I have two observations to add to this debate on language and
thought.
1. Does language play a role in shaping thought?
I believe there are correlations between language and thought,
but the mutual influence between the two is not deterministic in
one way or the other. Linguistic categories are ultimately derived
from the life experience of the people who use the language. Nobody
disputes that language forms arise in response to the functional
needs of the speakers. But when a person is born into an existing
linguistic environment, his/her cognitive development is inevitably
constrained by the conceptual categories and habitual thought
patterns embodied by his/her native language. Language cannot
determine the potential range of concepts the speakers can have;
that is, people can entertain thoughts that their native language
does not have ready terms for. But linguistic categories can
influence the *habitual* thinking of the speakers by sensitizing
the language users to certain aspects of their experience. They
force the speakers to perceive certain distinctions as given and in
this way channel them to a particular interpretation of reality. I
happen to think that the gender difference in Korean that Juli
Zhang cited is a powerful example for this point, though it should
not be seen in deterministic terms. There are surely complex
political and socio-economical reasons for the sex inequality in
the Korean society. But I believe the sex distinction registered in
the Korean language does play a role in forcing Korean speakers to
perceive the gender inequity as given (normal, natural) and making
it more deeply ingrained.
2. Is there a difference in expressive efficacy between different
languages? If there is, is the discussion of such differences
necessarily racist?
Here, a crucial distinction should be made between reality and
potentiality. All languages are equal in the sense that all of them
can adequately fulfill the needs of their own speech communities
and that all of them have the potential to be modified to
accommodate the changing needs of their speakers. That is,
potentially, all languages are equal. That's why while exact
translation between languages are not always possible understanding
is always achievable across linguistic boundaries.
However, a particular language is the product of the social,
cultural, and intellectual development of its speakers and reflects
a particular stage of the collective experience of that speaker
group. Therefore, when considered as a factual reality, languages
are not equal in their capacity in representing reality and
expressing distinctions in the world. Different languages embody
different conceptual systems. Some languages recognize distinctions
and differentiations that other languages don't (in specific
domains or in human experience in general). In this sense languages
are not equal in their expressive efficacy.
Discussing differences in efficacy between languages is not
automatically racist, unless one attempts to establish a causal
connection between the biological characteristics of a particular
group of speakers with a patterned linguistic behavior and to
stigmatize it, or to misrepresent reality as potential. I agree
with James Dew that genuine quest for knowledge and understanding
should transcend the scruples over racism.
Aimin Li
Harvard University