How we speak can affect ways people treat us

 Carol Forsloff - "It's likely that a bilingual Arab Israeli will consider Arabs more positively in an Arab speaking environment than a Hebrew speaking
environment." This was the finding that supports a person's language might influence how he thinks about others.

The language a person speaks can impact how he or she feels about other cultures.  For example, the Jew who speaks Arabic will have a better feeling towards Arabs than the Jew who does not.  The same is true with other groups, according to a recent study.

The subjects in this study several years ago were Arab Israelis, fluent in both Hebrew and Arabic, who were students at Hebrew-speaking universities and colleges.  Researchers Shai Danziger of Ben-Gurion University and Robert Ward of Bangor University took into consideration the problems between Arabs and Israelis to design an experiment that looked at how the students think differently in Arabic and Hebrew.

The study used a computer test to flash certain words to reflect bias and to determine subjects association with certain words as positive or negative.  The Arab Israeli volunteers found it easier to associate Arab names with "good" trait words and Jewish names with "bad" trait words than Arab names with "bad" trait words and Jewish names with "good" trait words.

But this effect was much stronger when the test was given in Arabic; in the Hebrew session, they showed less of a positive bias toward Arab names over Jewish names.

"The language we speak can change the way we think about other people," is the summation of the study. The results are published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. Shai Danziger, the author, learned both Hebrew and English as a child. "I am a bilingual and I believe that I actually respond differently in Hebrew than I do in English. I think in English I'm more polite than I am in Hebrew," he says. "People can exhibit different types of selves in different environments. This suggests that language can serve as a cue to bring forward different selves."

Language in general affects how we behave, something that a learned scholar and later politician told us in his treatise called Language in Thought and Action that people of all philosophies embrace in some ways, including atheists.  His thesis was that language affects how we think and behave and how others behave toward us.  It is considered a classic in linguistics.

We have examples of verbal abuse as well as verbal pronouncements that are positive that can affect change.  It is what we decide, it turns out, in how we choose to interact with others in language that affects how we may be treated in turn.

Political correctness not always easy, necessary or relevant

Felice Gaer, Chairperson? Chairman?  Chair woman? at human rights event

Shock jocks provide interest through using language intended to startle. So when they use language that does that, where do we draw the line? Has political correctness negatively affected how we interact and communicate?

In the American lifestyle, language plays a big part influencing how we relate to one another. Different groups have special concerns and want others to recognize them in discourse. These days we refer to Indians as Native Americans to describe a group of indigenous people. We use the term African Americans to define a special group of color we at one time referred to as black and before that as Negro. Language changes, and speakers and writers have to conform. We do this so we are not considered biased, prejudiced or ill-informed. How do we know what to say and when in a climate that is obsessed with making sure that language be precise at all times? Has political correctness gone too far?

William McGowan believes that political correctness has negatively impacted news reporting. In his book called "Coloring the New" he maintains that the news is inhibited by having to make sure that language is always precise. This is particularly true in those areas where there is controversy such as race, immigration, gay marriage, abortion and other topics where people struggle to define terms so not to antagonize a particular group.

Lampooning the President has always been part of political cartooning. These days, however, cartoonists have had to be careful about how they depict the new President. That's because Barack Obama is African American, and some individuals believe that a cartoon that exaggerates certain features or shows Obama in some perceived negative light is automatically a reflection of bias or prejudice. Writers and artists are inhibited by factors that involve group sentiment about certain issues. This makes it difficult to fairly comment because of the overriding concern for those feelings that have become part of reporting the news or describing contemporary events, even in daily conversation or comedy.

This political correctness in social discourse can at times be personally amusing. Some years ago when I referred to female friends as "girlfriends" a male friend declared I was no longer a girl and that my friends weren't either; we were "women" instead. A part of me thought I had lost something when the term "woman" was considered to be politically correct for those of a certain age. "Girlfriend" had been a term used automatically without worry about age or social status. But girl implies a level of immaturity or sexual subrogation that weren't part of my thinking nor those of anyone else I knew at the time. Still my language changed to correspond with the new social climate. That's an example of how we have had to adjust ourselves to get along in social groups as political correctness continues.

A book about language once defined how what we say affects our behavior. This book called Language in Thought and Action" is still considered a classic. It was the foundation for political correctness in language, but may not have been the intent of the author, S.I. Hayakawa. He discussed issues about racial and social bias reflected in speech, but the language continues to change as groups define and redefine themselves. That makes it difficult for the ordinary person to keep up with what to say and how to say it both socially and in print.

This issue of going too far in the news was brought out during the controversy over Don Imus who used the term "nappy-headed hoes" to describe a college team of African American female basketball players. How much is too much and when does it cross the line in speech became the issue that eventually cost Imus his television job at the time several years ago.

These days gay marriage is a major social debate as several states have passed laws allowing gay marriage. It means that political correctness will likely have to correspond with these changes in the law, since marriage used to be defined as a formal relationship between a man and a woman. Merriam-Webster's new dictionary marriage now defines marriage as, "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Language in everyday discourse, politics and the press has become so complex that William McGowan believes there needs to be a balance where language issues should be reasonable, allowing freedom of expression balanced by responsibility. That responsibility comes from ethics.

Often it's a matter of common sense, one would think; and individuals and groups need to be willing to be less antagonistic towards those making an effort to do the right thing. Because as language changes it will always take some time for behavior to change and for people to know what to say that is right in certain circumstances. Experts say sometimes political correctness has meant too much of a good thing, that in surplus makes it difficult to communicate so that perhaps we need to go back to the simply courtesy of allowing others the benefit of a doubt and being flexible in how we respond to what is said.

Research says media can promote, perpetuate discord and even violence

S. Hayakawa, famous language expert

Ongoing research claims that media contributes to the violence and discord in the community, with the chicken vs egg debate part of the discussion. In other words, the issue is whether the media reflects the ways of the community or increases the problems in it.

These are important questions answered by research. The problem of how words are used to affect thinking is a frequent public criticism and journalist debate and valuable to discourse, experts say. This is more and more true because the public often asserts how the media is not trusted.

How the media impacts behavior is being examined by ongoing research on these issues, particularly the effects of media's emotionally-laden words and how these can actually negatively impact human behavior  Rutgers' research established, for example, that we are what we watch, that the more aggressive material we see and hear, the more aggressive we become.

The recent riots following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Ohio offered an opportunity for the public to see both in words and pictures the level of anger expressed by the African American community after the shooting of what was reported to be an unarmed man.  Yet even as there were journalist "boots on the ground" in the town of Ferguson, many people maintained the media got it wrong in their reporting of the events surrounding the incident that touched off days of rioting that continue in some ways to the present time.  The problem, however, is how many of the media rely on reports of authorities, who themselves may not be transparent in their accounting of events, according to the ACLU

.

Issues concerning public dialogue, political opinions, decisions and the press are now being debated in every corner of the globe as journalism shifts and changes. Years ago S. I. Hayakawa wrote a book called "Language in Thought and Action." The book discussed how words frame our behavior.
This is what one writer by the name of Charles Notes observes in reflecting on the issues of journalism and how it affects human behavior for good or ill in reference to Hayakawa's work. He declares we need to get beyond what he terms "two valued logic" and reach a balance in how we accept or reject material. The book has been considered by linguistics and language instructors to be classic.

Notes says, in his discussion, "I believe that every High School senior should read and understand the contents before graduating. Too many writers on current affairs discuss the polarization in our society, yet do not mention the ideas in this book as an important contributor to problems of polarization in our society. He says we need to get beyond the concrete definitions of what news is and means to higher levels of abstraction that will allow us to respond on multiple levels of abstraction. "

Hayakawa addressed the ethical issues involved in language. He observed how writers must be aware of how their words affect their readers and how they might influence racial bias, cultural stereotyping and political divisions, he wrote. The following site outlines a course on his material. Hayakawa was considered by political theoreticians to be conservative; yet his classic book is said to represent the neutral ground for understanding the impact of words on behaviors. Less is known about its impact on journalism in the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, Canada and other areas of the world such as South Africa or Japan, where journalism issues are discussed; but the classic remains a key resource in discussions about language.

Hayakawa's is still considered a good read by those who work with and want to understand the use of language and how language interacts with behaviors. Years ago, in the 1960's, in the United States, it was commonly assigned reading for journalism and special writing classes. Yet it remains among those favored by individuals seeking to understand how critically language impacts what happens in the culture and how journalists phrase things  impacts what the public believes and how it responds to events.

One reader said this about it how the media effects human behavior in reference to the work of Hayakawa.  "A classic in the field of modern linguistics. Hayakawa was, among many things, President of San Francisco State University, United States Senator from California, and President of the Institute of General Semantics. I first read it in a journalism class in college. I was already familiar with most of the main ideas in GS but reading Hayakawa's book in my early 20s really influenced my thinking. The idea that language shapes the way we think and react is not exclusive to GS, but it is an exceptionally valuable idea. Please read this book and any other ones you can find like it."

Hayakawa's work is often cited by experts, as Hayakawa was interested not just in the conveyance of language but the relationship between words and how people behave and used this knowledge himself as politician, writer, researcher and educator.

Those who want to understand whether the public creates the news or how writers may affect what people do and think and what the responsibilities are can find within the pages of Language in Thought and Action some of what is being discussed with respect to journalist - public discourse, as it remains what many declare fundamental material for understanding language and its impact on behavior.

Can journalists create a different atmosphere for moderate political and social discourse? Media experts maintain it's possible and should be accorded value by journalists, who are both consumers and conveyors of news.  Rutgers research underlines how words create behaviors and the media's responsibility in presenting material has everything to do with how people will behave in a given situation.  Media, the research reminds us, is a critical factor in the creation of aggression.  It means that to be trusted, the media must present accurate information in a fashion that does not facilitate anger but instead uses rhetoric that promotes thoughtful reading and response.

Verbal abuse in politics interferes with our moral well-being

Famous book on the nature of language

Carol Forsloff - Mental health experts have defined verbal abuse as just as hurtful as physical abuse, and in some cases it has been punished with severe sanctions.  Yet in politics it remains a pattern, the type used by many people in government or running for political office, but how about the rest of us?

If all of us had equal education, similar backgrounds and similar training on the nature of argument, then political discussions would be more of a worthy experience.  In fact, there was a time in history when men of great stature did assail the ideas of one another, and even thrust verbal arrows of sorts, at their opponents.  But there was a different tone to the arguments; those with countering views may have been considered ignorant if they didn't happen to agree with a point, but they were not cast as the devil himself.

These are different days.  All over the world, emotional distance is created by an Internet that was supposed to bring people closer.  Is the communication itself a bad thing?  In my opinion, it is not.  It is simply used that way, and in ways that some people use to avoid close relationships.

Language not only allows us to communicate ideas but also our emotions, and recent studies show that the words we use eventually help to create what we become.  So if our pattern is to assail, condemn in vitriolic language, we become, in essence,  a hateful, spiteful person.  It removes us even further from what we might say we want to achieve.

Besides experts tell us that abusive language is indeed abuse and the effects of it can be traumatic for children and adults.

Sesu Hayakawa wrote a book entitled "Language in Thought and Action" that looks at the historical and cultural patterns of speech and reflects on our human development.  Language helps transform our cultures, move us ahead, or create barriers beyond which we cannot cross.

If you belong to a group, where the intent is to denigrate everyone of an opposite view in vitriolic language, will that aid your moral and emotional development, enhance your self-concept truly and move you ahead in ethical and spiritual ways?  Not if social scientists are right.  Instead it paints your personality in ways that become isolating and that deflects love rather than attracts it.

Political discussions have descended to the worst.  With the recent Supreme Court decision that allows big corporations to involve themselves as persons, we are likely to see big money buy even bigger and bigger mouths that spew hatred and lies in all directions.

Should we then assail each other in much the same way?  Or should we learn the rules mental health experts tell us that discusses issues, events, ideas without personalizing the agenda.  Experts say we must if we are to stay individually and collectively healthy.

If we don't follow those rules, discussions often turn to name-calling and name-calling and what is ordinarily called, both in the law and in mental health, verbal abuse. And that can lead to even worse problems, as language experts and psychologists declare.

Negative impact of foul language

Ghenrietta Gordon — In our everyday busy schedules, we usually think nothing of someone saying a bad word. One’s conversation may consist of bad words from start to end and we still consider it normal. Well... our DNA looks at this factor a bit differently.

Scientists have invented a kind of special equipment that literary translates human speech into electromagnetic waves. Theseparticular waves have a great influence and power over our DNA. If someone uses a foul language and bad, curse words in general, his DNA chromosomes weaken and break down, leading to general degradation on all levels. A bad word can give one’s cell system an electromagnetic shock in the size of thousands of roentgen!

[caption id="attachment_16349" align="alignright" width="203"] DNA nanostructure[/caption]

We are talking about some serious radiation level in the invisible form which is being detected by that equipment. For many years now, scientists have been experimenting on plants called Arabidopsis. Scientists were saying bad words to such plants expressing their angry emotions over them, which resulted in the degradation of most of these plants. The ones that survived remained either broken or simply very sick. This particular group of plants died altogether when some time had passed.

The interesting part about that experiment is that it was not important whether the bad words were uttered in a loud manner or by whisper. Scientists were convinced that certain words carry a tremendous amount of energy, whether positive or negative, depending on that word, which have a great influence on our DNA and its structure. In the meantime, the same scientists made another experiment in which they were saying kind words as well as prayers over the other group of plants abused with a bad language; that led to the plants’ complete recovery. Of course, one may ask why we keep comparing humans to plants in either experiment. The reason to that is because humans, plants, animals and every other living thing in this world have an identical genetic structure, which goes along with the generic universal pattern. Whether you experiment on plants, animals or humans, the result and consequence would always remain the same.

The power of word had been known since old times, going back to Jesus, who used to cure anyone with his word in the form of a prayer. The new branch of modern science called thewave genetics, discovered by the Russian scientist Goryaev, dictates that our genes are not only cells. The human program has been coded in so-called “trash” section of our DNA. The entire information and memory about our past, present, and future – whether if it is individual or collective – is being stored in folded form in DNA’s wave genome. The DNA molecules exchange this information on the constant basis with the help of electromagnetic waves, as well as acoustic and light waves. The studies show that even the process of a silent reading of a book reaches out to our cells through electromagnetic channels. A kind word or a prayer regenerates and awakens our body in its genetic reservoir, while bad language damages our cells’ structure, leading to general degradation.

“In the beginning, there was the word,” the Bible says. So what is a word? A word is vibration. Vibration creates energy. Energy materializes and exists. Energy creates life. Perhaps that is how it all started... with a kind word.



About the Author

Ghenrietta B. Gordon has previously had a few publishing credits such as documentaries on travelling, short stories, and articles for newspapers and magazines. She is a University of Foreign Languages graduate with a Bachelor’s degree. She also has completed four scripts for film production in various genres, such as historical drama, romance, and comedy. In her free time, she enjoys life coaching and writing her new nonfiction projects.