Prof AGE

Whether the English language is a form of intelligence is fast becoming a thing of heated debate. On the surface, people would argue that in addressing this topic, a lot of factors should be given favorable considerations. Conversely, when some of the substantial number of facts to back the position of language in evaluating human intelligence are put forward, this question may be so trivialized.

Assumptions pose a huge risk in circumstances like this, so it is essential to map out first things first. It will do this finding a lot of good if we have a mutual understanding of the operational term: intelligence.

Intelligence is originally a Latin word: intelligere, meaning ‘to understand’ or ‘to perceive.’ Latin evolved, and the word became intelligentia (or intellectus)—without losing its meaning. Late Middle English eventually borrowed the word from Old French: intelligence. This transformation is partly accountable for the polysemousness of the word.   

Today, in English, intelligence may be regarded as ‘Capacity of mind, especially to understand principles, truths, facts or meanings, acquire knowledge, and apply it to practice; the ability to comprehend and learn’ (Wiktionary). Or as ‘the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience’ (English Dictionary – Offline).  

All ideas of this term point to the fact that, within context, intelligence is a thing of the mind in relation to experience—experienced first-hand or sought. This knowledge makes the discussion at hand about half-solved.     

For instance, that ‘it [your knowledge of the English language] is no way the measure of your knowledge or intelligence, but purely your language skill (Vijayan),’ or ‘English is not a measure of intelligence; it is merely a language” … are common postulations that only remain valid for as long as the intent and spectrum of intelligence is not known. These ideas are both a misconception of the complexity of language and intelligence.

Language is not inherent in man. Although language, as most scholars—with the exception of such linguists as Opoola (2001)—believe is innate to man, it is never a thing that one is literally born with. As a corollary, it may be inferred that as with all other disciplines capable of demonstrating an individual’s intellectual worth, language is learned. ‘Simply being a NS [native speaker] does not guarantee proficiency in English’ (Watson).

In the same vein, it could be degrading and rather inconsiderate to tame some people’s area of study and specialization as not being a yardstick to quantify intelligence. What could be more consoling is to pronounce all areas of study (alike or not) as ineffective determinants as well, except we turn a blind eye to the fact that any studiable discipline whatsoever is language-based.

It isn’t only about learning language; it is about learning through language (Donohue). Much like English, Mathematics is literally a rule-governed language well-understood by mathematicians; Physics is a set of language understood by physicists; Biology is understood by biologists; as Philosophy alongside its lexemes and complications is a language of the philosophers, hence the term esotericism. ‘Philosophy has taken a linguistic turn’ (Bergmann) discloses a 1952 journal.

Not to dwell in the topicality of language being the backbone of all disciplines—a topic that would be too broad to keep this paper in the trajectory it should maintain.   

Language is a proven form of intelligence. The theory of multiple intelligences is not new, although many are understandably not privy to it. It was first introduced by Howard Gardner in 1983. From that point onward, the psychological world has agreed on ‘at least seven measurable intelligences’ (Gelb): logical-Mathematical, Verbal-linguistic, Musical, Spatial-Mechanical, Intrapersonal, Bodily-Kinesthetic, and Interpersonal-social.

However distant one might decide to stay away from language, it is almost impossible to evaluate intelligence without employing an atom of linguistics. For instance, to identify strength in both idea comprehension and problem-solving, many IQ test devices are programmed to examine the quantitative and verbal reasoning capability.   

 Following is a vignette that would be especially helpful in acing our understanding of the topic: what triggers this debate? Behind relatively all opposing views is the subtle narrative of some individuals who, however grounded in their crafts and other areas, face rejections over their poor command of the English language (PCE). This might be enough reason to start a debate, but logically not enough premises from which such conclusions as language not being a way to measure intelligence should be drawn.

A better inference could be that a person’s knowledge of the English language is not a way to evaluate their capabilities in other areas of life—knowing full well that the same statement would not apply to, say, a literature-in-English teacher, a customer care representative, or a translator, among others.

In essence, rather than advocating for people who are discriminated against because they cannot use the English language proficiently, a more just voice that says no to any form of discrimination whatsoever would be rational.

It is pleasing but equally alarming that the majority of people who have spoken against this proposition lay emphasis on people with PCE being marginalized, so much that they seem satisfied with other forms of marginalization.

The world should not be sensitized falsely with subjective theories. People should be taught not to segregate against other humans, not just against people who struggle with communication in English. We should be taught, also, that the English language is not the only quantifier of intelligence, not that it is completely not a form of intelligence.

But there is good news. With the right amount of time to make thorough discovery and findings and the sufficient proportion of convincing premises to put forward theories that could nullify the longstanding omnium consensus on the topicality of such concepts as intelligence, it could be possible to ratify the idea that English is not a way to measure intelligence.    

To put in one or two sentences a summary of the point of this piece, is to speak of the inseparable identical relationship between the English language—or any given language at that—and any universally viable means of evaluating the human intelligence.         

References and further reading

Todd, Richard Watson. “The myth of the native speaker as a model of English proficiency.” Reflections 8 (2006): 1-7.

Bergmann, Gustav. “Two types of linguistic philosophy.” The Review of Metaphysics (1952): 417-438.