Dear researchers,
I once heard that the tendency in the German language to personify non-human nouns has led to a different understanding of science than, for example, in China. In Chinese, it seems that there is more focus on describing states of affairs, and fewer personal pronouns are used.
There are studies which show that language can have a deterministic influence on individual and collective perception. However, I wonder whether this could extend so far that, due to linguistic differences, scientific progress might unfold differently across various cultures.
I am aware that this question cannot be answered in general terms (as language is a far less significant factor than, for example, economic conditions). Nevertheless, a certain degree of causality is conceivable.
Kind regards
Lili
Thank you very much for this question! It’s not an easy one to answer... So the question would be whether certain linguistic peculiarities lead to different world views – and in this case: to different ways of conducting scientific research.
Language and thought
The relationship between language and thought has been debated for a very long time. So-called linguistic relativism, which can be traced back to Whorf and Sapir, posits a close connection. They argued, for example, that the way in which time and space are expressed in a language influences how we perceive time and space, and would lead to completely different world views.
In such radical terms, Sapir and Whorf’s hypothesis could not be substantiated. But of course there is a connection. Just think of how the terms ‘woman’ and ‘man’ shape our understanding of gender.
In the case of science, I see the following interesting connections:
Scientific writing
You mentioned the nominal style. For example: “Testing the hypothesis led to uncertainty.” vs. “We tested the hypothesis and are unsure.” These stylistic variations serve more to align oneself with a particular academic community: I have to write in a “typically scientific” style so that I am taken seriously within the scientific community (in addition, of course, I must also conduct good science). There are clear differences here – even between the German and Anglo-Saxon styles (the latter characterised by more use of the first-person pronoun ‘I’ and simpler syntax). This stylistic alignment with a research community certainly applies to Chinese academia as well. But I do not believe that this results in entirely different forms of science, especially as academic exchange is becoming increasingly international.
Think tanks
I do, however, find the reflections of Ludwik Fleck, who spoke of the "The Formation and Development of a Scientific Fact". He was interested in how, in science, so-called “collective minds” dictate how we view our scientific subjects. For me to actually see bacteria through a microscope, a great many conditions must be met, including linguistic ones: I must be convinced that bacteria exist, that they can be cultured, that they can be made visible through colour changes or similar means, and so on. Language is also important in this regard: if there is not even a term to begin with to describe what something might be called, then I cannot see it either.
In this respect, language and scientific thinking are very closely linked. But I do not believe that something like nominal style is a relevant influencing factor; rather, it is social processes that negotiate how phenomena are named. This, in turn, influences scientific thinking.