Role Does Language and Language

¶ … role does language and language diversity play in the critical thinking process?

Language and language diversity play very significant roles in critical thinking processes, of speakers and listeners alike (and also of writers and readers alike). This is because language and language diversity are never separate from the meanings, intended and unintended, driving those very critical thinking processes of both the speaker/writer and hearer/reader. Also, the relative ease or difficulty of way(s) in which language is expressed by, say, someone speaking English who is (or is not) a native speaker of the language, will influence both that individual's critical thinking process (es) and the way the communication is received and/r understood by hearer or reader. That in turn inevitably influences the hearer or reader's critical thinking process as well.

Additionally, even when a speaker or writer is fluent across languages or language systems, nothing ever translates exactly as intended, or is received just as it was intended, in any language, either between two native speakers; a native and a non-native speaker; two non-native speakers, or even in a circumstance like hearing a question in one language (say English) and then answering it in another (say Spanish) in order (for example) for the language not to be understood by someone overhearing one end of a telephone conversation. This also goes for language systems like sign language, which must be rendered physically, instead of verbally or in writing, thus bringing into play a unique issue of speed of translation as well as accuracy of translation.

Another factor that influences roles of language and language diversity is stereotypic attitudes about various languages, accents, and diversities of linguistic expression within various contexts, even before they are uttered by a speaker. Here, I also mean social attitudes and relationships of power, where identities and roles of speakers and/or listeners play important roles, depending on environment and circumstance.

For example, accurately or not, an American high school teacher in Nebraska is in general more likely (initially at least) to give more credit, for good critical thinking skills, to a student in her class speaking aristocratic-sounding British English (whatever the true content of the expression), say, a foreign exchange student from upper-crust England than a Mexican-born student in that same class who speaks labored, broken, heavily accented American English. Arguably, this bias would have to do with both embedded stereotypes about the British upper class vs. The Mexican poor (e.g., that the privileged British are brighter, better educated, more cultured, etc., than are poor Mexicans) and with the teacher's own relative ease or difficulty of understanding the respective students' words and meanings in the first place.

Further, in such a circumstance, the teacher would also most likely expect for the British student's thoughts and words, to be more intelligent, thoughtful, accurate, etc., than the Mexican student's thoughts and words. However, in order to test the accuracy of this, the teacher's own critical thinking skills would next come into play: then, issues of how much (or how little) the teacher values diversity of language, and/or how well (or poorly) the teacher literally understood both students' words (and tried to understand them) would become important.

2. How does language empower or limit the expression of our thoughts?

There would be no expression of our thoughts (or at least shared expression of our thoughts, through words) without shared language. However, language itself does not, and cannot, exist in a vacuum. Instead, language always has its own unique context and its own unique relationships of more or less power (or of equality) between speakers. Those same relationships often influence how we do or do not express our thoughts. Language itself, and the way it is either delivered or received, is very important to the expression of our thoughts, both one's use (and the other person's use) of language, and the context of the language either spoken or received.

On the other hand, everyone has had a circumstance where some thought, feeling, perception, or experience could not quite "be put into words." Arguably, also, language goes beyond words, such as the "language" of music or art. Still, it is through either spoken or written language that we most easily, and most commonly, express our thoughts, and in ways best understood by others.

However, since language is never independent of either a social context or relationship of power, the expression of our thoughts through language can never be just literal, uninflected expression. Instead, its meaning is always "loaded," sometimes more so, sometimes less so. Take, for example, the following exchange:

Speaker 1: Our environment is getting better.

Speaker 2: Right.

The true meaning of this exchange (and there could be many) depends on the context in which it was spoken (or perhaps overheard, or written, as an e-mail exchange) and the relationship of more or less power (or equality) between speakers.

For example, between friends, the above exchange could signal either agreement (i.e., yes, the environment certainly is getting better) or sarcastic disagreement (especially, nowadays, if the word "yeah" had preceded the word "right"). However, in another context, the meaning of the exchange would be different, and maybe even forced: say between an environmental engineer and his work subordinate.

In such a case, if the engineer said "our environment is getting better" to his subordinate, there would likely be an inflected expectation within that statement, based on the relationship of speaker to subordinate, that the subordinate should reply affirmatively, independent of whether he or she actually agreed with the speaker. To reply negatively or sarcastically instead (as in "yeah, right") within such a context, a perfectly safe option between friendly equals, is less an option (that is, if one wishes not to offend one's superior) than it would be in the first case, among equals. In the first case, a truthful reply is more likely being sought; in the second, agreement is being sought, truthful or not.