The Stuff of Thought summary

Have you ever wondered why babies cry so often? Well, one theory is that they’re struggling to figure out verbal communication, which is no easy task. In fact, while people often assume that babies and children learn language through simple imitation, that’s not exactly the case.

It’s true that following the example of others helps infants learn simple words, but it would never be enough for them to learn complex grammar. For instance, you can correctly say “she ate scrambled eggs with bacon” or “she ate scrambled eggs and bacon.” But hearing this wouldn’t teach a child to ask a question in the form “what did she eat the scrambled eggs with?” rather than “what did she eat the scrambled eggs and?”

Are you one of those odd people who likes dictionaries? Do you enjoy reading through definitions and learning new words?

If so, you might feel uneasy about the twentieth-century linguistic theory of extreme nativism, which states that all words are elemental concepts and definitions can never properly describe them. A major proponent of this idea is the philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor.

Philosophers throughout history have understood how elusive time is; no sooner have you carried out an action or had a thought than it’s in the past, while the future remains forever out of reach. Naturally, this creates issues for language, which, despite describing time with as much accuracy as possible, inevitably relies on imperfect linguistic constructions to do so.

As a result, even something as seemingly simple as the present tense can be used in any number of ways depending on the grammatical constructions with which it’s combined. In fact, there are at least two different ways that the present tense is used in common parlance.

In 2003, when the United States attacked Iraq, some described it as an invasion while others called it a liberation. These variations in word choice were of no small consequence, since the way the action was framed changed people’s opinion of it.

This is just one example of how language can deeply affect people’s views by framing issues in a different light. In fact, experiments have even shown that people can be easily manipulated through language.

When you say your mother’s name out loud, it likely conjures up all the complexity of her personality and biography, a particular temperament, profession and the opinions you associate with her. But is it her name that’s actually pointing to those things?

Well, people certainly ascribe a great deal of meaning to names. Famous people are even listed in dictionaries, as if their biographies were the definitions of their names. Just take Paul McCartney. When people say his name, they’re not only referring to a British human born in 1942; they’re also thinking about a musician, specifically the musician who played in the band The Beatles and wrote famous songs alongside John Lennon.

It’s no secret that some words have the power to upset people who perceive them as insulting or dirty. But having a historical perspective means taking a more pragmatic approach to swear words. In fact, some words that were considered acceptable in the past are seen as impolite today.

For instance, in a fifteenth-century textbook, in a section on the female anatomy, the bladder is described as being attached to the cunt. Or consider the historian Geoffrey Hughes, who specializes in tracing the evolution of certain words. His studies have turned up all manner of dirty-sounding words like pissabed, shitecrow and windfucker. However, in previous epochs, these words referred to perfectly innocent things: a dandelion, a heron and a windhover bird, respectively.

People are generally averse to rejection and it turns out that one of the best ways to avoid it is simply never to ask for anything. But of course, doing so isn’t always practical – sometimes you just need something from another person. Luckily, in these cases, you can resort to politeness.

It’s a commonly used word, but when looked at more closely, politeness refers to a form of indirect speech that couches requests in an apology. For instance, when being polite, many people avoid direct requests; rather, they convey what they desire only indirectly or by implication.