YOU DON’T SPEAK, YOU BECOME

“Discover how language invisibly shapes our relationships, identities, and collective realities through a deep and unprecedented analysis.”

There is a silent pact we celebrate every day, thousands of times, without ever consciously signing it. Every sentence we utter, every expression we choose, every word spoken aloud or murmured mentally functions as a vote deposited in an invisible ballot box that determines not only who we are but who we allow ourselves to be. Language is not a neutral tool we use to describe reality — it is the very fabric with which we stitch the reality we inhabit.
But there is something more unsettling in this dynamic, something we rarely notice because we are too immersed to see it: we speak words we never chose. We inherit syntaxes. We repeat constructions that carry embedded worldviews, like semantic viruses replicating from mouth to mouth, generation to generation. When we say, “I lost focus,” we are not merely describing a state — we are performing a narrative of failure, of something that once belonged to us and slipped away, of a precious substance that evaporated due to our incompetence. The metaphor of loss already comes with moral interest attached.
Notice: no one says, “my focus has redistributed.” No one announces, “my attention migrated to other territories.” We say “I lost,” and within this small verb lives a universe of blame. The language we speak speaks back to us, and usually, what it says is: you failed. Everyday grammar is saturated with emotional traps that we trigger unconsciously, like linguistic landmines planted in seemingly neutral soil.
And the most fascinating part: these traps do not operate alone. They function because we live in relational ecosystems where meanings are negotiated collectively, where every word spoken reverberates across complex intersubjective fields. When someone asks, “How are you?” and we respond, “Busy as usual,” we are not merely reporting on our schedule. We are signaling belonging to a moral community that values frantic productivity, we are reinforcing a cultural script that equates busyness with importance, we are asking for recognition of our implicit sacrifice.
The response “busy as usual” is, in truth, a disguised plea for social validation. It is as if we were saying, “See how relevant I am, see how many demands fall upon me, see how required my existence is.” And the listener understands the code perfectly because we have all been literate in this unofficial language of emotional capitalism, where being busy equals being alive, where stopping equals failure, where rest sounds like surrender.
But here is what no one tells you: this language does not merely reflect our state — it actively constructs it. Every time we vocalize “I’m busy,” we reinforce a specific identity, consolidate a self-image, sculpt in the marble of repetition a version of ourselves that begins to feel true simply because it has been said many times. Identity is less a discovery and more a discursive practice. We become what we insist on narrating.
And if this mechanism works to construct anxiety, it can also work to deconstruct it. Not through naive optimism or magical thinking, but through a sophisticated understanding of how language structures lived experience. When we replace “I’m busy” with “I am in motion,” we are not disguising reality — we are choosing a different ontology. We are opting to inhabit an interpretation where agency prevails over victimhood, where rhythm replaces chaos, where intentionality challenges compulsion.
This choice matters because language is not individual — it is always relational. Every word spoken subtly modifies the social field in which we are embedded. When we say “I have a challenge” instead of “I have a problem,” we are not merely changing our internal disposition — we are altering the relational chemistry of the environment. We are inviting others to position themselves differently toward us. Problems elicit pity; challenges invite collaboration. The syntax we choose redistributes social roles.
And there is a hidden power here that transcends self-help and enters the territory of cultural archaeology. Because the language we use carries sedimented layers of history, ideology, and power structures. When someone talks about “losing weight,” they are not merely describing an aesthetic goal — they are recycling a millennia-old cultural narrative that associates the body with burden, that treats matter as error, that transforms biology into morality. The expression “lose weight” comes already contaminated by centuries of mind-body dualism, of discipline as virtue, of self-control as superiority.
Replacing “lose weight” with “gain health” is not cosmetic — it is insurgent. It is a refusal of subtraction grammar and an embrace of addition syntax. It is shifting the semantic axis from punishment to celebration, from negation to affirmation, from war against the body to alliance with it. And this shift has material, concrete, measurable effects on behavior, relationships, and well-being. Because the body is not mute — it listens to the stories we tell about it and responds with disturbing fidelity.
But perhaps the most radical aspect of this understanding is realizing that there is no “I” before language. There is no authentic, pure self waiting to be discovered beneath the wrong words. What we call “I” is a linguistic effect, a confluence of narratives, a meeting point of social discourses that traverse us. We are less authors of our story and more effects of stories circulating for a long time.
And precisely for this reason, language matters so much. Because if no pre-linguistic self exists, then modifying language is modifying identity. Not superficially, not cosmetically, but structurally. Every word is an ontological microdecision. Every sentence is a vote on the kind of reality we want to inhabit collectively.
There is an ethical responsibility here that goes far beyond individual care. Because the words we choose do not only affect our internal state — they shape the emotional environment of everyone around us. When an organizational leader repeatedly says, “We are in the eye of the storm,” they are not describing turbulence — they are producing it. When a parent repeats, “You’re not paying attention,” they are not observing a personality trait — they are sculpting one. Language is performative: it makes happen what it names.
And if this is true, then every conversation is an act of co-creation of reality. Every dialogue is a moment where possible worlds compete to become real. When two people converse, what is at stake is not just an exchange of information — it is negotiation over which version of reality will prevail, which narrative will consolidate, which interpretation will gain factual status.
Therefore, linguistic attention is not fastidiousness — it is political lucidity. It is recognizing that we are always immersed in semantic force fields that pull us in specific directions, that invite us to inhabit certain roles and refuse others, that make some experiences speakable and others mute. And that we can, consciously, choose which forces to amplify and which to resist.
This does not mean censoring spontaneity or policing every word. It means developing a second attention, a parallel perception that notices patterns, identifies repetitions, catches the moments when we are speaking on cultural autopilot. It means asking: does this word belong to me, or do I belong to it? Does this sentence express my experience, or does it conform it? Does this vocabulary liberate me, or imprison me?
And when we perceive that an expression no longer serves us, that a metaphor is worn out, that a cultural script is obsolete, we can do something extraordinary: we can invent new language. Not for aesthetic whim — but for existential necessity. Because there are contemporary experiences for which we still lack adequate words, there are emerging relational states that inherited vocabulary does not capture, there are forms of modern suffering that traditional language cannot name.
Inventing language is not the privilege of poets — it is the right of anyone who perceives the distance between lived experience and available expression. It is what we do when we say, “I feel emotionally drained” instead of merely “tired” — we are creating finer distinctions, mapping internal territories with greater precision, giving form to what was previously only diffuse cloudiness.
And the more precise our language, the richer our experience. Because language does not merely express experience — it enables it. The more words we have to name emotional nuances, the more nuances we can feel. The more vocabulary we have to describe relationship quality, the more relational qualities we can cultivate. Expanded language expands the world.
Perhaps this is why contemplative traditions have always valued silence — not because words are bad, but because we need pauses to notice the effects they produce. Silence is not the absence of language; it is the digestion of language. It is the necessary interval to perceive which words inhabit us, which narratives possess us, which automatic scripts we are running without conscious authorization.
And when we return from silence to speech, we return different. We return with increased capacity to choose, to notice, to intervene in what once seemed natural and inevitable. We return knowing that language is not a passive mirror of reality, but an active instrument of its construction. And therefore, every word matters.
It matters because it changes the speaker. It matters because it transforms the listener. It matters because it reconfigures the space between people — that invisible, yet absolutely real territory where it is decided what is possible to feel, think, and do together. It matters because language is the substance from which shared worlds are made.
So, next time someone asks how you are, take an imperceptible pause. Notice which response wants to come out automatically. Perceive whether this response expresses truth or habit, reveals presence or reproduces pattern. And then, consciously, choose the words that best construct the reality you want to inhabit.
Because in the end, we are made of language as much as flesh. And every sentence is an opportunity to reinvent ourselves.

#marcellodesouza #marcellodesouzaoficial #coachingevoce

Enjoyed this content? Visit my blog and explore hundreds of publications on cognitive-behavioral development, conscious human relationships, and organizational transformation. There you will find deep analyses, unprecedented perspectives, and practical tools for your personal and professional evolution. Visit now and expand your vision of what it truly means to be human in the 21st century.