Is Thinking Governed by Language?

I like this quetion cause it reminds me good memories. My answer is YES and I will devellop it based on my own experience.

Longtime ago I met an old girlfriend along with her students to whom she presented me, after a while one young child, he was about 12 years old, asked me this question: Do you think in french or in arabic?. At that time I just spent 2 years in France and I did not pay attention to that question, I even laughed about it for while and told him thinking is not controled by languages. I was wrong!

The answer came later when I started speaking english. In fact each time I tried to formulate a sentence, I found my self translating it from french to english, and each time I do that I remember that innocent question.

so yes thinking is gouverned by language

Doukkali,

Learning a language by just translating another language makes of you a hostage.
So your experience can not be extented to others.
I do not think that the issue is so simple as is stated in many contributions.

Language help vehicule thoughts and ideas and help descibes things.But your environement, parents, family, friends, schools, radio, fquihs and your interaction with nature will determine the way you think.Some grow up with 2, 3 languages in Morocco.... Khobsa + Khobsa = 2 Khobsates.

Thinking and generating ideas is one thing, their description and in which language is another thing

this subject is so good it made me go and look for some more information. Here's one thesis done by someone named Tom Arnold, that goes in the direction our conversation is going, I believe, if after you read it you want to read the extended version, here's the URL:[www.hyponoesis.org]

A+
almot


Common linguistic and analytical theses:
We can think only what we can express in language (by saying it)
Language = limitation for thinking
Thinking is bound to language
It is not possible to think without using language
Language = domain of truth



Refutation:
A. We can think only what we can express in language (by saying it)
This statement is based on a wrong assumption: there was first language, and then thinking evolved. How could this hypothesis justify the genesis of language? Why should language at all have come into existence, if there was nothing before it which could be used as an incentive for expression. Men always had some vague ideas or inner feelings, which they wanted to communicate to their kin. Language is only one mode of expression among many others, like gestures, body postures, emotions, etc. These modes of expression are only instrumental to an inner process in man, namely, thinking or feeling. Although man did not possess from the very beginning clear concepts or ideas at all, he nevertheless had certain representations given to him through perception, which he processed with a yet crude tool (primitive mind). Spinoza, by a stroke of genius, described the evolution of the ratio as an evolution of acquiring and developing a more and more sophisticated tool, that is, our mind, by using and refining it. Therefore thesis A is wrong, because we can think everything we want, even though it may not be expressible in language. Sometimes we have clear ideas and an adequate understanding of something, but when told to explain it to others, we often fail to do so, because we're not able to find the "right words", that is, we fail to adapt our ideas to the inherent limitations of the language. A good example is the experience of the mystics. Although they have an absolutely clear experience and knowledge in their mind, the language is inadequate and too restricted to become a vessel of expression of their most intimate and comprehensive experience or thinking. Ideas are much more complex than the simple components of a language. Although our vocabulary expands continuously, the single words are linked to a precise meaning or several different but yet clear meanings. Poets try to exploit the farthest edges of our language and to express what seems inexpressible. This kind of language is open to a vast degree of interpretation and could hardly be used to communicate in everyday life. It is an artistic expression of inner moments of personal experience. It is possible, through the intimations given in poetic language, to transcend the narrow boundaries of language and to reach the original experience or idea, the poet or philosopher or mystic tried to express through the available means of a language. Ideas are the private good of everyone, but language is a public good, that must be available to everyone, otherwise language would be useless. As the primary good of language lies in communication, it must obviously be limited to a certain range of concepts that are clearly defined by tradition and by a tacit contract amongst social beings.

B. Language = limitation for thinking
Therefore, language can only be a limitation for our rational or discursive thinking, because rational thinking is nothing else than language in our mind. We think the same way as we would express the thoughts as words in our language. We know, however, that rational thinking is only one small part of human thinking as such. Reason uses a much wider scope of ideas and principles, which transcend the possibilities not only of language but of rational thinking.

C. Thinking is bound to language
This is clearly wrong. The opposite is the case: language is bound to thinking. Thinking is the primary act of the human mind and language is the expression of thinking through articulated sounds that bear a certain significance for congenial beings. Rational thinking only is dependent on language, because rational thinking is identical to language, and thus a reciprocally coextensive means of conceptualization. The higher philosophical thinking, and Paranoetic or Transrational Thinking specifically (Paranoesis), is independent of language, because noetic thinking needn't necessarily be expressed in language. Philosophical knowledge or wisdom contains more than can be expressed by any language, even though certain terms, used for example in ancient Greek, with original meanings and being not translatable, are notwithstanding limited, because a much more complex meaning has to be compressed into a single word, which lends itself to a wide range of possible interpretations. The primary idea in our mind is a complex pattern of differently connected and interconnected ideas, and this compound form is called a Hologeme. Hologemes are inexpressible and can only be understood by our mind alone. Therefore, real philosophical communication goes from mind to mind, using language only as a very inadequate carrier of information. On the level of philosophical communication, language has lost its predominant significance, such as it usually possesses in our rational world.

D. It is not possible to think without using language
From what I said above, this thesis should be evidently recognized as begging the question. Philosophical knowledge or "Erkenntnis" (as opposed to rational knowledge or "Wissen" is hologemic by nature. First there is the "Erkenntnis" of a fundamental truth or principle in philosophy, and in a second step, the philosopher tries to articulate his hologemic knowledge in the realm of rationality by using language as the common means of understanding and communication. We often have ideas, anticipations, hunches, premonitions, intuitions etc. all of which are not bound to language and cannot be expressed in it at all. These are not single thoughts that correspond to equal single words in our language, but these are complex thought-structures that have no direct relationship to single words. Language is a particularized structure, drawing heavily on our analytical way of thinking. The corresponding manner of thinking is rational thinking. Higher and more complex forms of thinking are not analytic or particularizing, but synthetic and holistic. Therefore language would not be the right means of expression. Complex processes of thinking cannot be transformed equally into language as it is the case with discursive thinking.

E. Language = domain of truth
This thesis is only true if restricted to pure logical truth. Formal language could be the domain of formal truth. It is possible to analyze language insofar as to determine whether truth or falsity appears in it. Not the truth of an idea expressed in language is considered in this process, but only the formal truth of non-contradiction as well as of other logical laws. This formal truth pattern may be transposable to rational thinking, thereby excluding for example contradictory statements, but in higher forms of thinking these logical laws are not valid any more. Philosophical wisdom is often expressed in paradoxical statements (see Socrates: I know that I don't know, or Koans in Zen Buddhism).






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2005 03:01 by almotanabi.

Thank you almotanabi for the article, I'll try to read it at home.

For MR. krin,

I did not extend my experience to anybody and if you read my message I said "BASED ON MY OWN EXPERIENCE",

FYI I am not that stupid to translate all the time a language to another. It happened to me in the begining and now I may say I think in english when I am speaking this language, and I think arabic when I speak arabic and french when I speak french....

You wrote:
>>I do not think that the issue is so simple as is stated in many contributions.

I expected more arguments from your contribution which i may summarize it in "Khobsa + Khobsa = 2 Khobsates"

Many thanks dear Almot for the link.

Si Doukkali
No one did did take you for stupid. Unfortunatly It is just your interpretation.

You stated the following:

Is Thinking Governed by Language?

I like this quetion cause it reminds me good memories. My answer is YES and I will devellop it based on my own experience.


We all answer a question based on our own experience. Your answer to the question is yes.

My reply is that your yes can not be true for others.

If you read the article above you can read for instance...

"Sometimes we have clear ideas and an adequate understanding of something, but when told to explain it to others, we often fail to do so, because we're not able to find the "right words", that is, we fail to adapt our ideas to the inherent limitations of the language."


This means if one can master 1, 2 or 3 languages,which means one has the rights words in the three languages to expresse an idea. This will be like 1 + 1 = 2 and you won´t miss getting the message through.

Sorry my message was not supposed to be offending.I allways try to focus on the facts and issues.
The amazing thing is that this forum is anonymous. We do not know each other. There are no reasons to expect any critics at the personal level. This is good (sorry to say that ) for some arab brains.

By the way I am also a Doukkali

Take care

I'm not Doukkali and hate all doukkali, why? I'm unable to tell you why.
May-be because I'm from Nordic. That seems to be a good raison to hate Doukkakis. isn't it?

Big morocco colonizer

Ma question is for whom pretend know very well Doukkalis, what language did they speak?
I never understand them during my presence in Casablanca: they speak very loudly; they fast outside and make lot of noise. During a wedding, it's impossible to get peace....they're typical life: they live naturally without complexes.

My dear friends elcapone and Krim,

I really thought we have a much better and sophisticated forum here, I really mean it, but I came this morning and was choked to read both your posts,
Please please, both of you should say ALLAH YENAL ACHITANE and go back to the great discussion we were having.

Salaam to both of you Brothers,

Almotanabi,

My intervention not to be taken at face value.

I never hate doukkalis at all.

a+

Elcapone, doukkali, May be you log in with other names.This is by the way against the rules of Yabiladi froum. So many names and probably many faces. At least you show up with the real face in the last message.

If you hate the doukkalis as you mention, Why you log in with the name doukkali.
Then you reply with the name El Capone. This just show the respect you have for people and institutions.



You need to stay by the facts in any discussion and do not escape by starting insulting anybody you do not know.
I am not going to be involved in a discussion about Doukkalis, berbers, Fassis etc.....It seems you are an expert in what the french call. Le régionalisme primitif.

Dear Almot
Would you please mention what was choking in my message ???
May be I was wrong in mentionning arab brains. but I have to tell you.
It is difficult to discuss with some arabs fellows like El Capone. A mixture of ignorance, arrogance and the lack of respect for other peoples. Un Voyou

Take care

Krim,

I'm not Doukkali, and i have nothing with him. I'm sure he’s a kind guy.

So, what I wrote about Doukkalis is simply a metaphor and there's nothing else behind "hate".

No one has imposed anything to you and of course, you’re free to do what you want. This is a fact. But please read my intervention in anther face value.

Follow your intervention you seem to me a very nervous guy and I m really very surprised to be targeted with hard criticisms. You blame me for having lack of respect but what about you. Have you read you message before posting it?

Oh, my god, you try to play a gentleman role but unfortunately your words have betrayed your thoughts.

Best regards.

Good luck and godd bye

My dear friends,
I'm afraid now that I get in trouble, lol
I like reading both your views on different issues. I think what took place here is a minor misunderstanding somewhere, or we can call that ACHITANE also.
Salaam to both of you and lets talk about something else for a while, just for a change.
salaamo alakum friends,

elcapone Wrote in one message:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not Doukkali and hate all doukkali, why? I'm
> unable to tell you why.
> May-be because I'm from Nordic. That seems to be a
> good raison to hate Doukkakis. isn't it?


then he added in another:
---------------------------------------------------
I never hate doukkalis at all.

What is going on elcapone???? you hate doukkalis or not???

I did not understand "I'm from Nordic" you mean from Israel???

The Yabiladiens considere you as a provocator and you proved that to me. By your message you thought you were going to provocate me, and probably You were expecting me to act badely as I did previously with another yabiladien. Don't worry my friend, I undrestand your 9waleb.


Best regards,

Krim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Elcapone, doukkali, May be you log in with other
> names.This is by the way against the rules of
> Yabiladi froum. So many names and probably many
> faces. At least you show up with the real face in
> the last message.
> If you hate the doukkalis as you mention, Why you
> log in with the name doukkali.
> Then you reply with the name El Capone. This just
> show the respect you have for people and
> institutions.
>
Mr. Krim
let me tell you are wrong all the way. I am not elkapone and i don't have any other username than my favourite one: doukkali. I am living in canada and elkapone is probably living in Israel.
>
>

> May be I was wrong in mentionning arab brains. but
> I have to tell you.
> It is difficult to discuss with some arabs fellows
> like El Capone. A mixture of ignorance, arrogance
> and the lack of respect for other peoples. Un
> Voyou

Your comments are very agressive. You are sensitive and full of prejudice. sorry to tell you that.

You are right when you say, we don't know each other, may be you are a nice guy.

Take care my friend, and don't forget we are just in a virtual world.

doukkali,

El Capone was a gangster and a murder but at least he was smart one.

Too bad I joined the debate about the question at hand a bit late! So I reserve my opinion to a later time!
I find the last message really expressing somethinking that IS GOVERNED by Language! Somebody meant to say something ( express their Thinking! but Language presented it as something different; or it is that the interpretation made it different! IT goes both ways, in the sense! There are at least three factors:

The idea! The word! and the Reader or listener for that matter! each is a special entity with its proper characteristics tha are mutually exclusive with the other factor(s)...for there to be a total/ safe/close to the "idea": understanding; i.e being on the same page: two interlocuters need to be on the same page ( intelectually....) ( elcapone's opinion/thinking is governed by an idea that is not apparent in the words( language) he used; therefore, creating a misubderstanding because Doukali (assuming that's a different interlocuter) read the words which governed his thinking; thus leading to a totally different understanding from that meant/claimed by Elcapone!
In short; Language governs The thinking! and Thinking governs Language!
There's no clear cut answer because different schools have different ideas/ idealogies when it comes to this question! e.g THe formalists, the Structuralists, The post-structuralist/ deconstructionalists....some like to choose the idea= thinking as point of departure; others like to choose the Text: language as the point of departure! So which one are you? Do you read a message and react to it because you understood the words and took them for what they are ( at face value! as elcapone says); or do you bring some baggage to the message?
Hope to read dome reactions related to the question at hand!
Thanks
Yani

Posted by: xara (IP Logged)
Date: January 23, 2005 11:29PM

> général, une personne ne peut être parfaitement bilingue ou multilingue, même >si elle merie deux cultures différentes. Il a été prouvé qu'un personne >préfère nécessairement une langue à une autre pour exprimer ses sentiments les >plus violents (la colère par exemple...

I don’t agree at all about this, because I have two native languages (Moroccan and French) and use it according to the audience (whether angry or happy).
Even when I lost conscience during an accident, where I didn’t recognize anybody (including parents and family all together) except my girlfriend (surprisingly). I’ve been told that I was speaking and swearing using the language according to the person I was talking to. (that was in Morocco, 20 years ago).

On another hand, I wanted to point out that experiences coined by some of us is considering that there is one English, one Arabic or one French languages.
It is true if we talking about the standard.
But I don’t need to speak many languages to realize that our thoughts are not framed by the language at a certain extent.

For instance, I remember that some friends I met from Casablanca had a more developed dialect than we in Rabat. When I moved to Fes, Meknes and Tanger, there are other terms and other ideas (or philosophies) expressed, Even though the dialect was not fundamentally different. So the culture (or thought) is not depending on the language only, but on other factors (history, economy…) which are playing a great part in the development of the language.

I believe there is a certain cohabitation between the two (language and thought) but there is also a strike between the two leading forward. That’s emphasizing the importance of multi-ethnic environment. In Morocco, it is ultimate to include other ethnic groups to keep the osmosis and reactions that make us going forward and not backward.

Thanks to all of you. Each person has brought his(her) personal light.
Even alcapone. I think the message was about to bring some laugh and not meant to do any harm (it's my idea, and attar is the only pseudo I've got).

Salaam,

I was reading a book about Java and thought this would be of interest to this thread:

“He gave man speech, and speech created thought, Which is the measure of the Universe”—Prometheus Unbound, Shelley

Human beings ... are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication and reflection. The fact of the matter is that the "real world" is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group.

The Status Of Linguistics As A Science, 1929, Edward Sapir

Like any human language, Java provides a way to express concepts. If successful, this medium of expression will be significantly easier and more flexible than the alternatives as problems grow larger and more complex.

Salam All !!

I came late for the discussion, sorry about it...
Without reading all the answers to l9bi7's question, I'm gonna tell you what I think about it.

A "chicken or egg 1st?" question that is almost impossible to answer!! lol
I think that Language and Thinking are influenced by each other..

Thoughts and ideas are conceived before one has language; one is unable to communicate thoughts and ideas until one learns language.

Language is a way in which we communicate to others how we are feeling. Sometimes when trying to convey our feelings, we don't always know the proper words to describe the way in which we feel. We may start by using words very similar to how we feel, but that may not exactly convey our feelings, and as we start to think about how to communicate them, we may start to evaluate and question exactly what those feelings are as we search for the right word. Furthermore, those who are listening to our feelings may make suggestions about those feelings or restate them in their own words to further understand what you are feeling, and this may also make you rethink, evaluate or even form new feelings. So therefore, thinking comes first, but the language than further influences the thinking....

It's a bit out of subject but I liked it:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

Hy DeadRose,

It's very funy,

I think what you’re bringing us here is in the heart of subject. lollllllll

Do you have others like this? Wonderful, it’s a good exercise for someone, for instance me, who is very interesting to improve his “Elingsh” Language and thinking.

Hi Farid !

I like it very much too ! and sure , it's in relation with the subject

Yani,
I agree with you when you say that ¨Language governs The thinking! and Thinking governs Language!¨

I repeat I am not elkapone, unfortunately he faded out for some reason. I always liked what he posted and I knew he was kidding when claimed his hatered toward doukkalis

I am wondering if alias faridsouliman is not elkapone!!

doukkali,

Doukkali;

Thanks and this is a follow up to your views about pple with different pseudo names!!! I personally don't put too much into it and don't care about the choice of a plurality of names since...it's a personal choice for very personal reasons...but it all boils downs to the same Topic we are discussing!!! somehow Language fails us and we say things we don't mean or even Thought about!!! Thus the mess of Pseudos just adds to the mix...leading to incomprehensibility and eventually to misunderstanding(s)!After all e-mail no matter how accurate they might be can't really carry the emotions one what or attempts to express, leading thus to a failure of words to carry/transcribe/translate/express/...this is an example of the coplexity of words... It is extremly difficult for me to assume that I am in charge, no matter how accurate I think I am that in expressing myself! It is "simply" impossible! for the fact that the structure of a language is different from that of the Brain! the same is true while moving from one language to another; let alone a mixture of language and cultures! that's too much for the brain to " govern".
Sombody talked about translation and intricacies of the process, but that's a tool that very tricky; translation is! because we are moving from one meduim to another, we are have to make changes on the Structural and thematic levels; otherwise the Translation won't make any sense or will be "Ugly" not faithful...and a proverb comes to mind though it has no bearing on what I think of the analogy itself, less somebody decides to think that I am sexist) it says that " translation is like a Woman! if she's beautiful, she's not faithful!" Therefore, while translating, there's a form of cheating in terms of structure and sometimes even the meaning! It's not a process by choice but one imposed by the target language!
Hope to read those wo talked about Translation: Thought/ idea or Language first!

sorry if any typos!
Yani


Thank God all problems fade out and spent themselves and we go back to being who we are! Hopefully.
Thanks
Yani

Doukkali,

what makes you say that? I've no link with Elkapone!

so is that really interrelated ? come on folk ! I cannot stand that thinking governs language too !

difficult to assimilate ! any toughts ?

l9bi7;

I don't want to bore you with theories, but it's simple: The relationship btw Language and thinking is REFLEXIVE...one reflects the other, but in the process one ends Controlling the other; thus to use the key word in the question: one GOVERNS the other. I don't want to go into a discourse analysis ( I sort of did earlier talking about words used by Elcapone and Doukkali) and my purpose was solely to answer the question! ( just thought I throw that there so the folks don't think I am analyzing them )
Back to you!
Yani

thnx yani. Unfortunately i dont have neither the mind nor the power nor the courage to understand that.

I will come to later
now i have some serious issues to handle

best wishes to you guys

Good luck to you l9bi7

Come back to us soon

I hope your car accident was not very serious and that you feel better now..

Give us some news , we're worried !

maykoun 3endek bass bro