Shifting linguistic defaults toward attuned, inclusive, and caring designThe alien vessel from Arrival: a visual metaphor for nonlinear language, ambiguity, and the need to rethink communication from the ground up… or the cosmos down. Still from Arrival (2016), directed by Denis Villeneuve. Image via WallpaperAccess.“If all I ever gave you was a hammer…” “Everything’s a nail.”- Arrival (2016)When NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory prepared instructions for the Mars rover, engineers turned (oddly enough) to poetry; consulting linguists to ensure their code accounted for ambiguity, nuance, and interstellar delay. What we call a “command” must, at cosmic scale, behave more like a “suggestion.” Even robots need room for interpretation.Bringing it back to Home Sweet Earth, however, we’re still designing digital systems like we’re shouting orders into a walkie-talkie. We “capture” attention. “Target” users. “Optimize” flows. But these words go deeper than simply figures of speech. They quietly shape the systems we create, the cultures we reinforce, and the futures we believe are possible. Maybe it’s time to expand our vocabulary…Words as InfrastructureLanguage is the invisible scaffolding upon which our digital and physical interactions are built. It’s often treated as a final polish, yet it is central to design. Could it be that English, our predominant language of design, carries inherent biases that limit the worlds we imagine and construct?As Gregory Bateson observed, “The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think.” Our thinking is patterned by the words and structures we use.While language is a key pillar of effective design, we must dig deeper into the linguistic frameworks themselves. If our goal is to build systems that center relational harmony (not just efficiency), we must rethink the vocabularies we often take for granted.What follows is an exploration of how English language structures and metaphors can sometimes constrain us, and how drawing from a wider linguistic palette might lead to more relational, regenerative, and human-centered design thinking.Clarity and Accessibility, Structure and IntentionIn design, clarity, accessibility, and intention are paramount. When language falters, design fails.Design begins in the mind: honoring diverse ways of thinking is the first step toward true accessibility. Image source: The Whole U — University of WashingtonAs one example: vague error messages like “Error #403” frustrate, while “Access Denied: Please Log In to Continue” empowers. Accessible language is especially vital for disabled and neurodivergent users, or anyone navigating unfamiliar systems.Furthermore, intentional language (especially in microcopy) can transform the digital experience. For example, a button labeled “Submit” is functional, while “Join Our Community” reframes the action relationally.These categories go beyond surface-level wording to touch on the deeper structures of how we convey causality and process.English, with its dominant Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) sentence structure, naturally lends itself to a linear interpretation of causality: an agent acts upon an object. This “x causes y” syntax makes it harder to perceive circular causality, feedback loops, and mutual influence; concepts that are vital for systems thinking, especially in evolving technological contexts.Lastly, English exhibits a strong “noun bias.” Robin Wall Kimmerer notes that in Potawatomi, her ancestral language, “70 percent of words are verbs,” compared to roughly 30 percent in English. This reliance on nouns, she suggests, may subtly encourage a worldview where reality is composed primarily of static “things” rather than dynamic processes. This can be a major limitation when designing for experiences that are inherently fluid and evolving.Tone, Voice, and the Impact of Embedded MetaphorsLanguage sets an emotional temperature. For example, an empathetic tone in healthcare communications can reduce anxiety, while a cold robotic voice (even through copy) in customer service instantly alienates the user.Embedded metaphors subtly shape this emotional landscape. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson highlighted how metaphors are not just linguistic flourishes, but fundamental cognitive tools. English is rife with metaphors, and they trickle into our design thinking, for better and worse.Let’s take Lakoff and Johnson’s idea of “argument as war,” where, as they describe, we “defend positions” and “shoot down opposing points.” What different outcomes might we experience if we reframed our thinking to “argument as dance,” where, rather than outcomes defined by winners or losers, the goal is to move toward relational harmony through an ongoing, flexible process?Similarly, the “time is money” metaphor, where we “waste,” “save,” and “spend” time, guides us toward design that prioritizes relentless efficiency over reflective engagement or simply being. How else do adversarial or resource/extraction frameworks unconsciously bleed into our design thinking? Are we fostering collaboration or conflict?Let’s consider some alternative examples.The Hawaiian concept of Pono emphasizes righteousness, not as a static state, but as a dynamic condition of being “in right relationship” and balance with oneself, with others (community, ʻohana), with the land (ʻāina), and with the spiritual realm. Imagine design principles rooted in achieving Pono: a continuous striving for harmony and integrity.A sea of handprints surrounds Mandela’s gaze as a young woman reaches out in quiet recognition: Ubuntu, where touch becomes tribute and presence affirms our shared belonging. Image source: Seeding Reciprocity — UbuntuOr the Zulu concept of Ubuntu, often translated as “I am because we are,” or the proverb Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu (“A person is a person through other people”). These terms posit that individual identity is only meaningful within the context of community. A design ethos infused with Ubuntu might inherently prioritize collective well-being and mutual support.These are so much more than terminology; they represent fundamentally different ways of relating to one another, and to the worlds we shape through design.The Objectifying Gaze of “It”Inclusive design demands language accessible to all. But it also requires examining deeper linguistic habits.English’s pervasive use of the pronoun “it” to refer to a vast range of non-human entities (animals, plants, rivers, mountains) linguistically objectifies them. Robin Wall Kimmerer powerfully states, “Using the same language to refer to a bay or a raccoon or a sugar maple as to a bench or a paperclip implicitly reinforces the notion that the living world is no more than a collection of objects, inherently less worthy than humans.”This objectification, she argues, was instrumental in the colonial project of renaming the living land as “natural resources.” And now, this same vocabulary, rooted in objectification, paves the way for applying a similar extractive logic to human experience. Under surveillance capitalism, for example, our attention becomes the “natural resource” primed for extraction by predatory corporations.In stark contrast, the Potawatomi “grammar of animacy” treats not only humans and animals, but also entities like rocks, water, and even concepts like “Saturday” as animate beings. This foundational difference fosters a worldview of participation within a living, relational universe. Imagine designing AI systems with a “grammar of animacy.” Similarly, the Lakota phrase Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ (“All my relations”) enfolds rocks, rivers, and wind into a web of kinship, challenging anthropocentric design.Sweetgrass braid: a living metaphor for interwoven ways of knowing, as described in Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer. Image via Etsy (educational use)Table: Linguistic Concepts for Relational & Regenerative DesignThe limitations of English as the default backbone of design become clearer when we explore some alternatives and their potential applications:Weaving a New Linguistic Fabric for DesignThe words and vocabularies we employ in design are far from neutral. They are active agents in shaping perception and ethics. The dominance of English means its inherent thought structures, codified through language, easily and often become default settings in global design… unless we intentionally expand our thinking and by extension, our design lexicon.As designers hoping to shape a future with integrity, care, and well-being at the forefront, we must become aware of the biases embedded in our linguistic habits and begin to reframe, even rewild, the vocabularies we rely on. This means drawing from the wisdom encoded in diverse languages and honoring the patterns of attention and relationship they encode.As Joanna Macy once said, “The heart that breaks open can contain the whole universe.” Language that breaks open, and is rebuilt with greater inclusivity and care, might also better contain the full range of human experience and relational design.By recognizing that language is not just descriptive but generative, we begin to understand that how we speak about the world affects how we engage with it, and (crucially) how we design for it. If we soften our linguistic habits… perhaps our systems will soften, too.Choosing our words with care, and understanding the worlds they build, may be the most foundational act of design.References and Further ReadingKey Thinkers and Foundational Texts:Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University of Chicago Press, 2000.Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions, 2013.Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 2003.Macy, Joanna, and Molly Young Brown. Coming Back to Life: Practices to Reconnect Our Lives, Our World. New Society Publishers, 2014.Macy, Joanna. World as Lover, World as Self: Courage for Global Justice and Ecological Renewal. Parallax Press, 2007.Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs, 2019.Linguistic and Philosophical Concepts from World Traditions:Hawaiian Pono:Pukui, Mary Kawena. ʻŌlelo Noʻeau: Hawaiian Proverbs & Poetical Sayings. Bishop Museum Press, 1983.Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Mary Kawena Pukui. The Polynesian Family System in Ka-’u, Hawai’i. Mutual Publishing, 1998.Lakota Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ:Deloria Jr., Vine. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Fulcrum Publishing, 2003.Brown, Joseph Epes. The Sacred Pipe: Black Elk’s Account of the Seven Rites of the Oglala Sioux. University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.Navajo Hózhó:Witherspoon, Gary. Language and Art in the Navajo Universe. University of Michigan Press, 1977.Farella, John R. The Main Stalk: A Synthesis of Navajo Philosophy. University of Arizona Press, 1984.Japanese Ma:Pilgrim, Richard B. Buddhism and the Arts of Japan. Columbia University Press, 1999.Nitschke, Günter. From Shinto to Ando: Studies in Architectural Anthropology in Japan. Wiley-Academy, 1993.Norwegian Friluftsliv:Gelter, Hans. “Friluftsliv: The Scandinavian philosophy of outdoor life.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, vol. 5, 2000, pp. 77–92.Henderson, Bob, and Nils Vikander, editors. Nature First: Outdoor Life the Friluftsliv Way. Natural Heritage Books, 2007.Sanskrit Pratītyasamutpāda:Kalupahana, David J. Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. University Press of Hawaii, 1975.Gethin, Rupert. Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press, 1998.Zulu Ubuntu:Tutu, Desmond. No Future Without Forgiveness. Doubleday, 1999.Ramose, Mogobe B. African Philosophy Through Ubuntu. Mond Books, 2002.General Systems Thinking and Language:The Systems Thinker® (Publication).Meadows, Donella H. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2008.Words shape worlds: The role of language in better design was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.