the language instinct [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

verybaddmom

03-30-2004, 11:26 PM

Interesting idea simon,
i find the aquisition of language fascinating....but as far as the ability to think without language...tough. according to the liguistic relativity hypothesis, the language that we learn not only influences, but also determnes what we are capable of thinking...
It has been suggested then, that languages that lack a past tense will have speakers that will have a difficult time with the concept of the past.
I think that theory is much too restrcitive, in that maybe the language that we learn may influence how we think, but we are not definitively restricted by it.

i think that without language humans are still capable of thought because the thinking that is done in language is actually only one form of thought. there are still imaginal thoughts, consisting of images, and motoric thought, which relates to mental representations of motor movements. So while prepostitional thought is dependent on the symbols of language, it is certainly not the only way to think.

anyhow, that's just what i think....;)

imthefoolonthehill

03-31-2004, 12:19 AM

as demonstrated with our buddy Robert E. Lee. (forum member, not historical figure) Thought processes are NOT required for language.

Koa

03-31-2004, 06:00 AM

(lol fool...)

This topic is a very 'hot' one among languages freak... I'm not really sure what I think but I guess thought is possible without language... but language is the expression of it...
To some extent, there muct be some sort of relationship between language and way of thinking, because different languages can express the same concept in many different ways... (for example in Russian there's not really a simple word as 'go', cos when you say 'go' you have to choose between a wide range of verbs which express the direction of the movement (one directione/more than one...) and the way (walking/transport/fly...)... So I wonder how a Russian feels when dealing with other languages...). And often I find a concept can be expressed 'better' in a language than in another... That's why translation can be the most frustrating of tasks... Am i going off-topic? Simon, you're too new to know the goldn rule: don't get me started on languages! :D (I can also end up becoming an annoying show-off...)

Lara

03-31-2004, 07:17 AM

Consider an infant, they have thought, but without language formation, that thought is minimal. The thought process grows and develops along with the formation of language, and physical growth.

When we think in our heads, do we not think in the form of words?

Shea

03-31-2004, 09:34 AM

Hmmm, if we don't need language, then do animals think? Then again, they communicate but not with languages. Does that mean that they think because they communicate even though they don't have a language?

Sancho

03-31-2004, 12:49 PM

I think that language may even restrict our thoughts to a certain extent. By formulating thoughts into language it may actually be like filtering thoughts through language. I think I may be touching on another thread I was reading on this forum, but to a certain extent do you guys think that the primary language we speak leads us towards certain opinions, personality, or problem solving styles?

emily655321

03-31-2004, 03:32 PM

That's a good one, Sancho. I agree that language can sometimes be restrictive to thought. Perhaps, however, to linear thinkers (you know, A to B to C kind of thinking) it's easier to think in linguistic terms -- or for people who are oral/aural thinkers.

I (for the purpose of an example) am *not* a linear thinker. For me, a thought usually forms as a complete concept, like a big Celtic knot - something like a cross between an image and a pure abstract thought. Then, to articulate that thought, I have to follow all the little strands through it and separate it into isolated ideas so it can get passed on to another part of my brain and have language applied to it. And in addition to that, at any one time I have about four different trains of thought going on, but only one at a time can receive the attention of the language center of my brain. (Then, when I open my mouth, watch out, cause they all try to squeeze out at once and I ramble from here to there like crazy.)

My point being: my learned language skills can't be what dictate what kinds of thought I'm capable of, because I have a lot of thoughts that simply can't be expressed verbally. Sometimes it's like trying to translate the emotions behind a symphony into binary code.

Another thing to consider is this: Hebrew, for instance, has no words to express abstract ideas; so instead of saying you can "appreciate" an idea, you would use the word "taste" (that's where we get the translation "taste and see the goodness of the Lord" in the psalm). However, that obviously doesn't mean that people for whom Hebrew was their first language were unable to think in abstract terms. After all, we're talking about the people who had the single greatest influence on the theology of the modern world.

Whew! Sorry (can you tell I get into this topic too? :p)

Koa

03-31-2004, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Sancho
I think that language may even restrict our thoughts to a certain extent. By formulating thoughts into language it may actually be like filtering thoughts through language. I think I may be touching on another thread I was reading on this forum, but to a certain extent do you guys think that the primary language we speak leads us towards certain opinions, personality, or problem solving styles?

Not really, but as I said some concepts can be expressed more effectively in a language than in another.... It doesnt shape the mind of people, but sometimes you learn an expression in another language that makes you realise that you didnt have such a perfect expression for your thought in your own language.

atiguhya padma

03-31-2004, 06:39 PM

Imagine how language evolved. It probably developed from monosyllabic noise. Someone somewhere understood an emotion that someone else had when they made a monosyllabic sound. But if that was all there was to it, language would never have developed. So somebody realised the potential of knowing someone else's internal emotional state. That enabled them, after some time, to predict their subsequent behaviour. Once this caught on, a network of communication would slowly develop, until over time, this was formalised into a structured sequence of sound and meaning. Of course, this description is extremely simplified, but generally, this is probably what happened.

Language is a tool that helps us to abstract and categorise things in our environment. But if it is the case, as Wittgenstein seems to suggest, that language could not develop without a basic knowledge of the existence of other people and their minds, then somehow we had ideas of abstract concepts before language. Is it possible to have abstract concepts without a thought process? If language did develop as I have suggested, then before language occurred, someone 'understood' concepts like 'other people', 'other minds', 'internal states', 'emotions' etc. I find it difficult to imagine such concepts without a thought process occurring.

However, it is a difficult subject to think about, and as I'm currently suffering from a very bad cold, my thought might not be quite up to it at the moment!!

AP

Stanislaw

03-31-2004, 06:50 PM

I believe that communication can occure with out thought, However a lack of communication does not mean that there is no thought. For example a picture can communicat a great deal but contains no thought, however a hermit who does not communicat with the outside world still has thought, he just chooses not to communicate.

simon

03-31-2004, 10:36 PM

I think it's hard to discuss language becuase you have to do it through language, and then you start thinking about your thoughts and whether or not they are in words or pictures or what not, and then there's just total confusion.

I was reading part of this book by this linguist, Steven Pinker, and he tried to prove that there is a language of thought called Mentalese, inside our heads, that differs from the language of communication. I'm not sure of it's existence but he poses some examples like a man who didn't know how to speak, but was able to grasp concepts like numbers. My question is was the reason he was able to grasp the concept becuase he was communicating that he had grasped the concept, meaning that with learning communication he had learned thought process? But then you have to wonder how the guy survived, and ate, didn't he have to think to find food and shelter, and what happened when he met other humans?

Does any of that make sense?

avid_reader

03-31-2004, 11:36 PM

Language is a way of communicating one's thoughts to another, right ? In that way every thinking being , every being which has consciousness , even a dog or a flea , has some language - some way to communicate to other beings. But what is ultimately getting communicated or understood , is much lesser that what the original thought was. I guess thats the reason why we cant define love , we cant define or convince somebody about God , we cant exactly define ecstasy , joy or utter sadness.
i think thats why i feel happy when i read old poems . there are words , now deprecated , used to mean some feeling which we just had in our minds ....
whatever .. hope u are getting what i'm saying !!

emily655321

03-31-2004, 11:39 PM

Like so totally, for sure. (See, as I just demonstrated that language CAN exist without thought ;)) "Mentalese" sounds like overanalyzing the obvious, while simultaneously not grasping the concept at all! Poor Steven Pinker. Perhaps a good percentage of the time people should really be abstaining from language completely and exploring their other ways of understanding the universe, rather than approaching the mind like a foreign language to be translated.

amuse

04-01-2004, 12:22 AM

it's interesting, one of my best friends is from panama, and i took spanish recently; asked her about the 14 different verb tenses in the spanish language and how hard was it to learn english - she said it feels like it's "missing something" that was the only way she could explain it - and she has a degree in english and teaches both languages to high school students. i wish i had some grasp of what she was getting at, because i had never found my native language lacking...but now i do - a sort of "what if?"

Koa

04-01-2004, 06:23 AM

That's why I consider English grammatically very easy... My English ex-whatver saw me like some sort of genius cos I can keep in mind all the Italian tenses (which are similar to the Spanish)...while it's not like I keep them in mind really...they're there cos they're my naitve way of expression... While English has not much inflection in its verbs really... And don't get me started about Russian verbs...they're hell for a non-slavic speaker, and surely the Russians feel our verbs lack something, cos theirs are much more precise: like the example I made about verbs of motion, or like they have prefixes that indicate the beginning of the action while we use another verb... or they even have a word which means 'talk while you're doing something else'!!!
This is what i was meaning when i said that different languages may feel richer in a sense and poorer in another, cos they express things in different ways, and it's sometimes hard to grasp the way of thinking of the other language.

Anyway, back on language/thought... think of the aphasics (--> people that have an illness where they can't speak): it's not like they don't think... !

Koa

04-01-2004, 06:28 AM

Been trying to edit but the forum is playing up... :(

That's why I consider English grammatically very easy... My English ex-whatever saw me like some sort of genius cos I can keep in mind all the Italian tenses (which are similar to the Spanish)...while it's not like I keep them in mind really...they're there cos they're my naitve way of expression... While English has not such variety (even if ti does have some more precise sides imo) nor much inflection in its verbs really... And don't get me started about Russian verbs...they're hell for a non-slavic speaker, and surely the Russians feel our verbs lack something, cos theirs are much more precise: like the example I made about verbs of motion, or like they have prefixes that indicate the beginning of the action while we use another verb... or they even have a word which means 'talk while you're doing something else'!!!
This is what i was meaning when i said that different languages may feel richer in a sense and poorer in another, cos they express things in different ways, and it's sometimes hard to grasp the way of thinking of the other language.

Anyway, back on language/thought... think of the aphasics (--> people that have an illness where they can't speak): it's not like they don't think... !

Sancho

04-01-2004, 02:47 PM

Great thread! Emily, I enjoyed your post; it was thought provoking for me. You obviously have thought in depth about this subject. Sadly I do not understand Hebrew. I wish I did, since as you mentioned, the thoughts, philosophy, history, and faith put forth in the Hebrew Bible has had a tremendous impact on the world in the last few of thousand years.
- Koa, linguist extraordinaire, I think you’re right so I’ll defer to your judgment. I do believe, however, that our primary language does influence our thoughts some what, if only slightly. I hate to stereotype, but Germans, to me, seem stoic, the French cultured and nuanced the Spanish passionate I’ll leave the Italians to you. I know I shouldn’t have written that last sentence, it was poorly thought out and simple. I’ll open myself up to a thorough thrashing now.
In English, being a mixed language, our legal terms are mostly Latin based; our cultured terms mostly French based (Compliments of the Normans) and our Earthy terms mostly Germanic Anglo (like, well – “earth”) We don’t eat a slice of cow (Anglo) but we consume the cuisine of beef (French based). Cow – Beef, Pig – Pork, Deer – Venison. Hey this is fun.
- AP, how’d you learn so much stuff? Hope you’re feeling better. I read something last week about a new theory in human evolution. Apparently some scientists now believe that about 2.5 million years ago a mutation made the jaw bone of our ancestor’s weaker thus requiring the development of a larger brain.
- Stan, communication without thought; excellent post!
- Verb tenses: certain Native American languages have only one verb tense. However they indicate present tense by pointing to the ground; future tense by pointing to the horizon and past tense by pointing over their shoulder. Which brings up my next question: Do you guys think that some languages are more complex than others? Btw, sorry this post is so disjointed. I’m in a hurry and trying to get out of the door on a 6 day trip. Work stinks

Koa

04-01-2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Sancho
- Koa, linguist extraordinaire, I think you’re right so I’ll defer to your judgment. I do believe, however, that our primary language does influence our thoughts some what, if only slightly. I hate to stereotype, but Germans, to me, seem stoic, the French cultured and nuanced the Spanish passionate I’ll leave the Italians to you. I know I shouldn’t have written that last sentence, it was poorly thought out and simple. I’ll open myself up to a thorough thrashing now.

Well sorry but it does seem a bit stereotyped... i really really don't feel that... As i said, in my opinion the influence can be in the way we relate to things and express them... I iwhs I could think of an example of the times when I thought 'hey, this really sounds much better in English', though I DID have that thought in my mind anyway, just I had a poorer way to express it in my language...

Yeah the English vocabluary is pretty varied, I enjoy to find pairs of word that have the same meaning (unless it changes slightly and noone ever told me) but different root: heaven/paradise (italian: paradiso), wish/desire (italian: desiderio) and so on... :D

I read that also some Asian language don't express the concept of time with senses, but there are no languages that are more advanced than others: all of them can express every concept, in one way or another...at least for the main concepts, cos there are some that are related to the local life... Lots of languages don't have articles, like the slavic ones, but they express the cathegory of determinatess (??? the english 'the') or indeterminatess (the english 'a') in other ways, like putting the subject at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.... and they absolutely dont feel the need of having articles... Languages are so incredibly varied, it's frustrating not to have the possibility to have at least a glimpse of them all...

emily655321

04-02-2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Sancho
Great thread! Emily, I enjoyed your post; it was thought provoking for me. You obviously have thought in depth about this subject. Sadly I do not understand Hebrew. I wish I did, since as you mentioned, the thoughts, philosophy, history, and faith put forth in the Hebrew Bible has had a tremendous impact on the world in the last few of thousand years.

Thanks Sancho. I don't know Hebrew either, but I have a Jewish friend and things he's mentioned about the language have me really interested in learning it.... I know, I can get quite wordy -- as I've said before, overanalysis is my forte (or weakness. Take your pick). Probably because of the "Celtic knot" thing; one thought doesn't produce another thought, it produces a general feeling encompassing zillions of thoughts. (Hyperbole is my other weakness, btw ;)) Hence, I'm rarely without a strong opinion on a subject.... Anyway, I'm finding this thread fascinating too. Learning so much about languages from Koa, but some of the opinions here, especially, are really thought-provoking.

And Koa, to add to your comment about Asian languages -- I unfortunately don't know any yet, but my (incredible, miss-him-so-much, prof favorite) high school English teacher said since Chinese characters are mostly literal images, that tenses, adjectives, and most abstract ideas are communicated through the specific arrangements of nouns and verbs. I only have a vague concept of how it must work (I hope I'm not way off), but for instance: the tense of a verb may be determined by the placement of the noun's adjective, or something like that, since there is no change in their appearance or pronunciation. I suppose it's a lot like what you said about Slavic languages and the placement of words substituting for articles. (Sorry, "substituting" sounds sort of demeaning, but -- ironically -- I couldn't think of a better word.)

And just as an afterthought: ...In this sense I can certainly understand how -- while not necessarily the way we think, -- the way we process ideas might sometimes be related to how our language conditions us to think about the world around us. What I mean is... if in the west our thoughts while watching a raging storm at sea might be "passion, fury, embodiment of the power of the universe," and other such abstracts, a person whose language uses literal terms to describe emotion might think things like, "a cold volcanic eruption, a living mountain range, god throwing a tantrum." But just because the images it invokes are technically different, they are connected to the same centers in their respective brains, so the ideas that result are more or less the same. I hope I'm making sense. I'm tired.

No more long ones, I promise. :p

amuse

04-02-2004, 01:49 PM

my brother's teaching english in japan, and i have a friend from osaka (O-sa-ka, not o-SAK-a); apparently, learning a multitude of symbols for their two alphabets, plus chinese characters, (plus english lettering in junior high or so) tends to make their brains function more rationally, and so abstract thoughts don't come as second nature quite as often as in other cultures where childhood is spent learning the symbols for one language only.

which isn't to say that the link between language/speech is deficient at all!!!, it's just interesting to note how that affects the whole right/left brain thought pattern.

crisaor

04-02-2004, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by amuse
it's interesting, one of my best friends is from panama, and i took spanish recently; asked her about the 14 different verb tenses in the spanish language and how hard was it to learn english - she said it feels like it's "missing something" that was the only way she could explain it - and she has a degree in english and teaches both languages to high school students. i wish i had some grasp of what she was getting at, because i had never found my native language lacking...but now i do - a sort of "what if?"
Interesting. I believe that learning english when you speak spanish is MUCH easier than learning spanish if you speak english, specially the talking part. From what I see, English is a much richer languaje than spanish, but it's more rigid also.

simon

04-03-2004, 12:14 AM

What about the idea of linguistic determinism, that language determins the range of thought a person has. Like the words collateral damage allowing people not to think about deaths and therefore effecting how they treat death.

amuse

04-03-2004, 12:19 AM

nobody buys that crap do they really?

simon

04-03-2004, 12:24 AM

I don't see how it could work, it's not language that is shaping thought, but thought that is shaping language. If people didn't just ignore deaths in 3rd world countires then they wouldn't put labels on their death status. Pha.

amuse

04-03-2004, 12:40 AM

the american military puts that label on it. quite a blanket statement you made there, btw. it's not people in other countries treating their loved ones with cavalier attitudes, as if they're dead sticks off a tree.

verybaddmom

04-03-2004, 01:04 AM

there is still a theory taught in psychology called the "liguistic relativity hypothesis" that outlines basically what you are saying simon; refer to my first post to this thread. it's basically been left in the dust with new research results, but there is still some support for it.

emily655321

04-03-2004, 05:42 AM

I question the depth of thought originally present in individuals who could be fooled by phrases like "collateral damage." If you know what it means, you think of genocide and fields strewn with corpses. If you don't, you think "I wonder what that means." Is it possible to know that something means "death" and yet train yourself not to think "death" when you hear it?

amuse

04-03-2004, 02:17 PM

the pentagon does.

amuse

04-03-2004, 02:27 PM

the military uses tons of phrases to describe what you mean emily.
http://www.medialit.org/reading_room/article75.html
http://www.zoran.net/afp/text/zmag/kosovo_and_doublespeak.htm
like this:
http://www.chiprowe.com/magrev/doublespeak.html
the list goes on. i forget the phrase for air raids, but it's asinine. then again, aren't all the others.

emily655321

04-04-2004, 03:02 PM

I know. Disturbing, ain't it? This morning I watched a "CNN Presents" about how soldiers are trained to kill. But they don't actually ever "kill;" the correct term is "target acquisition."

The program also said that post-WWII research found that traditional bullseye-target practice resulted in only 25% of soldiers pulling the trigger on another man at the key moment. So the army implimented the use of pop-up targets in the shape of human beings during training, and a similar study during the Vietnam "conflict" revealed that the rate of successful "target acquisition" had risen to nearly 100%. It seems to me that turning death and killing into "collateral damage" and "target acquisition" is the verbal equivalent of turning human beings into pop-up targets -- if you distance yourself from humanity in your head, somehow accountability can be kept at arm's length as well.

simon

04-05-2004, 01:24 PM

So that means that it's really thought allowing us to use language to distance ourselves right?

emily655321

04-05-2004, 02:12 PM

Or lack thereof.

verybaddmom

04-06-2004, 10:33 AM

I consulted my boyfriend (who is a soldier here in Canada and just got back from a tour overseas) and asked him for his input on this whole topic regarding thought and language and the military. he read the thread, and this is what he has to say:

"Some truth to what they are saying, alot of it is politics though, sounding more PC, the lowly soldier rarely uses those terms. that's introduced by the leaders to make it sound more acceptable to the public. Target aquisition is not killing, it's identifying a target; collateral damage is the resultant damage. we use pop up targets for reaction time, and we've been using human shaped targets as long as i've been in the army.
Of course the army wants to distance the human element, or who would do it? If they said "This is your target, his name is Bob, has two kids and before the army was a salesman, now kill him". Of course they want to make it sound as job like as possilbe, that's just common sense.
Also, one of the people talks about how in WWII, only 25% of the soldiers would pull the trigger, which dramatically increased by the Vietnam war. Alot of this has to do with the fact that in WWII, most of the solders were draftees and from Vietnam on they've been mostly volunteers. Makes a big difference"

emily655321

04-06-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by verybaddmom
Alot of this has to do with the fact that in WWII, most of the solders were draftees and from Vietnam on they've been mostly volunteers. Makes a big difference"

Um, wasn't it the other way around, though? I don't know the statistics, but at least in the US most WWII soldiers were volunteer, and (at least by the end of the war) most in Vietnam were drafted.

verybaddmom

04-06-2004, 10:54 PM

again, I'm directly quoting my boyfriend here (love cut and paste!):
"Negatory there Emily, WW II most were draftees, average age 26, Vietnam mostly volunteers, average age 19. Actually, I was very surprised to find that out as well but it's true."

verybaddmom

04-06-2004, 10:58 PM

apparently he wasnt finished!:
"A lot of soldiers from N America, especially the States were draftees due to the fact that a lot of Americans didn't believe in the war, during Vietnam, the average age being so young and previous family histories of being in the military, it was "expected". This all changed of course towards the end of Vietnam with the protests and growing "flowerchild" era."

amuse

04-06-2004, 11:04 PM

my dad volunteered for the air force. then again, his reasoning was he didn't want to be drafted to fight in vietnam.

amuse

04-06-2004, 11:05 PM

that would've been '67 or '68.

emily655321

04-07-2004, 06:00 AM

That's really, really interesting. My grandpa was a Lt. Col. in Vietnam '65-'66, but he's never spoken of it in detail, so I know nothing of his army experiences. Except that, a year or two earlier, he was briefly in command of Elvis Presley when he joined the army, and he's quoted in the book "Soldier Boy Elvis." :D But, uhh, that has nothing to do with the war.

Jay

04-07-2004, 12:11 PM

Ok, to get back to the original topic. I'm just hinting something here, the link between lanuage and thoughts. Wonder how many of you will get what I'm trying to say.

Vèera bylo venku hezky, aèkoli pršelo. *will check if all the letters are ok later*

Thing is, how many of you guys got any thought reading what I have just just said? I mean, a thought to the point in the sentense, not a thought such as 'what was that supposed to mean'. It will get better if I say: The weather yesterday was nice even though it rained.
Anyone there want to tell me now the thoughts and language have to be the same (meaning using English language and forming words in English when thinking). Anyone here thinks in his/hers not native language? Because I do, even though for short periods of time. Depends on the situation when I actually do some thinking ;).

emily655321

04-07-2004, 12:38 PM

I'm afraid I don't follow you. I understood the original post to mean "are people's ways of thinking shaped by their *native* language, does a native English speaker think about the weather differently than a native Czech speaker because the way their language describes it is different?"

(and my opinion was "no")

Jay

04-07-2004, 12:44 PM

Lol, now I'm afraid I don't follow you :D. And I didn't mean to hint a native English speaker thinks differently about the weather than a Czech one. I might actually misunderstand the question or just haven't explained my thought in a way someone would be able to understand. Expressing my thoughts has never been a big success for me.

emily655321

04-07-2004, 12:56 PM

That's ok, I was just confused. But then I haven't slept in 20 hours so it might be time for me to recharge the old batteries before I go in for any in-depth discussion today. :p

amuse

04-07-2004, 01:19 PM

wow, emily, get some sleep!!
my dad never talked either, about the military or his job as a fireman/paramedic.

i think sometimes in spanish even though i've only had a couple of classes in it because it sometimes it conveys emotion no not even that, just a "something" better, at that point in time, even if i don't know how to conjugate all verbs or know all words. at that point a word in english slips in or i use more basic phrasing. i don't think i'd like learning another language if i wasn't comfortable thinking in it now and then. case in point, i took spanish from '84 to '86, also last semester. i had to speak it at work in spring 2002. it was amazing how much i was able to still use, having spoken it around the house (talked to myself :D) in high school.

Jay

04-07-2004, 01:51 PM

:) I'm not crazy... that much ;):D... at least if I am, I'm not the only one ;).

Sancho

04-07-2004, 04:40 PM

Wow, this thread has really taken off. Now I’ve gotta look up Verybadmom’s "linguistic relativity hypothesis,” as well as Shea’s “Great Vowel shift.”

You guys are right about the Military; it has a language of its own. And it’s mostly acronyms: “YGTBSM this SNAFU is FUBAR but who cares I’m FIGMO you know, ROADs baby.”

I wouldn’t be too hard soldiers who use language to rationalize their actions. After all, they’re asked to do some pretty unnatural things. As they say, “Politics and theory pretty much goes out the window when the first bullet zips by.”

simon

04-07-2004, 05:12 PM

While reading your last post amuse I started wondering why it is that some people whose parents grow up speaking a language to them other than the one in their civilization can often only understand that language but not speak it. Like my friends dad can only understand dutch, but can't speak it very well. Does this have anything to do with the relationship between language and thought or is it a barrier the person has put up themselves, thinking that it might not have been apropriate as a child to speak in their parents tongue and never growing out of it.

IWilKikU

04-07-2004, 09:04 PM

When I was learning to type properly, in my head I typed all my thoughts out. Thats almost like another languege.

chispa

04-07-2004, 09:49 PM

what about dumb people? are they thoughtless?

emily655321

04-08-2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by simon
While reading your last post amuse I started wondering why it is that some people whose parents grow up speaking a language to them other than the one in their civilization can often only understand that language but not speak it.

That is similar to my dad. His mom was German, and his dad was always off somewhere with the army, so his brother and sister and he were mostly just with her. She was learning to speak English around the time my dad was starting kindergarten, and when she couldn't remember an English word she'd just use the German. My dad had to virtually relearn how to speak when he started school, because no one could understand him; even though he had lived in California his whole life, they spoke mostly German around the house. Years later he lived in Germany for a while when his dad was stationed there. He met my mom there when he was 18 (also an army brat), and even after all those years there were still times when he'd call something by its German name and be surprised when she didn't know what he was talking about, because he didn't know that wasn't the English word for it.

He tries from time to time to brush up on his German, but he can't remember much. He has trouble reading German too, but when a German person visits he can listen to them and understand every word. He just can't respond very well. I don't know what conclusion to draw -- why the speaking and reading is hard, but understanding verbal is still easy, -- but it just reminded me.

Oh, P.S. Once when he was a teenager his mom was talking about something (in English), then all of a sudden she stopped and said, "Oh my God, I was just thinking in English!" She thought it was so funny.

IWilKikU

04-08-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by chispa
what about dumb people? are they thoughtless?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, no, dumb people arn't thoughtless, however, thoughtless people are dumb. ;)

Seriously though, a brain thinks. Animals all think. Some have even proven the ability to reason and fashion tools. A mute (going to stop using dumb, so I don't confuse it with stupid) person should be able to reason like anyone else, they just cant put thier thoughts into an effective form of communication. Languege isn't about thought. Its about communication. If someone prefers a certain languege, its not because you can think deeper in one languege than another, its just that you can communicate those thoughts better.

simon

04-08-2004, 09:17 PM

What exactly is thought then?

IWilKikU

04-08-2004, 09:22 PM

I don't know because I'm not mute, but I sometimes think in images and memories rather than languege. Granted my images often have languege with them, but only because languege is part of my daily life. Also, if someone is mute, they may still know (and therefor think) in an audible languege unless they're also deaf. In which case you can still learn languege. Check out Hellen Keller. She was deaf and mute, and blind to boot, (that rhymed! I should be a rapper!!) and she managed to write a book. So I don't think you can limit thought to languege.

As for "What is thought?" People have been trying to figure that out for roughly 2500 years. I believe they're called philosophers. I don't think that any of them have a DEFINATE answer yet.

chispa

04-09-2004, 12:00 PM

maybe thoughts are related with emotions and feelings and language is the need to express that

Avalive

04-09-2004, 10:01 PM

For lauguage or thought. Both of them. More than this. I believe, people was born with something special and magic. It's what I assmue we inherit from God's will and wisdom. And all the greatness lives in it.

simon

04-12-2004, 12:37 PM

Clearly both language and thought are "special" since we have the ability to use them while other creatures don't, but why?

emily655321

04-13-2004, 05:06 AM

Actually, that isn't true. The more scientists actually stop and listen to other creatures, the more about the languages of different species they learn. Dolphins, for instance, and to a lesser degree other species of whales; zoologists have discovered that they use different clicks and squeals to signify specific members of their pod -- names. And the latest discovery is that dolphins have an even more complex language -- possibly as complex as our own -- communicated via sonar, previously thought only to be used to locate food. They have found a way to record it in recognizable light patterns on a computer and are just beginning to record and decipher the tons of codes used by the dolphins. It is hoped that in the future we can reverse the process and actually speak to and hold conversations with the dolphins. This is not science fiction! It's real, how cool is that? Not to mention chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, elephants, giraffes -- all of which scientists have discovered have their own complex languages in the wild, completely unrelated to signs or behaviors taught them by human beings.

When it comes to different types of animals we seem to forget what we've concluded on this thread about different languages: that a different way of communicating does not mean one does not possess the power of thought. Just because we have used our thinking (and opposable thumbs) to create tools which have subdued and changed the face of the planet, does that mean that animals which don't build skyscrapers don't think as much as we do? We don't know yet, because until recently we have been too arrogant to make the effort to find out.

IWilKikU

04-14-2004, 03:59 AM

I wonder what kinds of deep thinkers and philosophers the dolphins have.

emily655321

04-14-2004, 10:36 AM

Not Flipper, that's for sure. *coughjockcough*

emily655321

04-14-2004, 10:43 AM

Oh, and I forgot meer kats. Meer kats use different squeaks to distinguish, not only between predators and non-predators, but between different people, strange and familiar people, and even the same person wearing different clothing. Their squeaks vary slightly based on the most minute change in detail.

amuse

04-14-2004, 01:09 PM

meerkats are pretty. they have eyes like baby seals.

emily655321

04-15-2004, 05:26 AM

Hehe yeah they're sweet. Almost as pretty as my 7-month-old kitten's eyes. If I ever get a digital camera (so behind the times) I'm gonna make an avatar and have it be a close-up of Arlo's face. He looks like he's wearing Egyptian eyeliner. :D

Blade

04-15-2004, 08:02 AM

avatars are difficult to make from camera pics, unless you're familiar w/ photo shop?

den

04-15-2004, 01:23 PM

The basic thing you have to do or know about as far as using a personal pic from your computer for your avatar here is that it has to be 50X50pixels...

If anyone wanted to use a pic they have on their computer but don't have image editing software I'd be happy to oblige.

emily655321

04-15-2004, 06:39 PM

cool, thanks guys. I don't know why we don't have photoshop on our comp yet -- we did on the old one. I'll let you know if I need your help. :D

IWilKikU

04-16-2004, 06:40 PM

I made my Avatar with a cheapass digital camera and 'paint'. Who needs photoshop?!?

emily655321

04-17-2004, 05:03 AM

*raises hand*

But I downloaded a 30-day tryout today so I've got a month to tinker. *Yay*

Koa

04-17-2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by den
The basic thing you have to do or know about as far as using a personal pic from your computer for your avatar here is that it has to be 50X50pixels...

If anyone wanted to use a pic they have on their computer but don't have image editing software I'd be happy to oblige.

I've been trying to get an avatar for ages but every picture I like seems to be too big and I have no idea of how to edit it to be small enough!!!! (they're not personal pics as I'd hate to have my face next to every word of mine...)

verybaddmom

04-17-2004, 08:16 PM

koa, i had that problem, so i emailed myself the pic and went to the graphics lab at the college and had the tech there help me make it into a suitable file. was a whole lot easier than trying to figure it out myself, as i am only slightly computer literate....the original pic that i had wanted is a lot bigger and had more to it, but i had to cut it alot to make it the right size. the original was way cooler than the avatar that i ended up with, and it seems to me that the avatar that is visible really sort of misses the point i was trying to make with it. it turns out that i like this pic that is visible, so i went with it. here is the one that i originally wanted....