Language, Consciousness, and Bilingualism: Do the Languages We Speak Really Effect Thought Patterns?

Language and consciousness are inseparable. Sure, consciousness exists without language; plenty of non-verbal animals are conscious in a similar way to humans. However, human consciousness in the way that we know it does not exist without language. At one point in history it may have, but no longer. Furthermore, language has never existed without consciousness. Language can be said to be one of multiple “agents of consciousness”. Unfortunately, defining consciousness is a rather difficult task. As such, defining the relationship between language and consciousness is significantly challenging. In fact, Jens Allwood states in Some Comments on Wallace Chafe’s “How Consciousness Shapes Language” that “pursuing this task [the question of the relationship between consciousness and identification, understanding and interpretation] will involve an in-depth probe into the nature of the relation between consciousness and the need for background information”. Physically one can see the connections between the parts of the brain responsible for both written and spoken language comprehension in the diagram below produced by The Human Connectome Project of the University of Southern California. The second diagram displays these connections within the human brain as a whole.

Figure 1. Structural Connectivity Between Language Processing Systems in the Human Brain. The figure displays the strength of connection between the language processing structures of the brain; the warmer the color, the stronger the connection.

Figure 2. Overall Connectivity of White Matter Fibers in the Human Brain. This figure shows the connectivity between white matter fibers in the brain as a whole; it is the information from Figure 1 put into context

We know that the use of language assumes that a person has a sort of cursory knowledge of each word being used and the topic of discussion. Wallace L. Chafe defines this in Language and Consciousness as “the linguistic distinction between given and new information”. Chafe asserts that differences in language create differences in assumed given and new information. Furthermore, depending on the language a speaker may be blissfully unaware as to what is given or new information in their lingua franca and that of another. Coming back to Allwood, one must consider that, at its most basic, language is composed of “intonation units”. This being the concept that each sound we make corresponds to a specific idea. Allwood argues against the validity of such units as concrete concepts and their correlation to one specific idea or concept. Even so, the ability of language to create ideas, images, and concepts within our minds is clear. As such, the connection between language and consciousness is undeniable.

This connection bears a specific relevance to the concepts of bilingualism and second language learning. The question arises, as asserted by Richard W. Schmidt in The Role of Conciousness in Second Language Learning, whether or not language learning is a conscious process, an unconscious process, or some combination of the two. Furthermore, one could even question whether or not conscious and unconscious thought are even to be considered as separate in the first place. Schmidt concludes that the role of conscious thought in language learning has been underplayed and that unconscious “picking up” of language does not play quite as large a role as we believe it to. This assumption may stem from the fact that not enough research has been done in terms of the conscious role of second language learning.

An experiment conducted by the University of Newcastle upon Tyne in England has attemoted to objectively place the differences in thought process and categorization created in bilingual minds. The researchers sought to observe the difference in the way bilingual speakers of English and Japanese categorized objects. It seems that a subject’s the level of familiarity with English changed whether test subjects more easily separated objects into categories of shape or material. For example, subjects were given an object such as a cork pyramid and asked to match it to either one of the objects presented to them. One of these matched the original object in shape (a plastic pyramid) and one matched in material (a piece of cork). The more experienced in English the subject was, the more often they categorized an object by shape. Monolingual English speakers also more often categorize by shape while monolingual Japanese speakers more often categorize by material. In reference to consciousness, this may mean that English speakers inherently think in a more concrete objective based fashion while Japanese speakers think in a more abstract and profound fashion when it comes to categorization. This raises the question of whether or not speaker’s actual consciousness is shaped by the language(s) they speak.

While it is a widely held belief that this is indeed the case, John H. McWhorter in The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language disagrees. McWhorter does not disagree that because language and culture are inherently connected, different cultures and thus languages have words for concepts in that culture not found in other languages. However, he disputes that this means that these speakers of different languages think about these concepts differently. Therefore, he disagrees with the belief that speaking a certain language creates a certain worldview or way of experiencing life in the speaker. Nevertheless, research like this displays the profound connections between language and consciousness. Whether or not this consciousness consists of worldviews or the simple fact that language has the unique ability to conjure images in our minds is irrelevant. The way we think is indubitably related to the very human action of connecting concepts to sounds and symbols.

References

Allwood, J. (1996). Some Comments on Wallace Chafe’s “How Consciousness Shapes Language” Pragmatics and Cognition, 4(1), 55-64. Retrieved October 19, 2016.

Chafe, W. L. (1974, March). Language and Conciousness. Language, 50(1), 111-133. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from JSTOR.

Cook, V., Bassetti, B., Kasai, C., Sasaki, M., & Takahashi, J. A. (2006). Do Bilinguals Have Different Concepts? The Case of Shape and Material in Japanese L2 Users of English [Abstract]. International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(2), 137-152. Retrieved October 19, 2016.

Hoge, K. (2014, August 7). The Language Hoax: Why the World Looks the Same in Any Language, by John H. McWhorter. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-language-hoax-why-the-world-looks-the-same-in-any-language-by-john-h-mcwhorter/2014926.article

Schmidt, R. W. (1988, July). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. Retrieved October 19, 2016, from Oxford journals.