'Human Metadata' Shapes Experiences

I haven't had a chance to read Guy Deutscher's book “Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages,” being published this month by Metropolitan Books, but I read a fascinating excerpt in today's The New York Timess' Sunday Magazine.

Deutscher, an honorary research fellow at the School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures at the University of Manchester, looks at different languages to examine whether they impose different contexts for its speakers. He cites for example how English speakers can be inexact about the gender in the following sentence: A friend came over last night., while in most other languages we would know whether that "friend" was male or female. (Totally unscholarly aside: might the English language ability to obfuscate gender allow us to create nonsensical laws like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and influence perceptions of homosexuality around the globe?)

Most languages required the individual to store gender with objects, (although not uniformly: the German bridge is feminine —the Spanish is masculine), whereas others use a mind-expanding geospatial method. Native Americans and indigenous Islanders apparently use N, S, E, W coordinates to relay location, whereas English and European languages use an egocentric method — in front, behind, etc. More interestingly, that "geospatial data" is actually stored in human memory!

Language apparently forces us to store a type of human metadata with every memory that shapes experiences, connotations and denotations. It is easy to infer how publishers providing mashups that rely on multiple types of metadata would enrich the experience to those who may think differently than the way the media originally thought they would.