Reflections: The Stuff of Thought

This was my second audio-book. My experience with this one was actually markedly different from the first audio-book. I was more interested and invested in this book than the first one - the subject matter is inexplicably closer to my heart, so I was more riveted to the narration. Secondly, I heard it during a couple of terribly long flight journeys, so it was ideal to just plug my earphones, close my eyes and concentrate on the content. For me, audiobooks seem to work best while flying. I can take notes in a separate book, doze off for sometime, refresh myself, and continue listening. I’m glad to have discovered this.

The narration of this book could have been better. I expected Steven Pinker himself to have narrated it (since I love his presentations), but it was a disappointment that he didn’t. The narrator seemed hurried and rushed in the initial chapters. There wasn’t much emotion or even respect for punctuation, as he just droned on and on. But the style improved in the subsequent chapters - he was more patient, measured, and even entertaining in a few places.

Onto the book itself - Steven Pinker meticulously analyzes how Language and its constructs play a complex role in our understanding of reality. He starts by delving into the ambiguous process by which the human-brain conceptualizes language and puts together grammar and semantics to communicate, and make sense of the world. He demonstrates that our verbs and prepositions reflect the innate ways in which the human-brain is wired. The semantics (meanings and definitions) that we develop through language and consequently, our experiences, influence our perceptions of Reality. Grammar, Verbs, Conjugations, and all the tedious linguistic structures - in any language -  are formulated by the innate process by which we dissect the world into its particulates - its objects, geometry, space, dimensions, time, and action.
For example, it can be argued that both sentences below are theoretically grammatical:
A: Water is poured into the jug
B: The jug is poured with water

Yet, those who are fluent in English, would hardly use sentence B. People who might use B would most likely be native-speakers of another language, and they might be literally trying to translate the sentence from their language to English. This is because, innately, our mental imagery struggles to agree with a Jug - a geometrically stable and solid structure, being poured - an action that indicates fluidity and movement. The verb Pour, and the action Poured, are associated more with the Noun Water, than with Jug. The innate knowledge and understanding of Physics, objects, space, and actions, is the reason why one mental imagery agrees more than the other. Speakers of another language would surely have their semantics and grammar aligned accordingly in their native language, but translations might affect the representation of their actual imagery in a foreign language. One might be quick to therefore conclude that our language, or rather, semantics and grammar, determines the kinds of images we have in our heads. Not exactly, and not always.

This is popularly noted as the Whorfian Hypothesis which basically states that Language can influence cognitive processes, due to the ways in which the linguistic structures shape one’s understanding of the world. Steven Pinker vehemently argues against this hypothesis of Linguistic Determinism. Through multiple experimental results and cogent arguments, he attempts to debunk the notion that Language determines structure of thought. I was initially in disagreement with some of Pinker’s arguments, but in the end we converge on essentially similar ideas. Language might influence, but does not determine thoughts. I do believe Language is integral to Thinking and Reasoning. It does play a vital role. But, I have come to agree that a particular Language doesn’t completely determine one’s thoughts and ability to reason or form newer thoughts. One language isn’t better than the other to make sense of the world better. In our head, we don’t necessarily think grammatically. Our thoughts are not stored or formed through the words or linguistic structures of any particular language. As a bilingual person, I can attest that I don’t think in one language or two languages. I might reason on pen and paper in English, but I don’t believe my thoughts are framed in any particular language. Anyway, this is a highly debated topic amongst Linguists. According to Pinker, Words are represented as far more richer and abstract clusters of thought. When we try to define the Word -  the clusters of our Thought - through Language, the linguistic structures might limit or influence our articulation and the many interpretations we might have of the Word. But within our heads, Language doesn’t determine our core cognitive processes of thinking or reasoning.

After much back and forth, though,  I still feel that there is some grain of intuitive truth to Linguistic Determinism. I’m not an extremist of the theory who would go all the way to state rigidly that one language might help in certain cognitive processes than the other... that German is a better language to learn math and science than another language etc. It’s not true in such specific, micro-level examples. Culture, environment, and so many other aspects might affect cognitive development in a certain country/place.  I believe that in the macro picture, the structure of a language does influence the abstract networks of thoughts we form. The imagery and metaphors in the language surely seem influential in how we interpret, imagine, and create newer thoughts. Speaking from the perspective of programming languages, I am aware of multiple experiments and studies that have evaluated the link between the syntax of the language and the eventual ways in which a programmer reasons to solve a problem or construct an algorithm through the language. The syntax and rules can sometimes inhibit certain kinds of thinking, and consequently affect the creative reasoning of a problem - it doesn’t affect one’s core intelligence or cognitive processes, but it does seem to be an agent in terms of how the processes are triggered. I know, this is also a hairy subject, so I will move onto another topic in the book.

Most of the book explicates each linguistic structure in detail - verbs, prepositions, tense, etc, to demonstrate that these structures were borne out of our mental conceptualization of Quantity, Amounts, Space, Geometry, Spatial relationships, Temporal relationships, and of course, Causality. Causality was an interesting chapter. In here, there are multiple examples of how a sentence structure can sway our logical perception of a situation (see, language does influence our logical thoughts). It’s all about how the situation is framed. It leads to multiple pitfalls in Logic and Fallacious interpretations.
* If widowhood follows marriage, then does marriage cause widowhood?

With so many variables abounding in every complex situation, navigating to the Cause from the Effect is tricky. It is even trickier when we begin to use Language, and its rules alone, to get to the Cause. This is probably why Lawyers make so much money on linguistic technicalities.

But then, I liked the part where Pinker shows that we are so inherently steeped with a moral sense that we can most often make our way out of ambiguous and sticky representations of a morally-dubious situation that’s cloaked in clever Linguistic acrobatics.

I also liked the chapter on Metaphors. There are many theories that Language by itself is a huge set of metaphors to our abstract thoughts. But that aside, metaphors and imagery help us grasp abstract concepts much better. Abstraction is diluted much better through relatable imageries and concepts. This is because the natural way of our thinking is through Metaphors - we constantly make connections of neural networks, relating one concept with the other. We therefore find it easier to imagine and relate.

Further, an entire chapter is dedicated on the subject of Social Niceties and Courteous Language. Why should we say “I was wondering if you could look at my document?”, instead of just saying, “Take a look at the document”, that’s precise and to the point. Language is to communicate direct requests and thoughts, after all. But all the hedging and polite rules are to conform to social protocol. It satisfies the bigger picture of basic human evolutionary requirement - communal cooperation. We insist on using euphemisms even when everybody understands the inferences, we force ourselves to be politically correct despite the other person being aware of it, etc. In the end, we feel far more worse, far more hurt, to hear the brutal truth, the callous sentences, than recognizing a forced-politeness. Most of us can deal with the latter better than the former brutality. We do appreciate the fact that the other person at least respects our feelings a tiny bit to frame their unpleasantness in a polite manner. And hence, we have devised language structures to suit this need - to maintain a measure of fragile harmony.

Finally, do names, even those without an actual meaning, evoke some abstract meaning in you? Does “Tom” conjure a different picture than “Jim”? Why are there trends in names? Why do some names sound older, newer, cooler, sweeter, bolder? Pinker goes into a whole chapter analyzing the motivations behind Names and parents’ naming ideologies. This wasn’t a very interesting chapter to me, but it served as a nice break from all the heavy academic content from the previous ones.

Well, truth be told, I was expecting some content on Language and its correlation with Personality and an Individual's Nature. Along the lines of addressing these questions - Do adjectives, sentence structures, noun phrases etc. reflect a person’s inherent personality or character traits? Can one’s nature influence how they use language while writing versus talking? Can the use of language predict a person's innate nature? Etc. See, the phrase “Window into Human Nature” (from the title of the book) had a whole slew of meaning to me, inside my head. The way I interpreted it, the way my thoughts came together to understand it, was different. Steven Pinker concentrates on the broader aspects of Human Nature and Cognition, and not on individual personality. And the book has helped me appreciate this much better.

To summarize this rambling post, this was an interesting and educative read on linguistics and psycholinguistics. The human brain is far too complicated to arrive at definitive and conclusive facts about how exactly language and thoughts interweave and influence each other. But the book provides ample arguments and scientific experiments to help the reader slowly make sense of at least a part of the puzzle. 

The Language of Thoughts

Professor Lapin and his assistant were quite excited about their current research that involved developing a lexicon for a previously unheard and unknown language. The first identified word in the newly found tribal language was "gavagai". They heard this word being used whenever a rabbit was present, so Lapin was ready to associate the meaning of the word "gavagai" to rabbit. But his assistant intervened by pointing out a possible confound. For all they knew, "gavagai" could mean "hey look! Rabbit!", or "a single rabbit" etc. It could also be embedded with some other cultural or physical adjectives that they were unaware of. In order to thoroughly establish the validity of the word and meaning, Lapin and his assistant need to not just make more observations, but essentially live long enough with the tribe to get a grounding of their culture, so that they understood the ties it has with the formation of words and the language. Is it true that one needs to understand culture to comprehend its language? Is there any way by which the "truth" of the words can be objectively ascertained? Does truth become subjective to language? (Original Source: Word and Object, by W.V.O. Quine (MIT Press, 1960))

I can very well see through the challenges that emerge from a research standpoint. I have no idea how linguists work, but I'm certain that the standards for establishing validity are same across all disciplines. There are two parts to this excerpt - one deals with the effect of culture on the evolution of language, and the second deals with how language by itself can afford how we form concepts and thoughts and can thus influence the way people think and behave, therefore affecting how the culture evolves. It's sort of like a symbiotic feedback loop - culture->language ->thoughts->concepts->culture. Since culture is on either sides, envisage a circle instead of my linear diagram.

Those of us who know at least a couple of languages (or better yet polyglots), will be well aware that each language has its own set of unique words and grammar rules than cannot be translated to other languages. Many friends of mine have raved about books in a certain language that can never be translated into other languages without losing some of their truest literary beauty and form. I've even struggled to explain the meaning of certain very common words in my mother-tongue to another person from the very same country and culture, but from a neighboring state. This is because each language is heavily based on metaphors that are relevant to the nuances of a culture. Such is the confluence of culture, traditions and the physical nature of our environment, found in our languages. A popular example is how the Eskimos have a large array of words differentiating the various types of snow. Due to their climatic conditions, these people were in need of forming different words in their language to specifically relate to the subtle gradations and kinds of snow. In South-India, there is no word for snow, except of course if we are to adopt the English word into our vocabulary. Or our leaders would be kind enough to expend their time in inventing authentic and convoluted words from the root of the language.

Consequently, it is also true that our concepts and thoughts concerning the word "snow" will be constrained because of the language. If we don't have words to define and conceptualize different kinds of snow, our knowledge/truth about snow is also limited. Similarly, our abilities to express ourselves and communicate meaning among others are also dictated by the rules and structures afforded by the language. The more poorly designed the language, the harder it is for us to think in terms of the language, the lesser concepts we can frame, the more time it takes to express, the greater the complexity of the expression, and less information or misinformation gets communicated, thus jeopardizing meaning and truth. Another favorite example of mine is that of computer programming languages (despite them being arguably different from natural languages). But a programmer will largely agree that the rules of a programming language can either constrain or expand their abilities to not just program efficiently, but also afford unique thought processes for problem solving and expression. With dynamically typed programs and object-oriented programs, the consensus is that these languages provide more scope and freedom for solving problems and expressing the solutions more effectively. In effect, they allow us to conceptualize and think differently.

This notion, that language structure affects the way we think and form cognitive concepts, is called the Whorfian-Hypothesis. Science is a little divided on this hypothesis. While many (including me) agree that there is some truth to it, it doesn't extend completely to all cognitive concepts or processes. There have been many scientific studies disproving this hypothesis. A popular experiment proved that a culture in which people have no linguistic representation of any color except black and white, still formed cognitive concepts of the primary colors "blue", "red" etc, such that they could arrange the secondary colors around them. Some argue that this is merely perception, rather than conception, but there are many more studies that have attempted to disprove it.

Therefore to a large extent we think in terms of our language, and our cognitive boundaries are sort of determined by the scope of our language structure. But as evidenced in the current generation, the use of SMS-English has led to additions and abbreviations of "words" to our daily vocabulary, such as "lol", that even the structure of the language seems to slowly change. This is due to the technological instant-messaging culture. Hence language is sure to correspondingly evolve. It leads to an interesting question of how this change in language will affect the thought processes of the future generations.

Finally, does all of this relativity with language and culture imply that the expression of meaning will be affected? Two people speaking the exact same language are prone to multiple misunderstandings. Given that, is it plausible that the "truth" remains relative to every language, for we cannot completely express and translate the meaning and embedded context, however expressive we try to be? To a certain extent, yes; which is probably why we resort to Logic, Mathematics and equations to be more objective about what we want to convey. But the field of Logic has its own can of worms, so I'm not going there :).