I was wondering about how language and thought seem tied up together. I can't image not knowing a language. What would a person who didn't know any language be like? How intelligent can a person with no language become? How big of a barrier would that be?

Comments

If this question has gone unanswered for a while, that isn't because it is an uninteresting one. On the contrary! It raises a whole range of deep and difficult issues that have been the subject of a vast amount of discussion (from cognitive psychologists as well as arm-chair philosophers) for years. So I hesitate to plunge in. But still, since no one else has responded yet, let me get the ball rolling -- though these remarks are no more than a very preliminary sorting out of some of the issues.

For we need to clarify what is meant here by (1) "language", (2) "thought", and (3) "tied up together".

(1) What is meant by "language"? A shared natural language like English, or Welsh, or Sanskrit? Or might we more generously count as a language any system of representations which has a syntax (i.e. there are structural rules determining which arrays of elements from system are allowed) and a semantics (there are rules determining what these arrays mean)? Some have argued that we have an innate "language of thought" which is distinct from any learnt natural language.

(2) What is meant by "thought"? Are we talking here of discursive thought (whether we are thinking aloud or to ourselves), as when we are puzzling through some problem, doing a mathematical calculation, trying to decide what to do. This is thought as a conscious activity. Or are we talking here of thought in e.g. the sense of a standing belief (a continuing state rather than an activity)? For example, one thing you no doubt think is that penguins don't wear overcoats in the wild. But before you just read that, that thought probably wasn't "at the front of your mind", you weren't consciously dwelling on penguins! -- yet it is something you've no doubt believed for years.

(3) What is meant by "tied up together". Are we talking here about some kind of priori necessity -- what just has to be the case as matter of conceptual necessity? Or are we talking about some kind natural necessity -- what has to be the case for human beings, or indeed for beings sufficiently like us, given the way that our sort of cognitive system works?

So that gives us eight different questions: is thought (in one sense or the other) tied up with (in an apriori way or as a matter of natural necessity) with language (natural language or some other kind of a representational system)?

You might argue, for example, that conscious discursive thought requires as a matter of a priori necessity the use of some system of representations, and as a matter of natural necessity (given how we are built) it in fact requires a natural language. On the other hand, perhaps beliefs don't require that sort of representational system at all. However, what the various possible dependencies are is much disputed.

For a way further into these issues, can I recommend Peter Carruthers, Language, Thought and Consciousness (CUP, 1996). My one-time colleague writes with quite exceptional clarity, and the first two chapters of his book, 'The geography of the issues', 'Which language do we think with?' are an excellent place to start.

Read another response by Peter Smith

Read another response about Language, Mind