Language and Thought

[Synthesis]

I recently thought about how language can I) guide our thoughts II) limit/restrain our thoughts III) focus/clarify our thoughts IV) aid in communication of thoughts (obviously). Yet, it also occurred to me that language might serve as a barrier against free-flowing thinking; for instance, if you see an off-colored wall that you cannot put a color to, you may be unable to clearly describe it using the language(s) you use which would in turn leave you in a muddle of thoughts as to what the wall is. So, the obvious questions seem to be: I) Does language limit our thinking, and does it represent what we know? II) Would one that knows no language be unable to "think" clearly/coherently?

*My apologies on any grammatical or spelling errors, I tried to make it as accurate as possible without taking too long to post the idea.

 

[Adymus]

So we are incapable of inventing new words to describe new concepts?

 

[fnb]

I dont think language limits thinking... I do think it puts a certain restriction on perveying information. A lot of times thoughts will be so much bigger than what language can actually portray. (At least for me... with my lack of specific technical terms.) Also... there is so much happening in the brain... It's pretty impossible for the mouth to keep up... which is probably for the best!

 

[Anling]

This reminds me of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Here's the wikipedia article on it.

Language does affect our thought process, but our thought process also affects our language.

I don't think anyone has had much success determining what people are like without language because the experiment generally includes complete social deprivation as well.

Language_deprivation_experiments

Feral_children

I think that groups kept from being exposed to spoken or signed language still figure out ways to communicate. I would imagine that given enough time they would develop their own language that would increase in complexity over generations.

Language can't communicate everything perfectly, but we can change it, invent new words, when it's deficiencies become troublesome enough. Any language that is still used in everyday life is constantly changing based on what and how the speakers wish to communicate.

 

[onthewindowstand]

I dont think language limits thinking... I do think it puts a certain restriction on perveying information. A lot of times thoughts will be so much bigger than what language can actually portray. (At least for me... with my lack of specific technical terms.) Also... there is so much happening in the brain... It's pretty impossible for the mouth to keep up... which is probably for the best!

If anything language will never be adequate to express exactly what a person is thinking/feeling. Thoughts precede the process of language. If it didn't it would be impossible to learn a language at all.

 

[Kuu]

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

I thought everybody knew this already...


Also newspeak.

RE I) IMO it is quite evident that language limits thought. If you know several languages, it becomes painfully obvious when you find a term that has no direct translation. It can be very hard to understand. Also, terms with multiple meanings create cultural memes that can be very tied to a particular language...

Coining new words is useful. I can remember times when I had huge difficulties thinking of certain things until years later I found a word that condensed all the mental mess into an easily digestible and transmittable package...

It's like growing up without 'god'.

 

[onthewindowstand]

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

I thought everybody knew this already...


Also newspeak.

RE I) IMO it is quite evident that language limits thought. If you know several languages, it becomes painfully obvious when you find a term that has no direct translation. It can be very hard to understand. Also, terms with multiple meanings create cultural memes that can be very tied to a particular language...

Coining new words is useful. I can remember times when I had huge difficulties thinking of certain things until years later I found a word that condensed all the mental mess into an easily digestible and transmittable package...

It's like growing up without 'god'.

Either everyone grows up with god or no one does.

But I know what you meant I am just giving you a hard time.

 

[Deckard]

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

I thought everybody knew this already...


Also newspeak.

RE I) IMO it is quite evident that language limits thought. If you know several languages, it becomes painfully obvious when you find a term that has no direct translation. It can be very hard to understand.

But once you understand the idea behind the new word, the word itself has no importance for thinking about the idea. The word is not required to understand the idea.

I think what you are saying could more accurately be conveyed as such: "the ideas you have been exposed to limits thought".

 

[walfin]

Language can limit thought only if thought is in language.

But once you understand the idea behind the new word, the word itself has no importance for thinking about the idea. The word is not required to understand the idea.

You are right, but I do not think this is true for everyone.

 

[Jaico]

I'd very much say that language (which is really an extension of one's culture) can and does affect our thought processes; if one is taught from birth a language that contains words that only represent 'positive' emotions, it would be harder for someone to express negative feelings (as there would not be any way for them to convey the message). Furthermore, there are words that have no direct equivalent in other languages, and I believe that it would be harder for people to come up with a concept and explain it to other people if there was no proper word for it - hell, even for someone with a solid grasp of a language may struggle to convey an idea (as I seem to be doing right now...I feel like I'm talking in circles, here ).

 

[walfin]

(as I seem to be doing right now...I feel like I'm talking in circles, here ).

We could always call this strugglishness, or circumtalk, or kluashdfyterness.

Verily, language affects thought, as thought affects language.

I would express it thus - one tends to limit the other, and give rise to the other.

Anyway I retract what I said about language limiting thought only if thought is in language - I would say it tends to limit thought more than for someone who doesn't think in words.

 

[Latro]

But once you understand the idea behind the new word, the word itself has no importance for thinking about the idea. The word is not required to understand the idea.

It is if you want to communicate the idea, which is a fundamental part of how we understand things, IMO.

This also gets into an interesting debate which is somewhat active in the Lojban community right now, having to do with letting usage rule the show vs. defining what things will mean. For more info as well as just an awesome essay across the board: http://teddyb.org/robin/tiki-index.php?page=Lojban:+You're+Doing+It+Wrong

Language can limit thought only if thought is in language.

And there are definitely people whose dominant mode of thought is linguistic. I'm one such person.

 

[emiiee]

Language limits communication, but nobody thinks only in words. So decision making skills and problem solving should not be restrained. But skills that involve description and definition could be. I often find myself disliking the english language. Beautiful things did not receive names that compare to them in actuality. FOr example- the word beautiful sucks. It's a horrible word awkward drawn out word. I love the word suicide, but it has a horrible meaning. There is a word for it.... but I can't remember......Our whole language is a complicated mess with strange unnecessary rules

 

[Latro]

There is a word for it.... but I can't remember......Our whole language is a complicated mess with strange unnecessary rules

There are languages, especially conlangs, which have far fewer and more elegant rules, especially when compared to a complete grammatical mess like English.

 

[Jah]

Who here has read anything about General Semantics (the main work being Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski) ?
or some of the newer works inspired by the field; like The Structure of Magic.

 

[walfin]

And there are definitely people whose dominant mode of thought is linguistic. I'm one such person.

Umhm, then a change of language might make a difference for you then.

I think it also matters when someone is brought up to be multi/bilingual. I remember reading in a book (I think it was Quirkology) that research showed that Singaporeans/Hongkongers do not seem to think differently when they speak in English (no idea what proportion of those populations are visual/verbal or whatever other types of thinkers but I would assume it's not too different from the rest of the world), but mainland Chinese do (can't remember what they analysed exactly).

Probably visual thinkers might be able to enlarge their mind by seeing things they've never seen before, rather than by changing their language. Just a guess.

Anecdotally, I can say that I don't feel I really think differently in Esperanto (though I am a beginner and so it is not accurate), although some concepts are easier to express in it. I might think differently in Lojban since it is totally different (but it's too scary to learn for me it's like learning prolog, or haskell, or lisp, all of which I have difficulty grasping) - maybe just seeing it would make me think differently (certainly strikes fear into my heart).

P.S. I think Lojban is missing the point about neutrality, for Chinese - people care less about what a word sounds like than what it means. Though the word order based grammar might help (unlike the Japanese/Korean style grammar of Esperanto).

but nobody thinks only in words

Come to think of it, Nobody seems to not post around here anymore, or has he changed his name?

Some people do think more in words, though. And most (probably all) humans who have been exposed to language think at least partly in words.

 

[citrusbreath95]

I think language effects thought based on the meaning of the words you are associating with the thing you are thinking of, a bit like the quote "If a lion could talk, we would not understand it". Is it possible to think what something is if you do not have a word for it? Yes, though you wouldn't be able to explain it to someone unless they shared the same thought/experiance. Take the word pain for example, for most humans in any language, we associate it with a feeling of discomfort, or displeasure, yet, does it hold different meanings in different languages? If language develops from culture, and culture shares their own unique experiances, then the word pain, although generally understood, would be different for everyone, depending on the "eye of the beholder". Hopefully, this isn't too repetitive of what was said above

 

[Philosophyking87]

So, the obvious questions seem to be: I) Does language limit our thinking, and does it represent what we know? II) Would one that knows no language be unable to "think" clearly/coherently?

*My apologies on any grammatical or spelling errors, I tried to make it as accurate as possible without taking too long to post the idea.

I think language can limit our thinking to an extent, but not to the point where we can't overcome those linguistic boundaries. It's more like a loose, guiding limitation. Secondly, language is only ever a representation of our conceptual awareness of the world. Without concepts, first, there is no language. Without language, concepts can't become more complex.

And I do think that people with no language can reason and think, to some extent, but it won't be very clear or coherent—just simple and basic. For example, there are seals—who don't seem to have any formal language—who have demonstrated basic logical ability (although more sophisticated than the average human being). Hence, I literally think thought precedes language, first and foremost. It just seems to be the case that language enforces and strengthens thought, making it more coherent, lofty, and grand, and definitely very clear and more precise.

 

[Philosophyking87]

So we are incapable of inventing new words to describe new concepts?

Exactly. If we are capable of inventing new words to describe new concepts (which we are), then it must be true that conception precedes language, and that we can think beyond our linguistic limitations. Although, it might also be true that language indeed does stifle thought to some extent, but I'm not so sure about this possibility as I am the former.

 

[Philosophyking87]

If anything language will never be adequate to express exactly what a person is thinking/feeling. Thoughts precede the process of language. If it didn't it would be impossible to learn a language at all.

Indeed. Superb logical reasoning.

 

[Jah]

Language is the basis of abstract thought. So your language may help or hinder to a certain extent, thought.

this is the reason for Mathematics, and other Logical languages.


For new words: read Douglas Adams' "The Meaning of Liff"

 

[Philosophyking87]

Language is the basis of abstract thought. So your language may help or hinder to a certain extent, thought.

this is the reason for Mathematics, and other Logical languages.

For new words: read Douglas Adams' "The Meaning of Liff"

Indeed. As I said earlier:

Without language, concepts can't become more complex.

and

Although, it might also be true that language indeed does stifle thought to some extent...

and

It just seems to be the case that language enforces and strengthens thought, making it more coherent, lofty, and grand, and definitely very clear and more precise.

Our concepts become more complex and sophisticated with the aid of linguistic structure.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Language limits communication, but nobody thinks only in words. So decision making skills and problem solving should not be restrained. But skills that involve description and definition could be.

Indeed. Absolutely well-said. And you make a great point.
Although, the level of abstraction may be limited by linguistic structure.

 

[Lyra]

I know it's bad etiquette to refer people to 1000-page long books in a forum debate, but this is a special case: Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity: an Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems of General Semantics is dedicated to this topic, and is also one of the most personally significant books I have read.

I recommend it highly. Although, I'd also recommend not accepting his epistemic conclusions as part of his semantic system, and thinking about how they're nonessential to it.

 

[Jah]

I know it's bad etiquette to refer people to 1000-page long books in a forum debate, but this is a special case: Alfred Korzybski's Science and Sanity: an Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems of General Semantics is dedicated to this topic, and is also one of the most personally significant books I have read.

I recommend it highly. Although, I'd also recommend not accepting his epistemic conclusions as part of his semantic system, and thinking about how they're nonessential to it.

I already did mention it :P
However, there's never enough attention brought to Count Korzybski.

 

[Synthesis]

Apologies on the late response to everyone's posting, busy weeks. After reading everything and reviewing my original post (and in hindsight seeing the obvious logical fallacies of my previous thoughts), I think most here agree on a few points:

I. Thought precedes all language (this slapped me in the face after I read everyone's responses, d'oh moment)
II. Even a being without language has some methodology of thinking and communication, however limited in comparison to ours.
III. As more ideas become aparent, need to be changed, are inadequate, and be expressed in a different manner, further sophistication of linguistics is necessary.
IV. Words are representations of ideas and as such, once understood, the words can be abandoned.
V. Language can serve as a guiding force for thought conveyence, if used appropriately.

That said, do you all think that there is a limit to the usefulness of language/linguistics (aside from a lack of 'modern' locution), or is it a never-ending sequence of new nomenclature to represent an increasingly sophisticated set of ideas?

 

[Philosophyking87]

Apologies on the late response to everyone's posting, busy weeks. After reading everything and reviewing my original post (and in hindsight seeing the obvious logical fallacies of my previous thoughts), I think most here agree on a few points:

I. Thought precedes all language (this slapped me in the face after I read everyone's responses, d'oh moment)
II. Even a being without language has some methodology of thinking and communication, however limited in comparison to ours.
III. As more ideas become aparent, need to be changed, are inadequate, and be expressed in a different manner, further sophistication of linguistics is necessary.
IV. Words are representations of ideas and as such, once understood, the words can be abandoned.
V. Language can serve as a guiding force for thought conveyence, if used appropriately.

That just about sums things up rather nicely.

That said, do you all think that there is a limit to the usefulness of language/linguistics (aside from a lack of 'modern' locution), or is it a never-ending sequence of new nomenclature to represent an increasingly sophisticated set of ideas?

I don't really think there is a linguistic limit, per se. As thought becomes more complex and abstract, so too—I think—should the language which expresses and represents such thought. Hence, the deeper an idea becomes, the more ingenious and inventive should the words which describe them. So, perhaps human beings can actually invent and create new complex linguistic forms which can eventually capture and communicate even the most wild ideas. But, it remains to be seen. I just seem to think that language eventually increases in complexity along with the level of our abstractions. It just seems to take time.

Or, perhaps our current thoughts are so mathematically and logically complex that words are indeed no longer sufficient. I personally just think we need the time to sufficiently develop linguistic representations of even our most crazy and abstract notions—such as the bending of space and time, black holes, infinite densities, and odd expansions of space in some kind of odd vacuum.

 

[Marbas]

Language is the basis of abstract thought. So your language may help or hinder to a certain extent, thought.

this is the reason for Mathematics, and other Logical languages.

That's actually completely incorrect. And any Geometer would probably be very amused. There are several ways people think when working mathematically. Spatially, Semantically*, and Conceptually. There's actually a distinction between working with the raw abstract concept, and working semantically. And it will show in a mathematician's style if they prefer one over the other.


*The phrase might actually by syntactically. Also, a difference might be drawn between working analytically and syntactically. But, it's been too long since reading those papers for me to remember.

 

[Jah]

Hmm. you make a valid point.
But Mathematics may be seen as a written language for communicating these feelings of space and whatelse you may conceptualize the calculations as.
But still, I do believe that calling them languages needs not necessarily be wrong, but perhaps merely imprecise. They are, after all, models to communicate something which normal language has difficulty with. Created to improve our ways of representing the world around us and deepen our understanding as well as our ability to communicate this understanding.


Though we do have legit languages that are completely based upon logic.
Lojban is an example of that. (formerly Loglan - logical language.)
http://www.lojban.org/no/publications/level0/brochure/lojbanmo.html

 

[Maverick]

I recently thought about how language can I) guide our thoughts II) limit/restrain our thoughts III) focus/clarify our thoughts IV) aid in communication of thoughts (obviously). Yet, it also occurred to me that language might serve as a barrier against free-flowing thinking; for instance, if you see an off-colored wall that you cannot put a color to, you may be unable to clearly describe it using the language(s) you use which would in turn leave you in a muddle of thoughts as to what the wall is. So, the obvious questions seem to be: I) Does language limit our thinking, and does it represent what we know? II) Would one that knows no language be unable to "think" clearly/coherently?

Language is not just a way to express thoughts so that thoughts directly are not or slightly affected by expression. but language is also the comprehensible words or sounds and I think that comprises the greatest and most important part.
I think language is an inevitable interdependent consequent of thinking process.