The vocabulary we have does more than communicate our knowledge; it shapes what we can know. Evaluate this claim with reference to different areas of knowledge.

However, while vocabulary does not always encompass the totality of reality, the absence of vocabulary does not necessarily suggest the absence of knowledge, as the claim indicates. If we were to consider the possibility that vocabulary limited all that we can know, how is it that people can learn different languages, languages which they have no vocabulary of at all? Consider emotion as well. Often times, emotion is described as one way of knowing which cannot always be described in words, but when we experience the emotion of anger, but we do not know how to express it, does it necessarily mean that we do not ‘know’ anger? Of course, if we learn the word ‘anger’ without experiencing it, our knowledge of anger becomes limited and incomplete, but not all aspects of knowledge acquisition is restricted by vocabulary. While people may not be able to express certain things, it does not equal a lack of knowledge. For instance, consider what many people in the Western culture deem as a basic skill in math and in life – the ability to count and understand the concept of ‘amount’. We often associate this ability with a vocabulary of numbers with the thinking that having a vocabulary of numbers is equivalent to knowing how to count. But in the language of a small Amazonian community, the Piraha, a vocabulary for numbers does not exist; they use “hói”, “hói”, and “baágiso” to express quantities meaning “around one”, “some”, and “many”, respectively (Frank, Fedorendko, and Gibson). While they have no numbers, this does not imply that they have no knowledge of the concepts associated with numbers, like the ability to count or the concept of a specific ‘amount’. As cognitive neuroscientist Michael Frank and colleagues demonstrated in their 2008 study, when villagers of the Piraha were presented with some number of spools of threads and were told to give the researcher the same number of balloons by lining up the balloon next to the spools one-by-one, they were able to accomplish the task correctly, demonstrating their ability to comprehend the concepts of ‘amount’ and ‘counting’ (Frank, Fedorendko, and Gibson). Thus, this again shows that in some aspects, knowledge does not need to be restricted by vocabulary because not all knowledge can be expressed through language or vocabulary.

In evaluating whether vocabulary limits what we can know, it is also important to consider whether we develop new vocabulary to describe the knowledge we have, which suggests that vocabulary does not always restrict the development of knowledge; or do we develop knowledge based on the vocabulary we have, implying that the growth of knowledge is dependent upon what vocabulary we have? And again, the answer would vary from one area of knowledge to another.

In some cases, the knowledge may precede the vocabulary, which would suggest that what we can know is not always restricted by our vocabulary. For instance, in the area of knowledge of the mathematics, it has been argued that children come to understand the concept of simple quantities, like 4 and 5, by learning it through examples such as ‘4 oranges’ or ‘5 cups’. Also, consider the Arrhenius constant in chemistry, a natural science. Before Svante Arrhenius can come up with the symbol, A, for the Arrhenius constant, also known as the frequency factor, he had to have the knowledge of the underlying concepts of the constant, such as the Arrhenius equation which describes the relationship between the rate constant and temperature. If this was not true, Arrhenius would have been extremely lucky. Thus, in the knower’s viewpoint, though these phenomenon – the concept of the numbers four and five and the rate of reaction – may not be ‘new’ knowledge to the world, it is to the knower, thus demonstrating that new vocabulary can de developed in response to the knowledge we have.

However, what of concepts like -1 or square root of 2 or a trillion in the mathematics? Can knowledge precede vocabulary in this case as the concepts become more complicated? This thus raises the point that while in the knower’s perspective, knowledge can sometimes precede vocabulary, the opposite may occur as well. In other words, vocabulary can also be used to develop new knowledge. Considering mathematics again, while we can comprehend concepts of four or five through understanding the knowledge first, as the concepts become more complicated, such as the concept of ‘i’, the square root of negative one, the less we come to understand that concept by ‘experiencing it’. This is similar to how most educational systems in the world function today. Students are given the vocabulary first – told that square root of -1 is known as ‘i’ – and then allowed to apply and use it in an attempt to acquire the knowledge. The same applies in the natural sciences, where we are often taught the vocabulary first, such as rate of reaction, and then allowed to explore what those words mean through experiments. In history, though a similar phenomenon applies, we have very little choice but to learn the vocabulary then apply and analyze the knowledge. This is because in history, unlike other areas of knowledge, knowers cannot directly observe the past, and as a result, it would be difficult to develop the knowledge first before coming up with the vocabulary for it, unless a person is an eye-witness to an important event that he or she already knows will go down in history. But in most cases, this is not true, and in order to acquire knowledge in the area of history, it would then be necessary to learn the vocabulary then understand the historical knowledge. Thus, this demonstrates that vocabulary can sometimes precede knowledge, in other words, restricting and shaping what we can know.

The claim makes an important point in connecting vocabulary to how knowledge can be acquired. However, this assertion is simply too broad and extreme. Vocabulary simply does not always restrict what we can know, or vice versa. The extent to which vocabulary can limit what we can know or whether it precedes knowledge varies from one area of knowledge to another, and thus it would be unfair and unjustified to reach the conclusion on either side of the extremes. Often times, vocabulary is limited in that it fails to represent the entire reality of a concept, since by definition, vocabulary is a system of symbols which communicate thought and opinions, but other times, vocabulary can serve as an entrance to a wealth of knowledge, similar to how our educational system works today. Thus, though there is validity in the claim, the knower must be aware of the limitations of the claim and the fact that knowledge can be acquired without the words or symbols we already have.

Works Cited:

Crane, John, and Hannibal, Jette. IB Psychology Course Companion: International Baccalaureate

Diploma Programme. USA: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Frank, Michael C., E. Fedorenko, and E. Gibson. “Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence

from piraha language and cognition.” Cognition 108. (2008): 819 – 824. Web. 28 Nov.

2011.