The FuZzY Triangle

Ever since Stanford, I have started using the words ‘techy’ and ‘fuzzy’ as descriptions to distinguish what is related to science, math, and technology from what is more related to the arts, the abstract, and the history. However, the more I look around me, the more I see the way both combine. This week’s readings by Lupyan and Rickford were not the exception.

Lupyan’s reading brings back the question about how subjective the definition and significance  of a word is. Through his 5 experiments in which he makes people draw, label, recognize, and interpret different representations of a triangle, Lupyan learns about the significance word choice plays in our mental representation. I found this really fascinating because it made me think about what would I have done being instructed to draw a triangle vs. a ‘three sided polygon’, and realized that the word triangle limited my imagination to fit the basic stereotypical equilateral triangle, whereas the latter would have made me put draw a point on paper and think about which way would I want my polygon to go. It is interesting to me how the label of a ‘triangle’ directed me toward a more ‘techy’ side, where I related my task to my math class,  whereas the latter made me want to get creative, ‘fuzzy’, and play around with the instruction. I found this interesting because it made me think how this could affect a child’s learning as they grow up. Having attended school in Mexico and then move to California, it was amazing how language affected my way of studying math. Back in Mexico, I would add negative numbers, whereas in the USA, I would subtract. I think that Lupyan’s paper brings a very important point about how the language of a teacher can affect one’s perspective and way of working, in both, the techy and fuzzy,  aspects.

I believe, therefore, that Lupyan’s experimental conclusion about how language affects one’s perspective makes us realize the importance of Rickford’s work, in which he pushes for more representation on the study of African American speech, and the language relationship with sociolinguistics, as a way to keep the culture alive. I found Rickford’s paper to be very noble because of his advocacy for the minority and the empowerment he wishes for people to give to these underrepresented communities. I agree with his point that people studying sociolinguistics should not only commit to their data, but to the people they are studying as I believe one should have a bigger cause behind their work. I strongly believe that collecting data has no value if one doesn’t make something out of that data, and I think that advocating for any misfortune that crosses their study to be their duty. I don’t think they should feel socially obligated to start a whole movement, but I believe that at least giving the society they study a little back is fundamental.

In general, I really liked this week’s readings because they made me think about the importance of diversity even in language. I specifically enjoyed Rickford’s approachability and call of action in academia, and Lupyan’s dedication and creativity in coming up with an experiment that seems so superficially simple, and yet educates us once again, how a picture says a million words while a label limits us from so much more.