Do We Need a Word for Everything?

By Nathaniel Scharping | April 4, 2017 10:27 am
shutterstock_172852223

(Credit: danm12/Shutterstock)

Imagine walking through a forest near dusk. It is peaceful and quiet; the setting sun paints streaks of light through tree trunks and across your path. The scene is familiar to anyone who’s ever taken a walk in the woods. 

Using one word, how would you describe the experience? 

You might defer to a string of adjectives: serenity, beauty, peace, fulfillment — words that dance around the feeling without ever precisely pinning it down. But that’s not the case in Japanese. In that language, a specific term encapsulates the feeling evoked by sunlight dancing through the trees: komorebi.

It’s a tidy way of packaging calm, wonder and harmony into one word.

Komorebi has no direct translation in English; it stands on its own, as do many words from other languages that lasso constellations of meaning and emotion in different ways. These words seem to hint that, due to the confines of language, there are ways to perceive the world that remain locked.

How and why we put words to things is a hotly debated topic at the heart of linguistics. They allow us to communicate, of course, but to what extent do they help us think? 

Connecting the Unreal to Reality

Words, at their most basic, bridge our subconscious to the physical environment. 

“One of the things that [language] does is allow you to put that information about anything belonging to that category into memory and retrieve it easily, and therefore also talk about it to other people,” says Eve Clark, a professor of linguistics at Stanford University.

shutterstock_463902608

Are they here yet? The iktsuarpok is all too real. (Credit: NATALIIA MAKAROVA/Shutterstock)

Most linguists today agree that having a word for something alters our perception of it in some way. This is a version of the “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,” named for Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, Yale University anthropologists who argued that cognition and language are intimately entwined. The initial, or strong, version of the hypothesis holds that without a word for something our minds are essentially stymied — we cannot even think about an unnamed concept.

As words like komorebi make clear, this is intuitively wrong. The feeling the word evokes is familiar to us, even if we couldn’t find a name for it. But a word helps recall the concept in a structured way. This is the basis of the updated, or weak, version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

The weak version has gained support among linguists, as it posits that when we pin something down with language, it’s easier to think about and utilize.

“There’s never been any evidence for the strong Whorfian claim,” says Edward Gibson, a professor of cognitive science at MIT. “What there is evidence for is that when you learn a language, you notice associations that you might not have noticed as you learn. For instance, color terms; you learn what blue is, or what green is, or what yellow is, and category boundaries become more salient to you than they would have without the actual terms.”

By this line of thinking, language sorts experiences into discrete packets of information that contain feelings and impressions. Once we’ve packaged an experience, we can communicate it to ourselves and others. 


Listen to the author discuss this story on our “It’s Only Science” podcast. (Begins at 24:45)


How Words Help Us Think

Studies have shown that talking to ourselves during a task helps complete it. In one study, participants were given a simple task: search for an item in a large set of random images. When they said the name of the object out loud, participants were consistently better at finding the object. A similar experiment found the same results for inner speech, that is, words that participants thought to themselves.

“What it comes down to is the relationship between ideas and language and a lot of people would say, you can think in images, but mostly we think in words for those images,” says Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University. “Words and images are inextricably intertwined – if we have a word for something, the image is easier.”

Yalta_summit_1945_with_Churchill,_Roosevelt,_Stalin

A terrible moment for a tartle. (Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Try a few more untranslatable words on for size: iktsuarpok, an Inuit word for the feeling of anticipation we feel while looking out the window waiting for someone to arrive; tartle, a Scottish word that describes hesitation when introducing someone because you’ve forgotten their name; or mokita, a word from the Kivila language of Papua New Guinea, describing a truth we all know but refuse to talk about.

These terms describe very specific situations and their attendant emotions, in a way that allows for easy communication between two beings that may have very different perspectives. Although we may use different shades of color, we’re all working from the same palette.

One Spectrum, Many Viewpoints

The analogy of color works well for describing how words divide the emotional spectrum. Just as we’ve taken a set of wavelengths and imposed color terms on them, words delineate where one feeling begins and another ends, although overlap is inevitable.

Color has played an important role for linguists over the years, dating back to a seminal 1969 paper by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay. By analyzing how 98 different languages referred to basic colors, they claimed to have found a series of universal rules for naming colors. The languages varied in the number of colors they had words for, but they all seemed to differentiate between white and black. And, as they added more colors to their vocabulary, they did so in a predictable way, adding first red, then yellow and green, then blue and so on.

maxresdefault

Interpretations of mokita vary.

While their work has been substantially critiqued and revised, it was an attempt to determine if various cultures break up the world in the same way. If that holds for colors, the assumption goes, it might hold for more complex things like emotions and experiences. If we all tend to break up the world in the same way, then we should be able to understand each other, no matter the language we speak.

We can run into trouble, however, when we try to swipe words from other cultures with very different conceptions of the world.

Can’t Put Two Into One

“My classic example is the idea of mind and body. Westerners can’t think of mind and body as a single entity because we have two different words,” says Tannen. “The very fact that we’ve said two words makes them two different things in our consciousness. We try to smush the two together, and we can, but it’s not going to be as real to us as if we had one word that meant mind and body.”

The associations each word conjures are fundamentally at odds with each other, according to Tannen, and trying to put them together goes against our entire worldview. The solution may be even more fundamental than trying to reconcile opposing concepts. To fuse mind and body, argues Jeff Connor-Linton, also a professor of linguistics at Georgetown, we need to adopt an entirely different system of classification.

“The issue is not that we’re trying to take two things and jam them into one word, but that word, or that set of words in the other language, has organized that overall field, that semantic cloud differently than we do,” he says.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Mind & Brain, Top Posts
MORE ABOUT: emotions, psychology
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    ITo fuse mind and body…we need to adopt an entirely different system of classification. Heteronormatism problematizes homosocial othering → ACTIVISM! How high did China’s Cultural Revolution stack corpses? About that “we“: IQs in a committee add like ohms in parallel resistors.

  • aka darrell

    ”Using one word, how would you describe the experience? ”

    I would have thought that ”gestalt’ would suffice.

    • Maia

      You’re not describing an experience with “gestalt” but a category of experience, an abstraction.

      • aka darrell

        Oh. Okay.

  • OWilson

    I cheated, checked the thesaurus, and got :

    Elated, euphoric, enchanted, enraptured, at-oneness. spellboud, transported, enthralled!

    Anything close?

    • SpiderJon

      None of those words captures what’s unique or specifically characteristic about walking through a forest near dusk when it’s peaceful and quiet and the the setting sun is painting streaks of light through tree trunks and across your path.

      Some or all of them could equally apply to a novel, a symphony, a painting, or a sports match.

      • OWilson

        So what’s your guess? :)

        • SpiderJon

          Hi OWilson

          I think that’s the point — there isn’t just one word in English for the experience.

          Then again, we do have syzygy :-)

          • OWilson

            Bah, humbug!

            In the old days my brilliant, but troubled, gay hero, Cole Porter would have simply made one up. (delovely?)

            Today you only have,”“I got 99 problems but a b*tch ain’t one”.

            What happened?

          • Maia

            Except that you are focusing on the delight and leaving out the delighters, ie the trees, light, walking, sundown, et al. And to me, that’s the important part. One leaf spiraling down in a shaft of light can create a similar and a bit sad sort of delight. But if you just say “sad-delight” you are leaving out the leaf, spiraling and the light shaft and perhaps the hermit thrush calling… :)

          • FrDavid

            Very true. Thus mankind has always sought to describe Nirvana, Heaven, or various other ethereal concepts. It is my belief that only a poetical mind is capable of conjuring the reality.

          • OWilson

            Just make sure you have your camera handy.

            A picture is the thing that can convey those feelings.

            A thousand “Words” worth!

            (Pun intended!) :)

  • Lurid

    Why not write an entire paragraph about it? Or an essay describing it’s breathtaking beauty? I believe we’ve become lazier as a species in a verbal and a written sense. I thought of Shakespearean literature as soon as I saw the headline. (The longwinded soliloquies, monologues, conversations that didn’t cut corners on language.) Archaic vernacular, but it got the point across. Why should we cram an entire experience into one word? Paint a picture with a thousand.

    • moderatelymoderate

      As the article says, once we have a singe word for something, we think about it differently. And having a word and writing a paragraph aren’t mutually exclusive.

      • Lurid

        You wouldn’t need a word if you were able to describe it in more than one. My comment was only about the headline, not the article as a whole, and what it made me think about.

      • Maia

        We can think WITH it differently, that new word embodies a slice of time/experience, rather than having to describe it at length. Of course, there are drawbacks, too, specifics tend to get obscured in favor ot generalities…but that’s an ongoing problem with all language. We have to rediscover and refurbish and re-cycle words along the way…

    • Maia

      A spectrum from concentration to expansion is good, so we have words which are able to embody enormous complexity of feeling, nuance, etc. and others which attempt to be super-precise “terms” (to divide things down into the smallest bits). Both are equally important and pleasing and useful.

  • StanChaz

    Ommmmmm…..

    • Maia

      Describes ALL EXPERIENCE WHATSOVER, not any particular one ….which is what I thought we were talking about here. But it’s sure a great word, if a bit of a Buddhist in-joke. :)

  • Harold McFarland

    Western mind / body dualism may be at the root of the problems we have had coming to decisions as to how to protect intellectual property in the age of computers.
    In the early years of computing, it was held as a matter of law that software (mind) methods could not be protected by patent; only hardware (body) implementations were eligible for such general protection of method, while software could only be protected as literal writing through copyright. This forced inventors of software methods to create Rube Goldberg mechanisms to mechanically emulate software processes and methods that they wished to protect in a general way.
    Only after some years did the legal system catch on to the equivalence of hardware and software. And even today we have not fully rationalized this equivalence, e.g., allowing copyright for design features such as software interface specifications that should have the same limited life spans as patents.

    • Maia

      Very interesting comment, thank you, I knew nothing about this really. I am almost over-familiar with that mind-body dualism that shows up everywhere, but you have added a new domain for that knowledge to be found.

  • David J Worrell Jr

    The common word I use to reference both mind AND body is: SELF.

  • Overburdened_Planet

    Iktsuarpoktartlemokita.

    That feeling when someone is going to arrive and I won’t remember their name, but it’s not something I can talk about. 😉

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

The Crux

A collection of bright and big ideas about timely and important science from a community of experts.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+