Central to our research question, linguistic relativity is found to be manifested in bilingualist behaviour and the prevalence of PC language in contemporary society. The extent to which language endorses prejudice is inconclusive, and influential factors like culture, politics and social status are often at stake. Such complexity of linguistic behaviour makes it difficult to demarcate a clear-cut relationship between language and cognition, the latter of which controls and decides our perception. Nonetheless, through extensive academic research regarding the inextricable relationship between language and prejudice, it is critical for us, the masters of language, to take a step forward in rooting out prejudicial language that segregates societies and stigmatises individuals.
Here are some universally applicable suggestions, whether you are a bilingual or multilingual, Asian or European, young or aged, to respond proactively in the campaign of equal treatment in your society.
"How would you describe Asians? How are Chinese different from Singaporeans?" This question may at once trigger vivid descriptors of representatives in your mind. In Tajfel's "Human groups and social categories" (1981), the scholar unequivocally identifies the existence of tendencies that are deeply buried in our "evolutionary past" or our "unconscious" which drive our attitudes and beliefs. For bilinguals or multi-linguals, in particular, competencies in various languages often imply their interaction with according cultures, which exposes them to an increasing danger of social categorisation. While acknowledging the differences between social groups, generalisation of the features of a social group is almost an instinctive response in our linguistic behaviour. Yet, this random subscription to simplified, unvaried stereotypes is also one of the most destructive weapon of our use of language.
A simple reminder is: do not be enslaved by your language! The ability to modify and readjust the choice of words derives from the total autonomy we possess in actively choosing the right word at the right time, despite the limitation in our vocabulary. Consciously exercising this right does not reduce our language to mere formalities, but instead it drives us away from being controlled by unspecific descriptors that are potentially offensive, if not vilifying, to the ones we are ascribing these features to. Appreciate individuality and avoid over-generalising commonalities of a group is a crucial attentiveness requires of us when we verbalise our mind. Be wise in designing our questions. Before we ask, consider these: does the way we ask question assumes a particular feature of the group? Does it lead our answerers to the same defect? How could we recognise the speciality of each person, or object we are referring to? After all, disregarding the uniqueness of our counterparts is the last thing we would want to see in a prejudice-free society. Therefore, always be attentive and avoid spoiling the beauty of individuals with our careless rigidity no matter what language we speak in!
Under the premise that language and prejudice are inseparable, we came across some interesting findings describing the interconnection between the two and PC language. Bowers and Pleydell-Pearce’s research, “Swearing, euphemisms, and linguistic relativity”, used scientific methods to back the not-too-surprising hypothesis that the emotional backlash of saying offensive words out loud was much greater than that of doing so with their euphemisms. In other words, per linguistic relativity, language influences our thoughts, in the sense that we avoid thinking and talking about certain topics if it entails the usage of offensive terms. However, this avoidance is less effective when the offensive term can be replaced with a euphemism, allowing the speaker to talk about the topic with less emotional backlash and inhibition. This seemingly offers a backdoor for prejudicial sentiments to be expressed, raising the potential question of the effectiveness of PC language. Per O’Niel, PC language is ineffective since the offensive sentiment remains the same – it is only expressed via different means. PC terms, therefore, run the risk of becoming derogatory terms, according to the theory of the “Euphemism Treadmill”.
We believe that the usage of PC language is a step in the right direction since it reduces the usage of conventionally prejudicial language in the short term. We should, however, constantly remind ourselves why we use PC terms. If the reason behind is to propagate prejudicial sentiment, PC language becomes a means for moral self-licensing, coined in the study by Merritt, Effron Benoıˆt Monin: “Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad” - we use PC language to make us feel morally correct, which makes the expression of prejudiced thoughts ostensibly more acceptable. Therefore, as long as we do not harbour prejudice when using PC language, it is a useful addition to our vocabulary, such that we can all contribute to promoting inclusiveness and harmony in society.