Language Matters: A reflection

“Language matters.” This is a catchphrase I first heard from my Practice Leader, Fiona Harkness, within the Te Tai Tokerau ki te Tonga RTLB Cluster 2 and one which I soon came to adopt and use myself. It is also an idea that Fiona subsequently explored in her Master’s thesis, Language Matters: Developing Inclusive, Strengths-Based Practice in an RTLB Cluster (2019), and in the article, “Language Matters: Developing Inclusive, Strengths-Based Practice in a Cluster of Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour” (Harkness, Walker & Meyer, 2022).

At the centre of the debate around the relationship between language and thought, including theories such as linguistic relativism, linguistic determinism and the universalist hypothesis, is the question of whether language changes what we notice and how we sort the world into meaning. This has become a key focus in my practice, as I firmly believe that the language adults use shapes how we think about the ākonga in our care.

Language is not simply a communication tool; it is also a way of conceptualising the world. The language we are brought up to speak can influence what we notice, how we interpret experience and how we assign meaning to behaviour.

Language and Professional Practice

In my role as a Resource Teacher of Learning and Behaviour (RTLB), I regularly work alongside kaiako and whānau to support ākonga with learning, behavioural and social/emotional difficulties. I have observed that the language used to describe behaviour strongly influences how adults interpret and respond to ākonga. When an ākonga is described as “defiant”, “attention seeking”, or “manipulative”, responses are often more deficit based and compliance focused. In contrast, when behaviour is reframed using trauma informed language such as “dysregulated”, “stress response”, or “having difficulty meeting expectations”, responses are more likely to be empathetic and supportive.

Practice Example - Collaborative Problem Solving

One example of this occurred recently during a collaborative meeting I facilitated with whānau, a psychologist and school staff, using Ross Greene’s (2014) Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) model. Dr Greene’s approach emphasises that “kids do well if they can”, rather than “kids do well if they want to”, reframing behaviour as a reflection of difficulty accessing skills such as emotional regulation and executive functioning, rather than a lack of motivation or intent. Within this approach, behaviour is reframed from “the ākonga is choosing to be difficult” to “the ākonga is having difficulty meeting expectations.”

Prior to the hui, I observed communication that reflected concerns about the ākonga’s behaviour, expressed through a frustrated and worried lens, with a predominantly problem focused framing of the behaviour.  During the hui, shifting language through structured discussion about the skills the ākonga was having difficulty accessing, helped clarify why certain expectations were not being met and influenced the interventions considered.  

Linguistic Relativity

These experiences relate strongly to the concept of linguistic relativism. Linguistic relativism suggests that language influences how people think about and interpret the world, without fully determining thought. Language can shape what we notice, influence how we interpret situations and affect how we categorise experiences, but people are still able to think beyond the language they use.

This differs from linguistic determinism, which argues that language fully determines thought. My experiences do not support this, as adults can shift their thinking when presented with alternative frameworks. My experiences also do not support the universalist hypothesis, which suggests language has little influence on thought. In practice, I have observed that changing language consistently influences interpretation, emotional responses and intervention decisions. In this way, linguistic relativism offers the most accurate explanation and that is, language influences thought, particularly in shaping how behaviour is interpreted.

While linguistic relativism originated in anthropological contexts through the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which explored how language and culture shape the way different groups of people understand reality, modern cognitive research suggests that these processes also operate within everyday educational interactions and settings. It is not only culture, but also the specific words adults use to describe ākonga, that can shape thinking and interpretation. The language used about ākonga can influence adult expectations, decision making and even how ākonga understand themselves.

Language, Bias and Interpretation

Although language influences interpretation, it does not operate in isolation. Even when language is reframed, adults often still interpret behaviour through their lens of existing beliefs, stress responses or unconscious bias. For example, despite reframing “defiant” as “dysregulated”, some adults may still perceive the behaviour as intentional wrongdoing due to their own prior experience, triggers or emotional reactions.

This highlights that language is only one factor influencing interpretation. Cognitive bias, personal experience, school culture and emotional states all contribute to how behaviour is understood and responded to in practice.

Conclusion

Differences in language raise an important question.  Do the words we use simply show how we already think, or do they actually change how we think? While language can reflect existing beliefs and values, linguistic relativism suggests it also actively influences cognition by shaping attention, interpretation and categorisation.

Overall, my experiences as an RTLB have helped me recognise how powerful language can be in shaping perception, understanding, relationships and decision making within educational settings, particularly in relation to how adults interpret, respond to and support ākonga. Language does not determine thought, but it can influence how we organise, process and communicate our ideas.  This aligns closely with my experiences in practice, where shifts in language often lead to shifts in interpretation, understanding and response.

Whakaaro for your week: The next time you read a referral or sit in an intake meeting, take note of the labels being used. How can you gently introduce a linguistic shift to steer the team away from a deficit model and toward a more empathetic, strengths-based lens?

References

Greene, R. W. (2014). Lost at school: Why our kids with behavioral challenges are falling through the cracks and how we can help them (2nd ed.). Scribner.

Harkness, F. J. (2019). Language matters: Developing inclusive, strengths-based practice in an RTLB cluster [Master's thesis, University of Auckland]. ResearchSpace@Auckland. https://hdl.handle.net/2292/49468

Harkness, F. J., Walker, J., & Meyer, F. (2022). Language matters: Developing inclusive, strengths-based practice in a cluster of Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 46(2), 138–150.

---

RTLB Aotearoa Feedback  

We value your input. Please take a few moments to share your reflections on our content. Your feedback helps us to improve and continue offering relevant, high-quality professional learning. ➡️ RTLB Aotearoa Feedback