1.
Research in linguistic relativity, which Boroditsky explores, supports the idea of
Charlemagne’s quote that different languages shape our perception of the world in
unique ways, influencing how we think about time, space, causality, and even memory.
For example, languages that grammatically distinguish between future and present
actions (like English) can affect how people perceive future events and engage in future
planning. On the other hand, some argue that the core cognitive functions of
humans—such as reasoning, memory, and emotional experience—are universal and not
drastically altered by language. Therefore, while language can influence how we express
thoughts, it doesn't fundamentally change how we think or perceive the world. This
perspective aligns with the idea that translation and cross-linguistic understanding are
possible, showing that thoughts transcend language.
2.
A. Boroditsky provides evidence that languages conceptualize time differently. For
example, English speakers tend to organize time horizontally (left to right), while
Mandarin speakers often organize it vertically.
B. Some languages, like Kuuk Thaayorre (spoken by an Aboriginal community in
Australia), use cardinal directions (north, south, east, west) instead of egocentric terms
(left, right).
C. Languages like Pirahã lack specific numerical terms beyond “few” and “many.”
Speakers of such languages struggle with exact arithmetic tasks, suggesting that the
absence of precise number words influences numerical cognition.
D. Himba tribe in Namibia has different ways of categorizing colors than English
speakers. Their linguistic system influences their ability to distinguish between certain
shades, indicating that language can affect sensory perception.
E. In Spanish, the word for “bridge” is masculine, and speakers are more likely to
describe it with adjectives like “strong.” In contrast, in German, where the word for
“bridge” is feminine, speakers describe it with adjectives like “elegant.” This
demonstrates how language can influence our perceptions and attributions of qualities to
objects.
F. Some languages, like English, explicitly mark agents of causality (e.g., “John broke
the vase”), while others (like Japanese or Spanish) may omit the agent (e.g., “The vase
broke”).
3. Boroditsky’s argument is that each language constitutes a unique worldview or
"universe" in which speakers inhabit a different cognitive reality. Because language is
new ways of seeing and interpreting the world are always being created as languages
grow, mix, and change. For example, technological advancements or cultural shifts
introduce new terms and concepts that alter how people think about the world (e.g., the
digital revolution introduced terms like "tweet" and "viral," which transformed how we
conceptualize communication). I don’t necessarily agree with this argument. If we are
talking about cognitive realities they should be happening on a parallel basis but there is
so much overlapping between one “world” and another. Also, under some definitions of
universes, it is not necessarily linked with languages. For example, certain universal
human experiences, like emotions or physical sensations, transcend language and
cannot be fully altered by linguistic differences. While language may influence how we
talk about these experiences, it doesn’t fundamentally create new realities for them.
