Triangles and Giving Back

            The two readings from this week introduced two separate topics but they both moved into more general territory than previous readings. Lupyan’s article focused on the idea of an abstract conception of an object. He questioned whether the notion of the triangle exists in a person’s head or whether it is always based on the details of the specific triangle described. In contrast, Rickford focused on the wealth of data received from the African American community about their dialect of English and the lack of support given in return.

            For me, the most interesting part of Lupyan’s research was the idea that describing a triangle as a “triangle” or a “three-sided polygon” demonstrably changed people’s perceptions of the shape. Thus, the way in which a triangle is described determines the way it is drawn. The specificity of details influences the triangle that the mind generates. This discussion piqued my interest about the idea of an abstract thought. Can we ever truly move beyond the realm of the physical to an idealized state, as Lupyan describes? Language activates a representational state in our heads and the words impact the conceptions we generate.

For instance, people believe that some triangles are better than others. People were much more likely to draw an equilateral triangle with one side straight across the bottom. They described these triangles as more typical and better. For me, this raises a question about the connotations of the words we use. If certain words create more stable pictures in our heads or even infuse a more positive feeling, then language becomes even more powerful than I had previously considered. The words we use have the ability to determine and influence our thoughts. A triangle becomes more complicated, infused with preconceived notions and biases, even though we normally think of it as a simple, objective shape.

Both Lupyan and Rickford questioned assumptions made about the world. Lupyan focused on a practical linguistics problem while Rickford focused on the broader implications of such studies. Rickford wondered why linguists do so little to give back to the communities that provide them with invaluable data. Few blacks are employed in linguistics departments around the country. In addition, a tendency to fall into caricature of AAVE as the language of male criminals marginalizes other groups within the community. I think Rickford’s message is an important one. Yes, data is necessary for linguistics studies, as illustrated by the data present in the triangle study. But we should also find ways to improve the communities from which we draw data, whether that be through volunteer work or service learning.