Languages and Thought

rufio, I'm not suggesting that humans are biologically different from each other at birth. I think that as humans learn language, neural pathways in their brains develop to handle that learning, and that the neural pathways developed differ from language to language, depending on the grammar and structure of that language.

Children exposed to more than one language during that development period develop the pathways for more than one language.

After the period of such development, other languages can be learned, but new pathways are not created in the same way. So, the pathways that are there must be used to handle the new language, and they are not the same as the pathways of a native speaker of the new language.

Think, perhaps, of a forest. The tribe that grew up in the forest knows how to get from the village to the fresh water, and to the place where the best fruit grows, and to the caves. After a while there are trails in the forest leading between these places.

A new group of people moves in. They need to find the sandy beach, and the place where the deer graze, and the place where the strongest vines can be found.

The new people use the trails blazed by the original people. This gets them close to where they want to go, then they must force their way through the underbrush to get to their goal. They make paths too, but their paths are never as wide or as clear as the originals, simply because they haven't been there as long. And the pathways are not as direct, because they utilize the original clear paths as far as they can, and then veer off to the goal.

I'm not a scholar of linguistic theory, only an interested layperson. But what I have read (and it goes beyond Pinker, but not as far as Chomsky) leads me to these thoughts.

On another aspect, I recently read that most people think, in part, by mentally verbalizing. They also use mental imagery when they think. It stands to reason that if you think by verbalizing, the structure of that verbalization will affect your thinking...

Does anybody know about the structure of Japanese? There are things about it that are radically different from English (like no tenses, no pronouns, something... I forget). Thinking about the differences there might help clarify some of what we're talking about.

I'm interested to hear more thoughts on this subject. But I'd like to remind people that culture has a very strong influence on how people think (I suspect the strongest). As I ventured further into the world, I was initially shocked and later disappointed that I could hear my exact thoughts and opinions being preproduced by fellow Scots - I was disappointed because I wondered "Am I a person - an individual - or just some echo of my culture and country?".

Language is a medium for ideas, values, and self-expression. You'll find that philosophers like Confusious and Aristotle have had a big influence on how the east and the west view their values and ultimately their 'self'.

My 'self' changed radically when I started investigating Buddhist philosophy. I learned a new way of thinking.

Iain

I had a similarly eerie experience. I had often thought myself to be an "outsider," because i grew up in a small German/WASP Protestant town, and I'm what Americans call an Irish Catholic.

Then i went to Ireland . . . and it was as though i knew everyone around me already. That culture of which you speak DDuck, is portable.

I know you're not suggesting anything about birth. You're suggesting that our biology radically alters after birth, upon learning language. This is simply not the case. You may be more used to the sounds or words of one language, but that is no reason that you can't learn others, and it certainly doesn't affect the way you think.

In your example, the paths of the beach-people would eventually become as wide as the original paths, and furthermore, the original paths would become overgrown and unusable if left alone for too long. Learning a language does not permanenty seal your fate - anything in the realm of human ability is still open to you.

I've never heard any speculations on how people think from anyone qualified to give them, so I wouldn't try to say how people think. I know I don't think in words as such unless I'm trying to see how something will sound, and I rarely think in pictures unless I'm trying to remember how something looked. Mostly I just think by relating ideas to each other, and I'd expect it to be a similar process for other human beings. But like I said, no one really knows.

I don't know anything about the structure of Japanese, but your post reminded me of an exercise I did in linguistics last semester on Japanese morphology - one of these, we post the words in IPA and their translations, and you determined what the individual morphemes are things. I thought it was interesting, because not only were tenses and verb roots included in the morphemes, but also things like passiveness and causation. I went and hunted around for the book, and here it is if you're interested - I don't know if this is what you're referring to, but it's interesting all the same: (X, Y, and Z are nonspecific placeholders here)

[tabeta] "X ate Y"
[aketa] "X opened Y"
[tabesaseta] "X made Y eat Z"
[akesaseta] "X made Y open Z"
[taberareta] "X was eaten"
[akerareta] "X was opened"
[tabesaserareta] "X was made to eat Y"
[akesaserareta] "X was made to open Y"
[tabesasenai] "X doesn't/won't make Y eat Z"
[tabenai] "X doesn't/won't eat Y"
[tabesaserareru] "X is/will be made to eat Y"

It doesn't mention pronouns, so you might be right about that, I don't know. I would like to point out, however, that despite it's difference to English, it is relatively easy for English-speakers to isolate the morphemes from those examples, and that exercise was a lot easier than the German one for determining the marker for number alone - and German is closer to English.

I lost interest right around the time you started the game so I haven't followed this thread, but who is talking about biological changes? Is this another straw man?



Complete utter hogwash. I'll wait to see you defend this.

He's talking about brains altering. I'd consider that "biological changes". What did you think it was?

My only defense to that second statement, craven, is that there is no evidence at all to the contrary. The idea had never even entered into my mind because I saw no reason to believe it. What reason do YOU have for bringing it up for discussion at all?

Much wisdom has already been given on this thread.

I concur with Rosbourne's original premise that "language" does affect the mind, and after Wittgenstein, even ideolects or sublanguage divisions can be significant. I agree that "circumlocution" is an insufficient condition for a rejection of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. The corollary, that a "common language" would result in common thinking is perhaps illustrated by the commonality in the restricted domain of "the language of mathematics" and "science".

Pinkers popularist claim that the similarities between minds are more significant than their differences reflects his acceptance of linguistic universals over linguistic diversity. However this is merely to state we might all start with the same hardware. But it is well known that parts of the brain can atrophy if not exercised at critical periods during maturation and conversely we could argue that particular "exercise" (as in ballet) would render the brain prone to operate more efficiently in " familiar program mode" perhaps with strengthened neural pathways. Pinker follows Chomsky, and Chomsky was concerned with "competence" not "performance".

Rufio,

Do you consider "opening the mind" a biological change?



Wrong, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.



I think you are 19 years old. So I'll give 19 reasons. They will be haphazard and disjointed because I have to pee. Please read and respond to this without using language so we can gauge the difference.

1) For the rest of this discussion do not use language while thinking, see if the null hypothesis makes a difference in your thinking.

2) Language reifies abstract concepts. Some concepts won't even be introduced to said thinking without language.

3) Language facilitates communication. Communication is essential to learning. Ergo, language effects learning.

Learning effects thinking. I strongly recommend learning, it's a good thing.

4) Language contains logical operators, some of them would not be as easily learned without language. The increased facility represents a change in thought as well as the aquisition of mechanisms that will further change thought.

5) Language represents condensed learning.

"A picture is worth 1,000 words"

Now express that using only pictures.

6) Language structure reflects on sociology and life in general. I didn't know my ass was feminine till I had to say "minha bunda".

7) Language brings distance close. Try to introduce the concept of a heart attack to someone with no knowledge of it without language.

8) Language structure changes thinking. Peoples with less rigid languages tend to think less rigidly.

9) Language is itself a realm of knowledge whose introduction to the brain represents another realm explored. The difference between not exploring that realm and exploring that realm is a... change.

10) Without language and the subsequent lessened ability to communicate comparison is made more difficult. The facilitation of comparison changes the way we think by introducing perspectives that we would not have otherwise considered.

11) Before the human learns language all thought is abstract and sensory. Once language is introduced this changed. Note the word "changes".

12) Language makes diologue more meaningful, meaningful dialogue enhances imagination.

13) Social constructs often depend on language. Without thse social constructs people tend to thinka nd behave differently.

14) Make a law without using language.

15) Communicate across the globe without using language.

16) Read a book without using language.

17) THINK without using language.

18) The activities that are made possible or facilitated through language are experiences. Experiences can change the way you think.

19) The nuance of language is the only way to express the nuance of life. Without language expression and perception is less nuanced. LEarning language nuances perception and fortifies lateral thinking.

Your contention that language does not change the way we think is as absurd as saying education doesn't change teh way we think.

You've made me consider that this can be true for some but I contend that the overwhelming majority are cut of a different cloth and tend to learn. Learning changes the way we think.

Language introduces concepts and learning that are otherwise more difficult or impossible to convey. Even if the possibility exists the increased difficulty means without language the periodicity of said aquisition would be altered.

Learning changes the way you think. Think of it this way:

A mind is like a computer. There is initial capacity in the form of hardware limitations. CPU represents the ability to process thought, RAM represents the ability to maintain a certain amount of data for calculations. The HD represents the sensory input.

All the sensory input is saved.

So, can a computer be improved upon without changing hardware (i.e. biology)? YES!

If you compress data the RAM can hold more. Language represents a compression of abstract sensory input.

If you optimize the RAM memory management is improved and processes are subsequently improved.

The processing power might not change, but shortcuts are learned. Through said shortcuts amelioration of the processes is acheived.

Sure, a programming language migth not change hardware, but it sure as hell changes the way the hardware works.

Language improves memory. But standardizing the labels for what would otherwise be abstract and difficult to collate data.

Facilitation of memory changes the way we think. One reason language and memory are related is because of the way language affects memory.

Try to remember abstract sensory input. Try to recall a small. Then try to recall something said to you.

One will be recalled with far greater accuracy than the other.

Recollection and the facilitation of it changes the way we think.

Please upgrade your operating system.

Parts of the brain can atrophy, but those are the parts that allow you to learn ANY human language, not specific ones. If you don't excersize whatever part of the brain you think deals with some sort of specific linguistic element of some langauge (like a noun case, or a tense, or some morphological process, there's no reason you can't learn it later. If there are people who are unable to learn specifics of other languages after not being immediately exposed to them, I haven't heard about it.

I don't see and haven't heard of any reason why the idea that language changes our minds is an idea we should consider. Since people here seem to know more about that than I do I was hoping they could tell me. Apparently they would rather wallow in their own self-importance.

Express "self-importance" without language and then we'll talk.

another big one. Learning to read irreversibly changes cognition of a spatial nature. This difference in sensory input and the processing of it is profound.

Hey, I just noticed your sig, Craven. That's pretty cool.

Language is our mode of expression to others, craven. I can express self-importance to myself without language, but as of yet, I don't have a way of doing it for you. I'd draw you a picture, but I'm no artist and anyway I don't have a scanner.

I didn't see your first post so let me get to that.

"Opening the mind" is not a biological change, at least not that way that people usually mean it. I'm talking about the change in potential that linguistic determinists usually advocate.

"Language reifies abstract concepts. Some concepts won't even be introduced to said thinking without language."

One of these abstract concepts is the concept of causality. Not only does it not require language to express it, it's so instinctual in our minds that it's a part of language before we even know enough language to express it. As it is based on abstract concepts, language would need other language to express it - hopefully you see the circularity of the that arguement. I believe it was the Logic Positivists who tried to get rid of abstract ideas in language. They failed. I think that's significant, don't you?

"Language facilitates communication. Communication is essential to learning. Ergo, language effects learning."

I agree. In fact, I've already elaborated on the role of communication in learning. However, learning things doesn't affect your potential to learn other things.

"Language contains logical operators, some of them would not be as easily learned without language."

This I hadn't heard. Do you have a source for it? Also, the ease at which you can do something doesn't change whether or not you have the potential to be able to do it at all.

"I didn't know my ass was feminine till I had to say "minha bunda"."

Your ass isn't feminine. Language doesn't chance that fact.

""A picture is worth 1,000 words"

Now express that using only pictures."

Actually, I just thought of a way to. But that doesn't matter, since I can express it to myself using neither language nor pictures.

"Try to introduce the concept of a heart attack to someone with no knowledge of it without language."

I've seen videos and powerpoint presentations that were actually much more informative than a simple description of a heart attack.

"Language structure changes thinking. Peoples with less rigid languages tend to think less rigidly."

Again, source? What constitutes "rigid" exactly?
Language is itself a realm of knowledge whose introduction to the brain represents another realm explored. The difference between not exploring that realm and exploring that realm is a... change."

I don't deny that it does.

"Without language and the subsequent lessened ability to communicate comparison is made more difficult."

Everything is made more difficult when you lack a means of communication."

"Before the human learns language all thought is abstract and sensory. Once language is introduced this changed."

To what? Do you think in some way that's not abstract or sensory? I'm confused.

"Language makes diologue more meaningful, meaningful dialogue enhances imagination."

I don't need language to find meaning, just to find conversation.

"Social constructs often depend on language."

Of course. Language is an aspect of culture.

"Make a law without using language."

About what?

"Communicate across the globe without using language."

Ever heard of smiling? Or those little plaques they put on bathrooms with the pictrures of men and women?

"Read a book without using language."

Find me a book that doesn't already have language in it and I will.

"THINK without using language."

I do that all the time anyway.

"The activities that are made possible or facilitated through language are experiences. Experiences can change the way you think."

Experiences change what I think. not the way I think it.

"The nuance of language is the only way to express the nuance of life. Without language expression and perception is less nuanced."

I can express (to myself) and understand every meaning in my language without the use of language, and more besides.

Concepts are not ways of thinking - they are things that you can think about to help understand things. That is not the same thing.

I like your computer analogy, but there is no known limit to the amount of information your brain can hold. If there is one, I haven't heard about it. I also don't see how the programming language is anlagous to our language - it's used in completely different ways.

"Language improves memory. But standardizing the labels for what would otherwise be abstract and difficult to collate data."

I'll give you that. It does help organization to associate thoughts with words.

"Facilitation of memory changes the way we think."

How? Source?

I can't remember exact things that people say to me - but I remember what they meant. I think that's significant. A "small" is not an abstract concept that I know about.

Ok now your sig is different so nevermind.

I have to go eat. I'll be back later. I probably have to go write an essay in Spanish though. Good thing my Spanish-speaking abilities haven't atropied in all those years that I didn't speak Spanish.

<<One of these abstract concepts is the concept of causality. Not only does it not require language to express it, it's so instinctual in our minds that it's a part of language before we even know enough language to express it.>>

State the source for this please.

You don't think causality is an abstract concept?

Anyway, the Logical Positivists are here:

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/logical-positivism.html

Biochemistry is not a static matter, it is a process. Various biochemical cycles are fed by compounds/ions coming in, combining into news of some apprehension, a word, a thought delineated into words, a vision. The feed is churned through complex processes and there is... output, so much of this or that chemical component. which will again trigger or shut off another route. The body is a system in continuous flux. Of course incoming words change perceived thought, the more so if they are offshoots of languages with different structural systems.

I'm trying, but in order to facilitate this I will have to use language. It makes a difference to me.



Well being divested of language certainly would impair that exchange, you cede that in passing but let's consider your scenario as well.

Rufio, express it to yourself. Try it. Try for, say, five minutes without using language and then try it again using language and see if you notice a difference. Language is almost inexorable from your thought, you will have difficulty exploring something in-depth without language creeping in.. See is there is a difference, and if there is said difference in your thinking is a change wrought through the ability to think using language.



Yes, "opening the mind" is not biological, but why do you equate "change potential" with biological? Same difference. My point is that you infer that a biological change is being discussed when improvements in the thought process are the subject. To once again use the computer analogy you are assuming that the processes can't be altered without a change in hardware.



Not really. I think it's merely a recollected anecdote that shares a few keywords. Recollected anecdotes are less easily shared without language I note :wink:



And here, you go wrong.

Learning a "learning technique" should improve the ability to learn. That's just one example.

When I learned to use numbers spatially after seeing them in language I quite literally changed the way I used numbers, reading them I developed a system of using their corners and intersections to think about mathematics spatially. That's just one more example.

The collective learning of mankind enables us to progress to higher levels of learning, language is essential to this. In the most literal ways language facilitates the acquisition of knowledge. It's a code through which life is standardized and condensed. Recorded knowledge provides a network of thinking. Without language the recording and dissemination of language would be impaired.

Since you are on the internet, a network based on languages of all sorts I'll use the internet as an example.

By asserting that language does not change the way we think you are in effect saying that programming languages do not effect the way a computer calculates.

Elsewhere you have asserted that through the internet you seek to broaden your horizons and learn. I imagine that without the use of language you would acquire and process knowledge at a much slower rate. Without data recorded in language your learning would be greatly hindered.



I believe your ratiocination on this thread should not be aided by knowledge recorded through the use of language (source). As you assert that it makes no change in said ratiocination I'm sure you find this fair.



This is a very crucial difference. You are very much correct that facility ≠ possibility. But in another thread I noted that logic is multifaceted, and finding an axiom and clinging to it too steadfastly is not going to help when you apply it to situations in which the axiom has no relevance.

The crucial step you've made is that while it's true that difficulty and possibility are not mutually exclusive you err in asserting that ease "doesn't affect the way our mind works".

You are right in that it's not the difference between possibility and impossibility, but very basic logic would illustrate that this does not mean no change is made in the process when the process is facilitated. To be an ass and use language again, "facilitate" is a descriptor (adjective) and implies that there can be a difference.



I'm on the "pro-language" side so I get to do this:

Source please. ;-)



Does it matter (as it relates to how you'd think and feel) if you had only yourself to talk to?



I am certain that language was used in the creation of said visual aids.



I just attempted to give you the source without using language. I was not successful in influencing your thought without using language.



Does what? I only used "to be" verbs. If both of us were using the standardization of language that exchange might have been improved (changed).



Even thought? Cause that would be the much maligned change.



It's changed to the use and dependence on thought to codify the abstract sensory input.

For example, a baby will think of things using the sensations and direct recollection of sensory input in a string of incoherent thought. Once language is introduced the baby will begin to codify the sensory input using the standardization and condensed definitions that language brings.

This organizes (read changes) thought.



Culture doesn't change thought either? How rigid is your thought to imagine thinking so immobile?



< gestures frantically without using language, rufio notices no difference >



I have heard (through the use of language) of said visual aids. Communication was needed to impart their significance and in my case this was done with language. In any case have you heard of "wildly off topic"?

You are now communicating across the globe, positing your thoughts alongside that of others, and I asked how you would do this without language.

You brought up bathroom signs. Let's ignore the limitations of distance that these objects have and imagine what sort of exchange we would find meaningful using bathroom signals. I image a change in the degree of interest in the conversation. I also imagine it being a short exchange.



Try some pop lyrics.



Not "all" the time. But that's a figure of speech from the English language and I should reconsider (read think about it and approach it differently) with the understanding that it was a linguistic tool.



Not true, perspective can change the way you think about something. The perspective of two separate individuals thinking about the same subject can greatly affect the way they think about it.



Don't give up on language yet. I fear mankind is losing you to a languageless existence. I see signs of it already. Join us fans of language.... tee hee



Again the "Concepts ≠ means therefore concepts never change means™" thinking.

Acquired concepts and data can change the way you process data (read think). For example, learning the process of elimination enables thinking at early stages to process some problems and solve them where they would otherwise have been more difficult. This implies a change.



Both use variables to define logical criteria. Without the structure the processes are not performed in the same manner.



Do you give me that said help implies a difference? A change? Cause you've given it all up with that sole exception. < pries at the steadfast grip >



Without language? How?



It means something similar to "little", but use of synonyms would be a procedure that ameliorates thinking so I guess that's not fair use. ;-)

Rufio,

I've been unfair with the use of the language card to deny sources. It's a pretext because I'm not a fan of source requests for the support of a logical argument. I think they have better relevance when conforming the veracity of a happening on which arguments are based.

I had a simple point that could have been made just as easily by stating it outright. Language facilitates communication, communication greatly facilitates learning, learning improves thinking.

But since you've maligned language so badly and Mr. Recorded Data is feeling so useless and unwanted I get to do it one more time.

An interesting point at which the computer/brain analogy falls apart is that the computer does not self-generate.

Some argue that as the human brain's cells develop their use can change the way they develop, think of it like a connection under construction whose use can have a say in the development.

It's a tentative theory so a source wouldn't have helped much anyway but Mr Source is weeping unabashedly in the corner and can't be coaxed onto the thread.

I hate this forum. I spent like an hour typing a response, and it logged me out and it's all GONE!!!

I'm going to sleep.

earlier in the thread there was a brief discussion about whether language was necessary for memory.

I saw a fascinating programme on the development of children from birth (Robert Winston on BBC TV) a year or so ago in which newborn babies were shown things on a screen - like 3 faces, the screen was hidden and then shown again with only 2 faces - the new born babies were surprised and looked for the 'missing'one so a memory and ability to count without language was already present.