The language we speak affects half of what we see, according
to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and
the University of Chicago.
Scholars have long debated whether our native language
affects how we perceive reality – and whether speakers of
different languages might therefore see the world
differently. The idea that language affects perception is
controversial, and results have conflicted. A paper published
this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences supports the idea – but with a twist.
The paper suggests that language affects perception in the
right half of the visual field, but much less, if at all, in
the left half. The paper, "Whorf Hypothesis is Supported in
the Right Visual Field but not in the Left," by Aubrey
Gilbert, Terry Regier, Paul Kay, and Richard Ivry – is the
first to propose that language may shape just half of our
visual world.
Terry Regier is Associate Professor of Psychology at the
University of Chicago. Gilbert is a graduate student in the
Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at UC Berkeley. Kay is
Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and a senior research
scientist at the International Computer Science Institute in
Berkeley. Ivry is a Professor of Psychology, director of UC
Berkeley's Institute of Cognitive and Brain Sciences, and a
member of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute.
Their finding is suggested by the organization of the brain,
the researchers say. Language function is processed
predominantly in the left hemisphere of the brain, which
receives visual information directly from the right visual
field. "So it would make sense for the language processes of
the left hemisphere to influence perception more in the right
half of the visual field than in the left half", said Terry
Regier of the University of Chicago, who proposed the idea
behind the study.
The team confirmed the hypothesis, through experiments
designed and conducted in Richard Ivry's lab at the
University of California, Berkeley. "We were thrilled to find
this sort of effect and are very interested in investigating
it further," said Gilbert, the lead author on the study. The
hypothesis was confirmed in experiments that tested Berkeley
undergraduates, and also in an experiment that tested a
patient whose hemispheres had been surgically separated. "The
evening I first reviewed the split-brain patient data I
called people at home in my excitement to share the
findings," said Gilbert.
Many of the distinctions made in English do not appear in
other languages, and vice versa. For instance, English uses
two different words for the colors blue and green, while many
other languages – such as Tarahumara, an indigenous language
of Mexico – instead use a single color term that covers
shades of both blue and green. An earlier study by Paul Kay
and colleagues had shown that speakers of English and
Tarahumara perceive colors differently: English speakers
found blues and greens to be more distinct from each other
than speakers of Tarahumara did, as if the English "green" /
"blue" linguistic distinction sharpened the perceptual
difference between the colors themselves. The present study
essentially repeated the English part of that earlier test,
but also made sure that colors were presented to either the
right or the left half of the visual field – something the
earlier study hadn't done – so as to test whether language
influences the right half of our visual world more than the
left half, as predicted by brain organization.
In each experimental trial of the present study, participants
saw a ring of colored squares. All the squares were of
exactly the same color, except for an "odd-man-out" of a
different color. The odd-man-out appeared in either the right
or the left half of the circle, and participants were asked
to indicate which side of the circle the odd-man-out was on,
by making a keyboard response. Critically, the color of this
odd-man-out had either the same name as the other squares
(e.g. a shade of "green", while the others were all a
different shade of "green"), or a different name (e.g. a
shade of "blue", while the others were all a shade of
"green"). The researchers found that participants responded
more quickly when the color of the odd-man-out had a
different name than the color of the other squares – as if
the linguistic difference had heightened the perceptual
difference – but this only occurred if the odd-man-out was in
the right half of the visual field, and not when it was in
the left half. This was the predicted pattern.
Earlier studies addressing the possible influence of language
on perception tended to look for a simple yes or no answer:
either language affects perception, or it does not. In
contrast, the current findings support both views at once.
Language appears to sharpen visual distinctions in the right
visual field, and not in the left visual field. The
researchers conclude that "our representation of the visual
world may be, at one and the same time, filtered and not
filtered through the categories of language."
Did they correct for possible systemic color blindness among the population of Tarahumara? Perhaps the reason these people's language only has one name for these colors is because these people genetically predisposed to being colorblind to those colors?
You don't develop words for what you don't perceive - we don't have names for 10.1 um vs. 890nm light - they are both "infrared", because there is no reason for the average person to have a different term for them. If dogs had language they would have a myriad of words for different smells we could not differentiate - and likewise a hypothetical dog's language would NOT have as many color names - pretty much "red" and "not-red" (dogs are not monochromes - they can differentiate between red and yellow-green-blue).
(OT: Bruce - you need to mod the code so that a blank line between paragraphs is preserved - I should not have to insert a <br> just to break things up).
By and large, they researchers overestimate the value of language. Our perception is the first thing, and it varies according to different people. So like so many perceptions, we humans developed languages differently. <I> Language determines how we perceive?.</I>is just an opposit to phenomena. Our perception determines how we express it, thus develop different languages. <P>I was unable to understand English till age 20 or something. Of course I passed English test, but what I understood at that time was not an English, I was able to understand only Japanese, what I was able to do was just a way to translate English into Japanese, for me Japanese was the only meaning. <P>Around at age 20, I tried to understand English as English speakers do -not through translation but as it is. Now of course I understand English quite well. <P>As a man who does not understand English till age 21, it seems absurd for us to overestimate the role of language in perception. Perception isn't affected by language, but language is a reflection of what we perceived. Therefore when our perception varies, our language also varies. But even though language we use changes, our perception never changes. Our perception determines how we use our languages. Our perception is prior to our language. <P>At age twenty, I just realised I am unable to express what I perceive through Japanese -my native tongue, so I decided to learn English to express properly what I perceived. But throughout my childhood to the present day, my perception has never changed. <P><I>If someone thinks that our language determines how we see things, I can't help saying he is not a master of language, but language has been affecting on him decisively, which is a pity.
Words Determine What You See
The language we speak affects half of what we see, according to researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Chicago.
Scholars have long debated whether our native language affects how we perceive reality – and whether speakers of different languages might therefore see the world differently. The idea that language affects perception is controversial, and results have conflicted. A paper published this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences supports the idea – but with a twist.
The paper suggests that language affects perception in the right half of the visual field, but much less, if at all, in the left half. The paper, "Whorf Hypothesis is Supported in the Right Visual Field but not in the Left," by Aubrey Gilbert, Terry Regier, Paul Kay, and Richard Ivry – is the first to propose that language may shape just half of our visual world.
Terry Regier is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago. Gilbert is a graduate student in the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at UC Berkeley. Kay is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and a senior research scientist at the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley. Ivry is a Professor of Psychology, director of UC Berkeley's Institute of Cognitive and Brain Sciences, and a member of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute.
Their finding is suggested by the organization of the brain, the researchers say. Language function is processed predominantly in the left hemisphere of the brain, which receives visual information directly from the right visual field. "So it would make sense for the language processes of the left hemisphere to influence perception more in the right half of the visual field than in the left half", said Terry Regier of the University of Chicago, who proposed the idea behind the study.
The team confirmed the hypothesis, through experiments designed and conducted in Richard Ivry's lab at the University of California, Berkeley. "We were thrilled to find this sort of effect and are very interested in investigating it further," said Gilbert, the lead author on the study. The hypothesis was confirmed in experiments that tested Berkeley undergraduates, and also in an experiment that tested a patient whose hemispheres had been surgically separated. "The evening I first reviewed the split-brain patient data I called people at home in my excitement to share the findings," said Gilbert.
Many of the distinctions made in English do not appear in other languages, and vice versa. For instance, English uses two different words for the colors blue and green, while many other languages – such as Tarahumara, an indigenous language of Mexico – instead use a single color term that covers shades of both blue and green. An earlier study by Paul Kay and colleagues had shown that speakers of English and Tarahumara perceive colors differently: English speakers found blues and greens to be more distinct from each other than speakers of Tarahumara did, as if the English "green" / "blue" linguistic distinction sharpened the perceptual difference between the colors themselves. The present study essentially repeated the English part of that earlier test, but also made sure that colors were presented to either the right or the left half of the visual field – something the earlier study hadn't done – so as to test whether language influences the right half of our visual world more than the left half, as predicted by brain organization.
In each experimental trial of the present study, participants saw a ring of colored squares. All the squares were of exactly the same color, except for an "odd-man-out" of a different color. The odd-man-out appeared in either the right or the left half of the circle, and participants were asked to indicate which side of the circle the odd-man-out was on, by making a keyboard response. Critically, the color of this odd-man-out had either the same name as the other squares (e.g. a shade of "green", while the others were all a different shade of "green"), or a different name (e.g. a shade of "blue", while the others were all a shade of "green"). The researchers found that participants responded more quickly when the color of the odd-man-out had a different name than the color of the other squares – as if the linguistic difference had heightened the perceptual difference – but this only occurred if the odd-man-out was in the right half of the visual field, and not when it was in the left half. This was the predicted pattern.
Earlier studies addressing the possible influence of language on perception tended to look for a simple yes or no answer: either language affects perception, or it does not. In contrast, the current findings support both views at once. Language appears to sharpen visual distinctions in the right visual field, and not in the left visual field. The researchers conclude that "our representation of the visual world may be, at one and the same time, filtered and not filtered through the categories of language."
- Press release from Eurekalert