Similarly, language is not simply a list of such labels, for a simple sequence of labels does not convey meaning in the way that a statement does. When the scientist talks about the boiling point of water being 100ºC, he must know what “boiling point” means and what “100ºC” represents. Something such as temperature cannot really be measured because it is indefinitely variable. The terms we assigned to the concept of temperature reduce it to numbers so that we may be able to conceive it in our mind. The statement “The boiling point of water is 100ºC.” contains predetermined abstractions which allow us to organize a reality. It follows that scientific knowledge is undeniably relying on language, although reality or nature might be independent of language. Thus, because scientific language needs to be as clear and precise as possible, ambiguous terms can lead to misunderstanding. Language is then powerful and important in the scientific domain since it should allow structure, clarity and precision.
This may well lead to the idea that language imposes limits on our possibilities of knowing the world. Scientists do aspire to overcome those limits. And this is how language may change over time as new theories may contradict old ones. This is also true for facts in history or in other Areas of Knowledge.
Furthermore, since all the labels within any language have a role in the way human beings think and process experiences; one could control what a person can or cannot understand by limiting their knowledge of language. For example, if a person only knows the words tree and green, he will only use those two words to describe a painting representing a tree. That person doesn’t have the potential to describe the painting through its other aspects. He is then limited to what he can understand because his knowledge of language is limited.
Intentional use of the limits of language occurs in politics and in any modern wars. For instance, factual reports by the military may contain words that the general public does not understand. This lack of understanding of the real meanings to these words leads the population to be ignorant of the situation. Therefore, language can limit what people can and cannot know and truths can be hidden. More precisely, because ideas must be expressed through words, knowledge in all areas is, to a certain extend, closely relying on language.
Language can not only alter knowledge but also values. In Vietnamese, you would always call your siblings by “brother X” or “sister Y”: those words have the power to create mutual respect; whereas in English, you would simply call them by their personal individual names. It is the same case when you talk to strangers. I have the tendency to be more respectful towards a Vietnamese stranger simply because I am obliged to call him in a special manner depending on his age or sex. While in English, I would only use individual terms such as “you” and “I”. Thus, the value of a label can influence the values of a person. This may explain why cultures with differing languages also have dissimilar values.
In view of the fact that language can control what a culture can and cannot know, humans have been using it to control other disciplines to their advantage. In the book “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, animals, leaded by pigs, take over a farm run by humans. Through the novel, Orwell is clearly making a historical reference to Stalin and Lenin. By portraying them through the images of pigs, the author labels them as gluttonous, power-greedy animals with little moral values. He cleverly uses the values within particulars linguistic terminology to illustrate his political view. Further, throughout the novel, the pigs gradually gained more power, becoming even more voracious than the humans they once overthrew. Their fundamental rule of all animals been treated equally was then changed to: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” This ambiguity allowed the pigs to rule over the farm and maintain their power. This shows how language can sustain relationships of authority and how one can use it to influence logic, justice and value judgments.
Ambiguity is also commonly used by politicians or lawyers. By transferring thoughts that are open to more than one understanding, politicians can make promises that can be interpreted so differently that they don’t have to be fulfilled at all. Similarly, the use of negative or positive connotations which are attached to words can turn a neutral statement into negative or positive. Because we can be extremely influenced by the usage of labels, the control of language can directly control values and mentalities of a whole generation or community.
Thus, with all things considered, as the title implies, language is a lot more powerful and treacherous than we think. Because it has a direct control of our thoughts, in all areas, language has the power to explain or convince, clarify or mislead. It can affect one’s opinions negatively or positively. After all, human kind’s quest for knowledge is limited by our language and its ability to control our knowledge. By understanding the power of language, we can learn how to use it more effectively and we can reduce its influence on our thoughts. As Voltaire would say, “Error flies from mouth to mouth, from pen to pen, and to destroy it takes ages.”
Annoted Bibliography
ABEL, Reuben. (1976) Man is the Measure, Free Press
Chapter 19: Minds, Meanings, and Language (213-234)
KEMPLER, G. Language and the World, Pathways to Philosophy
POJMAN, Louis P. What Can We Know, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Chapter 5: What Is Knowledge? An Analysis (p.70-86)
POLLOCK, Jonh L. Knowledge and justifications, Princeton University Press
Chapter 7: Memory and Historical Knowledge
WAISMANN, Friedrich. Language and Human Reality, p. 146-150
WHORF, Benjamin Lee. Language, Mind, and Reality, p.151-166