We all know that thousands of languages are (or have been) spoken around the world. There are extensive studies and articles about them that discuss, for example, the existence of “language family trees”, ranging from widely used and well-known languages— such as English, which stems from the Indo-European root, to the more specific and regionalized ones, such as those belonging to the Tupi and Bantu language families — with indigenous Brazilian and African origins, respectively. Although the studies are extensive and linguistic debates are constantly evolving, there is still much to be said about the extent to which speaking one language or another influences a speaker’s worldview.
Charlemagne, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, stated that “to have a second language is to have a second soul”. The medieval leader thus observed that gaining a deep understanding of a new language involves building another person within a single human being, insofar as this knowledge will not only be a strategic communication skill but will also open one’s eyes (or rather, one’s soul) to a unique possibility of existence through the distinct interpretation of the world that each language contains within itself.
Linguistic Relativity and the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The issues mentioned above are particularly relevant to a linguistic theory: the Sapir-Whorf Hypot. It consists of two versions: a strong one, which advocates linguistic determinism, and a weak one, known as linguistic relativity.
The first theory, while maintaining the conviction that language and understanding of reality are not separate phenomena, ends up being overly deterministic by claiming that a language determines the way a person thinks. We know that the brain that creates languages is structurally the same; all human beings possess the same capacity to create and assimilate languages because they belong to the same species. Therefore, even if it is impossible for a speaker of one language to express something for which there is only a specific word in another language, such as the feeling of missing someone, which in Brazilian Portuguese is called “saudade,” it is still possible to express this in another way. Saying “I miss you” may not be the perfect translation, but it fulfills the need to put into words what all human beings can feel regardless of the language they speak, as language does not determine what someone thinks or feels. This explains why it later fell out of use.
The second theory has become popular among linguists and relates to everyday life. Linguistic relativity is based on the perception that spoken language trains the brain to see a different and almost unique version of reality. In this case, even before a person understands the world and its particularities organically through experience, the native language presented to them has already begun to teach the brain what to perceive, what to remember, and even how to think.
Examples that illustrate this include changes in the perception of time or responsibility for actions depending on the language spoken. Portuguese speakers refer to the past by gesturing backward and to the future by gesturing forward, while Mandarin speakers, when talking about the past, “think upward,” and when talking about the future, the logic reverses, and they “think downward.” With regard to the perception of responsibility for accidents, for example, in English it is common to say “it broke”, whereas in languages such as Spanish, it is more common to use the construction “the vase broke itself” (“el jarrón se rompió solo”) or “the vase broke on him” (“el jarrón se le rompió”). These are small differences, but they influence how speakers of these languages situate themselves in time, recall events, and, consequently, perceive reality.
Another factor related to the extent to which a language can shape social conceptions of the world and culture is the phenomenon of “fremeswitching”, which is based on the fact that, depending on the language a person is using, their personality may undergo slight changes. This occurs independently of the structure of the language itself and is based on how an individual perceives a language and the cultural values associated with it, taking into account that humans are conditioned to mimic the behaviors of speakers of different languages when communicating in them, influenced by prior knowledge of how native speakers act and the social expectations associated with them.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis also helps us understand why languages of African origin have been erased. Recall that, given that perceptions of the world are relative and depend on the language of the perceiver, the discontinuation of a language amounts to the discontinuation of a worldview (and of reality) that can only exist as long as that language is spoken. In this process, it is inevitable that, after a violent, colonialist structure dictated the European world’s relations with other nations for centuries—a structure that, among other things, took the form of linguistic prejudice and the consequent erasure of languages of African origin—some concepts and notions associated with them will never be recovered, and, unfortunately, there is no guarantee that they can be saved; which is why it is necessary—in addition to seeking alternatives that involve rediscovering these languages—to take the time to reflect on how preserving them goes beyond simply caring for a culture and touches on the right of their speakers to think for themselves on their own terms.
The Brain and Its Neuroplasticity
Having laid out all the conditions under which, at the very least, spoken language influences the way reality is conceived, we must now turn our attention to how the brain behaves as it forms an understanding of the subject (even though, in reality, these debates never reach a definitive conclusion).
A study published in ScienceDirect, which involved 94 native speakers—divided into those who spoke only German and those who spoke only Arabic—found that the strongest connections in the brain are distributed across different areas in each group. In the case of native German speakers, the strongest connections are located in the peripheral areas of the brain, particularly on the left side, whereas among native Arabic speakers, the connections were strongest in the interhemispheric region.
Therefore, this research helps clarify that, given the fact that the brain comes into contact with reality through language, what is repeatedly observed will gain prominence in the brain, because it is learning to highlight different aspects of reality depending on the lens used to perceive it. Because it plays such a decisive role in how a person constructs the world, not merely by describing it, but by influencing what aspects of reality will or will not be perceived, language becomes one of the most powerful lenses that exist.
—————————————————————–
The article below was edited by Eloá Costa.
Liked this type of content? Check out Her Campus Cásper Líbero for more!