Language and Thought

[Fishteacher73]

I think language is neccesary for thoughts to develop. Ie you have random thoughts sometimes that pop into your head (usually instigated by some outside stimulus, ie you see a milk truck and remember that you have to bring home milk). But to pond requires language. Iguana's do not have the "vocabulary" to do more than reactionary responses to a stimulus applied from a secondary source. Whiole this is a gorm of comuniocation, I do not think ity qualifies as language.

[gubba]

G'day folks,

 

Fish, I'm stretching to remember but I'd say the majority of languages tend to have roughly similar number of meaningful sounds but the extremes of the minority of languages at either end is quite surprising in just how few some languages get by on and how many some use. I think the variance could be as large as fifty %, but stat's is very low on my level of expertise.

 

About the selection of sounds, all languages revolve around their vowels those limited number of indistinct sounds that we make in various parts of the middle of our mouths that connect our consonants and are central to carrying our meaning. eg. if we have b - t as our consonants we can have bat , bet , bit , bot , but, all meaning completely distinct concepts. [bot is to borrow downunder]. It's with the consonants that large variations can and do occur, though English has a surprising number of dipthongs and tripthongs boosting the number of our vowels far above the average for the indo-european norm.

 

C1ay would you please explicate your prefered second option from the Oxford? The problem of course with dictionaries being the need to presuppose prior knowledge to make sense of the prescription or definition if you prefer. As you probably noticed even Wikipedia wasn't even interested in having a serious shot at it. Love your examples of instinctual communications and accept that they perform language functions but I'd argue that they strengthen my case for greater precision in our definitions. From memory Steven Pinker was quite informative in these areas and more than a bit readable. I'd recommend his "The Language Instinct" and "How the Mind Works" to any one whose interested.

 

Niviene I just remembered that I think you would find PInker's "The Language Instinct" more than useful and his bibliographies tend to be useful as well. cheers gub.

[C1ay]

C1ay would you please explicate your prefered second option from the Oxford? The problem of course with dictionaries being the need to presuppose prior knowledge to make sense of the prescription or definition if you prefer. As you probably noticed even Wikipedia wasn't even interested in having a serious shot at it. Love your examples of instinctual communications and accept that they perform language functions but I'd argue that they strengthen my case for greater precision in our definitions. From memory Steven Pinker was quite informative in these areas and more than a bit readable. I'd recommend his "The Language Instinct" and "How the Mind Works" to any one whose interested.

I don't guess I'd say that I particularly prefer any of the definitions over the others since they are all legitimate definitions of language. I particularly like the fact that 2 was listed seperately from one to show that language is not limited to the method human communication identified in the first definition. Not of the definitions explicity list any of the communications of other animal species as language. Clearly animals communicate though. Some do it through vocalization and some through body movements and patterns.

 

Yes, I believe most of the dictionaries fall short in being comprehensive. For the discussion here is the listing for language from Webster:

 

Main Entry: lan·guage

Pronunciation: 'la[ng]-gwij, -wij

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from langue tongue, language, from Latin lingua -- more at TONGUE

1

a : the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community

b

(1) : audible, articulate, meaningful sound as produced by the action of the vocal organs

(2) : a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings

(3) : the suggestion by objects, actions, or conditions of associated ideas or feelings <language in their very gesture -- Shakespeare>

(4) : the means by which animals communicate

(5) : a formal system of signs and symbols (as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions

(6) : MACHINE LANGUAGE 1

2

a : form or manner of verbal expression; specifically : STYLE

b : the vocabulary and phraseology belonging to an art or a department of knowledge

c : PROFANITY

3 : the study of language especially as a school subject

 

Of interest here is the fact that Webster specifically identifies animal communication in their definition. All in all I would say that thus far Webster has shown more care in producing their definition than the other references we've seen here.

[C1ay]

I think language is neccesary for thoughts to develop. Ie you have random thoughts sometimes that pop into your head (usually instigated by some outside stimulus, ie you see a milk truck and remember that you have to bring home milk). But to pond requires language. Iguana's do not have the "vocabulary" to do more than reactionary responses to a stimulus applied from a secondary source. Whiole this is a gorm of comuniocation, I do not think ity qualifies as language.

Would you say then that naturally born deaf-mutes cannot think?

 

To me language is that which allows one individual of community to convey a message to other members of the community. It is the enabler of communication. Humans use speech, and body language. Other animals use sounds, body language, chemicals and a variety of other means to convey information. Language is not the enabler of thought though, although many of us probably use language in our thoughts. Helen Keller surely had thoughts about the world around her but there was nothing in those thoughts that she could use to convey them to others, if so, it would have been language. Her thought process only meant something to her, undefined for everyone else, unable to enable communication of those thoughts. Unable to meet the requirements of language.

[gubba]

G'day C1ay,

 

Yes I'd take webster's effort as a very good start indeed. Must admit I'm impressed as I'm irrationally biased against Webster on the whole, perhaps it's the result of an anglophile education in my youth.cheers gub.

[Fishteacher73]

Would you say then that naturally born deaf-mutes cannot think?

 

Perhaps it came across that way, but no. Humans, as stated earlier, are hard wired to absorb language. If an idividual could not gain it verbally they would gather and process ideas/concepts/names/etc visually or tactually. Much like Plato's concept of ideal associations for terms. Most organism OTOH do not have the mental abilities or pre-disposition for such informational intake.

[Qfwfq]

Certainly an interesting topic and by no means trivial.

 

Language certainly is related to though but that doesn't mean thought is language and vice versa. Thought requires some way of representing what is being thought about, and concepts and notions about them. A dog may learn to understand many things that happen around it without having a representation that goes much beyond the actual sensory perceptions themselves. Without language though we could hardly develop cultures comprising philosophy, mathematics and whatnot. Much of thought is however intuitive and, I believe, even analytical thought has a basis in processes which are intuitive.

 

One of the most obvious questions in this discussion is that about which language a person thinks in. What, though, does it mean to say that I think in one or another language? IMHO it doesn't mean all that much. Many people have asked me if I think in English or in Italian and my answer tends to be "neither". I believe thought comes before translation of it into some language. Words and phrases are certainly not quite the mechanism. Of course, a language might make it more or less difficult to exactly express a certain concept, distinct from similar ones, and this is why language may have an impact. This goes especially for how well thought may be spread through society but it also makes a difference in how well an individuals may handle their own ideas.

 

IOW, the role of language in thought is that of representation in terms of symbols (including grunts and moans, smiles and frowns...) that can be manipulated, the actual thought implies there being some mechanism for manipluating these symbols.

[bumab]

So do you think those thoughts are universal? i.e. do we all see the same symbols? in which case, does our language reflect those similarities?

[Fishteacher73]

IMO they vary by culture by large amounts and individual variances as well.

[lindagarrette]

To me language is that which allows one individual of community to convey a message to other members of the community. It is the enabler of communication. Humans use speech, and body language. Other animals use sounds, body language, chemicals and a variety of other means to convey information. Language is not the enabler of thought though, although many of us probably use language in our thoughts. Helen Keller surely had thoughts about the world around her but there was nothing in those thoughts that she could use to convey them to others, if so, it would have been language. Her thought process only meant something to her, undefined for everyone else, unable to enable communication of those thoughts. Unable to meet the requirements of language.

Oxford definition number 1: the method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way. is the one accepted by linguists. There is no need to expand on it or to reduce it. Other means of communication are other means of communication: bird calls, whale songs, smoke signals..... not language. Language is essential for thought formation but not for autonomic response to light, sound, feel, or other sensory inputs. Language requires words and a grammar. It's important to keep definitions specific as much as possible to avoid miscommunication. There's enough of that already.

 

Helen Keller read and wrote English.

[bumab]

IMO they vary by culture by large amounts and individual variances as well.

 

I would say so too. Culture usually comes down to language- as somebody mentioned earlier, language is often seen as the "definition" or "descriptor" of culture. So does the language used in a culture affect the thoughts of an individual? For example- more warlike, more pacifist, more nature appreciation, etc... all based on the language being more warlike, more pacifist, or more conginzant of nature?

[C1ay]

Other means of communication are other means of communication: bird calls, whale songs, smoke signals..... not language.

These sources differ with you. Care to elaborate?

 

Merriam-Webster

Brittanica

Encarta

Wordsmyth

American Heritage Dictionary

Infoplease

Dictionary.com

Wikipedia

OneLook

Webster's Unabridged

[C1ay]

Humans, as stated earlier, are hard wired to absorb language. If an idividual could not gain it verbally they would gather and process ideas/concepts/names/etc visually or tactually.

Yes, I realize that. I was just stating that thought did not depend on language.

[Fishteacher73]

The form of the language (communication) is irrelevant. Just as computer programming languages can be irrelevant to the purpose of the program (Yes there are languages that are better suited for specific tasks, just as there are communication systems that are better for certain situations). Tthe hardware determines if the program can run on that system. Some organisms are an abacus and others are deep blue.

[Turtle]

___Here is a perspective that literally dropped into my lap a couple of days ago. My friend Ooda brought me a 1988 edition of "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, & James Trefil. The primary author is Hirsh, & the dictionary takes its lead from his 1987 book "Cultural Literacy".

___Quoting Hirsh, " The novelty that my book introduced into this discussion is its argument that true literacy depends on a knowledge of the specific information that is taken for granted in our public discourse."

___I note newer editions of this Dictionary of Cultural Literacy have come out, but as nearly as I can tell, the one I have is a first edition. I'm just reading cover to cover & skimming the entries for those unfamiliar. It bears on this thread as Hirsh is asserting for language to work we all have to have similar thoughts beforehand, & therefore those relatively illiterate aren't getting what is really intended.

___Plenty on Hirsch's work on the web. :friday:

[Fishteacher73]

It seems that this stikes an interesting idea about translating between languages, Turtle. FOr accurate translation the individual needs to not only "textbook" fluent but understand the cultural inuendos of both cultures to accurately translate the real and whole meaning of one statement from language to language. Just look at English-Japanese translations.

[C1ay]

It seems that this stikes an interesting idea about translating between languages, Turtle. FOr accurate translation the individual needs to not only "textbook" fluent but understand the cultural inuendos of both cultures to accurately translate the real and whole meaning of one statement from language to language. Just look at English-Japanese translations.

Just imagine how someone might take it if I said "Bear with me" and they thought I meant "Bare with me" :friday: