“Our Language Affects What We See” Article by Caldwell-Harris

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The piece of media for the analysis is the article titled “Our Language Affects What We See.” It was issued on 15 January 2021 and published by Springer Nature in the online version of the Scientific American (Caldwell-Harris). The medium is the oldest American magazine that was founded in 1845 and now reaches its audience via print, digital, web, and mobile app editions. The Scientific American provides about 10 million readers with essential information on research and discovery (“About Scientific American”). It was written by Catherine L. Caldwell-Harris, an Associate Professor of Psychology at Boston University, who applies her knowledge of cognitive and psycholinguist science to solve interdisciplinary problems, including language learning and immigration. The following paper will analyze the selected piece of media and include the review of its target audience, demographics, communication strategies, and influence on readers.

The media is comprised of factual information (scholarly findings) and represents different approaches to the topic of language’s impact on thought and perception. The writer uses an impartial perspective, lists current information on the problem, and does not include her personal interpretation or opinion. Thus, the article is objective, as the author regards the linguistic relativity hypothesis in its strong and weak forms to summarize the latest findings on the link between language and the speaker’s worldview. The article demonstrates how specific vocabulary existing exclusively in a particular language impacts the frequency of its use by native speakers. The author employs the example of the dualistic perception of the blue color by the Russian speakers. The division of the color into light blue and dark blue suggests that individual perception or way of thinking depends on a native language (Caldwell-Harris). The writer concludes that the experiments measuring the Russian blues in a series of verbal and non-verbal tasks revealed that the brain unconsciously activates linguistic categories.

The media might be viewed as a news article because it addresses a current issue and allows its readers to improve their awareness of linguistic relativity and associated topics. The intended audience of the media source consists of diverse, solution-thinking readers who seek quality information covering various areas of scientific interest. The magazine ensures equal access to its articles, news stories, and opinions regardless of the target audience’s citizenship or preferred type of media (print, digital, or online). The media is translated into 14 languages published in local editions to reach an international audience, but the magazine does not provide the data on readers’ ethnicity or race (“About Scientific American”). Scientific American has 57% of female and 43% of male readership with a median age of 44 years (“Scientific American Mind”). Most readers come from diverse backgrounds, and 80% are employed and have a college degree or postgraduate education, while 19% of them representing executive-level managers (C-Suite) (“Scientific American Mind”). The magazine covers a wide range of scientific, professional, and educational interests but does not measure the political preferences of its audience.

The piece promotes positive communication because it employs an objective approach and aims to build readers’ awareness of linguistic features impacting individuals and societies. It also explains the forms of the hypothesis related to the relationship between language and thought and incorporates multiple examples from the Russian blue study. There are no judgmental or moralistic remarks in the article, as it supports different points of view and presents factual information from reputable scholarly sources, researchers, and experts in psychology and cognitive science. The author does not mention her opinion and uses passive voice or the researchers’ perspective. Examples include “this version has been rejected by most scholars,” “scholars are now interested,” “the researchers added,” and “Maier and Rahman designed” (Caldwell-Harris). Such phrases support the impartial approach of the writer, which helps avoid stereotyping and judgment. Moreover, the piece does not create any stereotypes because the topic of the article is scientific. However, the research findings reviewed by the author might promote effective multicultural communication by explaining the linguistic origin of cultural differences and similarities.

The media can affect the thinking of its audience through the use of credible sources and citations from respectable authors and experts in the field. Furthermore, it might teach the reader to discuss interdisciplinary topics in an approachable manner without the use of complex terms and professional vocabulary. The article improved my knowledge of linguistic factors that might explain the perception of reality by diverse individuals. It also helped form my opinion on the problem of perception differences, as the author underlines the factors, such as the use of a particular language, that should be considered in multicultural communication. However, the piece of media does not influence human behavior because it does not contain recommendations for action and does not mention any cultural conflicts or ethical issues. The primary goal of the scientific source is to broaden its readers’ worldviews, publish up-to-date research findings, and raise their awareness of relevant topics. Overall, the piece of media is a valuable source of knowledge on human nature, social interactions, and language-dependent perception.