Do we need language to think?
In terms of spoken and written languages, not necessarily.
For example, I am bilingual but do not think in either English or French unless I need to express something in written/spoken form.
That is not the case for everyone. One person said that learning a human language can extend a personality and that they had come to thinking in non-native English.
Human language may just be a formalisation or “cristallisation” of human thought and it is very handy for learning purposes.
Now, the question details indicate you mean something broader than human language in terms of structuring thought.
Some of the basic blocks of human thinking seem to be ideas or concepts and our emotional reaction to them.
Optical illusions seem to indicate that our vision and minds function according to pattern recognition and not like digital computers.
“When you look at an apple, you get some mental picture of it. When we normally think we associate words with every idea.”
When I look at an apple, say an Granny Smith, I think of something green, tasty and juicy. The mental picture is there but the word “apple’” doesn’t necessarily come to mind.
We are actually taught to associate words with ideas when we are children and build up our vocabulary to have ever more specific and complex thought.
Somewhere in the mind is some sort of Lookup table linking a specific concept-thought or a network of connections to that effect.
In terms of symbols thoughts can be related to the material world or be more abstract and more vague.
Someone who can't see, hear and speak will not be familiar with the sensations associated with these abilities.
Vision is a dominant sense so someone who can’t see will not be immersed in the same way and perhaps another one of the senses will be much more developed such as touch.
So they would have touch as well as feeling and could learn to communicate through these abilities.
The mental images or rather sensations would not be the same and perhaps more fleeting and they might be associated with touch.
In a general sense, perhaps each human being has a lesser structured “grumbling” mixing thought and emotion going on in the background which we each learn to refine through learning and experience.
Some sensory feedback seems important and Sensory deprivation can lead to hallucinations as some people have claimed while sitting in an Anechoic chamber.
So, I’d say we need some form of basic language and the very first language or dialogue a baby would first acquire while growing in the womb would be based on feelings and sensations.
how would the human race still be in existence if language was paramount to thought?
On the other hand, how can language be in a feature of the human species if it's not paramount to human thinking? It's not as if we could decide to live a languageless life, even if there have been monastic orders that tried to. There are many ways of human thinking that are not captured by language; I know how to tie my shoes, but I cannot explain it in words, for instance. Still, when I grew up, I couldn't avoid developing words and use them in sentences, just as I couldn't avoid growing teeth and use them to eat. I picked up the specific vocabulary and grammar from the environment, but a 'raw' form of language is inborn and common to all.
Language is a reflection of thought, not the other way round.
You can think without language but you cannot speak without a brain.
As Pinker (2007) says, try teaching language to a brick.
Related answer:
Sources
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought. New York: Viking.
Long answer :
Language is a means of communicating, contradicting, debating and putting a definitive picture/objectifying your thoughts.
Thoughts happen in the brain as a result of myriad of experiences as well as instinct. Experiences affect instinct. This in itself is a basic form of thinking. primates, elephants, dolphins, orcas and some higher mammals can think better than most other living creatures. And they don't have a language. [Even though, aquatic mammals mentioned above seem to have developed a way of communication, with different accents in different regions of the world. Thank you NatGeo/Discovery :) ].
Intelligence, a higher form of thinking IMO, is enhanced when "thoughts are discussed" amongst many individuals.
The doubt if you can actually think without languages, just shows how much we are dependent on languages to gather or comprehend our thinking process.
Focusing on the idea that language is perceived to be essential for thought, where thinking constitutes a conscious form of action, one suggestion is that thought must feature content, such as the perception of a river. To this content we allocate a word, such as ‘river’ to enable an identification and understanding. However, can we still understand the concept of something without a particular word, whether it is concrete or abstract?
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis indicates the close relation of language and thought, known as Linguistic Determinism. The hypothesis suggests how the language we use forms our methods of visualising and understanding the concepts of life through thought. The conventions we have in our mind show a direct relation to our language capabilities (Mooney et al, 2011).
On the other hand, if it is possible to understand the concept of a word without knowing the specific word for the object, could this apply to an abstract concept?
The word ‘privacy’ is strongly recognised in our society. However, in the Italian language there is an absence of a word for this term. So, does this mean that they do not understand the concept? Italian people still exhibit behaviour that shows an understanding of this, such as closing the door when using a public bathroom (Napoli & Schoenfeld, 2010). Surely this demonstrates how they can still perceive its importance through thought without the alleged necessary language for it, reinforcing the idea that we can in fact think without language.
Children without hearing are a prime example of how language is irrelevant to the capability of thinking. Long before they have access to linguistic input, they show behaviours that clearly require thought, showing it is possible without the use of language. However, there is no possibility that their thought could be in a specific human tongue considering there being no stage of language acquisition. The child’s inability to hear is not realised until they have reached toddler age as the child displays similar behaviour to that of children with functional hearing. This seems to show that the child can think even without an acquired language or understanding of one; signifying the possibility to think without language (Napoli & Schoenfeld 2010).
Although we need language to express our feelings and emotions to others in detail and to some extent it is required to communicate with others, conversely, it is still possible to have thought processes without any previous acquirement of language. Man was functional long before verbal or written communication was established. So ask yourself, how would the human race still be in existence if language was paramount to thought?
I personally believe thought is not separate from language, as the notion of speech is totally unachievable without the ability to think, nevertheless, I consider the aspect of language development to be the reason for our world catapulting through evolution. Yes, it is language that has allowed us to communicate on a much more accessible level and form our society today, but the greatest power behind all of this, which has made everything possible, is the power of thought.
- Credits - ABBIE HUDSON, English Language Undergraduate, University of Chester, UK
Think about early men who didn’t have language - they were still able to think and make decisions based on prior experience. When they were burnt by fire, they made a decision to use it for their protection and made sure they didn’t burn themselves again. When they saw fire, they remembered that it burnt their fingers before and also warned others.
When they were hungry, they didn’t need a language to think what to do next, they sharpened their spears and started hunting - no language but they thought our their next steps.
So basically, if I can imagine or decide what to do, I don’t need language, unless I want to figure out what to “say” to the other person. Otherwise I’m good.
When driving and deciding to take this route or that route, our brain doesn’t talk to itself by saying “Should I go here or there” You visually think of the route and it’s advantages, you think of your previous experiences of traffic and then instinctively decide on the other route.
No. Thought doesn’t occur in words, but in awareness. A thought that might take forty words to put into a (“complete thought”) sentence occurs in the brain in milliseconds.
A six-month old child knows, “I want that,” long before it develops the skill to put that thought into words—and even far longer before he or she develops the skill necessary to write such things down.
An artist conveys something through his art piece.
A musician through his music.
An engineer through his design. etc.
If this is the case then how would the one born as deaf, able to think.
No comments:
Post a Comment