1 obvious and prevalent theme throughout both Arrival (2016) and the episode “Darmok” is how nuanced language and communication is and how it can serve as a barrier between people. The movie and episode showed significant misunderstandings stemming from inability to communicate. Not understanding a person’s culture can lead to not understanding a language (and vice versa) and not understanding intentions/meaning in words. This doesn’t only apply to people that speak different languages, even when speaking the same language, the words people use have different meanings to different people.
In Arrival (2016) there was a lot going on to try and make sense of. I want to start with the repetition of language as a tool versus language as weapon. When the heptapods were offering something, it was immediately translated as weapon but as Louise points out, languages isn’t that simple (as she demonstrated in a previous scene by stating the different translations for the Sanskrit word for war as either an argument versus a desire for more cows). The “mistaken” definition of weapon versus a tool reinforces the notion throughout the movie of language representing both a weapon and a tool. The words in the preface of her book even states that it is the foundation of civilization and “the first weapon drawn in a conflict” The whole movies demonstrate the way words are weaponized. The colonel makes Louise have the words she’s teaching them approved, because he worries about teaching them too much and having it used against them. In the end, what they were offering wasn’t a weapon, it was a gift or a tool in teaching their language.
Another prevalent aspect of arrival (probably the most prevalent) is the way our cognition is shaped by language. The characters discuss The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how learning a new language can change your cognition/brain and the way you perceive the world (spatial/temporal processing), this hypothesis is explored to the extreme in the movie through learning an alien language that allows her to experience time different, however the movie also highlight more realistic/subtle ways it alters cognition. The best example is the Chinese decision to communicate/connect with the heptapods through a game. Louise explains this is a horrible method because all the words they’re learning every way of communication will be filtered through terms of winning, strategy, victory and defeat – she uses our own conceptual metaphor “when all you’re given is a hammer, everything is a nail” to explain how this will shape cognition and set the framework for all future communication and attitudes between them.
The Star Trek episode “Darmok” is all about a race that’s entire communication uses these conceptual metaphors anchored in their mythology, as explained in the episode, knowing the words isn’t enough. To understand their language a person needs to have knowledge of all of the stories their language is based upon. The episode highlights the detriment of not understanding the meaning behind language. When shown 2 knives, Picard kept thinking he wanted to fight against him rather than fight with him in order to unite them – had Picard acted on that assumption, the effect could have led to war between their civilizations rather than a step closer to understanding each other. Something that interested me that I thought also demonstrated the Sapir-whorf hypothesis was the statement that their race had no sense of ego, they spoke through imagery and metaphors of the stories of their past and interpreted meaning through those stories. Does having this language that speaks of other people’s story and places such high value lessen each individual’s perception of their own value. The captain of the other ship was knowingly willing to put his life in jeopardy for the advancement of his people and his crewmates while upset, let him go alone and left him there to die, while knowing he was in danger. Is this because the culture values are shaped by their lowered self-identity due to their collective identity through these stories?
6 thoughts on “Lost in translation: When a desire for cows becomes war”
I felt the same exact way about mistaken definitions as well. Words are misconstrued and have been taken in different contexts too many times throughout in history but today as well. Everything we understand about language and communication is built through our own personal cognitions. One culture may view something as a weapon, while others can view it as a common tool. Flamethrowers have been banned from war since 1978 during the Vietnam war but farmers throughout the country use them to clear crops to this day.
jjwaterman
Hi Nicole,
You do a great job of discussing the connection between culture and language. As you learned in this week’s VT, context plays a crucial role in how we construct meaning from language. And the culture in which language is embedded provides one of the contexts.
I love your close reading of the role of language in Arrival—the fact that language itself can be either a tool or a weapon—and how that relates to the fuzziness of meaning that Louise discusses. Can you also connect that to the idea of cognitive frames? Consider, for example, the different cognitive frames through which language might be structured: weapon, tool, gift. How is the cognitive frame that different characters slot language into reflected in their perception of and attitude toward it? In many ways, this relates the conceptual metaphor that you talk about in the film. By communicating with the hetpapods through Mahjong, the Chinese scientists are limiting the cognitive frames that can structure their interactions, and the conceptual metaphors available to make meaning of them, to those conflict.
Also, great discussion about how the language of the Tamarians is related to their sense of a collective identity. In their conceptual metaphors, individuals stand not for themselves, but for larger ideas. Darmok and Jalad are not important because of who they were as people, but because of what they have come to represent to their culture.
Jessica Hautsch
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and how learning a new language can change your cognition/brain and the way you perceive the world also what we learned in Arrival is that the people in the heptapods may not use language the same way humans do. That the link between language and what it means is completely different. What I researched about Whorf is he had spend time with the Hopi Indians and assimilated their views and language. At the same time he dared to suggest the notion that language and thought patterns were synchronous. When he spent time with the Hopi Indians they did not think of time as past, present and future but viewed it as manifesting and the manifested which had a lot to do with mental and spiritual. I found it interesting that something like “time” can be perceived differently with different language and thinking. I always thought of time as just a universal same thought.
ellryan
Hi Elizabeth,
I love that you did addition research on Whorf and his research and theories! Thanks for sharing what you found with us.
Jessica Hautsch
Not understanding a person’s culture can lead to not understanding a language
I think both Darmok and Arrival focused really heavily on culture as well as language and I’m glad you brought that up ! In Darmok, they mentioned how using a reference someone wouldn’t understand would be impossible as a form of communication. However, we also see Picard begin to understand how the language works as he slowly starts to explain the story of Gilgamesh to the captain, giving them a common topic to discuss. It was just as much about shared culture as it was about language.
arbuonaiuto
heyyy! I like how you described that the movie demonstrates how words are weaponized. They immediately thought that their first word of communication was weapon and started coming up with emergency plans. Louise has to explain how language is complicated. I can’t blame them because if I were to come in contact with an alien, I would think they were trying. to attack us too haha
Brianna