Birds of a Feather Laugh Together – On the Relationship between Language, Cognition and Reporting

Those of you who have read – or tried to read! – James Joyce’s Ulysses may remember that the novel revolves around one day’s inner thoughts of its protagonists. One of them, Leopold Bloom, recalls laughing with others over something insignificant. Reflecting on the idea that people with similar experiences tend to reason and understand the same way, and eventually laugh at the same things, he says to himself, “birds of a feather laugh together”. By this, he meant that people with similar interests, characteristics, or behaviours tend to associate with each other, thus reinforcing their beliefs, values, and stereotypes.

This quote helps me reflect on the relationship between the language someone speaks and the way they see the world. This phenomenon has been studied in linguistics and is known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. Similarly to Bloom, the linguists who developed it propose that language and cognition are so intertwined that the words and grammar of a language influence the way its speakers perceive and conceptualise the world.

There are two versions of this hypothesis. The stronger one posits that language limits or defines what speakers can think. So, if a concept doesn’t exist in a language, its speakers cannot comprehend it (Whorf, 1956). For example, cognitive tests conducted with Pirahã speakers in Brazil show that they struggle with counting or even remembering quantities, because their language has no exact number words (Gordon, 2004). Although this is among the strongest empirical cases supporting the theory, it looks quite evident that it is Pirahã speakers’ culture – and not their language – which is responsible for that. In other words, Pirahã speakers cannot count because they are not used to it as they don’t need it.

The weaker version of the hypothesis is more popular. It posits that culture influences the use of language which, in turn, influences how one interprets and experiences the world (Sapir, 1929). Examples of this are many. For example, studies show that speakers of Russian distinguish light blue from dark blue more quickly and more accurately than English speakers because in Russian they have two different terms instead of one (Winawer et al. 2007). Something similar happened with studies on languages where nouns are gendered. A bridge in Spanish, where bridge is masculine, tends to be described as strong, while in German, where bridge is feminine, it tends to be described as elegant (Boroditsky et al., 2003). Studies on bilingual subjects have even proved that they see the world and behave differently, depending on which of their two languages they speak. How can this relationship between language and cognition affect reporting? To answer this question, let me first focus on a specific study carried out in Hong Kong, that shows how Chinese-English bilinguals describe the same image (Image 1) differently in two different scenarios.

When asked to describe it in Chinese, where collectivism is culturally prevalent, the subjects of the study would say “the group is chasing the fish” or “the fish is excluded from the group”. When asked in English, where individualism is prevalent, the same subjects would say “the fish leads the group” or “the group follows the first fish”. (Nisbett et al., 2001).

Now, let’s try to understand the implications of these hypotheses on reporting. However, the implications may differ according to different variables, such as the type of report, the reporting policy, and multilingualism.

To begin with, a summary report used in some parliaments such as the Italian one, the picture might not be mentioned at all. However, in a full report its description might come into play, especially if there was debate around it. In a multimedia report, this may not be needed, given that the image itself could be seen. In a more constraining context, such as subtitling, time and technical constraints may limit the number of words that can be used to describe it.

This is strictly related to the type of accuracy demanded in a report (Eugeni, 2020). In a literatim (phonetic, or sound for sound) and in a verbatim (lexical, or word for word) report, its description would be subject to one of the speakers actually describing the picture. In a sensatim (pragmatic, or meaning for meaning) report, its description would be entirely subject to its role in the wider context. In a signatim (semiotic, or describing all components) report where the role of the picture is fundamental, its description is likewise essential, and the way the reporter sees it determines it all.

Now, in bilingual countries, where people coexist with others speaking a different language, understanding this relationship between language and cognition may help translators of parliamentary reports, for example, do their job better and avoid cultural bias. Imagine a report dealing with Image 1: how should it be described, and how should it be translated in the country’s other official language? And what about you: how would you describe Image 1 in your language? To me, it looks more a unique group of fish, so I would tend to stick to the western view that the fish on the left leads the group. But I am open to laugh with birds of a different feather!

Carlo Eugeni is Tiro’s scientific adviser.

References

Boroditsky, L., L. A. Schmidt & W. Phillips (2003). Sex, Syntax, and Semantics – D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.) Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pp. 61–79. MIT Press.

Eugeni, C. (2020). What’s in a name? – Tiro 1/2020. URL: https://tiro.intersteno.org/2020/05/whats-in-a-name/

Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia – Science, 306(5695), 496–499.

Nisbett, R. E., K. Peng, I. Choi & A. Norenzayan (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. – Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291

Sapir, E. (1929). The Status of Linguistics as a Science. – Language, 5(4), 207–214.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited by J. B. Carroll. MIT Press.

Winawer, J., N. Witthoft, M. C. Frank, L. Wu, A. R. Wade & L. Boroditsky (2007). Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination. – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(19), 7780–7785.