Last week, we talked about the evolution of color perception.
Why were traditional societies without the color “blue” in their vocabulary? Was it due to their culture? Or their genetics?
That’s exactly what researchers Paul Kay and Brent Berlin set out to investigate.
As discussed in our last post, the scientific community previously assumed that the so-called genetic inferiority of “primitive” societies resulted in a lack of color perception – and thus a lack of color language.
It was only in 1969 that Kay and Berlin took a deeper look.
In researching the languages of twenty ethnic groups, they collected the groups’ color descriptions, using twenty different color chips. In this way, they systematically compared these groups’ color vocabulary.
Primary colors were identified across nearly every culture, which suggests that color language is unrelated to retina development or genetics.
Evolutionary research also confirms that the eyes of Hebrews and ancient Greeks possessed the same color vision as they do today.
What Does This Mean?
This means that color language is a cultural norm; there is no difference in our genetics, our vision or our perceived color spectrum.
The difference is only in the language. And while some cultures differentiate distinct separations between certain colors, others don’t.
One example: Blue
Take a look at this color spectrum.
In the Russian language, what English speakers call “light blue” qualifies as a different color from “dark blue.”
“Goluboy” and “siniy” in Russian, respectively.
Both light and dark blue are the same color in English, just two different shades of that color.
In fact, Russians may be more on point than the Brits on this differentiation. The wavelengths of light and dark blue differ as much as light blue and green.
So, equating dark and light blue makes as much physiological sense as calling light blue green and vice versa.
Now, consider early Russian scientists or linguists studying the English language.
The absence of vocabulary between what they saw as two distinct colors – goluboy and siniy -would certainly have made the English language – and, therefore, the British – seem primitive and uncivilized.
The Russians may have viewed their lacking color vocabulary as a lack of color perception and, therefore, genetic inferiority.
So, does color vocabulary (and the assumed “color perception” that accompanies it) make one culture more civilized than the other?
Of course not.
Whether your language lumps light and dark blue together or it differentiates between the two – or whether you have the color “blue” in your language at all – no color vocabulary is inferior to the other.
We’ll talk more about this next week.