Different Language, Different Decisions: A Look at How Language Influences Our Choices - Essay Sample

Introduction

Through the learning of different languages, one would be prompted to make decisions that would only appear nice when mentioned but do not have any humane sense inside them. The topic as chosen by the author for discussion entails that one makes different decisions when explained in details the situation that they face, preferably in a language that they would understand best say, the native language that would be more appealing to them. The writer justifies the discussion saying that after the translation of the incident to different languages used by the participants, about 1000 of them made a moral choice proving that moral codes are much more pliable than whatever people might think. According to the article, their team of researchers working in Barcelona had to recruit native Spanish speakers with the ability to study English and the converse and prompted them to study the dilemma either in English or Spanish. Only to find out that as per their native tongue about 18 percent would push the man but when explained in foreign language almost 44 percent would do so. Other research teams working in areas with diversified language found out the same. The writer's thought is explained by a Nelson Mandela quote used in the article, "If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language that goes to his heart." Thus, the writers are convincing in the way they present their ideologies and key points which are aimed at informing the audience on the connection between the moral decisions and the native language.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In writing of this New York Times essay, the author's reasons are pretty distinct with the strongest and main reason being to inform the audience that moral decisions become appealing once the one asked understands them in their native language. The other reason would be to instruct readers on how exactly to receive more accurate and sober judgment from people with a different native language form the commonly used English. On the same note, the author also meant to persuade the readers into the thought that it would be better if only people would make a moral judgment based on what they feel from their hearts and not what their minds seem to be telling them that is logic.

The writer has however been able by their article to convince most readers that sound judgments are made upon fully understanding the situation. Translation of the case propels those involved to re-think their decisions and give their answers as per what the interviewer wants. Their choice of answers shows that their judgment has been clouded by translation to making the case feel more serious. The audience has been misinformed that they would only make sober judgments upon translation to their native language which should not be the case. Human beings have high intellectual abilities and can distinguish right from wrong even when the language used is foreign but understandable to them. On the issue that requires saving of a person's life for another, one might as well sacrifice one life for the sake of many lives other than sparing one life so more may be lost.

One would propose that people should be given a chance to air out their views in a language they feel most comfortable with rather than airing them from a different perspective when the explanation is given in a different language to manipulate their decision-making process. Extreme moral dilemmas are supposed to touch the very core of our moral being. So why the inconsistency? Is the question that one would end up asking themselves? Whether moral decisions depend on the language posed or on the actuality of the case.

The author's central thesis is that ones' moral tongue is influenced by the language they speak. The writer also gets to prove this claim with a quotation from the article claiming, 'Accordingly, when our participants faced this dilemma in their native tongue, they reacted more emotionally and spared the man. Whereas a foreign language seemed to provide participants with an emotional distance that resulted in the less visceral choice to save the five people (Keytar and Costa 1).' The sources are used to show that when they understood the situation better, they would make different choices based on emotional distance and appeal of the case to them. The sources, however, seem to be represented in both a negative and positive light. In the negative light, they are taken as slow-witted, and whose understanding depends on the language they belong to showing that they are not versatile in the languages that they communicate with and only use their mind in communicating rather than both their minds and hearts.

On the other hand, when seen on the positive light they seem to be more conversant with their languages and take things told to them in a language they very well relate to as to be serious and grave (though not in all the cases of the interviewees). Direct quotes are not mostly used in writing of the essay with the dominant seen to being reported quotes from the studies conducted by the reporters. There is missing context as to the questions they most probably would have asked before they would make the decisions made especially after translation. Also, much is left out as to how the questions were framed and whether upon translation there was the creation of emphasis that would insist on the people changing their answers from the first time. Sources appear to have been used to support the author's argument.

The beneficiaries of the arguments are none but the author. If the author meant to show that people who get to learn of a language different than theirs get full knowledge and understanding of the language, then they would not translate the question and would take the first answer to what they sought out as the first decision they would have made. The author seems to have used moderate vocabulary showing that they are well aware that their audience would be English speakers (originally) or people of different native origin with knowledge of English only acquired. The author uses 'we' in references to pronunciation meaning that they acknowledge themselves with English as their language and also those who have different origins but know the English language 'We found that people reacted much less emotionally in this situation.' Among more instances in which the author uses 'we.' The author's audience is mainly assumed to compose those that understand English.

The audience consists of people who understand English at a high level. It is also easy to observe that the audience are those interested in the facts and proof of the same is seen when they are provided with numeric facts in terms of percentages. 'In their native tongue, only 18 percent said they would push the man, but in a foreign language, almost half (44 percent) would do so' With the readers being posed as curious and interested in knowing more than what is provided to them, they are not filled with information that would otherwise satisfy their needs and questions such as how did those who studies were conducted on feel when the questions got translated to them to their various languages feel? Did or did they not also feel like their knowledge of English was in question upon translation? For curious readers questions such as the ones above and many more are not answered making the author not fully explained in the article and coming off as ignorant to addressing certain issues. The readers are also assumed to have taken the side say in scenario such as: 'Should they divert the train to a sidetrack, knowing it would derail and hit homes in the less populated city of Commerce, Calif.?' That the train would be able to escape diversion from the sidetrack saving both whiles in real sense choosing that would be putting more lives of the passengers in the train at a risk of loss. The other assumption made is that the audience would also have changed their choice if faced by a similar situation. In case they would have been of a different native origin, they would also have maybe changed what they felt. It is true that upon being faced by such a situation, the most logical decision made would be one that would see people understand the case in the language they understand the most, which is their native language.

Works Cited

Keytar B. and Costa A. "Our Moral Tongue" The New York Times Nytimes.com. N. p., 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2019.