The study, entitled "How Foreign Language Shapes Moral Judgment," appeared in the Journal of Social Psychology. What Geipel et al. did was to present multilingual individuals with situations which most people consider morally reprehensible, but where no one (not even an animal) was deliberately hurt -- such as two siblings engaging in consensual and safe sex, and a man cooking and eating his dog after it was struck by a car and killed. These types of situations make the vast majority of us go "Ewwwww" -- but it's sometimes hard to pinpoint exactly why that is.
"It's just horrible," is the usual fallback answer.
So did the test subjects in the study find such behavior immoral or unethical? The unsettling answer is: it depends on what language the situation was presented in.
Across the board, if the situation was presented in the subject's first language, the judgments regarding the situation were uniformly harsher and more negative. Presented in languages learned later in life, the subjects were much more forgiving.
The researchers controlled for which languages were being spoken; they tested (for example) native speakers of Italian who had learned English, and native speakers of English who had learned Italian. It didn't matter what the language was; what mattered was when you learned it.
[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]
A related study by Catherine L. Harris, Ayşe Ayçiçeĝi, and Jean Berko Gleason appeared in Applied Psycholinguistics. Entitled "Taboo Words and Reprimands Elicit a Greater Autonomic Reactivity in a First Language Than in a Second Language," the study showed that our emotional reaction (as measured by skin conductivity) to swear words and harsh judgments (such as "Shame on you!") is much stronger if we hear them in our native tongue. Even if we're fluent in the second language, we just don't take its taboo expressions and reprimands as seriously. (Which explains why my mother, whose first language was French, smacked me in the head when I was five years old and asked her -- on my uncle's prompting -- what "va t'faire foutre" meant.)
All of which, as both a linguistics geek and someone who is interested in ethics and morality, I find fascinating. Our moral judgments aren't as rock-solid as we think they are, and how we communicate alters our brain, sometimes in completely subconscious ways. Once again, the neurological underpinnings of our morality turns out to be strongly dependent on context -- which is simultaneously cool and a little disturbing.
I may have truncated my reply, sorry:
ReplyDeleteDelete the 'failed' version, if so ok
Apologies in advance on the lengthy comment, but this subject is even closer to my heart
than usual. (All of your inspiringly-cogent posts here rate a reaction, a temptation I've
sadly learned to resist, since the lack of a give-and-take' reply (the factor which made
that Late-Pliestocence now-extinct 'X' site such a joy) can put me into a week-long
depression until I move on to other sadnesses. Of course your stellar 'post-a-day'
production quota may rule out thanking random readers for their input, what do I know?
Ok, background: having 'graduated' from my pre-school Pennsylvania-Dutch to standard
English, and thence to Hebrew, which is now 95% of verbal life except for the net, I can
perhaps add a datum-point to the subject. (My obsessive fascination with the vagaries of
language is well-documented in 1500 posts elsewhere)
And to the point: 'Abstract':, as they say: "The contributor postulates that the differing
assessments of 'disgusting-ness' assigned to candidate incidents: (consensual sex by
siblings with a recently-deceased road-kill 'man's best friend', for example) is most
likely influenced by the comparative quantity of descriptive phrases and explitives-deleted
assessments available in his/her native argot versus those in an acquired second tongue.
(I am reminded of an instuctive 'Merkin-moment' anecdote, where I and my older son were
guests at a party of 'don't get out much' PA locals. They were astonished after, having
been whispered a few sentences by one of them, and my having conveyed the text to my son in
Hebrew verbally, he was, incredibly, able to then recite the English version almost
verbatim, to the suprise of the assembled horde. The point: "Are folks 'speaking in
tongues' really, like, saying stuff?"
At any rate, confronted with repulsive scenes here (regrettably common) I feel, although
as fluent in Hebrew as I might have ever dreamed to be, none-the-less frustrated in
expressing my revulsion in terms which I could be sure had the requsite 'bang'. Thus my
contention that the gap noted in the study is likely explained by breadth of vocab.
One could of course contend, by a competing theory, that a , say, Eastern NY state resident
might say: "Snowed all day, what a horror!" while an Inuit describes, in his tongue, the 17
types of precipitation which fell, to their joy or dismay. We in Israel have so many words
for a 'fiasco' that it's often tempting to hide under the covers pretending to be searching
for the most appropriate one.
That's about it. Thanks again for being my first choice for thought-provoking content here
on the web/ JS Tel Aviv