Question regarding language.

[S O F I]

We often talk about "choosing the right words to express our thoughts," as if thinking were a process entirely independent of the words we think in. But, is thinking such an independent process? Do the words we utter arise as a result of the thoughts we have, or are the thoughts we have, determined by the linguistic systems we happen to have been taught?


This is not my question, it's a question from the "Semantic Parable". As you can see, I'm taking English.

 

[Jurhum]

We often talk about "choosing the right words to express our thoughts," as if thinking were a process entirely independent of the words we think in. But, is thinking such an independent process? Do the words we utter arise as a result of the thoughts we have, or are the thoughts we have, determined by the linguistic systems we happen to have been taught?


This is not my question, it's a question from the "Semantic Parable". As you can see, I'm taking English.

That's a very hard to answer question. But, here is my take on it.

Our thinking process is entirely independent of our linguistics or terminology. As we think, we don't think in terms of words rather in terms of ideas. But, when we try to convey our ideas, it is then that we try to form or choose the proper terms to express our ideas to the fullest possible meaning.

Our thoughts are determined by our lifestyle not language. Although, language sets the path to thinking, it’s not necessarily essential to our thinking process. Language is only a mean that humans facilitate to convey their thoughts and idea's.

 

[Illuminattile]

Been reading 1984?

 

[S O F I]

As we think, we don't think in terms of words rather in terms of ideas.

I don't think this is always the case. I believe that people with a richer vocabulary are able to think more efficiently and I think there is a connection.

Also, it is a hard question to answer. People that specialize in linguistics debate on this all the time.

Also, I'm not readin 1984, lol. It's from a discussion in English class.

 

[Khaled]

thoughts and language are completely independant from eachothers.

I believe that people with a richer vocabulary are able to think more efficiently and I think there is a connection.

people think 4 times faster than they speak (some study i read a while ago), there s no direct correlation to language.

actually, there's no reason to believe that deph/mute people are less intelligent or less able to reason and think.

also, if you consider mathematics and logic, they are more related to the way people can visualise thing rather than the way they express themselves. I also noticed that the smartest people i know are those that have the most difficulties expressing themseves. can u ever understand when a genius is talking???

 

[Jurhum]

I don't think this is always the case. I believe that people with a richer vocabulary are able to think more efficiently and I think there is a connection.

Think efficiently? maybe.But I still don't think language and our thinking process are related that one can't occure without the other, espcially thinking.

 

[Amara]

I believe that people with a richer vocabulary are able to think more efficiently and I think there is a connection.

I disagree - I think thoughts are more an expression of emotions, ideas, creativity or sometimes simply instinct. Vocabulary is ill-equipped to measure the efficiency or depth of thought - whether one has a rich or poor vocabulary they would think much deeper and faster than they can wholly articulate. Vocabulary limits the ability to transcribe thoughts as it requires a succinct and systematised process which we need not follow inside the brain (where we need only stimuli, not processes).

Having said that, I think words greatly assist in making sense of all those emotions, ideas, instincts etc. Often in order to understand where our thoughts stem from it (the greater significance of them) requires putting them into words. So then you might say, our ability to read further into our thoughts, as opposed to merely having them, does require the use of our linguistic system. Therefore the better you are vocally, perhaps the better equipped you are to examine the depth of your thoughts.

 

[Taliq]

Language is simply the petals of the flower, the outward expression of the stem and root - our thoughts and ideas. Language can be rich and varied as can petals be coloured and vibrant. But to say a flower with no colour does not have a strong root is incorrect.

Only in sunlight (the right invironment) will a flower blossom for us to see. A person may have ideas far greater than yours, but we'd only see the vibrance, colour and true meaning of those ideas if expressed explicitly through a learned and extensive language skills. These skills, this sunlight, can only be acquired if a person is exposed to it (school/ place of education, books, education through other media, a possibly "better" background).

 

[roaches]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4265763.stm

On the other hand.

Studies have shown that deaf people raised by hearing parents are more likely to fail in some cognitive tasks unrelated to hearing than deaf children raised by deaf parents.

Language is a natural human instinct. All thought and instinct isn't dependent on it, but it's definitely an essential part of being a fully functional person. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II had experiments conducted where infants were raised without exposing them to any kind of language or communication - they died. The Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great did the same thing, even isolating them from all speech - the kids didn't die, but ended up spontaneously developing their own form of sign language.

actually, there's no reason to believe that deph/mute people are less intelligent or less able to reason and think.

Deaf/mute people don't have language?

I also noticed that the smartest people i know are those that have the most difficulties expressing themseves. can u ever understand when a genius is talking???

Now I know you're kidding.

 

[S O F I]

^I like your post. However, I'd like to see you answer my question in the first post, and support it.

 

[Khaled]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4265763.stm

On the other hand.

Studies have shown that deaf people raised by hearing parents are more likely to fail in some cognitive tasks unrelated to hearing than deaf children raised by deaf parents.

Language is a natural human instinct. All thought and instinct isn't dependent on it, but it's definitely an essential part of being a fully functional person. The Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II had experiments conducted where infants were raised without exposing them to any kind of language or communication - they died. The Mughal Emperor Akbar the Great did the same thing, even isolating them from all speech - the kids didn't die, but ended up spontaneously developing their own form of sign language.

this is not about the existance of a language or not, but whether thoughts are determined by the linguistic system that is used.

are you sure about that Roman Emperer experience (or was it Frederick II the great from Austria?) cuz i can hardly undestand how you can raise infants without exposing them to any signs of communication.
Actually, a lot of spiritual practices involves cancelling all communication in order to increase iner awareness.

about the other kids that came up with their own sign language, well, that proves my point that even without having an expressive linguistic system, they were still able to come up withtheir own (not an easy thing), which shows that the ability to think is independant from language.

Now I know you're kidding

this is real, the smartest mathematicians for instance often find it difficult to express themselves because they see things from a different perspective. Einstein and Hawkings and many others often use analogies to explain their scientific theories because they can't put it in words.

i think it's actually the opposite, the less advanced the linguistic system is, the more people can go beyond it and think more clearly and efficiently

 

[Kaya]

I think thoughts and words don’t result from one or another…..
Both a thought and a word is a result from your (quantum)energy , which u are connected with through your brains….and that energy gives u a thought(visually) or a thought (in words) or both at he same times

But that energy is also a kind of state of mind you are into….and that state of mind can be influenced by your environment…..other people with negative thoughts or words can bring yourr mind to a lower state of mind …positive people with positive thoughts and words can bring your state of mind (energy ) to a higher level……you can be scared by people only by looking at them because they have a bad aura (also a form of energy).



So I think your thoughts/words exists from all kind of energies we are exposed to…..your own inner vibrations and vibrations from your environment influence your mind & body
Even the food u eat can influence your thoughts and words….everything in this world excist from quantum energy..so is logic that energy in the form of words/food/people can influence other forms of energy or the same form of energy..its all related to each other.

But you can also bring yourself to a higher state of mind by training yourself/educating yourself. The more knowledge you have, the more open you are for your energy…..which means u are able to speak with ‘’better language’’ or think ‘’better thoughts’’ or you are able to do other things ‘’better’’.

So in short, I don’t think thoughts and words result from one or another…but it is related to each other

 

[S O F I]

i think it's actually the opposite, the less advanced the linguistic system is, the more people can go beyond it and think more clearly and efficiently

Think more clearly? I don't know. But, be able to express thoughts better, no way.

Example: A person is putting together a puzzle and is confused about where the pieces go. The person is confused, yes, but, in more specific detail, the person is baffled. The more advanced the linguistic system is, the better chance of being more articulate and specific with your thoughts.

 

[Khaled]

The more advanced the linguistic system is, the better chance of being more articulate and specific with your thoughts.

can't argue with that, that's the definition of an advanced linguistic system

 

[Bender]

I have understood thoughts to be of a Verbal and Abstract form. And the energy we produce (be it sound,kinetic energy, etc) is always preceded by thought, in one form or another.

 

[LL COOL PAC]

The question you're asking is quite closely related to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which, put simply, states that language influences cognition. A structuralist would say that because different languages demarcate their units of meaning differently, their speakers can't help but perceive the world differently too. The famous example is of the Tarahumaran people, who do not differentiate between green and blue on the colour spectrum. To summarise the results of the experiment, if you showed English speakers a dark blue and a light blue colour chip which were miles away from each other on the colour spectrum, and then a blue and green chip which were actually quite close together, and asked them which pair were more different from each other, most English speakers would get it wrong and opt for the second pair because that's where English imposes a boundary.
Generally frowned upon in linguistics, the theory nevertheless holds a certain cult attraction for some of the arty-fartier among us. I'm investigating whether or not the languages which have grammatical gender produce cultures which prescribe very inflexible gender roles.

I recommend Piaget as a starting point for futher reading into this conundrum.
btw its nice to see intelligent posts :thumb:

edit :Also look into Chomsky, a very popular psycholinguist, who, in my opinion, speaks a lot of sense. If you think about it, words are essential for conveying most messages, but they are not the be-all and end-all. If you know how sommmething looks, without saying it, or thinking the words, you can compare it to something else you see. Same with sounds, tastes, smells and all sensations.
However Chomsky isn't just a psycholinguist: he started out as a syntactician and phonologist, but is really every type of linguist there is, having revolutionised the whole subject in the 1950s with the concept of language as innate. That being said He's been criticized, though, for having written extensively on political issues purely out of interest/concern/outrage and not from experience. His commentary is lucid and brilliant, though(in my opinion). So is it wrong to become a serious writer in an area outside that of your expertise/training? I don't think this applies to novelists.... AS Byatt goes on and on about the physiology of snails and psychoanalysis in A Whistling Woman and not a peep out of anyone for straying from her "field".

 

[RFTP]

The question you're asking is quite closely related to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which, put simply, states that language influences cognition. A structuralist would say that because different languages demarcate their units of meaning differently, their speakers can't help but perceive the world differently too. The famous example is of the Tarahumaran people, who do not differentiate between green and blue on the colour spectrum. To summarise the results of the experiment, if you showed English speakers a dark blue and a light blue colour chip which were miles away from each other on the colour spectrum, and then a blue and green chip which were actually quite close together, and asked them which pair were more different from each other, most English speakers would get it wrong and opt for the second pair because that's where English imposes a boundary.
Generally frowned upon in linguistics, the theory nevertheless holds a certain cult attraction for some of the arty-fartier among us. I'm investigating whether or not the languages which have grammatical gender produce cultures which prescribe very inflexible gender roles.

I recommend Piaget as a starting point for futher reading into this conundrum.
btw its nice to see intelligent posts :thumb:

edit :Also look into Chomsky, a very popular psycholinguist, who, in my opinion, speaks a lot of sense. If you think about it, words are essential for conveying most messages, but they are not the be-all and end-all. If you know how sommmething looks, without saying it, or thinking the words, you can compare it to something else you see. Same with sounds, tastes, smells and all sensations.

I've read about sapir-whorf theory and it has alot of disadvantages. Now,I read it for about 2 years ago and I'll try to press out what I remember.

The theory also failed when asked if someone (a child for instance) is in pain. Let's say that his kidney or something like that hurts. Would he feel the pain or not? Would he be able to explain where it hurts despite the lack of words for it?
Sapir took the Tarahumaran tribe as an example, but there are examples of tribes that does the opposite. They can think/feel of something that they don't have words for..

 

[Jurhum]

I don't think the question posed by Sofistik was whether communication required language or not. It was whether our thinking process was related or linked to our vocabs.

 

[LL COOL PAC]

I've read about sapir-whorf theory and it has alot of disadvantages. Now,I read it for about 2 years ago and I'll try to press out what I remember.

The theory also failed when asked if someone (a child for instance) is in pain. Let's say that his kidney or something like that hurts. Would he feel the pain or not? Would he be able to explain where it hurts despite the lack of words for it?
Sapir took the Tarahumaran tribe as an example, but there are examples of tribes that does the opposite. They can think/feel of something that they don't have words for..

Depends on how strictly you look at it. The S-W hypothesis has a somewhat more radical direction, the Weltanschauung sort, that is, a more extreme interpretation. According to that, all thought is constrained by language. Some use the term "hard interpretation" for this. As most extremisms, the "hard" S-W interpretation is quite easy to refute (most famous counterexample: is a person who is physiologically incapable of communication completely denied the ability for conscious thought as well?). As always, the soft interpretation using palliatives like 'heavily influences', etc., is more agreeable to most.

You may have heard about Brown's experiment with Loglan and its later offshoot Lojban. The aim of the experiment was primarily to construct a language which is so different from any language spoken and so devoid of culturally-constrained elements that it would change the way of thinking of the speakers.
Unfortunately, it's pretty difficult to get the results of the experiment

Think about it could you construct a grammar-free language? Is grammar ingrained, natural, a sort of mathematical basisi for our thought that can't be separated from the thought itself? And I don't mean getting into subjunctives or sentence construction, because the difference between Mandarin and French, for instance, proves that they don't have much of that in common. But I think possessives and nouns and verbs etc. are intrinsic and would have to form the basis of any language.

Is structure, then, necessary for coherence? Or could there be such a thing as pure thought, which in time we will develop ways of purely representing? Could we understand the pure thought of another person (not represented on paper/electronically, but directly from mind to mind), or would it be so different (since everyone's mind is different) in substance that it would be incomprehensible to everyone except the thinker himself?

Do people here agree with Wittgenstein that "the limits of my language mark the limits of my world"? Different question altogether, I know, but interesting as well.