the_proof

8/8/2019 the_proof

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/theproof 1/22

Natural Language

as Language of ThoughtWhere’s the Proof?

BRENT SILBY

Unlimited (UPT)

8/8/2019 the_proof


Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

What evidence do we have?

Introspective evidenceWe think in English…inner monologue, or inner speech

Takes form of hypothetical conversations, work through problems,

plan future events

8/8/2019 the_proof



Example of the role inner speech plays in thought

The other day I arrived at school, and discovered that I’d run outof coffee.

I was panic stricken, but suddenly it occurred to me that I’d putnew coffee in my bag the previous night, and I had my bag withme.

My stream of thought took the form of English sentences which

went like this:“…on no! There’s no coffee. What will I do? Where will I get someDamn! What a hassle, I’ll have to get some, but I put some in my bag last night …”

8/8/2019 the_proof



The final part of this thought was accompanied by a visual imageof me placing coffee in my bag.

Did the sentence cause the image? Or did the image cause thesentence? Difficult to tell.

The first part of the thought was vocal (no images), so it isreasonable to assume that language played a dominant role inthe thought process.

8/8/2019 the_proof



Images could be involved in thinking, but they must be augmentedby sentences of natural language (e.g. English)

Images alone do not carry enough information. Consider theabove example: If the image of me placing coffee in my bagwas not connected to a sentence, I would have no way of knowingwhether the image related to an event from last night, or a fewweeks ago.

The sentence completed the thought and gave it meaning

More on this next week when we discuss the nature of Einstein’s thoughts.

8/8/2019 the_proof



Sometimes our inner speech slips out when we think aloud

Especially noticeable in children who accompany play withspoken monologue. Much of what children say is not intended for communication.

Egocentric functions are the more immature functions, and tend to dominate the verbal

productions of children 3-7 years of age, and, to a lesser extent, children 7-12 years. In this form of speech, a child does not bother to know to whom he is speaking nor

whether he is being listened to. He talks either for himself or for the pleasure of

associating anyone who happens to be there with the activity of the moment. This talk

is egocentric, partly because the child speaks only about himself, but chiefly because he

does not attempt to place himself at the point of view of his hearer. Anyone who happento be there will serve as an audience. (Piaget 1932: pg 9)

Children talk when no-one is around. The constant chatter (internal or external) regardless of audience shows that sentencesare rarely intended for communication.

8/8/2019 the_proof



If sentences are not used for communication, then we have toconsider another possibility. They are for thinking!

After all, it would be a puzzling feature of human design if thisrich verbalization served no purpose.

Consider thought processes such as this:“If I leave home now, I should get to Fred's house by about 3pm—unless there is too much traffic, which would make it a bit later. There's usually alot of traffic at this time of day, so I'd better

call and let him know that I might be late.”

We reason like this all the time, and the process is alwaysconducted in English

8/8/2019 the_proof



Our awareness of this process in English would be wasted if itwas being carried out behind the scenes in mentalese.

Furthermore, if all thought processes were carried out inmentalese, wouldn’t we just find ourselves carrying out actionsthat had been decided behind the scenes?

Maybe this does happen, like when we walk…it’s a non-consciousprocess

But, walking is a non-sentential processs. We are looking at

complex thoughts such as reasoning.

8/8/2019 the_proof



Consider the speed at which we understand sentences fromother people.

There is no delay…we understand as we hear them

If the sentence was translated into mentalese to be understood,We’d expect delays in understanding

8/8/2019 the_proof



Psychological development in the absence of language- Cases of “wolf children”

Many of these children are impaired and exhibit behavior indicating thought processes no more sophisticated than non-linguistic animals (see Malson 1964 for examples).

Interesting: these children often develop normally after beingexposed to language

8/8/2019 the_proof



The case of Genie

Discovered when she was 13 years oldMental age of 2 years old, and could not speak

Whole life locked in a small room with virtually no humancontact. Only contact was when father or brother brought her food,but they did not speak to her.

Despite this upbringing, after rescue she acquired language anda near normal level of intelligence.

8/8/2019 the_proof



Difficult to draw conclusions from Genie. Not only was shedeprived of language, she was also deprived of normal emotional

contact.

She was not allowed to leave the room, and spent most of her time restrained in a strait-jacket. These factors may also haveinhibited her mental growth.

8/8/2019 the_proof


Helen Keller

Helen Keller Keller with teacher Anne Sullivan

8/8/2019 the_proof



Helen Keller is a better case, because she did not suffer psychological abuse. In her writings she offers a clear comparison

between being a linguistic or non-linguistic creature

Keller lost her sight and hearing between ages 1 and 2 years. Shetherefore did not acquire language in the normal fashion.

She was languageless until the age of 7, when she was taughtto use a language of touch.

How did she learn?Her teacher repetitively exposed Keller to an object (e.g water),then spelled the name of the object by tracing symbols onto her hand.

E id f N l L L f Th h

8/8/2019 the_proof



The real hero of the story is her teacher, Annie Sullivan. VeryInnovative teacher !

Keller eventually mastered a language of touch and went on towrite books about her experiences.

She clearly states that language plays an essential role in her thinking. In fact, she seems to believe that she did not exist as athinking being before learning language.

E id f N t l L L f Th ht

8/8/2019 the_proof



Before my teacher came to me, I did not know that I am. I lived in a world that was a

no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequately that unconscious, yet conscious time of

nothingness. I did not know that I knew aught, or that I lived or acted or desired. I had neither will nor intellect (Keller 1909: pg141)

Note: Keller’s introspection is no more authoritative than our ownintrospection. If we can’t settle the question by appealing to our

own introspection, then we should not use Keller’s.

But, her testimony adds strength to our own introspective evidence

Why? Because she can describe the difference between beinga language user and not having language. She remembers her pre-lingual existence.


8/8/2019 the_proof



She claims that before language she had no inner life.

She describes her behavior as instinct. She says she had “nopower of thought”, and “did not compare one mental state withanother”.

Her sense of self identity did not exist until after she learned touse language.

She said that she experienced an “inner speech” in the form of

imaginary feeling of words being spelled out into her hand.

She said that if she were to design a person, she would “put the

brain and soul in his finger tips”.


8/8/2019 the_proof



So what does this mean?

She shows us the role that language plays in thinking and forminga mind. The fact that she perceived an inner speech reasserts thecognitive function of language. Inner speech must be more than

a mere side-effect or accident. If it were an accident, we wouldn’texpect Keller to experience it through touch

We could speculate that human brains are genetically determined

to become wired to connect the vocal output device to theauditory system, but it is difficult to imagine Keller’s finger movement system being genetically determined to link to her tactile detection system.


8/8/2019 the_proof



Reasonable to suggest that this type of neural feedback linkbetween language input and output plays a role in thinking

Possible that as humans develop, their brains connect themselvesup in a way that enables such a link.

This process would depend on experiences, which is whyKeller’s brain hooked up input/output systems centered aroundtactile movement/detection systems.


8/8/2019 the_proof



An objection to the Helen Keller case

She says that she had no sense of self before language. Is thisbecause she had no language? Or is it because she cannotremember that far back?

I can’t remember what took place during the second week inOctober 1977, and would describe that lack of memory in thesame way as Keller. But I was a thinking thing, even though itseems like a time of nothingness.

But there is a difference. She can remember events from whenshe was that age, but she remembers them as reflexive, tactileevents. Sort of as if she was on automatic pilot.


8/8/2019 the_proof



Good evidence from Helen Keller

Next time we will examine the nature of our thoughts, and thatthe nature of thought can only be explained in terms of language

8/8/2019 the_proof


Powerpoint by BRENT SILBY

Produced at UPTChristchurch, New Zealandwww.unlimited.school.nz

http://www.unlimited.school.nz/

http://www.unlimited.school.nz/

Documents

the_proof