interpreted with a male bias, naturally gendered languages allow for recognition of females without placing undue perceptual emphasis on gender as a benchmark.

Isn’t it fascinating how language affects our thought process throughout our lives without us having the slightest conscious realisation? Something as little as not having specific words for colours in the Yélî Dnye language makes Rossel Islanders interpret colours in a way that we see differently. They do not give colour the importance that most other languages do, which is reflected in the lack of colourful artwork and handiwork there.

In fact, languages can even lead to superior cognitive development. While in English one would say ‘the glass is next to the plate’, in the Kuuk Thaayorre language spoken by the people of Pormpuraaw, they would say ‘the glass is to the north-west of the plate’. Such linguistic use of absolute cardinal directions has led the people of this culture to have better navigation skills than considered humanly possible by scientists. I, being one with a fairly ridiculous sense of direction, am now considering learning Kuuk Thaayorre!

However, would learning a new language really bring about a change in one’s thought processes? In a country like India, with almost every citizen speaking two or more languages, would their thought process change based on the language being spoken? Counterintuitively, yes- to the extent that whom you like or do not like changes based on the language in which you are asked! Arab-Hebrew bilinguals from Israel reacted more positively to Jewish names when asked in Hebrew as opposed to Arabic and vice versa. So, maybe your crush does like you after all, but not in the language you asked!

This process is so involuntary that when Russian-English bilinguals were asked to retrieve autobiographical memories (memories from one’s life experiences) based on cue words, they were more likely to narrate individualistic ones when asked in English and collectivist ones when asked in Russian, irrespective of the language in which they were originally formed. Further, a stronger positive or negative affect was expressed when the language of encoding and retrieval were the same.

What is of salience, however, is how modifications in language can lead to changes in our perception. Today, with social media enabling communication using novel words and without the use of grammatical rules and syntax, are our minds becoming more free? Can such unconscious effects of language be consciously manipulated by modifying language? Although done with poor intentions in the book 1984, can language be amended for the greater good? This line of thought opens us up to the possibility of refining language to further gender equality, out-group inclusion, cognitive enhancement, progressive discourse and a bunch of other terms which are as fabulous as they sound! We can give a new meaning to the phrase ‘The pen is mightier than the sword’ by modifying language using the very thought which it affects.

In the words of Edward Sapir himself, ‘The instrument makes possible the product, the product refines the instrument’.