Words, Thoughts, and Actions: An Investigation into the Influence of Language on the Speaker’s Self-Identity

In Language Files, the author discusses how language “reflects one’s self-identity” (5). However, in the following post, I will argue that language not only reflects one’s self-identity, but also contributes to its formation. Specifically, the particular features of a language, such as the commonly used metaphors, what information must be conveyed by particular words, and the specific tense features all influence the identity of the speaker. In the following post, I will discuss these influences in more detail, as well as offer examples from both linguistic research and personal observation.

First, as mentioned above, the metaphors commonly used in a given language influence how its speakers understand the concepts of the metaphor. In their now classic book Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson argue that conceptual metaphors can deeply influence individual thinking. To name just one of the many examples they provide, consider the metaphor of “time as money” and all the variations of this metaphor: “ You’re wasting my time.” “He’s living on borrowed time.” “Is that worth your time?” This conceptual metaphor and its variants, Lakoff and Johnson argue, in turn influence how speakers of the metaphor relate to the concepts of time and money.

Language also places requirements on what must be conveyed in a single word, which again influences how we think about the concepts that particular words describe. For example, economist Keith Chen writes about how in Chinese, the world for “uncle” also encodes for whether the uncle is related by marriage or birth and which side of the family he is on. A speaker of Chinese has no choice but to convey these features when talking about his or her uncle. In contrast, in English, the word “uncle” does not convey this information. This linguistic difference likely influences the way in which speakers of these two languages understand the concept of “uncle,” providing an example of how language may not simply be a reflection of how we understand concepts in the world.

Chen also researches how linguistic differences influence economic behavior. (See his TED talk on the topic).  Specifically, he compares “futured languages” (such as English) that have different past, present and future tenses, to “futureless languages,” like Chinese, that use the same phrasing for these tenses. Chen found that futureless language speakers are 30% more likely to report having saved in a given year than futured language speakers. Chen attributes this discrepancy to linguistic differences. Specifically, because futureless languages have the same tense for present and future, the future seems less distant and thus more in need of saving for. In contrast, futured languages convey that the future is more distinct from the present and thus futured language speakers feel less incentive to start saving.

While the argument that language impacts thinking may be obvious, these examples suggest how pervasive its implications are. In the past few weeks, I have been trying to identify some of the linguistic features that influence my own thinking. In particular, I’ve been noting the metaphors used at Stanford, particularly in descriptions of academic life. For example, the notion of “intellectual growth” is discussed a lot, which relates to the notion of how a person’s education is like the growth of a plant (see Rousseau’s Emile). Thinking of education as akin to the growth of a plant, as I think I myself do, suggests a different way to approach one’s education than say a metaphor of loading information into a computer. Thinking about how linguistic elements interact with my thinking was an interesting task, so as a starting point for discussion, I’d encourage you all to attempt the same.