Multiculturalism, Linguistic Relativity and Education

At present, there is a fierce debate going on regarding the state of multiculturism within Britain, and the degree to which it can be considered to have been a success. Government has made the valid point that while we have many different communities living among each other, the levels of integration have remained low in places, some communities have remained isolated, and at times, moral standards have been sacrificed for fear of cultural elitism. For these reasons, David Cameron has recently called for a new “muscular liberalism” to begin to address these issues; one that understands the value of different cultural perspectives to be function of their alignment with universal values of equality, respect and humanitarian concern. I agree with this position, but it has come to my mind that there are some tricky corners of culture for this policy to navigate. One of these relates to how different cultural worldviews are mediated by linguistic relativity, and what this means for education.

The linguistic relativity hypothesis is one that has had a long history, beginning with such persons as St Augustine, Immanuel Kant and is now the subject of investigation by such eminent scientists and theorists as Steven Pinker, and our very own Professor Guillaume Thierry. It relates most basically to the question of how much our thought, and the way in which we are able to understand and conceptualise the world, is constrained by our language – itself an expression of culture. In this respect, we are probably all familiar with the (actually false) idea that while we only have one word for snow, the Eskimos of Alaska have a great many.

The linguistic relativity argument has been formulated in both weak and strong forms. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is an example of a weak form, making the suggestion, now barely contended, that different languages influence thought, perception and worldview in different ways, and that this is some part of the equation of what it is that differentiates cultures around the world (there is a nice paper here on how English- and Chinese-speaking cultures differ in their worldview as a function of culturally important concepts being asymmetrically expressed in one language but having no equivalent in the other). There have been those that have advanced a strong form of the argument also, though. Wittgenstein was one of these, with his famous quote encapsulating this strong position, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world”. Within the field of developmental psychology, this question was also a point of departure between classical Piagetian and Vykotskian perspectives, with Piaget considering language as just another type of cognitive skill to be acquired, but with Vygotsky claiming that language, along with culture and social experience, may indeed constrain development. As noted in my blog last week also, Kieran Egan is another educational theorist that sees language acquisition as fundamental to cognitive development.

Whether the weak or strong forms of the linguistic relativity hypothesis are closer to the truth has been a subject of great debate and controversy within the field of linguistics for about half a century now. The majority of theorists have taken up camp behind the weak form of the argument, and in modern developmental research, though the questions raised by such theorists and Piaget and Vygotsky have been substantially refined and adapted according to the research, no definitive answer has been found. Recently, however, evidence from the field of cognitive neurolinguistics has begun to support the strong form of the argument. Professor Thierry, here at Bangor, has been conducting studies into this area, and has found evidence to suggest that thought is not just influenced by language, but, as Wittgenstein suggested, is actually constrained by language.

On the most basic level, this speaks to how incredibly important linguistic education is. This research suggests that if a person does not have the language to represent something (an abstract noun such as ‘compassion’, ‘respect’, ‘fairness’ or ‘equality’, for instance), then that person may be unable to fully ground such a concept in their sense of values and general worldview. It suggests that a broad vocabulary is fundamental to a broad understanding of the world. Also, importantly, implicit in these findings is the fact that linguistic education opens the door to being able to fully enter into and begin to appreciate one’s cultural heritage.

Practically speaking, it raises questions related to the challenges faced by teachers in our increasingly multicultural, and thus multilinguistic classrooms. In a conversation with Abigail a couple of weeks ago, we were discussing how in some inner city areas, often kids will be introduced into classes despite having almost minimal ability to speak English. How can we expect teachers to fulfil their important role when even basic communication in a language that both parties are fully at home with is an issue, especially in the present context where performance targets are seen to be so key? This is an extreme example, but it highlights the reality that in a world where we understand that different languages may maintain definitely different worldviews, and where classrooms are often composed of students for whom English, or Welsh, is not their first language, the challenges on teachers and schools to promote the mental, emotional and social unfoldment of kids on increasingly sophisticated levels, is great indeed.

I have been very impressed by the orientation of many Welsh schools to teach bilingually, and I value how this process not only prevents the erosion of Welsh culture, but allows the kids that pass through it to experience both English and Welsh cultural worldviews. I do not, though, see any clear way in which such a bilingual approach to education could be instituted in inner city London, for instance, where the number and variety of different first languages is much greater.

The present government’s orientation toward deepening the level of multicultural integration in Britain in a manner that honours variety in cultural perspectives but yet entails their alignment to universal values of freedom, respect and societal responsibility, is one I support. There are, though, as perhaps this blog has suggested, some tricky issues that will need to be addressed as this ideal begins to find form. Quite how this might work in relation to the interface between government policy, education and cognitive/linguistic developmental research remains to be seen, and I would be interested in any other perspectives that people have.