Natural Language

as Language of Thought
Where’s the Proof?

BRENT SILBY
Unlimited (UPT)
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

What evidence do we have?

Introspective evidence
We think in English…inner monologue, or inner speech

Takes form of hypothetical conversations, work through problems,

plan future events
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Example of the role inner speech plays in thought

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

I was panic stricken, but suddenly it occurred to me that I’d put

new coffee in my bag the previous night, and I had my bag with
me.

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 some?
Damn! What a hassle, I’ll have to get some, but I put some in my
bag last night…”
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

The final part of this thought was accompanied by a visual image

of me placing coffee in my bag.

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

The first part of the thought was vocal (no images), so it is

reasonable to assume that language played a dominant role in
the thought process.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Images could be involved in thinking, but they must be augmented

by sentences of natural language (e.g. English)

Images alone do not carry enough information. Consider the

above example: If the image of me placing coffee in my bag
was not connected to a sentence, I would have no way of knowing
whether the image related to an event from last night, or a few
weeks ago.

The sentence completed the thought and gave it meaning

More on this next week when we discuss the nature of

Einstein’s thoughts.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Sometimes our inner speech slips out when we think aloud

Especially noticeable in children who accompany play with
spoken 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 happens
to 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 sentences
are rarely intended for communication.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

If sentences are not used for communication, then we have to

consider another possibility. They are for thinking!

After all, it would be a puzzling feature of human design if this

rich 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 always
conducted in English
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Our awareness of this process in English would be wasted if it

was being carried out behind the scenes in mentalese.

Furthermore, if all thought processes were carried out in

mentalese, wouldn’t we just find ourselves carrying out actions
that had been decided behind the scenes?

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

process

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

complex thoughts such as reasoning.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Consider the speed at which we understand sentences from

other 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
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

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 being

exposed to language
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

The case of Genie

Discovered when she was 13 years old

Mental age of 2 years old, and could not speak

Whole life locked in a small room with virtually no human

contact. 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 and

a near normal level of intelligence.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Difficult to draw conclusions from Genie. Not only was she

deprived 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 have
inhibited her mental growth.
Helen Keller

Helen Keller Keller with teacher Anne Sullivan

Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

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. She
therefore did not acquire language in the normal fashion.

She was languageless until the age of 7, when she was taught
to 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.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

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

Keller eventually mastered a language of touch and went on to

write 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 a
thinking being before learning language.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

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 own

introspection. 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 being

a language user and not having language. She remembers her
pre-lingual existence.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

She claims that before language she had no inner life.

She describes her behavior as instinct. She says she had “no
power of thought”, and “did not compare one mental state with
another”.

Her sense of self identity did not exist until after she learned to
use 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”.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

So what does this mean?

She shows us the role that language plays in thinking and forming
a mind.

The fact that she perceived an inner speech reasserts the

cognitive function of language. Inner speech must be more than
a mere side-effect or accident. If it were an accident, we wouldn’t
expect 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 the
auditory system, but it is difficult to imagine Keller’s finger
movement system being genetically determined to link to her
tactile detection system.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Reasonable to suggest that this type of neural feedback link

between language input and output plays a role in thinking

Possible that as humans develop, their brains connect themselves

up in a way that enables such a link.

This process would depend on experiences, which is why

Keller’s brain hooked up input/output systems centered around
tactile movement/detection systems.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

An objection to the Helen Keller case

She says that she had no sense of self before language. Is this
because she had no language? Or is it because she cannot
remember that far back?

I can’t remember what took place during the second week in

October 1977, and would describe that lack of memory in the
same way as Keller. But I was a thinking thing, even though it
seems like a time of nothingness.

But there is a difference. She can remember events from when

she was that age, but she remembers them as reflexive, tactile
events. Sort of as if she was on automatic pilot.
Evidence for Natural Language as Language of Thought

Good evidence from Helen Keller

Next time we will examine the nature of our thoughts, and that
the nature of thought can only be explained in terms of language
Powerpoint by BRENT SILBY

Produced at UPT
Christchurch, New Zealand
www.unlimited.school.nz