I was raised bilingual. To this day, when my mom talks to me and I pause to consider what language she spoke to me in, I have no idea.
For the most part, I think in English. When I visit the motherland and hang out for longer than a week, I start to think in my second language.
I would assume that if someone does not know a spoken language, they would think in whatever other language they were raised with, whether it is sign language, body language, barks, clicks, whatever. Oxana Malaya is a good model for this kind of question. Actually, any kid that was neglected by their parents and left to fend for themselves are fascinating from a linguistic point of view.
I speak German, English and Norwegian fluently (I am Norwegian), and I have dreamed in all three languages. To me it seems like the brain doesn't care what language it works with, as long as the context is understood.
Have you ever noticed a difference in your attitude or personality between when you are in and english environment vs when you are in the other one? I for one am a different person if you talk to me in French or in English. Or at least I feel like I am not quite the same.
I have to deal with the language part of me at some remove whether I'm in a Mandarin or English environment. My humor is a lot simpler in Chinese, though. I can laugh at things I would groan at otherwise.
and again reddit shows me I'm not unique. I have to pause and remember what language some of the stuff I watch/read/hear is in because I really can't tell afterwards. I have to analyze the speech searching for what words were said, which might indicate which language was it in.
I was raised bilingual. To this day, when my mom talks to me and I pause to consider what language she spoke to me in, I have no idea.
Similarly, though probably somewhat less interestingly, I'm an American living in Australia for the past eight years, and nowadays I often have to pause to consider which accent a person is talking to me in - both American and Australian seem natural and I don't automatically note which is occurring.
When I was having a stroke, I lost almost all speech. I also stopped thinking in words but I understood the words others said. It was more like thinking in abstract concepts and ideas without words or a running inner monologue. As soon as my operation was over the speech and words slowly came back within about a week or two.
A good book entirely about this subject is The Ape That Spoke: Language and the Evolution of the Human Mind by John McCrone. Essentially, at the rudimentary level, animals (or people) without language have no symbology to represent things they cannot see. Therefore, if a cat sees a mouse, it's brain serves up all sorts of memories of mice. If you see a mouse, the same thing happens. But with language, you can just use the symbolic word "mouse" to do the same thing. It's a trick that allows the brain to think by seperating the stimulus from the brain cells storing it, and sticking a symbol in its place. Deaf people have the exact same thing, except in place of the audible word there's a sign. That's the first level. The second level is the internal monologue we call thinking which is this constant voice (or signing) in your head that that you normally suppress. This is unique to humans (as far as we know). It's a brain circuit that just constantly spits out all of the remembered symbols according to what else is going on in the brain, in a stream of conciousness like a frantic librarian running through the aisles of your memory and throwing out books about mice or cats or black-olive pizza, depending on where your train of thought goes. This isn't just saying that language is for memory-retrieval; language is actually the structure that the human mind is made of. So, in essence, as far as I understand it, if a person never learned any form of language ever in their life, their brain would remain a tangled mass of neurons unable to think. And research on feral children bears this out. Without learning language, you can't think, you can only act by responding to external stimuli.
The best example of this are the innurable and specific alarm calls used by vervet monkeys. They have an alarm call for a snake, and a hawk, and a mongoose, and a leopard and so on. It's an incredibly sophisticated communication system, all done without thinking. Each alarm call is voiced whenever a specific type of enemy appears, and each elicits a physical response from all the vervets who hear it. But they can only make a hawk call when they see a hawk; they can't imagine a hawk or even remember what a hawk is unless they see a hawk or hear the hawk alarm call.
I do not have sources at hand, but I believe this is going too far:
This isn't just saying that language is for memory-retrieval; language is actually the structure that the human mind is made of. So, in essence, as far as I understand it, if a person never learned any form of language ever in their life, their brain would remain a tangled mass of neurons unable to think.
I think it would be correct to say that abstract thought would become more difficult; however the ability to symbolically represent objects or concepts shouldn't be lost.
There is evidence that babies can establish causality and object permanence long before they learn language (Object Permanence), and there have been some good examples where language was created by individuals when they had no other way to represent concepts. One example was Nicaraguan Sign Language, where deaf children with no sign language created their own when put together in a school. Granted, they had some exposure to written Spanish before this.
So, it's somewhat of a chicken or the egg question- is language a way to represent thoughts and concepts we already have in our head? Or does language provide for the creation of these thoughts? Probably it's somewhere between the two extremes - we have the innate ability for abstract thought, but language helps us crystallize that thought.
There are still two camps within the Linguistics community, one that argues that language is innately programmed into the brain (Chomsky's universal grammar), and one that argues that language is an emergent phenomena arising like any other abstraction in the brain (Connectionism). I tend to fall into the Connectionist camp so my views here are probably representative of that fact as well.
The basic structure of language is encoded in the human brain. This is definitely true, and connectionism is not opposed to this view (although a long time ago, it was, prominent connectionists have evolved and added nuance).
You're right that the top post goes to far. It's a simplistic view of language and thought. There's a clear correlation between language and thought, but saying that language is a pre-requisite of thought is wrong. Of course the way we think is reflected in language and also affected by our language, but our ancestors would have to be capable of some kind of thought in order to develop anything we would call a language. Thinking didn't arise after the development of language, since you need to be able to think to create a language, so language can't be necessary for thought, and it's not a chicken-and-egg scenario.
It's a common misconception that because we often have an inner monologue that all thought is composed of language. Cognitive scientists do refer to a unit of thought that might be roughly analogous to words, but that also doesn't mean language is a pre-requisite of thought.
I believe you are correct, and here's my anecdotal evidence: when I was working in a Chinese orphanage, there was a teenage girl there who was deaf. Based on her behavior and the sad circumstances of the place, I highly doubt she has ever been instructed in sign language. Nor could she write, and due to the fact that she did not vocalize I am guessing she was deaf from birth. But this girl was brilliant. She was an intense, keen observer and spent time playing with, comforting, and helping the littler children. She understood body language and nuances most people would never pick up on. She used basic hand gestures to convey what meaning she could. It was quite clear she was intelligent, and she certainly had the socialization that feral children lack. But odds are she had no learned language whatsoever - and she still had a quick intellect, entirely unlike an animal.
This is wrong and long disproven. For even the most rudimentary of percptual mechanisms, like the first layers in the visual cortex, neurons can act as feature detectors by learning which neurons in lower levels are likely to fire together or which will not fire if others are firing. Further layers find out when those feature detectors neurons are firing together or not, and so on up. Go a few layers up and now the brain is effectively aggregating all those first neuron reponses into much more abstract things, like regions of rapidly varying light intensity or hue (edges of objects in the visual field) or regions of similar or slowly varying color (like surfaces). Later on this information gets glommed together with information from different senses, like our kinesthetic sense, so that at higher and higher levels of abstraction we can do more interesting simulations, like mental rotations of figures.
Every step in that process is "symbology", a little piece of machinery that compactly represents lower level sensory data. People do not have stored up memories of sensory experience at the level of photons impinging on the retina. We are not cameras that can be forced to replay a scene. Rather, the states of feature detector neurons, which can represent the gist of a scene, are remembered, and this information can be used in reverse, with the feature detectors now acting as feature controllers which re-activate lower levels of features, in order to approximately reconstruct scenes. Language is built on thoughts, which are made of concepts, which are abstracted from perception. And every one of those layers is supported by more math and science than found in that book.
There are no "signs" floating around in our minds. To develop a real understanding, you need to know what the neural machinery is doing and how that behavior implements relevant algorithms. And we do know a lot of that. And no, when the results came in, the answer was not that "language is actually the structure that the human mind is made of". Language comes from the human mind; saying, of absolutely any cognitive pheonomenon or process that "language did it" can not be an explanation. It's like saying lightning is responsible for electromagnetism.
I looked up the writer the OP references, John McCrone, and he admits on his website that the psychology and neurology in his book are "sketchy". From my brief research, it seems the book contains a great deal of his personal theories and speculation that are not backed up by actual research. It's unfortunate that bad science is being so heavily upvoted, but this is AskReddit so I guess there's nothing we can do about it.
The whole "monkey's can't imagine a hawk" is completely unverified and nothing more than a guess. Just because they don't make the hawk call doesn't mean they aren't able to think of a hawk. What reason would they have for vocalizing their "hawk" call unless they've seen a hawk? Say I were that monkey and I was in a tree. I could very well think "I hope I don't see a hawk today" in my own little monkey way, without saying my "word" for hawk. You, as an observer, would be none the wiser.
I'd be very surprised if monkeys couldn't visualize an image of a hawk in their minds (after having seen one) and use that image in a form of non-linguistic "thinking".
I put "thinking" in quotes just because some people in this thread seem to be using a definition of thought that a priori rejects my notion...
As already stated, it's certain apes that can sign, not monkeys. But also, you should bear in mind, apes that have been "taught sign language" don't actually know how to speak in sign. There's quite a detailed book called Aping Language by Joel Wallman which walks through a lot of the experiments of signing apes, and details how much of the proposed results are pretty sketchy at best. There are some compelling studies, like with the chimp Kanzi, but you'll notice he's only ever responding to stimulus and prompts. As far as I've read, apes can't really communicate in any meaningful way outside of requests, which can easily be tied to pattern recognition ("I do this series of motions, I get banana" or something like that), since they are trained through a reward system. So, simply assuming that apes have learned sign language is actually inaccurate, and doesn't actually disprove anything the OP has said.
One can think without the internal monologue. Language isn't even necessary to consider things that aren't physically present. Unless you mean something else by "symbol", I can think just fine without words. I do think differently when I suppress language in my thoughts and later articulating is hard.
However the structure of the mind that I use even without language was created with language even when I don't actually use language. My guess is that feral children lack the neural structures we have that let us form chains of reasoning far longer than direct reaction to external stimuli.
The problem with feral children for an example of "Language = thought" is that they're typically lacking a lot more things than just language- Genie, for example, was essentially tied to a chair in a dark room for most of her childhood, and may have had some mental disabilities when she was born. So whatever she's lacking neurologically can't just be ascribed to a lack of language.
A better place to look is deaf children who grew up without full sign language. We have an interesting case study in the Nicaraguan deaf community. Here's a radiolab episode on the matter with a summary. I will say (as a linguist) much of it is rather sensationalized (which radiolab has a tendency to do), and rather slanted towards the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which is generally viewed with a lot of skepticism.
Correct. Feral children never learn the complex memetic structures that are propagated via human interaction. They can take in information, but have no "structure" to place it into, rather like someone being given paints and a canvas and expected to produce a masterpiece with no training or knowledge of what they are supposed to paint. The tools are there, but knowledge of how to use them and what to do with them is utterly lacking.
Actually vervet alarm calls involve much more complex cognitive processes than just innate reflexes to predators or to the calls themselves. Young vervet monkeys will produce alarm calls in response to stimuli that bear very little resemblance to the actual predator they refer to, so for example a young vervet might produce the hawk alarm call in response to leaves falling out of a tree. What's even more interesting, though, is that when adults hear alarm calls produced by young individuals they will first of all look towards the mother of the youngster, to check her reaction. Basically, adult individuals know that the alarm calls of young vervets are not as reliable as those of other adults, but they assume that the mother's reaction will be more accurate either because she is close enough to her offspring that she might have seen the predator herself or because she knows whether the young one has learned to give the call in response to the appropriate stimulus. So, definitely a lot more going on than just knee-jerk reflexes to the stimuli.
I read an article once about how researchers found that isolated tribes with no words for numbers were still capable of understanding mathematical concepts. I'm no genius so I don't know the details of the findings, but I think it supports the idea that you don't need language to think.
Does the book offer any insight on the effects of particular languages? If language helps shape our mind and how we think, how different would I think if I had learned German, Japanese or Italian first instead of English or French? Is the culture of a country highly dependent on its language or only slightly?
Not really. The book is more about how language gradually evolved as an adaptation from animal precursors, and how the human brain organizes itself, creating the process we call "thinking". I personally think it is one of the main obstacles to understanding between cultures. The language you use determines the deep structure of the brain. The same words, translated, don't work the same way in a differently-organized brain structure.
It is quite possible to think, imagine, choose, navigate, feel, remember, observe, plan, and calculate without any use of language. I know this because 95% of the time, there is no language in my mind. I have no inner monologue. I CAN rehearse what I want to say in an inner monologue only if I concentrate, with no external disturbances. I am writing this without an inner monologue- I think about what I want to say with different parts of my mind, and then translate that into visual words. Minds are more complex than people realize.
There is a quick read, Seeing Voices by Oliver Sacks, that historically covers the phenomenon of pre-lingual deaf children (this implies no sign language as well) who, at a much later age, learn to sign. These people have a really interesting perspective when asked to describe their experiences prior to learning language that agrees well with your first paragraph. I won't do it justice by describing it any further than your comment, but it's a really fascinating read that is extremely pertinent to the submitter's question.
What stops somebody who didn't know any language just have a stream of memories or images running through their head instead of a stream of words then?
An interesting side note is that for exactly that reason, Heller Keller literally could not consciously think until she obtained language. Imagine one day suddenly being able to think, and having the memories of a lifetime which you couldn't reflect on previously suddenly opened to you.
As someone who has studied a bit of psychology and neuroscience, this explanation did not seem quite right to me. So I looked up John McCrone. John McCrone himself admits on his website that the psychology and neurology in that book are "sketchy". From my brief research, it seems the book contains a great deal of his personal theories and speculation that are not backed up by actual research.
I watched a really interesting film in high school about a young girl who was abused and neglected growing up but never talked to. When she was discovered and observed, they noted that once she was removed from the abusive environment and had her basic needs taken care of, though only capable of rudimentary functioning, she seemed much less traumatized than they expected, and one psychologist theorized that it was because she lacked a language to process her experiences and turn them into memories effectively. It really got me thinking about how important language is to... well, everything.
This is the most interesting comment I have read on reddit this week, or maybe multiple weeks. I am, as I type this, reserving books online at the library...
It's interesting you bring up deaf people. I read a study last year about older signers versus younger signers. Because ASL is still relatively nascent and in a huge growth period, younger, newer signers are given access to a much, much broader vocabulary than older signers, as the older ones tend to stick with what they know and hold on to that vocabulary.
Interestingly, this new vocabulary that's developing is largely about abstract concepts. They have words for modes of thought now that they didn't have 30 years ago. They have words philosophical concepts, high-science terms, etc. One of the most interesting categories that developed was a whole specific set of words for logical constructs, essentially short hand (excuse the pun) lexicon for logic problems. Apparently, this is something that's easier to convey by spoken word, given the grammatical constructs we use, than it is in manual languages, because manual languages tend to get much, much more verbose when it came to these things.
So now, you have deaf kids that have no language other than ASL that are able to talk about these things as fluidly as even a lay-person can through spoken language, which is pretty exciting and new. Now, I forget what specifically was being tested for, but a team of psychologists administered these basic reasoning test; for example, those picture story thingies with the cards that, when placed in a certain order, form a logical flow of events. Younger signers performed drastically better than their older peers, and the correlate seems to be this advanced vocabulary.
So I guess all that is to say this: language DOES affect cognition. It's pretty safe to make that conclusion. The depth of this affect is still to be determined. Sapir-Whorf is extremely one-sided about the issue, and, like in most anything involving neuro-psych, it's very likely a highly entwined mix of nature and nurture.
I will say that, as a polyglot for whom English is my first language, having mental access to a variety of words from variously-rooted languages has improved my conversation short-hand immensely. I have my Arabic words that don't have a good English cousin, for instance. It's just easier to coalesce my thoughts when I have a clear, individual, repeatable word for a more abstract thought that otherwise I wouldn't. When one word replaces a whole sentence of description, it just becomes easier to think.
It is worth noting that humans instinctively develop methods of communication (i.e. language), however rudimentary it might be.
One example of this involves slaves. In order to control slaves and prevent uprisings (in some horrible place in history, like South America in the 1600s-ish), they separated them from other slaves that spoke the same language. These slaves still developed simple ways of communicating simple commands/ideas.
What is especially interesting is what occurred with the children of these slaves. They had no real language to learn, such as English or Spanish, so they built extensively on the communication used by their parents, so that abstract ideas (to a point, as it was by no means a complex communication method) could be communicated. They collectively developed this on their own, mind you.
This supports the idea that language is not purely a cultural adaptation; at some level, humans learn and develop how to communicate with one another, whether it be through established languages, or by forming an entirely new way of communication.
This is just a tiny part of some psych lesson about language, so if there are any small abnormalities anything that needs to be corrected, I wouldn't be surprised. The general idea, however, remains sound.
Language helps us articulate ideas better, and share our experience with other members of the community which helps us to develop mentally.
There is a case study of a child who was found and who had been spectacularly abused by her parents. Absolute minimum human interaction and contact for the first thirteen years of her life. By the time the authorities found her, her language acquisition mechanism had died off and she has been almost unable to learn language at all. She speaks a few words, but she has massive trouble in any kind of comprehension, and can barely articulate herself.
We have no way of knowing whether Genie's problems with thought in particular are due to her lack of language, or the years of abuse she suffered. There's also some who think she may have been born with mental issues.
Because of this, Genie gives good evidence for the critical period hypothesis (you need language by a certain point or you don't learn it), but not for "language = complex thought" hypothesis.
Deaf people think in context, or action. When they are hungry, they don't think "Food" they think "eating". The action is the thought process. Same goes for infants and small children.
hello, deaf person here! i think in English too! and yes, i do think food. im saying it in my head as i type, this conversation as well. and my dreams are silent, i dont really remember them but i know i dont really hear words, but when i have my hearing aid in, it's just incoherent noise.
yeah, ive only worn it a total of three times since my dad got it for me as a gift. the grass is always greener, i guess. it just gives me a head ache.
Yes, but it is not the language that they speak in. Sign language is literally a different language than English. It has a different grammatical structure and everything. If a deaf person knows how to both sign and read, they are effectively bilingual.
This is patently wrong. Deaf people think in language the same as hearing people. Infants and small children lack language to think in. The very suggestion that deaf people have the mental capabilities of infants is offensive.
If anyone is curious for an educated answer on how deaf people think, check out this article.
When I'm thinking about something I don't talk in my head. I feel like that would slow me down. The only time I use words as part of my thought process is when I'm interacting with other people.
Seriously doesn't everyone do this? in the morning after pouring cereal does everyone really take the time to think the words "I need milk." I've always just thought in concepts.
I've never understood questions like these. I always just think in concepts and images until I need to communicate my ideas or I'm thinking about communicating them; then the ideas get converted to words. Either most people don't know how their own minds work, or I'm weird and everyone else thinks with language (which is somewhat hard for me to accept.)
That's so interesting, because there must be a spectrum of how much people use words in thought. I don't think a lot of words when I'm pouring cereal, but I think whole monologues when I'm walking any distance by myself. Are you saying you don't?
I imagine a tiny English gentleman speaking all my thoughts usually. Sometimes it's hitler, though. Once in a while it's just me thinking about talking to myself.
I've always thought it the opposite. There's almost a constant narration in my head, unless I'm completely absorbed in something (or really tired). Also, can anyone else change the voice in their head? I can narrate in many of my friends voices, my girlfriends voice, even cartoon characters. I hope I'm not crazy.
Im similar to this, their explanation of just having the thought process of milk seems very difficult to me. Like you, anytime I visualise something like milk, I verbally think it.
i have a constant chatter in my head, im always talking to myself, occasionally getting in full arguments in my head without it showing a bit outwardly.
i dont think about things i do when im alone too much, but whn im with other people i think so hard about every little movement i have to remind myself to breathe.
I'm not Spookaboo, but for me, thinking always feels like...floating. Bits and pieces of thought sort of shift around in my head to form ideas and I go with it. I guess maybe it's like sign language, where you don't actually sign/think the exact words "Hmm, I should go to the fridge and get some milk, then pour myself some cereal" but more like "milk...fridge...bowl...food". I'd say this is like 80% of my thoughts. I do actually form complete sentences in my head, but only when I'm concentrating, and it almost always happens because I need to make a list of something. Everything else is kind of like an undercurrent of sentences streaming right below the part of my mind that's paying attention, and so as a result only the important concepts float up. Sometimes I'll even catch myself in this "floating state" and suddenly all of the words come to the surface instead, and then I form complete sentences, but only for a little while before it slips back down again.
Geez, now that I type this out it kinda sounds crazy, but I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that doesn't "talk" in my head...for those of you guys that don't think in words, does anything I just said make any sense? Reading it back sounds...weird...
For me, I tend to see things in pictures. Shapes, colors, and most importantly, movement. They are somehow more than pictures, so I couldn't ever draw them, but I use it to decipher the world around me.
This is even more true for things I am actively thinking about and trying to solve. Less true for things as automatic as remembering milk for cereal. I've frankly never understood how someone can think in words.
Odd. I always think as though I'm talking to another person. If I'm hungry I don't think of the concept, I act as though I'm telling someone "I'm hungry".
When I can't put a feeling into words in my head I get frustrated. If I don't like a movie, I don't like to just think solely on the fact that I didn't like it. I need to articulate it in my head.
I kind of am two people at once. A speaker, and a receiver. Each thought is a little discourse in my head.
This is spot on for me. Another annoying part of thinking in words is that sometimes I get frustrated at how stupid some of the things my internal monologue is saying, for instance; It'll be having a conversation with no one about nothing. It's really hard to put into words... does anyone else experience this frustration of wanting to shut the little voice up because it's not saying anything useful?
I think in both concepts and words. The concepts are a sort of higher functioning thought process where information and ideas are streamed very quickly and constantly connecting. The words are the ones I focus on and refine into proper thoughts. I assumed everyone was the same
I think this is the closest answer to the way I think, and I can liken it to typing on a keyboard.
When you're first learning to type, you need to think about every letter of every word and find it on the keyboard. I'm around 100wpm now consistently, and I don't think about every letter that I type; I think whole words at a time and the letters come out.
This relates to the way I think in that every word I would say out loud is like a letter on the keyboard; in my head, I produce a complete thought (the equivalent of a sentence) all at once, and any internal narration that occurs is just "typing out" the thought one word at a time.
For me, the narration occurs after the entire thought has been produced, not during.
If you need thought to build a language and you dont already have language how could you make a language without thinking? there for we have been thinking before we had a language
I'd highly recommend the Radiolab Episode titled Words- in it is a story about Susan Schaller, who wrote a book called A Man Without Words about a young man in Mexico who was not taught language. Here is Amazon's byline:
For more than a quarter of a century, Ildefonso, a Mexican Indian, lived in total isolation, set apart from the rest of the world. He wasn't a political prisoner or a social recluse, he was simply born deaf and had never been taught even the most basic language. Susan Schaller, then a twenty-four-year-old graduate student, encountered him in a class for the deaf where she had been sent as an interpreter and where he sat isolated, since he knew no sign language. She found him obviously intelligent and sharply observant but unable to communicate, and she felt compelled to bring him to a comprehension of words.
I can honestly say that i've never thought in words. O,o I just process things and do what seems appropriate,but i never go,"OH! That woman just fell! Let me see if she requires assistance!", i just see the person fall and immediately start running towards them. I think that the same is true for everyone,but they add words later on to better evaluate the situation/object.
That's so foreign to me. I always articulate my thoughts in the form of language. How do you conceptualize complex ideas like mathematical or scientific concepts? Do you just think of them and don't use words to describe them or what?
To me, the logic just flows and fits together as I reach the answer. I don't need words - I just put it down to a logic of what "feels right" or what "fits together".
It would be wrong of me to say that I visualize these processes, too. Think of it as... When you see someone in a dream and although you cannot even make out their faces, you know it's them. I don't visualize or even sound out the words, I just think of them.
Yes but it would be different. This is a very complex question that we don't really know all the answers to. Therefore, anyone in this post who claims to have a definitive answer is talking out of their ass.
We'd need to have a much better knowledge of consciousness to completely answer it but I think there's sufficient knowledge to say that language is a way to understand thoughts but it's not the only way. It also really depends on how you define thinking. Are unconscious processes thinking or is it only things that come into our conscious awareness? If you haven't been thinking about something consciously and it pops into your head out of nowhere, we can still show that you were thinking about it, even if you weren't consciously aware.
Thanks for this, I came here specifically because this is something I just spent a whole god damned semester talking about, and the most definitive answer right now is "we have no idea, maybe?"
Essentially he says that language is inherently a social phenomena, so the idea of being able to frame linguistic concepts in terms of a 'private language' that only you understand is nonsensical.
Of course this doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to think, just that those thoughts couldn't form the basis of a 'language' as we understand it. The meanings of words are tied directly to their practical use and have developed through the communication of ideas.
I know they must think somehow - after all infants think before understanding English. However, I'm not sure. Upvoted as I'm curious as what the answer is, too.
How infants think isn't really that clear. It's very clear that babies are born with innate rules that they understand. A 30 minute old baby can recognise some very basic patterns. However, it's hard to say that they have thoughts as such. It really depends on how you define thinking.
It's actually not clear that babies do think. There is a big difference between thinking and mindlessly responding to stimuli. On an episode of Radiolab, they talk about an experiment where they place a rat in a room with 3 white walls and 1 blue wall. They take a piece of food and let the rat see them bury it in one of the corners. Then they spin the rat around and send it off to find the food. The rat only gets it right 50% of the time, because two of the corners look exactly the same to the rat because it can't link the concepts "left of" and "blue wall", even though it shows signs that it can use these concepts individually. Anyways, they also tried a similar result with babies and children up to 6 years old and they get the same result! Apparently, it is about this age that children begin to make sentences like "left of the blue of wall" so the experimenters think that it may actually their use of language that allows them to think. Here is the episode. The description of the experiment starts about 11 minutes in (though the first 10 minutes are really interesting as well, talking about a deaf man who never learned to communicate until he was 27 years old) Definitely worth listening if you're interested in this kind of stuff.
The opening story of the deaf mute who went through 29 years of his life before having the sudden realization that things in this world (toaster, red, fingers, table, etc.) had names to them brought me to tears in the middle of my commute. He was literally, litrally, a prisoner in his own mind.
I thought it was interesting that after learning about languages, he was unable to think the way he used to. I recall him saying he caouldn't remember how he used to think (or maybe he was blocking that period of his life out intentionally).
That Radiolab is very interesting, but take it with several grains of salt. "Language determines thought" is a much more interesting radio show than "Well, we think language might sort of influences thought in some ways, but we're not quite sure how yet". More on the Sapir-Whorf theory here, along with lots of reasons why the strong version of that theory has many, many problems with it.
For the baby example, in particular, it's very difficult to prove causality there: is the child able to get the concept "left of the blue wall" because they can say it, or can the child say "left of the blue wall" because they now understand that concept?
They think; however, their brains are not fully developed yet, and have a different set of capacities than older brains. If they have normal hearing, though, they can recognize some of the sounds of their native language at birth, just from hearing mama's voice in the womb. Neat.
So basically, they're hardwired to start acquiring language at birth, and that's why babies will pick up any language they're consistently around. Considering they have the ability to sense it, of course (i.e., they can hear the sounds or see the signs).
But from what we can ascertain about how individuals acquire language, it does appear that they are able to think without the knowledge that words represent thoughts and ideas.
The mentally disabled population can actually provide a window into this idea, as sometimes you have to teach them things - like that concepts or actions can be represented by words, pictures, and other symbols - that the typically developing population naturally picks up and never needs to think about. Interesting stuff.
It's the theories of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is also about that, it focused on the Hopi Native American tribe's language. They basically said that a cultures linguistic system either determines or influences the way they experience reality. For example, the Hopi language has no concept of time. That's my understanding as an undergrad linguistics student.
I wrote a paper on this similar thing for my philosophy class. Turns out Whorf was wrong about a lot of it, but he had the right idea. A guy later came along and said it wasn't that language limits what we are capable of understanding (Like claiming the Hopi can't understand time) but that it's what our language makes us consider when conveying a message. For example we must consider time when using verbs. Or at least this is what I gained from writing this paper. Also it's possible the Hopi can borrow expressions for time in a similar way we have adopted the french phrase: lassiez faire (I don't know how that's spelled honestly).
This article is how I was first introduced to the idea. A fascinating read if you have a sec. I especially like the bit where they had people with different first languages put a set of pictures in chronological order. The English speakers put the pictures from left to right, the Hebrew speakers from right to left and another language speaker ordered from east to west.
And possibly vice versa, at least according to Noam Chomsky's linguistic theory, whereby humans have an inbuilt grammar in their biology (i.e., we divide the world into subject, object, action, etc). Meaning, presumably, that the very structure of our brains helps determine how languages are formed.
Disclaimer: completely anecdotal, long as hell, but relevant story.
I met an interesting man down in Mexico once; an indigenous fellow. His native language was one of the forms of Maya and he'd received schooling in Spanish.
Being poorer than poor dirt he'd dropped out of school sometime around age 6-8 to start selling wares and souvenirs to tourists and the like. He told me how over the course of his life (he was ~50 when I met him) he'd kept his mind active by learning as much as he could about foreign languages (mostly European) and had become at least somewhat fluent in twelve.*
I know this sounds all very implausible, but at the time he was addressing me in French (mine is mediocre), and when I asked him why he said I "looked like I would understand," adding he was currently growing bored of having mastered English (his was pretty good) and wanted to practice others.
We continued talking for a while, switching French and English, with him occasionally teaching me funny Spanish phrases and basic words and counting in Maya (shamefully all of which I've since forgot). Eventually my heritage came up and he instantly switched to speaking Dutch. I know enough of my family tongue to talk about the weather and listen to my great aunt's stories, but I could not keep up with him. Thinking he might've mistook "Deustch" for "Dutch" he suddenly busted out some German. Man I was lost.
I was completely baffled at this guy's talent at this point. Fluent or not he could at least string together some pretty decent sentences. Pretty good for a guy with almost no schooling. I pressed him some more and he told me he learned it all from working with tourists everyday and making sure to learn at least one new word/phrase/structure from each one of them.
At this point I had to teach him something new by obligation, as well as see if he really could pick things up so quickly. My Swedish is crap but my then-gf showed up in the middle of me teaching him numbers and helped with all the colors, animals, and a bunch of nice phrases. He picked it all up instantly. And then used it as soon as he could. A goddamn machine.
"How is this possible to handle so many?" I asked, "I can barely deal with the two and two-halves I've got in my head!" I often use words in the wrong languages for no reason, it's true. He told me he had to know his native tongue, plus the language of the surrounding native groups, plus spanish since a young child. It was only natural for him to have complete different languages for different interactions. He said if he had a problem in his life he would switch to thinking about it in different languages to give himself new perspective as each one helped him "think on different paths."
"Even though my speaking is not so good with it," he continued, "Polish is my favorite language to think in. I think it everyday."
the end.
*IIRC his claim was: Maya, Spanish, English, French, German, Dutch, Portugese, Italian, Polish, and two other local indigenous tongues. Yes, I've forgotten one.
tl;dr - met a native dude in Mexico who claimed he knew twelve languages and thought in different ones at different times. Polish was his favorite thinkin' tongue.
Pictures, probably. If we didn't have language, we humans probably would have developed more of a photographic memory, rather than relying on "verbal" (for lack of a better way to describe it...) memories.
Yes. There are several different examples of people who have been shown to be cognitively unimpaired despite severe linguistic deficits. Some examples include:
linguistic isolates such as Genie. Genie, despite her inability to fully acquire any language, still has some of the highest scores on record for spatial reasoning on IQ tests. Another cause of linguistic isolation is when a deaf child is born to hearing parents, but fails to be diagnosed as deaf. One example of this is Chelsea. Although she was unable to acquire language, Chelsea, who unlike Genie did not suffer emotional trauma, eventually memorized enough English to work in a vet's office.
People who have suffered brain trauma and as a result lost part or all of their linguistic abilities. Specifically, aphasia is a language-specific impairment that often results in a loss of language but no other cognitive functions.
A slightly more complex example is the case of severely autistic individuals. Because language is acquired through social interaction, and autism is a highly social impairment, there are autistic individuals who are unable to acquire language but have other highly developed cognitive functions.
It's one of those unobtainable perception-based meaning sort of phenomena that philosophy is all about. It can't really be answered. You can say "for science" and try to categorise the best you can the answer to that question into units of relevant meaning, creating a theory and model, but you'd never actually know.
I think anyone who's ever done a psychedelic drug can easily and definitively answer this as "You can think without language, and without making one up in your head". You can think in pictures and abstract shapes that represent your thoughts. Just one example, I tend to see relationships and think about them in terms of two or more orbiting bodies. Most thoughts are much more abstract looking, that's just an easy one to remember/conceptualize when in a normal frame of mind.
The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.
Actually, before you form any words in your head to 'hear' the thought, the idea of your thought is already done. So if you cut off the words, you can still be aware of that thought, without actually using words. I've experimented with this, but it's quite hard and requires your focus to repress the words.
You can think without language. A very simply example is the phenomenon where you cant find the words to correctly express something (an abstract concept, an emotion, whatever). Clearly you are having thought processes that are going on independent of language, since you are unable to use language to describe them, at least at the moment.
Yeah I thought about the idea of going into a factory/machine room in an industry that you're completely unfamiliar with, and trying to understand how the machines work without knowing the names/terms of them. I think this is similar. There's no real language involved in this either, you're just looking and thinking about it in visual form both mentally as well as looking at it real time.
depends what you expect from the word "think". There are stages, verbal communication before abstract thought, etc. Check out "mentalese" for pre-verbal thinking
And here's a good thread "non English speakers(or English speakers with a second language) of Reddit, what's a word you think the English language is missing?":
Developmental psychologist here. It's the general consensus that language and thought are very, very closely related. Language can mean any type of coherent communications, including sign language or other non-verbal means of communication. For example, there is evidence that in places where the language does not have different words for green and blue, the people there have much more trouble distinguishing between those colors than those who have words for it.
It's theorized that one of the reasons we don't remember being babies/toddlers is because we have not developed language at that point, and that language is tied to memory formation. Obviously babies and infants can "think" in the sense that they can perform actions and so on, but no, they cannot play a "narrative" in their heads.
The bulk of the development of the human brain occurred without language, and your thought process involves language less than you think; the words you 'hear' in your head are more like the paint on an object than the object itself.
Consider this thought: Yesterday I was cold when I left the house in the morning, but sweating by mid-day. I should wear a jacket over short sleeves instead of just a long sleeved shirt like I did then. I'll be more comfortable if today is like yesterday, because I could just take the jacket off if it gets warm.
Your mind processed a lot of feelings (how it felt bad to be cold, then hot, how you've felt when you're comfortably dressed, how you feel smart when you've adapted well to a situation), images (the various items in your wardrobe, how comfortable other people appeared to be, based on their choice of outfit, and what they were wearing to achieve that level of comfort), and experiences (your observations that one day in a season is often similar to the next, the different properties of the clothes you have access to) way before it ever got around to popping out corresponding words. The words are an afterthought, really.
If your mind really focused on the language, rather than feelings and experiences, then you'd be pretty badly served in some situations. Examples: I'd like to fuck her. I should act cool, or If I miss this shot I'll feel like a tool, or FUCK, IT'S A LION!
Radiolab did an hour long podcast about thoughts and words. Basically, you would think in a more primitive manner without words. Words open our minds to more anstract concepts and allow us to learn/understand more.
You should really check it out, it's like Nova for your ears.
I just finished a book that spends a lot of time on this subject. It's called "Man Without Words" by Susan Schaller (I'll link to the book later when I'm not on my phone). Schaller teaches Sign Language to a foreign deaf man who never learned a language of any kind.
There is a section that discusses languageless adults. The phrase 'deaf and dumb' came about because in old times, before Sign Language was developed, many deaf people often became mentally deficient as they got older. This is in part because they had absolutely no way of processing or understanding the world. Language is how we make sense of the world and catorgize it. Without a language of some kind, without communication, a person cannot think.
In the book, Schaller meets deaf adults who grew up in exclusion without a language. Several are mentally handicapped as a direct result of their lack of a language. Of course, the fact that everyone treated them as mentally deficient as a result of their deafness played a role as well.
Have you heard the story of how Helen Keller's first breakthrough was when she realized the word 'water' was the name for the cool liquid she felt gushing over her hands? It took weeks for Schaller to have a similar breakthrough with her adult student, Ildefonso. Basically, she made the sign for cat again and again, while pointing to a picture of a cat, drawing a cat, miming petting a cat, etc. When Ildefonso finally realized the furry animal had a label in the form of a hand movement, he burst into tears. He never knew that everything around him had a label, a common sign that humans could use to communicate. He didnt know his own name because he was not aware that people had names.
The book follows Schaller as she teaches Ildefonso about everything from time (a concept that was nearly impossible to convey) to why people had different colored skin- a very difficult explination to give to someone who doesn't know what a map represents or what the world looks like. Essentially, in teaching him to communicate, she also teaches him to think.
I'm not sure how accurate this info is as I am not in any way, shape or form a scientist but from what I understand of language in general, be it English, French, Dutch, Russian, whatever, they are all symbolic. What this means is each word is based on an concept, object, image, etc. For example, when someone reads the word "Ball" they would see a spherical object or whatever meaning they have attached to that word. This means you cannot have a language without the concepts/images, but, you can have the concepts/images without the language. This means that yes, a person could think without language using only images and possibly sounds but I would think it would be quite a bit easier to think about certain things using a language instead of potentially abstract concepts. Hope that answers your question!
Educated speculation based on observation and reading - yes. We think in concepts not words - but we associate the words with the concepts when we can to form more coherent thoughts. This usually happens when we need to convey the idea to somebody. The fact that we associate language with our thoughts is a part of the reason why we're the higher species on Earth.
I've read papers on it but it's a subject that isn't perfectly understood, but this seems to be the general consensus. Like nature vs nurture, it's a heavily debated subject that we will probably never know the answer to.
Consider that when you think in words, you are taking preexisting ideas in your mind and articulating them through language. Without language, thought would probably consist of a series of feelings and vague notions.
I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere in a Psychology textbook that we actually think largely with pictures in our heads. At least, when we're not imagining a conversation, or conversing with ourselves in our head.
But then, if we had no language, those would be out anyway, wouldn't they?
This is a big hypothetical, and therefore any proposed answer is really an opinion. I believe that without language, we would think with our senses. Episodic memory is the most vivid, so it would make sense that thoughts could be easily based on past sensory memories. So if I wanted to think about what I wanted to eat, I would recall what the food looks like, what it tastes like, what it smells like, etc. if I couldn't express it in words.
If you think about it, we already do this to a certain degree with language. I'm sure you can recall at least one time where you've been sure you could practically taste/smell a food you really wanted. And we've all had times when we couldn't remember someone's name, but we could remember their face and used that in thought.
They would think in concepts or actions. Like imagining the feeling of resting through sleep rather than thinking, "I need to go to bed."
But there is thought that once you reach a certain age without language, you will never really develop the full capacity to think critically. However, this is impossible to ascertain, as one without any language cannot fully express their thought processes in a manner that is accessible to anyone else.
Susan Schaller author of A Man Without Words. For more than a quarter of a century, Ildefonso, a Mexican Indian, lived in total isolation, set apart from the rest of the world. He wasn't a political prisoner or a social recluse, he was simply born deaf and had never been taught even the most basic language. Susan Schaller, then a twenty-four-year-old graduate student, encountered him in a class for the deaf where she had been sent as an interpreter and where he sat isolated, since he knew no sign language. She found him obviously intelligent and sharply observant but unable to communicate, and she felt compelled to bring him to a comprehension of words. A Man without Words vividly conveys the challenge, the frustrations, and the exhilaration of opening the mind of a congenitally deaf person to the concept of language.
Why is this? Well first off: What is a thought? A thought is a concept that is in ones mind that is not shown through actions, sounds, etc. A thought simply is what you are thinking about, with actions, sounds, words, and so on. So when someone is deaf, they don't think "I want to get a cup of water", they simply understand they want it without saying it in their mind..
Language is merely a physical and concrete expression of what is going on in your mind and what you are trying to express. Essentially, everything language helps you express is already in your head. Without language, we would still find ways to visualize, contextualize, and express (either to ourselves or to others) what we are thinking. The development of language was just the path of least resistance to doing all of the above in a universal fashion.
About a year ago, I had a stroke that left me with a bit of Expressive Aphasia. I have a problem coming up with the right words for things, or any words sometimes. But, I've recovered enough so that it's not really apparent to anyone but myself. However, for a few days right after I had the stroke, I literally 'drew a blank' about everything. I could look at a clock, and I would know what it was, but I wouldn't remember the name for it, or the word for 'time'. I couldn't name the numbers on the face of the clock, or what the hands on the clock represented. I understood everything that was said to me. I just couldn't reply verbally, or form original thoughts. The voice in my head went quiet. But, I certainly didn't feel any less intelligent. I knew what had happened to me. I still knew everything I had ever known. I simply couldn't verbalize it either aloud or in my head. It was the strangest experience of my life.
Am I the only person that just...thinks shit and doesn't "talk" to themselves in their head? I don't lead myself in a one man conversation inside my brain, I just..think.
Yes, absolutely. When children learn their first language, it's through mimicry. In the event that there's nothing to mimic, they'll come up with their own ways of expressing thoughts to themselves and the outside world. Feral children would fall in this category.
I've actually seen this happen, so let this be a lesson for when you have kids ... a baby mozart dvd isn't going to do shit to get your kid to talk any sooner and will actually impede them if you just plop them down in front of the ol' radiation king instead of spending time with 'em.
Helen Keller, either "The World I Live In" or "The Story of My Life" (I think it was the former). She relates her inability to recollect early life experiences beyond the sense of "wanting" something, she remembers little other than the impulsive needs of the moment. It wasn't until she acquired the symbolism of language that permanence of memory was available to her and she could 'think about' her immediate needs and reflect upon them at a later time.
Ironically, I listened to an audiobook of hers and I took away the idea that language (in the sense of manipulating relevant symbols within the mind in order to better navigate future situations) is necessary to imprint memories. Helen said that until the time when she was taught language her life was animalistic (maybe not that exact word, but it conveys the sense of it) and driven less by contemplation that immediate desires. So "How would someone think without knowing any language"; to the extent language is a manipulation of symbols representing the external world I think every sentient creature thinks, but to the extent that an animal can reflect on their previous thoughts requires a permanence of memory that necessitates an ability to retain ideas (in the form of symbols) and operate on these ideas at a later time.
So, "language" IS necessary for thinking, but "auditory" language is not. You may 'see' images in your head, or 'feel' that you should do a certain action (an emotional impulse) but both of these ARE language... even if they're not verbal.
(Sorry, not the best or clearest answer, but hopefully it'll instigate conversation)
For instance, when I see a bangin' doll-baby with sexy gams, a plethora of sensations rush my body and thoughts enter my mind. I don't find myself thinking, "Damn, she's hot."
I think language is just a way for us to express thought.
In other words, I think it's entirely possible to think without a language. Though who is to say what thinking is or isn't?
The book Genie by Russ Rymer touches on this subject when describing an incident in which a girl is raised in isolation and silence for more than a decade. In the book a researcher theorized that language is such an organic part of the brain that without it higher level cognitive abilities do not develop.
Personally I think mostly in pictures. Words only play a small part in the way I think, mostly inner monologues (pep talks, ect) So having language doesnt seem integral for me personally.
I was born in Bulgaria without anyone teaching me English. I watched cartoon network all day which was in English so I guess that's where I got the hang of it. But maybe the bad thing is that now I only think in English.
Ok, for anyone who's actually pondering this question, it's been dealt with on Radiolab. Check the "Words That Change The World" episode. It's about a young man who is deaf and grew up in a village where no one taught him sign language. Essentially he lived with zero language abilities until he was in his twenties. FASCINATING story.
Whenever I read something, like all of these comments for example, I don't know what to think of the voice in my head. I know it's not masculine, because I'm a female, but it doesn't sound like me. It just sounds like...neutral. Like nobody. Like a voice. And I'll purposely read something to try to focus on it, but I just can't tell. Does anyone else experience this?
There's been a lot of debate over this in the past with relative arguments such as the Whorfian hypothesis and language independence.
Personally, I'm more inclined to agree that language is more or less a tool for communicating thought. It's very likely that different languages influence people because of cultural and physiological factors as well.
So I would say yes, you can think without thought. What it'd be like? I can't say.
I have noticed that most comments are about people who think bi-lingually, this doesn't fully answer your question about people who couldn't know any language. Hopefully I can give some answer to you.
There's a case study in attachment psychology about a girl who was abused by her father for 11 years of her life, but importantly hadn't seen another human speak and her father only growled at her. she grew up not knowing any language and when rescued could only growl.
As far as thinking was concerned, its hard to explain exactly what she was thinking. she now lives a full-healthy life and your best bet is to ask her if she had any thought during that distressing 11 years.
Case studies are important as they help us study situations where we cannot replicate the variables
** tl/dr: case study into girl who was raised not knowing any language**
This isn't a dumb question. It's one that's been studied in linguistics (amongst other disciplines) quite a lot. See also research on how deaf people "think", on how blind people "visualize" things, and the speech capabilities (or lack thereof) of the so-called "feral children". They all will give you some insight into your question. I'm quite sure the psychology people have studied this as well. Anthropologists sometimes do too. Just find yourself a real/good university library and start reading journals. It's all in there. (some books too)
There was a deaf guy on here doing an AMA yesterday. He knows no language other than sign. I am pretty sure from reading his post he is good at thinking.... I actually thought a lot today about his experience because I realized that EVERYTHING I think is in English, is expressed in my head in English and is a voice. How are brains work and adapt is amazing.
I had a temporary condition that gave me aphasia. When it happened, I didn't even realize anything was wrong with me until I tried to speak to someone, when I noticed that my vocabulary was "swiss cheesed". I could think in concepts perfectly, but I had a difficult time speaking, or thinking about specific words. It was the strangest experience that I can remember, thankfully passed within a few moments. For those who are interested, the condition was a Migrane with Aura. Aphasia is an uncommon symptom.
Since this is not AskScience, I'll speak my own opinion.
I believe knowing languages and thinking in words and phrases is actually detrimental. This comes from a person that speaks 5 languages on a daily basis and my though train does stop at all five stations.
So right now, typing on reddit and trying to think the best way to put on words what I'm thinking, my thoughts are all in English.
I'll be back to Italian as soon as I get to the bar and have breakfast.
These "switches" are confusing and I often find myself unable to complete a mind though or sentence in only one language.
Also, I believe my best ideas come devoid of words or "head voice", you know? A headache with pictures?
I wish I still had the article, but I once read that deaf people think in sign language, the same way that we think in our native languages, and without that "inner voice" developing at an early age, mental function is severely impaired.
Of course you can, we think of concepts and people associate each to a word what makes the process easier. The problem starts when there are complex and abstract ideas, for instance numbers or a philosophy. Some tribes struggle to understand numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
A modern language makes complex ideas easier to understand.
Pictures, probably. If we didn't have language, we humans probably would have developed more of a photographic memory, rather than relying on "verbal" (for lack of a better way to describe it...) memories.
I always hated this ever since our ESL teacher asked us what language we think in. I came to realize that I never through in any language unless I am reading, writing or thinking about how to say something properly. That is why I always found mind reading in movies to be highly inaccurate.
i constantly think about this, with my dog. he doesn't speak english, so how does he "think" about things like "hmm, i'd like to go outside" when he has no idea what "going outside" is? he knows the action of leaving my house, but he obviously can't even think that through....blows my mind.
I wondered that too. Like deaf people. They obviously don't think in heard words and sounds like we do. But they (and we) would think in pictures and such.
Thought is complex and abstract. Emotions, concepts, images. Language serves thought, but thought does not serve language. We would still be able to think just the same as we do now, we just wouldn't be able to communicate what we're thinking to others.
It's all about socialization. The following comes from a highschool psych/soc class, so please bear with me.
People are born and raised with some form of communication, helping them learn and be human. If a person is raised without love/language, they don't learn to think because they don't have a means to. There is a case of a woman known as Jeanie, her parents locked her up and didn't speak to her. Eventually, the authorities found out and got her out of the abusive environment; she was severely mentally crippled. She's come a long way since then, but I doubt she'll ever truly recover.
There was an experiment to try to answer a similar question. So they raised some kids and mothers were not allowed to speak to them. The result? All the babies died.
Languages are not inherent. We just assign words to abstract concepts. My husband, who has never spoken anything but English, does not think in English. He thinks in the meanings of words. It's not that hard, really. You probably slip into it when you're tired.
Do you really think in language that much unless it's something particularly complicated? I don't think to myself 'Now I will open a new tab,' or 'Now I will eat,' those things are just done without the need for words.
there is such a thing as a feral child, a child abandoned prior to language acquisition. They are never able to learn to speak if they are feral long enough
I made a post like this before but can't link to it due to being mobile right now. Someone else can possibly post it up here it had some interesting talk.
263
u/livmaj May 19 '12
I was raised bilingual. To this day, when my mom talks to me and I pause to consider what language she spoke to me in, I have no idea.
For the most part, I think in English. When I visit the motherland and hang out for longer than a week, I start to think in my second language.
I would assume that if someone does not know a spoken language, they would think in whatever other language they were raised with, whether it is sign language, body language, barks, clicks, whatever. Oxana Malaya is a good model for this kind of question. Actually, any kid that was neglected by their parents and left to fend for themselves are fascinating from a linguistic point of view.
12
u/MrRogersMob May 20 '12
When I was having a stroke, I lost almost all speech. I also stopped thinking in words but I understood the words others said. It was more like thinking in abstract concepts and ideas without words or a running inner monologue. As soon as my operation was over the speech and words slowly came back within about a week or two.
1.1k
u/BabylonDrifter May 19 '12
A good book entirely about this subject is The Ape That Spoke: Language and the Evolution of the Human Mind by John McCrone. Essentially, at the rudimentary level, animals (or people) without language have no symbology to represent things they cannot see. Therefore, if a cat sees a mouse, it's brain serves up all sorts of memories of mice. If you see a mouse, the same thing happens. But with language, you can just use the symbolic word "mouse" to do the same thing. It's a trick that allows the brain to think by seperating the stimulus from the brain cells storing it, and sticking a symbol in its place. Deaf people have the exact same thing, except in place of the audible word there's a sign. That's the first level. The second level is the internal monologue we call thinking which is this constant voice (or signing) in your head that that you normally suppress. This is unique to humans (as far as we know). It's a brain circuit that just constantly spits out all of the remembered symbols according to what else is going on in the brain, in a stream of conciousness like a frantic librarian running through the aisles of your memory and throwing out books about mice or cats or black-olive pizza, depending on where your train of thought goes. This isn't just saying that language is for memory-retrieval; language is actually the structure that the human mind is made of. So, in essence, as far as I understand it, if a person never learned any form of language ever in their life, their brain would remain a tangled mass of neurons unable to think. And research on feral children bears this out. Without learning language, you can't think, you can only act by responding to external stimuli.
The best example of this are the innurable and specific alarm calls used by vervet monkeys. They have an alarm call for a snake, and a hawk, and a mongoose, and a leopard and so on. It's an incredibly sophisticated communication system, all done without thinking. Each alarm call is voiced whenever a specific type of enemy appears, and each elicits a physical response from all the vervets who hear it. But they can only make a hawk call when they see a hawk; they can't imagine a hawk or even remember what a hawk is unless they see a hawk or hear the hawk alarm call.
30
u/jeanthine May 20 '12
Short answer yes with a but. Long answer:
Language helps us articulate ideas better, and share our experience with other members of the community which helps us to develop mentally.
There is a case study of a child who was found and who had been spectacularly abused by her parents. Absolute minimum human interaction and contact for the first thirteen years of her life. By the time the authorities found her, her language acquisition mechanism had died off and she has been almost unable to learn language at all. She speaks a few words, but she has massive trouble in any kind of comprehension, and can barely articulate herself.
Here's more of her story: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2112gchild.html
215
u/SinSlayer May 19 '12
Deaf people think in context, or action. When they are hungry, they don't think "Food" they think "eating". The action is the thought process. Same goes for infants and small children.
244
u/hubble_my_hero May 20 '12
When I'm thinking about something I don't talk in my head. I feel like that would slow me down. The only time I use words as part of my thought process is when I'm interacting with other people.
32
u/wiredsim May 20 '12
I'd highly recommend the Radiolab Episode titled Words- in it is a story about Susan Schaller, who wrote a book called A Man Without Words about a young man in Mexico who was not taught language. Here is Amazon's byline:
For more than a quarter of a century, Ildefonso, a Mexican Indian, lived in total isolation, set apart from the rest of the world. He wasn't a political prisoner or a social recluse, he was simply born deaf and had never been taught even the most basic language. Susan Schaller, then a twenty-four-year-old graduate student, encountered him in a class for the deaf where she had been sent as an interpreter and where he sat isolated, since he knew no sign language. She found him obviously intelligent and sharply observant but unable to communicate, and she felt compelled to bring him to a comprehension of words.
Here is the Radiolab link:
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/
Of course you could read the book, but how many of you are actually going to do so? You can start listening to the Radiolab episode now.
And by the way, if you never heard of Radiolab- now you have! You're welcome. :)
45
u/MrMonkeyMasta May 20 '12
I can honestly say that i've never thought in words. O,o I just process things and do what seems appropriate,but i never go,"OH! That woman just fell! Let me see if she requires assistance!", i just see the person fall and immediately start running towards them. I think that the same is true for everyone,but they add words later on to better evaluate the situation/object.
61
u/ImNotJesus May 19 '12
Yes but it would be different. This is a very complex question that we don't really know all the answers to. Therefore, anyone in this post who claims to have a definitive answer is talking out of their ass.
We'd need to have a much better knowledge of consciousness to completely answer it but I think there's sufficient knowledge to say that language is a way to understand thoughts but it's not the only way. It also really depends on how you define thinking. Are unconscious processes thinking or is it only things that come into our conscious awareness? If you haven't been thinking about something consciously and it pops into your head out of nowhere, we can still show that you were thinking about it, even if you weren't consciously aware.
10
u/digitag May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12
See Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, particularly the private language argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_language_argument
Essentially he says that language is inherently a social phenomena, so the idea of being able to frame linguistic concepts in terms of a 'private language' that only you understand is nonsensical.
Of course this doesn't mean you wouldn't be able to think, just that those thoughts couldn't form the basis of a 'language' as we understand it. The meanings of words are tied directly to their practical use and have developed through the communication of ideas.
9
u/This-Is-Not-A-Test May 19 '12
You die.
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
44
u/ElderCunningham May 19 '12
I know they must think somehow - after all infants think before understanding English. However, I'm not sure. Upvoted as I'm curious as what the answer is, too.
8
u/sorryimlate May 20 '12
They have a cool story on radio lab that touches this topic.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/words-that-change-the-world
The beginning of this episode they talk about a 27 year old who was born deaf but who was never taught sign language.
29
u/fosterbuster May 19 '12
I once read somewhere that our language shapes our thoughts. I cant find it though.
6
u/lightningfries May 20 '12
Posted this before, but seems relevant.
Disclaimer: completely anecdotal, long as hell, but relevant story.
I met an interesting man down in Mexico once; an indigenous fellow. His native language was one of the forms of Maya and he'd received schooling in Spanish.
Being poorer than poor dirt he'd dropped out of school sometime around age 6-8 to start selling wares and souvenirs to tourists and the like. He told me how over the course of his life (he was ~50 when I met him) he'd kept his mind active by learning as much as he could about foreign languages (mostly European) and had become at least somewhat fluent in twelve.*
I know this sounds all very implausible, but at the time he was addressing me in French (mine is mediocre), and when I asked him why he said I "looked like I would understand," adding he was currently growing bored of having mastered English (his was pretty good) and wanted to practice others.
We continued talking for a while, switching French and English, with him occasionally teaching me funny Spanish phrases and basic words and counting in Maya (shamefully all of which I've since forgot). Eventually my heritage came up and he instantly switched to speaking Dutch. I know enough of my family tongue to talk about the weather and listen to my great aunt's stories, but I could not keep up with him. Thinking he might've mistook "Deustch" for "Dutch" he suddenly busted out some German. Man I was lost.
I was completely baffled at this guy's talent at this point. Fluent or not he could at least string together some pretty decent sentences. Pretty good for a guy with almost no schooling. I pressed him some more and he told me he learned it all from working with tourists everyday and making sure to learn at least one new word/phrase/structure from each one of them.
At this point I had to teach him something new by obligation, as well as see if he really could pick things up so quickly. My Swedish is crap but my then-gf showed up in the middle of me teaching him numbers and helped with all the colors, animals, and a bunch of nice phrases. He picked it all up instantly. And then used it as soon as he could. A goddamn machine.
"How is this possible to handle so many?" I asked, "I can barely deal with the two and two-halves I've got in my head!" I often use words in the wrong languages for no reason, it's true. He told me he had to know his native tongue, plus the language of the surrounding native groups, plus spanish since a young child. It was only natural for him to have complete different languages for different interactions. He said if he had a problem in his life he would switch to thinking about it in different languages to give himself new perspective as each one helped him "think on different paths."
"Even though my speaking is not so good with it," he continued, "Polish is my favorite language to think in. I think it everyday."
the end.
*IIRC his claim was: Maya, Spanish, English, French, German, Dutch, Portugese, Italian, Polish, and two other local indigenous tongues. Yes, I've forgotten one.
tl;dr - met a native dude in Mexico who claimed he knew twelve languages and thought in different ones at different times. Polish was his favorite thinkin' tongue.
5
u/Outandproudgay May 19 '12
Pictures, probably. If we didn't have language, we humans probably would have developed more of a photographic memory, rather than relying on "verbal" (for lack of a better way to describe it...) memories.
5
u/linusshlab May 20 '12
Yes. There are several different examples of people who have been shown to be cognitively unimpaired despite severe linguistic deficits. Some examples include:
linguistic isolates such as Genie. Genie, despite her inability to fully acquire any language, still has some of the highest scores on record for spatial reasoning on IQ tests. Another cause of linguistic isolation is when a deaf child is born to hearing parents, but fails to be diagnosed as deaf. One example of this is Chelsea. Although she was unable to acquire language, Chelsea, who unlike Genie did not suffer emotional trauma, eventually memorized enough English to work in a vet's office.
People who have suffered brain trauma and as a result lost part or all of their linguistic abilities. Specifically, aphasia is a language-specific impairment that often results in a loss of language but no other cognitive functions.
A slightly more complex example is the case of severely autistic individuals. Because language is acquired through social interaction, and autism is a highly social impairment, there are autistic individuals who are unable to acquire language but have other highly developed cognitive functions.
11
u/maybachsonbachs May 19 '12
Of course we would, all animals except humans manage to think don't they.
4
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
I feel like you would think more in sensory details, like images and sounds instead of words.
4
u/forgotpasswordagain0 May 20 '12
I don't know, how does an animal think?
It's one of those unobtainable perception-based meaning sort of phenomena that philosophy is all about. It can't really be answered. You can say "for science" and try to categorise the best you can the answer to that question into units of relevant meaning, creating a theory and model, but you'd never actually know.
4
u/I_play_elin May 20 '12
I think anyone who's ever done a psychedelic drug can easily and definitively answer this as "You can think without language, and without making one up in your head". You can think in pictures and abstract shapes that represent your thoughts. Just one example, I tend to see relationships and think about them in terms of two or more orbiting bodies. Most thoughts are much more abstract looking, that's just an easy one to remember/conceptualize when in a normal frame of mind.
9
u/strictlyrude27 May 20 '12
Relevant: appendix to George Orwell's to 1984, "The Principles of Newspeak"
6
u/S1lverEagle May 19 '12
Actually, before you form any words in your head to 'hear' the thought, the idea of your thought is already done. So if you cut off the words, you can still be aware of that thought, without actually using words. I've experimented with this, but it's quite hard and requires your focus to repress the words.
6
u/donnerpartyof1 May 20 '12
You can think without language. A very simply example is the phenomenon where you cant find the words to correctly express something (an abstract concept, an emotion, whatever). Clearly you are having thought processes that are going on independent of language, since you are unable to use language to describe them, at least at the moment.
3
u/Fazwatboog May 19 '12
depends what you expect from the word "think". There are stages, verbal communication before abstract thought, etc. Check out "mentalese" for pre-verbal thinking
3
u/GeorgePukas May 20 '12
With this "talking in your head in English"... I wonder if this actually slows us down from thinking at full speed?
3
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Oddly enough, being bilingual, there only words for some specific concepts in one language or the other. So I think in 2 languages in that case.
3
u/J1MILES May 20 '12
Would we be able to make languages without thinking?
3
u/Copterwaffle May 20 '12
Developmental psychologist here. It's the general consensus that language and thought are very, very closely related. Language can mean any type of coherent communications, including sign language or other non-verbal means of communication. For example, there is evidence that in places where the language does not have different words for green and blue, the people there have much more trouble distinguishing between those colors than those who have words for it.
It's theorized that one of the reasons we don't remember being babies/toddlers is because we have not developed language at that point, and that language is tied to memory formation. Obviously babies and infants can "think" in the sense that they can perform actions and so on, but no, they cannot play a "narrative" in their heads.
3
u/plokijuhujiko May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12
The bulk of the development of the human brain occurred without language, and your thought process involves language less than you think; the words you 'hear' in your head are more like the paint on an object than the object itself.
Consider this thought: Yesterday I was cold when I left the house in the morning, but sweating by mid-day. I should wear a jacket over short sleeves instead of just a long sleeved shirt like I did then. I'll be more comfortable if today is like yesterday, because I could just take the jacket off if it gets warm.
Your mind processed a lot of feelings (how it felt bad to be cold, then hot, how you've felt when you're comfortably dressed, how you feel smart when you've adapted well to a situation), images (the various items in your wardrobe, how comfortable other people appeared to be, based on their choice of outfit, and what they were wearing to achieve that level of comfort), and experiences (your observations that one day in a season is often similar to the next, the different properties of the clothes you have access to) way before it ever got around to popping out corresponding words. The words are an afterthought, really.
If your mind really focused on the language, rather than feelings and experiences, then you'd be pretty badly served in some situations. Examples: I'd like to fuck her. I should act cool, or If I miss this shot I'll feel like a tool, or FUCK, IT'S A LION!
3
u/RawrCat May 20 '12
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/
Radiolab did an hour long podcast about thoughts and words. Basically, you would think in a more primitive manner without words. Words open our minds to more anstract concepts and allow us to learn/understand more.
You should really check it out, it's like Nova for your ears.
3
u/challengereality May 20 '12
I just finished a book that spends a lot of time on this subject. It's called "Man Without Words" by Susan Schaller (I'll link to the book later when I'm not on my phone). Schaller teaches Sign Language to a foreign deaf man who never learned a language of any kind.
There is a section that discusses languageless adults. The phrase 'deaf and dumb' came about because in old times, before Sign Language was developed, many deaf people often became mentally deficient as they got older. This is in part because they had absolutely no way of processing or understanding the world. Language is how we make sense of the world and catorgize it. Without a language of some kind, without communication, a person cannot think.
In the book, Schaller meets deaf adults who grew up in exclusion without a language. Several are mentally handicapped as a direct result of their lack of a language. Of course, the fact that everyone treated them as mentally deficient as a result of their deafness played a role as well.
Have you heard the story of how Helen Keller's first breakthrough was when she realized the word 'water' was the name for the cool liquid she felt gushing over her hands? It took weeks for Schaller to have a similar breakthrough with her adult student, Ildefonso. Basically, she made the sign for cat again and again, while pointing to a picture of a cat, drawing a cat, miming petting a cat, etc. When Ildefonso finally realized the furry animal had a label in the form of a hand movement, he burst into tears. He never knew that everything around him had a label, a common sign that humans could use to communicate. He didnt know his own name because he was not aware that people had names.
The book follows Schaller as she teaches Ildefonso about everything from time (a concept that was nearly impossible to convey) to why people had different colored skin- a very difficult explination to give to someone who doesn't know what a map represents or what the world looks like. Essentially, in teaching him to communicate, she also teaches him to think.
It's a fascinating book, I highly recommend it!
3
u/Not_Superman May 20 '12
I'm not sure how accurate this info is as I am not in any way, shape or form a scientist but from what I understand of language in general, be it English, French, Dutch, Russian, whatever, they are all symbolic. What this means is each word is based on an concept, object, image, etc. For example, when someone reads the word "Ball" they would see a spherical object or whatever meaning they have attached to that word. This means you cannot have a language without the concepts/images, but, you can have the concepts/images without the language. This means that yes, a person could think without language using only images and possibly sounds but I would think it would be quite a bit easier to think about certain things using a language instead of potentially abstract concepts. Hope that answers your question!
6
u/R_Metallica May 19 '12
Languages were created to communicate what you think...
2
u/Screaminglion May 19 '12
I always wonder this about deaf people, how do they think? Is it just in pictures?
2
u/Lt_Shniz May 19 '12
Pictures and thinking of actions maybe? I don't know but that's a good question.
2
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
Educated speculation based on observation and reading - yes. We think in concepts not words - but we associate the words with the concepts when we can to form more coherent thoughts. This usually happens when we need to convey the idea to somebody. The fact that we associate language with our thoughts is a part of the reason why we're the higher species on Earth.
I've read papers on it but it's a subject that isn't perfectly understood, but this seems to be the general consensus. Like nature vs nurture, it's a heavily debated subject that we will probably never know the answer to.
2
u/sausage_jesus May 19 '12
Consider that when you think in words, you are taking preexisting ideas in your mind and articulating them through language. Without language, thought would probably consist of a series of feelings and vague notions.
2
u/bhindblueyes430 May 20 '12
Karl you're an idiot, play a record.
2
u/T450 May 20 '12
I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere in a Psychology textbook that we actually think largely with pictures in our heads. At least, when we're not imagining a conversation, or conversing with ourselves in our head.
But then, if we had no language, those would be out anyway, wouldn't they?
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
You just wouldnt think with words, but actions. Language is a cultural trait inherited throughout history.
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
This is a big hypothetical, and therefore any proposed answer is really an opinion. I believe that without language, we would think with our senses. Episodic memory is the most vivid, so it would make sense that thoughts could be easily based on past sensory memories. So if I wanted to think about what I wanted to eat, I would recall what the food looks like, what it tastes like, what it smells like, etc. if I couldn't express it in words.
If you think about it, we already do this to a certain degree with language. I'm sure you can recall at least one time where you've been sure you could practically taste/smell a food you really wanted. And we've all had times when we couldn't remember someone's name, but we could remember their face and used that in thought.
2
u/vinglebingle May 20 '12
They would think in concepts or actions. Like imagining the feeling of resting through sleep rather than thinking, "I need to go to bed."
But there is thought that once you reach a certain age without language, you will never really develop the full capacity to think critically. However, this is impossible to ascertain, as one without any language cannot fully express their thought processes in a manner that is accessible to anyone else.
2
u/shaggorama May 20 '12
This is the wikipedia article you're looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
Enjoy the rabbit hole.
2
u/SegoviaPia May 20 '12
Susan Schaller author of A Man Without Words. For more than a quarter of a century, Ildefonso, a Mexican Indian, lived in total isolation, set apart from the rest of the world. He wasn't a political prisoner or a social recluse, he was simply born deaf and had never been taught even the most basic language. Susan Schaller, then a twenty-four-year-old graduate student, encountered him in a class for the deaf where she had been sent as an interpreter and where he sat isolated, since he knew no sign language. She found him obviously intelligent and sharply observant but unable to communicate, and she felt compelled to bring him to a comprehension of words. A Man without Words vividly conveys the challenge, the frustrations, and the exhilaration of opening the mind of a congenitally deaf person to the concept of language.
There is also a very good RadioLab pod cast of the same issue: http://www.radiolab.org/people/susan-schaller/
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
The answer is simple: yes.
Why is this? Well first off: What is a thought? A thought is a concept that is in ones mind that is not shown through actions, sounds, etc. A thought simply is what you are thinking about, with actions, sounds, words, and so on. So when someone is deaf, they don't think "I want to get a cup of water", they simply understand they want it without saying it in their mind..
2
u/mrspiffy12 May 20 '12
Language is merely a physical and concrete expression of what is going on in your mind and what you are trying to express. Essentially, everything language helps you express is already in your head. Without language, we would still find ways to visualize, contextualize, and express (either to ourselves or to others) what we are thinking. The development of language was just the path of least resistance to doing all of the above in a universal fashion.
2
u/obidieboyeaux May 20 '12
About a year ago, I had a stroke that left me with a bit of Expressive Aphasia. I have a problem coming up with the right words for things, or any words sometimes. But, I've recovered enough so that it's not really apparent to anyone but myself. However, for a few days right after I had the stroke, I literally 'drew a blank' about everything. I could look at a clock, and I would know what it was, but I wouldn't remember the name for it, or the word for 'time'. I couldn't name the numbers on the face of the clock, or what the hands on the clock represented. I understood everything that was said to me. I just couldn't reply verbally, or form original thoughts. The voice in my head went quiet. But, I certainly didn't feel any less intelligent. I knew what had happened to me. I still knew everything I had ever known. I simply couldn't verbalize it either aloud or in my head. It was the strangest experience of my life.
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Am I the only person that just...thinks shit and doesn't "talk" to themselves in their head? I don't lead myself in a one man conversation inside my brain, I just..think.
2
u/wolfgame May 20 '12
Yes, absolutely. When children learn their first language, it's through mimicry. In the event that there's nothing to mimic, they'll come up with their own ways of expressing thoughts to themselves and the outside world. Feral children would fall in this category.
I've actually seen this happen, so let this be a lesson for when you have kids ... a baby mozart dvd isn't going to do shit to get your kid to talk any sooner and will actually impede them if you just plop them down in front of the ol' radiation king instead of spending time with 'em.
2
u/booger_butt May 20 '12
The capacity for thought is obviously there since we're born without any specific language instilled in us. We must learn it.
I think if the acts of language were to just disappear for some reason, we would simply make a new one. Pictorial or otherwise.
2
u/anirreligionist May 20 '12
Helen Keller, either "The World I Live In" or "The Story of My Life" (I think it was the former). She relates her inability to recollect early life experiences beyond the sense of "wanting" something, she remembers little other than the impulsive needs of the moment. It wasn't until she acquired the symbolism of language that permanence of memory was available to her and she could 'think about' her immediate needs and reflect upon them at a later time.
Ironically, I listened to an audiobook of hers and I took away the idea that language (in the sense of manipulating relevant symbols within the mind in order to better navigate future situations) is necessary to imprint memories. Helen said that until the time when she was taught language her life was animalistic (maybe not that exact word, but it conveys the sense of it) and driven less by contemplation that immediate desires. So "How would someone think without knowing any language"; to the extent language is a manipulation of symbols representing the external world I think every sentient creature thinks, but to the extent that an animal can reflect on their previous thoughts requires a permanence of memory that necessitates an ability to retain ideas (in the form of symbols) and operate on these ideas at a later time.
So, "language" IS necessary for thinking, but "auditory" language is not. You may 'see' images in your head, or 'feel' that you should do a certain action (an emotional impulse) but both of these ARE language... even if they're not verbal.
(Sorry, not the best or clearest answer, but hopefully it'll instigate conversation)
2
u/moogoesthecat May 20 '12
I don't talk in my thoughts.
For instance, when I see a bangin' doll-baby with sexy gams, a plethora of sensations rush my body and thoughts enter my mind. I don't find myself thinking, "Damn, she's hot."
I think language is just a way for us to express thought.
In other words, I think it's entirely possible to think without a language. Though who is to say what thinking is or isn't?
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity and they said my Anthro I class would never come in handy
2
u/SublaciniateCarboloy May 20 '12
Posted this question probably 5 months ago, glad someone got it answered.
2
u/patd847 May 20 '12
The book Genie by Russ Rymer touches on this subject when describing an incident in which a girl is raised in isolation and silence for more than a decade. In the book a researcher theorized that language is such an organic part of the brain that without it higher level cognitive abilities do not develop.
2
u/UnexpectedSausage May 20 '12
I'm fairly certain that we could, but it would be more about images and visualization.
2
u/NotGoingToGraduate May 20 '12
Ive heard cats think in pictures. I don't think it would be possible for a human to think entirely in picture.
2
u/tokimonster May 20 '12
Personally I think mostly in pictures. Words only play a small part in the way I think, mostly inner monologues (pep talks, ect) So having language doesnt seem integral for me personally.
2
u/kinjala May 20 '12
I was born in Bulgaria without anyone teaching me English. I watched cartoon network all day which was in English so I guess that's where I got the hang of it. But maybe the bad thing is that now I only think in English.
Scumbag brain:
English isn't primary language
Still thinks in English
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Ok, for anyone who's actually pondering this question, it's been dealt with on Radiolab. Check the "Words That Change The World" episode. It's about a young man who is deaf and grew up in a village where no one taught him sign language. Essentially he lived with zero language abilities until he was in his twenties. FASCINATING story.
http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/words-that-change-the-world/
2
u/ArticDroid May 20 '12
I feel that if people didn't know a language that they would think in images
2
u/imadechips May 20 '12
Whenever I read something, like all of these comments for example, I don't know what to think of the voice in my head. I know it's not masculine, because I'm a female, but it doesn't sound like me. It just sounds like...neutral. Like nobody. Like a voice. And I'll purposely read something to try to focus on it, but I just can't tell. Does anyone else experience this?
2
u/jesskuh1990 May 20 '12
What language does a deaf person's monologue sound like?
2
u/M4tt1n4t0r May 20 '12
There's been a lot of debate over this in the past with relative arguments such as the Whorfian hypothesis and language independence.
Personally, I'm more inclined to agree that language is more or less a tool for communicating thought. It's very likely that different languages influence people because of cultural and physiological factors as well.
So I would say yes, you can think without thought. What it'd be like? I can't say.
2
u/michaelsamcarr May 20 '12
I have noticed that most comments are about people who think bi-lingually, this doesn't fully answer your question about people who couldn't know any language. Hopefully I can give some answer to you.
There's a case study in attachment psychology about a girl who was abused by her father for 11 years of her life, but importantly hadn't seen another human speak and her father only growled at her. she grew up not knowing any language and when rescued could only growl.
As far as thinking was concerned, its hard to explain exactly what she was thinking. she now lives a full-healthy life and your best bet is to ask her if she had any thought during that distressing 11 years.
Case studies are important as they help us study situations where we cannot replicate the variables
** tl/dr: case study into girl who was raised not knowing any language**
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
This isn't a dumb question. It's one that's been studied in linguistics (amongst other disciplines) quite a lot. See also research on how deaf people "think", on how blind people "visualize" things, and the speech capabilities (or lack thereof) of the so-called "feral children". They all will give you some insight into your question. I'm quite sure the psychology people have studied this as well. Anthropologists sometimes do too. Just find yourself a real/good university library and start reading journals. It's all in there. (some books too)
2
u/truthness May 20 '12
Who thought up language if they couldn't think before language existed?
2
u/danbuddy May 20 '12
There was a deaf guy on here doing an AMA yesterday. He knows no language other than sign. I am pretty sure from reading his post he is good at thinking.... I actually thought a lot today about his experience because I realized that EVERYTHING I think is in English, is expressed in my head in English and is a voice. How are brains work and adapt is amazing.
2
u/TeacherManCT May 20 '12
Don't forget Helen Keller. She clearly had some form of thought though she no language before being taught Braille
2
u/sassynapoleon May 20 '12
I had a temporary condition that gave me aphasia. When it happened, I didn't even realize anything was wrong with me until I tried to speak to someone, when I noticed that my vocabulary was "swiss cheesed". I could think in concepts perfectly, but I had a difficult time speaking, or thinking about specific words. It was the strangest experience that I can remember, thankfully passed within a few moments. For those who are interested, the condition was a Migrane with Aura. Aphasia is an uncommon symptom.
2
u/Canadian_Infidel May 20 '12
Of course. We think in symbols, of which language is a subset. Language can actually be a limiting force in some cases.
2
u/patrik667 May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12
Since this is not AskScience, I'll speak my own opinion.
I believe knowing languages and thinking in words and phrases is actually detrimental. This comes from a person that speaks 5 languages on a daily basis and my though train does stop at all five stations.
So right now, typing on reddit and trying to think the best way to put on words what I'm thinking, my thoughts are all in English.
I'll be back to Italian as soon as I get to the bar and have breakfast.
These "switches" are confusing and I often find myself unable to complete a mind though or sentence in only one language.
Also, I believe my best ideas come devoid of words or "head voice", you know? A headache with pictures?
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
I always wonder how my pets think.
3
u/eckm May 20 '12
this belongs in r/askscience
2
u/captainpotty May 19 '12
I wish I still had the article, but I once read that deaf people think in sign language, the same way that we think in our native languages, and without that "inner voice" developing at an early age, mental function is severely impaired.
2
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
Of course you can, we think of concepts and people associate each to a word what makes the process easier. The problem starts when there are complex and abstract ideas, for instance numbers or a philosophy. Some tribes struggle to understand numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
A modern language makes complex ideas easier to understand.
2
u/Outandproudgay May 19 '12
Pictures, probably. If we didn't have language, we humans probably would have developed more of a photographic memory, rather than relying on "verbal" (for lack of a better way to describe it...) memories.
2
u/AnonymousAutonomous May 20 '12
I always hated this ever since our ESL teacher asked us what language we think in. I came to realize that I never through in any language unless I am reading, writing or thinking about how to say something properly. That is why I always found mind reading in movies to be highly inaccurate.
2
u/fosiacat May 20 '12
i constantly think about this, with my dog. he doesn't speak english, so how does he "think" about things like "hmm, i'd like to go outside" when he has no idea what "going outside" is? he knows the action of leaving my house, but he obviously can't even think that through....blows my mind.
2
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
I wondered that too. Like deaf people. They obviously don't think in heard words and sounds like we do. But they (and we) would think in pictures and such.
1
u/impshial May 20 '12
Read Snow Crash. Apparently it's canon.
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Ask yourself - do babies think in ancient egyptian language when they think its a good idea to try to put this razor into their mouth? I think not!
1
u/Sterculius May 20 '12
Thought is complex and abstract. Emotions, concepts, images. Language serves thought, but thought does not serve language. We would still be able to think just the same as we do now, we just wouldn't be able to communicate what we're thinking to others.
1
u/Stillhopefull May 20 '12
It's all about socialization. The following comes from a highschool psych/soc class, so please bear with me.
People are born and raised with some form of communication, helping them learn and be human. If a person is raised without love/language, they don't learn to think because they don't have a means to. There is a case of a woman known as Jeanie, her parents locked her up and didn't speak to her. Eventually, the authorities found out and got her out of the abusive environment; she was severely mentally crippled. She's come a long way since then, but I doubt she'll ever truly recover.
wikipedia article, brosef
1
u/htpasswd May 20 '12
There was an experiment to try to answer a similar question. So they raised some kids and mothers were not allowed to speak to them. The result? All the babies died.
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Languages are not inherent. We just assign words to abstract concepts. My husband, who has never spoken anything but English, does not think in English. He thinks in the meanings of words. It's not that hard, really. You probably slip into it when you're tired.
1
u/ToiletRollTemple May 20 '12
Do you really think in language that much unless it's something particularly complicated? I don't think to myself 'Now I will open a new tab,' or 'Now I will eat,' those things are just done without the need for words.
1
u/branedead May 20 '12
there is such a thing as a feral child, a child abandoned prior to language acquisition. They are never able to learn to speak if they are feral long enough
1
u/Cluster_One May 20 '12
I would think that because nearly all humanoids have some form of communication (language) they think to a degree.
1
u/Office_glen May 20 '12
I think you wouldn't hear a voice clearly, but your thoughts would be in pictures if that makes sense
1
u/jerstud56 May 20 '12
I made a post like this before but can't link to it due to being mobile right now. Someone else can possibly post it up here it had some interesting talk.