For the most part, I agree with the author the Sun's editorial "The language of violence" (Jan. 11) in that there is no causal relationship between the language used by Sarah Palin and the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

What seems to be overlooked, however, is the larger issue of language choice and language processing. Students of language have shown that our choice of language reflects the way we think, and the way we process language is influenced by the way we see the world. Speakers and writers store many words in their mental lexicons, and they select those words that match what it is they are thinking of at a specific time and for a specific purpose. Moreover, the choice of language that communicators make reflects how they see the world. If people and events are positive or negative, we select words that mirror those views. The same is true as language users process political events around them.

In addition, much of political language is framed in metaphors, and some readers or listeners might not make a distinction between the literal and the figurative use of language. Furthermore, metaphors summon up many sense impressions, primarily visual and emotional ones. Thus, the examples most cited, among others, in this debate, putting crosshairs over several targeted congressional districts, or "Second Amendment remedies," might not be processed at a deeper level of language meaning. As a result, individuals might act on those aspects of language that have an emotional appeal. That might have been the case regarding the recent tragedy in Arizona.

Milford A. Jeremiah, Baltimore

The writer is a professor of English and linguistics at Morgan State University.