Language and inequality are tied together at the level of thought and perception: the same words land differently depending on who we think is speaking, and the way a language carves up the world shapes — without determining — how its speakers think. This lecture for Introduction to Anthropology finishes chapter 7 of The Human Story (Brewis et al.), “Language and Our Worlds” (sections 7.3–7.4), moving from linguistic relativity and evidentiality to how people create meaning about each other through raciolinguistics and linguistic profiling. It follows What Is Language? and leads into the agricultural transition. For how meaning varies across societies, see the Cross-Cultural Understanding hub; for discrimination and resistance, see the Power Analysis hub.
Key Concepts
- Linguistic relativity is the long-debated idea that language guides thought and action rather than merely labeling a pre-given world; as Lera Boroditsky frames it, quoting Charlemagne, “to have a second language is to have a second soul” (212).
- Because signifiers are arbitrary, so too are the signifieds — languages cut reality into different chunks (where one draws the line between light and dark blue, or which nouns count as masculine or feminine), and those divisions shape perception (212).
- Evidentiality is a grammatical requirement, in some languages, to mark how you know what you assert — whether you saw it, heard it, inferred it, or were told; English has no such requirement, which the chapter links to how easily misinformation spreads (213).
- Linguistic relativity influences but does not imprison thought: speakers borrow terms, switch frameworks, and most people worldwide grow up multilingual, so no single language locks in one way of thinking (212–213).
- The McGurk effect and matched-guise experiments show perception of the speaker altering perception of the speech: shown a South Asian rather than a White face over an identical recorded lecture, listeners reported an accent that wasn’t there and scored worse on exams (215–216).
- Raciolinguistics studies how linguistic and racial ideologies produce each other — how expectations about who “should” sound a certain way generate both perceived accents and stigma (216).
- Linguistic prejudice is taught early and everywhere: the chapter’s Disney example, where heroes speak Mainstream White American English and villains speak accented varieties, models an association children can also unlearn (216).
- Code-switching between language varieties is universal, but linguistic profiling turns it into a mechanism of discrimination — the same caller, using different varieties of English, is quoted different rental prices or told a job is or isn’t available (217).
📖 Book: The Human Story (Commissions earned)
Linguistic Relativity: Does Language Shape Thought?
Lera Boroditsky gives a clear account of a very old debate: to what extent does language shape — or even determine — our thoughts and actions? The idea, called linguistic relativity, follows from the arbitrariness of signs. If there’s no necessary reason to call an object a “table” rather than a mesa, or to tag a noun masculine in one language and feminine in another, then the signifieds are somewhat arbitrary too: a language can cut reality into different chunks. Where English speakers see one “blue,” another language may see two distinct colors; where one language groups chairs and desks together, another splits them. The way we perceive the world and act on it is guided by these categories.
The real question has always been how much. Can speakers of one language think what speakers of another can? What happens for people who speak several? Boroditsky, quoting Charlemagne, offers the frame that a person who speaks two languages has a second soul, another form of living.
Evidentiality: How Do You Know That?
Evidentiality is how a language marks the source of knowledge. Take “Harry is chopping wood.” In a Native American language of Northern California, the grammar forces you to specify how you know it — whether you saw it, heard it, inferred it, or were told. Some languages build the citation of evidence into the sentence itself. English has no such requirement: I can assert “Harry is chopping wood” with no obligation to say how I know, and the chapter suggests this is one reason misinformation and disinformation travel so easily in English. You can still lie in a language with evidentiality — but you have to lie with your grammar too.
The chapter also raises languages that count “one, two, many” rather than carrying an extensive number vocabulary — sometimes framed as though those speakers “don’t do math.” That framing is worth resisting. We use numbers most to buy things and track money, so a society that doesn’t bother counting such things may simply have less of the inequality that makes counting feel necessary. Some of the most enduring architecture in the world — the pyramids, Inca structures that outlasted centuries of earthquakes — was built by people without algebra or many counting terms, while a building raised with calculus may not outlast them. Counting words are also easily borrowed between languages. Language influences thinking; it does not control or restrict it. There’s no need to pity speakers of a language with few number terms — they count in the ways they need to, and any language can be stretched or changed.
How People Create Meaning: Perceiving the Speaker
Section 7.4 turns from things — tables, colors, numbers — to each other. How we perceive the person speaking shapes how we react to what they say. The chapter’s example is the McGurk effect: people hear something different depending on what they think the speaker looks like. In matched-guise experiments, the same recorded lecture is paired with two different faces — a White woman in one classroom, a South Asian woman in another. Same words, no accent, yet listeners seeing one version reported hearing an accent, found the content harder to follow, and scored differently on the exam.
The pattern shows up in ordinary life: a person of Asian ancestry born and raised in the New York area, speaking flawless regional English, still gets asked “where are you from?” while a White speaker with a genuinely regional accent rarely does. It’s worth keeping in mind when evaluating instructors — are you rating the authoritative-looking speaker higher because you feel you learned more? Multilingual exposure appears to soften these biases; monolingualism as the expectation is historically recent, since most people across time have grown up with more than one language.
Raciolinguistics and Linguistic Prejudice
Raciolinguistics studies how language ideologies and racial ideologies produce each other: expectations about who should sound a certain way generate perceived differences, and those differences get read back as racial. In a society organized around racial divisions, treating Mainstream White American English as the standard makes any other variety register as not quite up to par. The chapter’s example of linguistic prejudice is Disney films, where — at least in older films — heroes speak Mainstream White American English and villains speak accented or non-standard varieties, teaching children an association of standard-equals-good that they can also be taught to unlearn.
Code-Switching and Linguistic Profiling
Code-switching — moving between two or more language varieties — is something everyone does to a degree; classroom speech is not family speech. But the stakes are unequal. The chapter’s example of linguistic profiling features someone skilled at code-switching who called the same gatekeepers — about jobs, loans, rentals — using different varieties of English. Depending on the variety, the caller was encouraged to apply or told there was no work; rental prices rose or fell. Same person, different voice, different outcome. Listeners try to infer who you are from how you talk and adjust accordingly — and that inference becomes discrimination. It may not be your experience, but it is worth watching for, because it happens.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is linguistic relativity?
Linguistic relativity is the idea that the language you speak guides your thoughts and actions rather than simply labeling a ready-made world. Because words and the categories behind them are largely arbitrary, different languages divide up reality differently. The debate is over how strong the effect is — most anthropologists hold that language influences thought without imprisoning it (212).
What is evidentiality in language?
Evidentiality is the way a language marks the source of a claim — whether the speaker saw, heard, inferred, or was told something. Some languages require it in the grammar of every statement; English does not, which the chapter connects to how readily unsourced claims spread (213).
What is the McGurk effect?
The McGurk effect is when what you think you hear shifts based on what you see. In matched-guise experiments, an identical recorded lecture paired with different faces led listeners to “hear” an accent that wasn’t present and to perform differently on tests — perception of the speaker altering perception of the speech (215–216).
What is raciolinguistics?
Raciolinguistics examines how language ideologies and racial ideologies produce one another: how assumptions about who should sound a certain way generate both perceived accents and the stigma attached to them, especially along racial lines (216).
What is linguistic profiling?
Linguistic profiling is inferring a person’s identity from how they speak and then discriminating on that basis. Research in which one code-switching caller used different varieties of English documented different quoted rents and different job availability — voice alone changing the outcome (217).
Course Navigation
Previous: What Is Language? — semiotics, language variation, and speech acts.
Next: The Agricultural Transition — domestication, mutual dependency, and the health paradox of settlement.
- Cross-Cultural Understanding Hub — How meaning varies across cultures.
- Power Analysis Hub — Structures of power and resistance.
- How Writing Shaped Our Idea of Language — How imposed “canons of correctness” create languagelessness.