How does language influence reality?

[chad3006]

Some questions I've had about language:

Recently, some American news organizations have decided to start calling the war in Iraq a civil war. While the language to describe the war may have changed within certain boundaries, the reality of what is happening for both the soldiers and Iraqi citizens remains what it is, regardless of what it's called.

In another example, a friend of mine's son was recently diagnosed with Autism, however, in the official diagnosis it wasn't called Autism. Her health insurance company considered Autism a mental disorder, and therefor would not cover it, which accounts for the different language use in the official diagnosis. Her son has Autism and will be treated for it, but essentially a second reality exists for the insurance company.

Does language drive reality(s)? To truly observe reality, shouldn't one develop some immunity (consciousness) to language?

[Baloo72]

I do believe that language drives reality. Language is the way that we convey thoughts to other beings. Using certain words can conjure up certain feelings in one person, and completely different feelings in another. You should check into the whorf-sapir hypothesis and weak linguistic determinism.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Baloo72

I do believe that language drives reality. Language is the way that we convey thoughts to other beings. Using certain words can conjure up certain feelings in one person, and completely different feelings in another. You should check into the whorf-sapir hypothesis and weak linguistic determinism.

Baloo72,Chad3006,

Yes,I am not very knowledgeable about it,but I do think language does form the reality we experience,certainly it is at the very least,conditioned by it.Another aspect of the same idea would be to discuss how we often create reality with the fictions that we put out there.What is fiction today may well be tommorow's reality,particulary if we are talking human behaviour.Interesting topic,thanks for posting it Chad.

[Dexter78]

Language is interesting in that even what it is not used to communicate between others, we still use it when we think to ourselves. Even when one is experiencing a moment, the instant they attempt to interpret it language comes into play. Even forms such as painting, body language etc. involve interpreting symbols. Since reality can be a continuous spectrum of experiences while language is discrete jumps in meaning, when we hear a word we have to fill in the gaps with our interpretation of the range of meaning that word actually represents, and in effect create the previous experienced reality for ourselves. I wouldn't say language drives reality, it appears to be more of a feedback.

[speakerchef]

Dexter78,

Nice one.

Although I do agree with you that language does not drive reality, I would say it drives truth.

Truth, if thought of as a line graph, is where understanding (human) intersects with being, that is reality. Since one of the most common systems for understanding is language, truth is driven by language.

As a result, one might think that language therefore drives reality, but of course this is not possible, because language bears no influence on being (that which is). Language only influences understanding.

Also Dexter78, I don't understand what you mean by 'previous experienced reality'. Are you saying that this 'experienced reality' is real? Or merely perceived? Furthermore, what do you mean by 'feedback'?

Cheers!
-sc

[Dexter78]

Also Dexter78, I don't understand what you mean by 'previous experienced reality'. Are you saying that this 'experienced reality' is real? Or merely perceived? Furthermore, what do you mean by 'feedback'?

I would say that the experience was real, but to be more clear I probably should have said "their interpretation of their experience" instead of "previous experienced reality," and therefore yes, would be a perception. By feedback I mean that when we interpret an experience, we use some sort of symbology, usually words, to "capture" the experience for interpretation, which then influence our interpretation of our next experience, which we fill in with words, and so on.

[Seeker]

Words are a very poor means of communication. The two most misunderstood words in any language are the words god and love.

However we use words to communicate and we translate the meanings of words according to our understanding of them. Even simple words like yes and no are misused and / or misunderstood. Actions can some times speak louder then words.

Language can only be used to try and express reality. In Truth reality must be experienced!

[chad3006]

Upon further pondering:

I suppose language drives reality only for those most removed from reality. Political language to describe the war in Iraq is not for the soldiers or Iraqi citizens, it’s for approximately 35% of Americans who, we are told, still support it.

Frank Luntz makes his living selecting language to drive reality for some people. In an interview I heard, he suggests using “exploration” rather than “drilling” to describe extracting oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The language is for those who will never go there. Furthermore, I suppose, he selects language to convince his clients that his services will make a difference, and once again, I suppose it will for some.

[GoshisDead]

Language cannot effect an ultimate reality, if there is such a thing, it can influence perception of reality/belief of what is, mainly in the area of semantic domain. Although one person's physical receptors and translators are on average equal to another, their system of reference is not necessarily the same or even too similar. Some people, I think in error, assume that language is about communication, and granted communication is a by product of language, however, language is about referencing reality. Language creates a meta-reality through which you can virtually navigate the perceptions which the physical body receives. So in the realm of domain outside influences have sway on your meta-reality which ends up influencing your cognitive interpretation of the physical world.

[de Silentio]

I would like to reply, buy my reply wouldn't mean much since I am not well versed in the philosophy of language.

But I can suggest some reading. You might enjoy Foucault or Derrida. Their work towards deconstruction and postmodernism are facinating regarding the philosophy of language.