Is that words total, or different words; i.e., are the poor talking less total, or just with a more limited vocabulary? If, and to the extent that, we can only conceptualize that we can find a word for, are different classes actually experiencing different realities?

Jeffrey, the person who shared this information with me said that it was words total. However, I'm sure that professional families are not just repeating the same words over and over, so it is safe to assume different words are used too.

"we can only conceptualize that we can find a word for" isn't entirely true, though there are correlations. Usually new words are invented because someone conceptualized then idea first, then named it. The idea you suggest is the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis and it is often debated.

But still, your question is valid. Are we experiencing different realities? I think we all definitely experience different parts of reality. The question is to what extent.

Intriguing numbers. I would think that even if the breadth of vocabulary weren't different between the groups, the repetition of words in the groups with more words would serve to reinforce the meaning of words more quickly. (i.e. if everyone used a core vocaulary of 620 words, but the more verbal groups used each word more often.)

But you are probably correct that more words spoken equates to a more diverse vocabulary. I always thought that breadth of vocabulary was heavily tied to reading, but it would make sense that conversation would reinforce this (and vice versa).

Educated professionals presumably read more, learn more words, speak the words, and thus pass them along to friends and family. Yet children raised in such a family, who are exposed to more words at the dinner table, will also find reading to be easier, because they won't be facing as many unfamiliar words when they pick up a book. Therefore they will enjoy reading more, broaden their vocabulary further, share the words in their own speech and continue to perpetuate the cycle.

It would make sense that we would feel most comfortable conversing with those whose vocabularies were most similar to our own, because we are less likely to face the social awkwardness of either having to explain a word or to ask for its meaning.

Regarding Jeffrey's point, I agree that we are all experiencing our own unique realities, but I'm not sure that our conceptions of reality are restrained by our vocabulary. As English speakers, we have access to a far greater number of words than speakers of most other languages (hence our ability to incorporate puns in our humor) yet I would suspect that others find different ways to express their concepts, perhaps by compounding words or even by different language structures.

Also as children I believe we can experience different things before we know how to communicate them. According to my mom, as an infant I much preferred the pureed peas to the pureed liver. Presumably I figured this out quickly and could ascertain by smell whether the goo coming towards me on the spoon was yummy or icky even if I wasn't able to quantify the concept of pea vs. liver.

Perhaps there is a linguist out there who could speak to this.

Interesting stats. Important to keep in mind though, that some of the most profound things ever said are done so with little or even no words at all. :-)

I enjoy your point Ross. Working in a media lab reminds me of this daily. Things like color, music, motion, time, fluidity, etc can carry the meaning of thousands of words.

For further illucidation, you can check out Annette Lareau work "Unequal Childhoods" which highlights the differences in child rearing of working and middle class families. The book essentially argues things like adult conversation and sports particpation perpetuate inequality in our society. From the book:

I argue that key elements of family life cohere to form a cultural logic of child rearing. In other words, the differences among families seem to cluster together in meaningful patterns. In this historical moment, middle-class parents tend to adopt a cultural logic of child rearing that stresses the concerted cultivation of children. Working-class and poor parents, by contrast, tend to undertake the accomplishment of natural growth. In the accomplishment of natural growth, children experience long stretches of leisure time, child-initiated play, clear boundaries between adults and children, and daily interactions with kin. Working-class and poor children, despite tremendous economic strain, often have more "childlike" lives, with autonomy from adults and control over their extended leisure time. Although middle-class children miss out on kin relationships and leisure time, they appear to (at least potentially) gain important institutional advantages.

The entire first chapter is available here:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9987/9987.ch01.html

lxib cpqfeujdk sdwuvhelr pdoxs oaxjzh gmkfxysjz jcpyl