Turn on thread page Beta

What comes first.. thought or language? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andy5788)
    *Bookmarks thread*

    My project this term is on linguistic relativity....
    That's cool and you can probably use any links that are posted but I doubt you will be able to reference TSR posters as, well, not many of us have a PhD in X and Y.

    :yes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say thought. Even when babies are babbling, it's not 'language' as such; it's such noises. Unless we're counting non-verbal language such as crying and smiling. For the words to start having any meaning, the baby will need to be able to understand what is going on in the world around them to enable them to interact, requiring thought.

    This could be completely wrong, but that's my view on it.

    Can someone who is unable to think really use language? I'd suspect not, but I'd be interested to know if this is, in fact, the case.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I would argue thought, as it appears only humans are able to have complex thought processes, and it would also appear that only humans are able to use speech, seemingly as a result.

    I think thought leads to speech as the result of thought because babies seem able to reason, manipulate and predict things to some extent, and so must have thought first.

    It's interesting we think in a language though. :yep:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quail)
    I'd say thought. Even when babies are babbling, it's not 'language' as such; it's such noises. Unless we're counting non-verbal language such as crying and smiling. For the words to start having any meaning, the baby will need to be able to understand what is going on in the world around them to enable them to interact, requiring thought.

    This could be completely wrong, but that's my view on it.

    Can someone who is unable to think really use language? I'd suspect not, but I'd be interested to know if this is, in fact, the case.
    I would say you can think but not have language, but not the other way round.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    thought?
    animals can think and they never really learn a language, i think they think in pictures
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    :\ And why? I can't get my head around which comes first because to me they appear to be hand in hand.

    thought; sometimes i speak to my parents in two languages; whichever comes first/
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quail)
    I'd say thought. Even when babies are babbling, it's not 'language' as such; it's such noises. Unless we're counting non-verbal language such as crying and smiling. For the words to start having any meaning, the baby will need to be able to understand what is going on in the world around them to enable them to interact, requiring thought.

    This could be completely wrong, but that's my view on it.

    Can someone who is unable to think really use language? I'd suspect not, but I'd be interested to know if this is, in fact, the case.
    The question, to an extent, could be flipped though. Is someone who can't use language able to think? Some things like when you see a beautiful scenery, or go through the death of a loved one or something, could be more to do with the emotion of the situation and chemicals that make you feel a certain way rather than actually someone thinking about what they're doing. :confused: I'm more than likely wrong, I know hardly anything on the area (which is sort of why I started the thread :mmm:)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks to the person who negged me and didn't leave a name (about my sig'). Anyway I'm mature enough not to care about something as arbritrary as rep'.

    Back on point, I'm sure thinking 'in language' comes first-it must do- and see my previous post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    OK I was having a conversation with somebody relating to this recently. Basically I have autism, and I remember being able to 'speak in my head' and understand what people were saying to me and talking about, before I was able to speak.
    hmm... i usually feel like this when high on some superskunk.

    also, is this a ******* serious question?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    The question, to an extent, could be flipped though. Is someone who can't use language able to think? Some things like when you see a beautiful scenery, or go through the death of a loved one or something, could be more to do with the emotion of the situation and chemicals that make you feel a certain way rather than actually someone thinking about what they're doing. :confused: I'm more than likely wrong, I know hardly anything on the area (which is sort of why I started the thread :mmm:)
    It depends on your precise definition of "language". Lemurs are primates that do morn the loss of a loved one. They don't have the same degree of language skills that humans do. However they do possess a rudimentary vocal language (as well as body language signals).

    Language and thought are perhaps not as separate as we often perceive them to be. With considerable degrees of overlap. It's questionable whether one could exist purely without some degree of the other being present.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whiterabbit118)
    thought?
    animals can think and they never really learn a language, i think they think in pictures

    How do you know animals "think"?

    I'm pretty certain they don't think like we think. They may "feel" in an extremely primitive fashion, and certainly have urges and instincts, but they don't actually "think" per se.

    A tiger doesn't go "Hmm I fancy a monkey for breakfast today".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    How do you know animals "think"?

    I'm pretty certain they don't think like we think. They may "feel" in an extremely primitive fashion, and certainly have urges and instincts, but they don't actually "think" per se.

    A tiger doesn't go "Hmm I fancy a monkey for breakfast today".
    ... wow.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    How do you know animals "think"?

    I'm pretty certain they don't think like we think. They may "feel" in an extremely primitive fashion, and certainly have urges and instincts, but they don't actually "think" per se.

    A tiger doesn't go "Hmm I fancy a monkey for breakfast today".
    But it might think about monkeys for breakfast, just not in so many words. :dontknow:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Language is nothing more than notation for thought. But a good notation is a thought substitute.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thought.
    Before a baby/toddler develops language. S/he already know whats, what.
    Mainly by imitation. But for example, if a baby touches something hot, after experiencing
    that pain, they wont touch it again. Language is not needed to develop that instinct.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Instinct is not (abstract) thought. It's obviously that pretty much everything 'thinks', if only at a low level.

    The question only makes sense if we apply it to abstract, high-level thought.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ma.Cl.)
    Thought.
    Before a baby/toddler develops language. S/he already know whats, what.
    Mainly by imitation. But for example, if a baby touches something hot, after experiencing
    that pain, they wont touch it again. Language is not needed to develop that instinct.
    But is it needed to develop thought? Thought and instinct are two seperate things, imo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathperson)
    Thanks to the person who negged me and didn't leave a name (about my sig'). Anyway I'm mature enough not to care about something as arbritrary as rep'.

    Back on point, I'm sure thinking 'in language' comes first-it must do- and see my previous post.
    hey...your welcome!....n seriously...the last thing tht ur "sig" is, is mature...its just plain rude....if you have nothin good to portray...just keep it to urself
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    :\ And why? I can't get my head around which comes first because to me they appear to be hand in hand.

    Thought!!
    When speaking welsh I can't tell
    But when I speak englidh, I thinkn in welsh, therefore, having to translate while speaking. Dunno if that makes any sense to you.
    And yep, I come from a welsh area where we never speak english, did my bio+chem Alevels through welsh, all my friends and family speak welsh!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lalabo)
    hey...your welcome!....n seriously...the last thing tht ur "sig" is, is mature...its just plain rude....if you have nothin good to portray...just keep it to urself
    Thanks!
    OK I think Islam and muslims have done well enough to portray what they are like right here on TSR, let alone everything else.
    Anyway it isn't immature, it is simply me excercising my right to say what I like, if you don't like it then 'tuff' basically.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,653

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.