When Buckminster Fuller was 32 he started the practice of consciously choosing every word he used. The deliberate analysis of each word seemed to free him from the cultural boundaries created by the limitations of language. It allowed him to rethink and reanalyze common words and change it’s use to effectively communicate his ideas. If such a word didn’t exist, he simply invented new ones.

I’m learning the Korean language now and have been speaking Japanese since I was a kid, the sentences in these cultures are structured so that the environment is described first, then the subject and then the action. (“Movie theater I will go”) Yoda’s first language was probably Japanese. Whereas in English we speak in the order of Subject>Action>Environment (“I will go to the movie theater”). My theory for the reason behind this language structure is that the Korean and Japanese language places the environment as the most important piece of information when telling a story. It first builds a mental image in your mind of a given place, and then introduces the subject taking an action. In English, it’s all about independence and the importance of the individual. And so the subject is emphasized first, followed by the action he is taking, and lastly given the context of the environment. I believe this emphasis and thinking process affects how we approach solving a problem when we have our internal dialogues.

Even concepts like “the future” is difficult to think about if you did not know it existed. Phrases like “I will go to the movies” is packed with a prior understanding of the concept of that something called a “Future” exists. That understanding can be deepened with an understanding of the existence of something called “time”. Imagine if you didn’t know what a “future” was, or better yet, imagine if you didn’t even know any words to describe anything. How would you think differently? A recent radio program by Radio Lab on the conceptualization of “words” really touched my soul because the beginning piece is about a deaf 27 year old man who didn’t know that “words” existed. The radio piece is accompanied by a video by Everynone on “words” and it’s various ways it is conceptualized in our culture.

Another common way we think is in relation to the context of a direction and location. We use egocentric descriptions when we describe the relationship of objects in our environment. “Where did you put the keys?” It’s behind, front, left or right of you, the table, the chair. Guugu Yimithirr the Australian aboriginal language uses geographical descriptions for describing location and directions. Since the age of 2 they practice describing, sensing and communicating based on North, South, East, West and can tell you the definitive direction by the time they reach the age of 7. This article by the New York Times points out that if they are shown two identical hotel rooms but ones facing different directions, they would experience and perceive every object in that room in a completely different space, whereas we might just see two identical rooms with identical objects. They fundamentally see and experience the world differently than the way you and I might.

The focus and approach completely changes when our internal and external dialogue changes. The creative thinking process changes based on how, what, why, we think, and in what context, relationships, and prior knowledge we decide to associate in that dialogue.

Suggestions to increase our Design “language” and vocabulary is to:
1) Invent new words or use common words uncommonly to increase our level of conceptualization
2) Filp the emphasis upside down and approach problems from different angles
3) Practice thinking in other forms like visualization techniques used by zen masters, tactile techniques used by craftsmen, or emotional techniques used by therapists
4) Broaden our relational approach to language outside of our egocentric contexts