Does Language and Environment Shape Our Thinking?

[Core]

Yes we can think without language. Mostly we tend to think in words to ourself, to communicate with ourself with language. But there are times, at least for me, when I think simply in images. I can evaulate many different courses of action in less than a second and choose one from just a series of images that flash across my mind. When I read a book, I don't simply read the words and have only an intellectual understanding of the work, I am actually in the world created, seeing it all. The words are just a pipeline carrying the essence. When I come up with ideas, it's not framed in words, I see the idea in my head and can manipulate it as I choose without language.

Sometimes I think we put too much stock in language, thinking that it is an accurate portrayal of what someone is thinking but there is a breakdown between what's in a persons head and what he says because of language and his unique point of view. Thus we are fated to perpeptually misunderstand each other until we can take a look in each others head and from each others point of view.

 

[BoulderHead]

Now back to the topic;

I would launch a soft attack against Humboldt’s theory that people who speak different languages think differently. The reason for a soft attack is at least twofold because depending on how “think differently” is defined it could be argued that even people speaking the same language may think differently from each other, heh. The difficult task of ‘looking’ inside someone’s head to determine the exact nature of their thinking has to be considered, too.
Intuitively, judging from physical actions, if people are considered as function generators, fed a similar input then output in a similar fashion to each other, a commonality of thought may be inferred. Of course, this can be a deception, too. If, for example, we were to analogize with computers running different operating systems, yes, a new browser window may indeed open in both instances yet the routines in operation could be very different. Nevertheless, here is one approach I would take to expose weakness in Humboldt’s position;

We should all be aware that a single word may have many meanings (rich in metaphor). The context in which a word is used is important; “dinner”, for example, may simply refer to food, or it may be a command to stand up, wash your hands, then walk over to a table and take your place. The vagueness of words, although leading so often to confusion, adds a genuine richness to words that enable people to conceptualize many different things, even with a single word. Take the following example;

In Swedish, there are many different names for colors (for example: blue, red, white, light gray, purple, and cyan), but in certain languages in the world (for example in the Tiv language of New Guinea) there are only two words for color: light and dark. If you think that thoughts are influenced by language, then you might think that a Swedish speaker would be better at distinguishing colors than a Tiv speaker. This was studied, and the results showed that speakers with less names for colors in their language where able to distinguish colors just as well as speakers who had many names for colors. This would suggest that we can think of things which we do not have words for.

Taken from;
http://www.ling.gu.se/projekt/sprakfrageladan/english/sprakfakta/eng-sprak-och-tankande.html

The idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak can be attacked by realizing that while you may, in English, think: I want my new shirt to be ‘blue’, the Tiv speaker may think; I want my new shirt to be ‘dark’. It seems totally different upon cursory examination, yet while the words may be different both people can be conceptualizing the exact same color in their mind. This then is confirmed by their actions as each goes on to acquire a similarly colored shirt.

Make any sense?

 

[Rader]

Is language, information? If it is, then language is a mapping of our experiences between awarness and behavior, that gives a meaning to changes.

There are many ways to exchange information and many languages to accomplish it. By thinking you are remapping experience, in your memory, this is a language in itself.

Thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak, to the extent, of the meaning we put to the words. Thoughts are quantum in nature and not deterministic. Although thought can be controlled to some extent, it is not easy. Two exact thought imputs do not get one and the same result. Just try and type and answer to this post and erase it and try and write exactly the same thing again, the next day.

Thinking without language would be like being without any knowledge.

 

[Janitor]

I believe the word you are looking for is flabbergasted.- Rader

Now there you go using Spanish on me.

 

[Rader]

"Its English and its true"

Now there you go using Spanish on me.

No flabbergasted is English. It is the experience of being astonished at something, that is blamed on someone else and you are responsible for it.
:surprise:

 

[Tom McCurdy]

yes-language is just what we make of it. Sometimes i feel things that don't have a way to describe with language yet i still think

 

[Prometheus]

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

There seems to be some ability to think without language, but this begs the question of what is language.

I agree with Whorf in that language affects thinking and culture. For example, religion is common among people whose native language is English. Our ancestors have had religion since ancient times. In ancient times, the native speakers of Chinese did not have reliigion, as the grammar of Chinese does not natively support religion. Over the past 2,000 years or so, religions have been imported from the west, such as Buddhism and Christianity.

Speakers of English and speakers of Chinese have numerous differences in the way that they perceive reality. For example, Chinese speakers see Chinese medicine as quite natural, whereas English speakers typically find it quite difficult to understand and accept its theories as natural and useful.

There is another important consideration. Some people think that they can think in pictures, for example, and thereby bypass language. Although this may be true to a degree, perhaps, the structure of their visualizations is certinainly guided to a degree by their awareness of the grammar of their language, even if not using words to apply that grammar.

 

[Evo]

For example, religion is common among people whose native language is English. Our ancestors have had religion since ancient times. In ancient times, the native speakers of Chinese did not have reliigion, as the grammar of Chinese does not natively support religion. Over the past 2,000 years or so, religions have been imported from the west, such as Buddhism and Christianity.

Speakers of English and speakers of Chinese have numerous differences in the way that they perceive reality. For example, Chinese speakers see Chinese medicine as quite natural, whereas English speakers typically find it quite difficult to understand and accept its theories as natural and useful.

I don't know what you consider ancient, but the Chinese have had documented religions for thousands of years.

"During the Bronze Age (2205-256 BC) in China, the Chinese worshipped many gods and spirits. One of the most important deities during the Shang Dynasty was Ti. Ti means "Deity Above," or "the Lord on High." He was believed to punish people who offended him and reward those who pleased him."

http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/china/religion1.htm

 

[Prometheus]

I don't know what you consider ancient, but the Chinese have had documented religions for thousands of years.

"During the Bronze Age (2205-256 BC) in China, the Chinese worshipped many gods and spirits. One of the most important deities during the Shang Dynasty was Ti. Ti means "Deity Above," or "the Lord on High." He was believed to punish people who offended him and reward those who pleased him."

Hi. I read the page that you cited. I believe that the author called this a religion because he has no other form of reference for such beliefs. I think that religion is an approximation, but is not correct. This ancestor worship is not religion in the sense that we conisder it in the west. He cites 3 religions, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. The first 2 were not religions, and anyway were developed some 500 B.C., and Buddhism was imported.

By the way, Ti does not mean Deity Above. Shang Ti, which is used by modern Christians as a translation of their god, can be roughly translated as Deity Above. Ti by itself has no above, and has no relationship to western religion, such that the translation of Ti to deity is more of convenience than of accuracy.

Although you have found a citation to demonstrate your belief, I recommend that you leave this point open in your mind. Because westerners who have religion look at China and see religion does not necessarilly mean that this is religion in any way like in the west.

Furthermore, in the west there are 2 seemingly incompatible models of the world, religion and science. These are separate and distinct. In China, there was no such distinction. The beliefs of the ancients were a merging of what in the west is called science and religion, because ancient China only recognized a unified model of nature, not subdivided models as in the west.

 

[Evo]

Hi. I read the page that you cited. I believe that the author called this a religion because he has no other form of reference for such beliefs. I think that religion is an approximation, but is not correct. This ancestor worship is not religion in the sense that we conisder it in the west. He cites 3 religions, Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. The first 2 were not religions, and anyway were developed some 500 B.C., and Buddhism was imported.

The first two are included in listings of Chinese religions. See the link below to The Society for the Study of Chinese Religion as an example. Obviously I can't list every source on the internet, but this link provides a list of many sources.

http://www.indiana.edu/~sscr/

Because westerners who have religion look at China and see religion does not necessarilly mean that this is religion in any way like in the west.

Just because religious beliefs and practices in China or other countries are unlike modern organized Christian religion does not change the fact that it is still considered religion.

Furthermore, in the west there are 2 seemingly incompatible models of the world, religion and science. These are separate and distinct. In China, there was no such distinction. The beliefs of the ancients were a merging of what in the west is called science and religion, because ancient China only recognized a unified model of nature, not subdivided models as in the west.

May I ask where are you getting your information? Chinese religion, especially ancient Chinese religion had nothing to do with science.

"Early Chinese religion was based upon the belief in supernatural powers who manifested themselves in animals, vegetation, and the processes of birth, ageing and death."

"An important aspect of religious practice was divination. This was done through the use of oracle bones. Heated bronze rods would be applied to bones in order to produce cracks, which would then be interpreted by shamans or priests. It was believed that the departed ancestors and deities were sending down advice or commands on a wide variety of subjects through the oracle bones."

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/china/preclass.html

Popular religion dates back to the earliest periods of Chinese history. Evidence of divination, astrology, belief in spirits and demons have been a part of Chinese culture since time immemorial. These primitive beliefs were modified by the development of classical Chinese philosophy in the form of Confucianism and the transplantation of Buddhism into China.

Over time the Chinese pantheon came to reflect the order of the Chinese political system. During the T'ang dynasty (619-907 CE) the Jade Emperor was given the title 'Jade Emperor Lord on High'. During the Sung dynasty (960-1126 CE) the Jade Emperor came to be regarded as the ruler of the heavenly court and bureaucracy. Heaven became a form of bureaucratic system, with each department overseen by a particular deity or spirit - just like the political system on earth.

The closeness of the political order and the celestial order was best evidenced by the sacrifices on the days of the winter and summer solstices. At the time of the winter solstice the Chinese emperor, the Son of Heaven, had to offer a sacrifice to Shang Ti, the Lord on High on the Altar of Heaven. At the summer solstice the emperor offered a sacrifice on the Altar of Earth. These were done on behalf of the people in recognition of humanity's dependence upon higher powers.

http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/china/pop.html

For example, religion is common among people whose native language is English. Our ancestors have had religion since ancient times. In ancient times, the native speakers of Chinese did not have reliigion, as the grammar of Chinese does not natively support religion.

I can find nothing that supports your statement, so I'm curious what it is that you've been reading. Do you have a link to this information?

I agree with Whorf in that language affects thinking and culture.

I don't see any evidence of this, but I will be glad to read whatever examples you have.

 

[Prometheus]

The first two are included in listings of Chinese religions.

People in English use the word religion because that is the closest word that approximates the Chinese concept. However, such listings do not mean that they are religions, except insofar as the significant differences are to be ignored. Such an approach is not invalid, it is just somewhat misleading.

Just because religious beliefs and practices in China or other countries are unlike modern organized Christian religion does not change the fact that it is still considered religion.

What do you mean by fact? I do not understand what you consider to be fact. The key word here is "considered". Who considers these to be religion, and for what purpose? Is it to discuss a concept with a western audience in a manner that avoids discussing the significant differences in order to focus on the similarities. You say that "it is considered religion" in an objective manner. Perhaps you mean that you consider it such, and several websites post it as such. These are not considered religion by all. In fact, if you can read Chinese, I suggest that you look at Chinese writings. Not one, in my experience, has ever called Daoism or Confucianism a religion. The word religion is a translation of the Chinese selected for simplicity; it is an easy word to select and readers have an approximate understanding of it. This avoids the difficulty in attempting to explain why these are not really religions.

Chinese religion, especially ancient Chinese religion had nothing to do with science.

My point exactly. There is no such thing as ancient Chinese religion, and there is no such thing as ancient Chinese science. However, from the western, Indo-European point of view, such words can be imposed on Chinese beliefs. In China, there was no such thing as religion or science as we in the west understand it. There was only the unity of this dichotomy, known as the Dao. As long as you subdivide religion from science, as is common in the west, then you cannot understand the unity of the Dao, and you cannot understand how this attempt to subdivide Chinese models of nature into western forms, religion and science, is to introduce misunderstanding.

I can find nothing that supports your statement, so I'm curious what it is that you've been reading. Do you have a link to this information?

I am sorry that I have no quotes for you now. However, if you could read Chinese, then you will find that the English words religion and science have zero correlates in ancient Chinese. There are no words that correspond to our subdivision of nature into science and religion. Chinese has only unified models of nature. The imposition of the words science and religion is done for simplicity, not for accuracy.

As I present no citations to refute your citations, please feel free to maintain your current position, and ignore mine if you wish. However, I will say that all of your citations are in English, where the separation of science and religiion is recognized. In Chinese, there are no ancient words for these separate forms, there are only words for unified understandings of nature.

 

[Philocrat]

What type of language? You mean all kinds? Or do you mean the human language alone?

 

[Prometheus]

Can we think without language?

Animals can think, to a degree. Without language, humans can think to a similar degree. I believe that it is not possible to think in any manner at all similar to our current degree were a person to have no language whatsoever. It is possible for people to have insights, hunches, visualizations, etc. without the need for words to create or accompany them, but knowledge of the structure of the grammar of a language is required to achieve complexity in thought even when words are not being voiced to make the use of grammar apparent.

the American linguist Benjamin Lee Whorf based his (Whorf-Hypothesis)
on the idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak.

I think quite hightly of Whorf's ideas. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has gone in and out of favor over the decades.

is our thinking shaped by our native language and native environment?

I believe that to a hight degree it is. All people are of the same species, and therefore there are naturally constants and a limited variation in the range of some capabilities. However, I believe that thinking is guided in a significant way by the grammar that a person uses to perform that thinking. I find, for example, that the organization of time differs very greatly among different languages of the world. I have noticed what I consider are significant differences among behaviors that reflect the manner in which time is organized among languages.

does the average person in China experience the same thought processes as the average person in Sweden?

Humans are similar animals, and therefore the their thought processes are similar, as they are constrainted by physical limits. However, they are not exactly the same, and there are differences that I consider are linguistically motivated. When I interpret Japanese into English, some of the most common and important words in Japanese speech I omit entirely in the English version, because the significant social implications of such words do not convey any meaning in English.

does the average person who has grown up in a city surrounded by water such as Stockholm think in the same way as a person who has grown up in a dessert such as Saudi Arabia?

What do you mean by same? People in any country who grow up in cosmopolitan areas tend to have very different opinions and to make very different observations than people who grow up in extremely rural areas. The difference that your decribe is even greater.

 

[praveen]

if we can understand what is ( involved in) "thinking"..then probably we can get obvious answer to "can we think without a language".

i feel "thinking" is a process of mind going over "known stuff" stored in the brain and "known stuff" can be anything...it can be language or a symbol.

we can recall(think of) all the letters from A to Z in english language OR we can imagine(think of) our family members face.

so i conclude , we can think without a language.

 

[BoulderHead]

Anyone ever been stumped by a problem you had been thinking about long and hard, only to resolve to put the matter away into a deep recess of the mind and do something else? Ever had the answer ‘pop’ into your mind even though you hadn’t been consciously thinking about finding a solution? Would such a thing constitute thinking without language?

 

[Imparcticle]

I haven't read all six pages of this thread, but I just wanted to point out something.
As a side note:
According to a SCIAM article I read, babies under the age of 2 or 3 do not have conscious thought. But they do have unconscious thought processing.

 

[Rader]

Anyone ever been stumped by a problem you had been thinking about long and hard, only to resolve to put the matter away into a deep recess of the mind and do something else? Ever had the answer ‘pop’ into your mind even though you hadn’t been consciously thinking about finding a solution? Would such a thing constitute thinking without language?

Post page 5.

Ya, Most of my problem solving is done dreaming. Maybe I am just a worry wart but when I wake the next day I have a greater capacity to rexolve the days problems. So is dreaming a language? No sure what kind of a dream is, when you are dreaming, know that you are, yet are concsious of problem solving in your dreams.

 

[physicskid]

I think the differentce in thinking using diffrent languages lies more in the way of presenting and organising what the speaker/writer wants to convey. For example, in one language, it could be convey in a form of a rhetorical question, and in another language, presented as a statement.

By the way, the ancient chineses do place emphasis on scientic developements, though most revolve around millitary tech.

Check out this website on ancient chinese technology and developements: http://library.thinkquest.org/23062/index.html

And this article, titled You are what you speak: http://www.straitstimes.com.sg/columnist/0%2C1886%2C145-231620-%2C00.html

 

[zubzy]

Being one who is mainly mathematically/physics orientated, thinking in a language does not seem right to me. I feel that I need to 'force' myself in order to extrapolate words to paper, as I do now.

When I think of maths, it's almost as if an extra door opens in my head and I'm able to produce things that were impossible when I was in 'language mode.' Things also seem to be clearer; make more sense.
There have been very few English words where I was able to really understand the essence, the fundamental meaning; basically there are few words for me that have a second nature meaning.

 

[Janitor]

I've long thought that English is lacking a good word for the feeling you have when you witness somebody else getting blamed for doing something (or for failing to do something) that you actually did (or failed to do). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other languages which do have such a word.

I witnessed something this week that reminded me of a similar incident that happened a quarter-century ago, and that in turn reminded me of this discussion thread.

The extended family was at my grandparents' house. As it happens, Grandpa was walking around with an old coin in his hand, showing it one-by-one to everyone there. But my attention was on a conversation that two of my cousins were having in the corner of the room that the three of us happened to be in, so I wasn't really aware of what Grandpa was doing. All of the sudden there he is in front of me, and he hands me this coin. Now as it happens, he had on earlier occasions given me stuff like an old watch that no longer working (knowing that I liked to take things apart), and I assumed he was giving me this coin. I thanked him for it, and I hear my sister's voice: "He's not giving that to you," said words delivered in a tone of voice which conveyed the message: you are an idiot and a jerk. Of course I immediately realized that I had made a mistaken assumption and told Grandpa, "Hey, that's neat," and gave it back to him.

So my question is whether there is an English word that describes the feeling one has when one finds himself in that situation. "Sheepish" is as close as I can come, but maybe that doesn't quite do it justice.

 

[Mariko]

Emotional, Visual and Auditory is how we think. Some of us use one of those senses more than the other two but I do think language was a product of these primal senses, a way to organize things between them all, hence language could have never been invented could we not think of names to give things or words to express the way we feel.

 

[loseyourname]

Reviving ancient threads, eh? Couldn't somebody have simply asked Hellen Keller if she ever had thoughts before learning a language?

 

[Doctordick]

Reviving ancient threads, eh? Couldn't somebody have simply asked Hellen Keller if she ever had thoughts before learning a language?

Well, did you have any thoughts before learning a language:

Doesn't anyone around here ever think about things before they post?

Have fun -- Dick

 

[the_truth]

If we did not have language we would invent a form of unspoken language in our minds in order to understand the same concepts we are used to using language for. We do it all the time, when we remember how to tie our shoe laces.

Can you describe how to tie your shoe laces? You would have to compose some new terminology and think of how to explain how to tie your shoe laces first in order to do so as you have not already done so, yet you can tie your shoe laces.

We can think without spoken language, however communication is a part of thinking and that could be called language, though this is not what you meant so..

The answer is yes.

 

[Doctordick]

If we did not have language we would invent a form of unspoken language in our minds in order to understand the same concepts we are used to using language for. We do it all the time, when we remember how to tie our shoe laces.

Well, I won't argue with you over this statement but I think the rest of your post misses the point.

Can you describe how to tie your shoe laces? You would have to compose some new terminology and think of how to explain how to tie your shoe laces first in order to do so as you have not already done so, yet you can tie your shoe laces.

That was not the question! The question was, "did you have any thoughts before learning a language?" Put it another way, do you remember having any thoughts before you learned a language? I don't know about you but my children had a rather substantial vocabulary long before they had learned to tie their shoe laces. It seems to me that there is little evidence that conscious thought occurs prior to learning a language.

We can think without spoken language, however communication is a part of thinking and that could be called language, though this is not what you meant so..

How do you come to know what I meant? Read my essay on squirrel logic[URL]. There is a big difference between "training" and "teaching". This is why idiot savants are seldom credited with "thinking".

We also seldom use the word thinking when we talk of animals. Animals can be trained to do a lot of things but, do they perform their feats because they "know what to do" or do they actually "think" the performance out? Note that I am not claiming that animals cannot think but rather that, if they do, I suspect they do possesses mental processes equivalent to language.

The answer is yes.

Yes to what? That humans can think before they learn a language or that some people think before they post?

You all need to take a look at a report published in the June 25, 2005 issue of Science News, Vol. 167, No 26 : Personable Brain Cells: Neurons as virtuosos of face, object recognition. Apparently significant primary elements of memory may be attached to specific neurons. Maybe there is a specific neuron for each qualia we come to know. The exact scientists may work this out yet.

Have fun -- Dick

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

Interesting thread, i believe that thinkign is language dependant, cause people invented language and ecause u can think with any language u like, i do think in 3 languages..and on my way to do the same with the fourth...I think it depends more on the environment where u live, the way u were raised, surroundings, the nature of the place where u r ...

It's not the language..

 

[Mariko]

Wait I have a problem with this... How could we even invent words could we not think of a name to give things?

 

[Astronuc]

I would launch a soft attack against Humboldt’s theory that people who speak different languages think differently. The reason for a soft attack is at least twofold because depending on how “think differently” is defined it could be argued that even people speaking the same language may think differently from each other, heh. The difficult task of ‘looking’ inside someone’s head to determine the exact nature of their thinking has to be considered, too.

True, but if one tries to translate one language to another, one finds subtle differences, which indicate slight differences in thinking. For example in English - subject, direct object, indirect object - are used. In German, one has the nominative, accusative (like D.O.), and dative (I.O.) cases, and possessive. There is rarely a unique one-to-one correspondence between prepositions of both languages. Then consider Russian - nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, prepositional, and instrumental cases. Among the three languages there are interesting differences among preposition-noun and verb-preposition-noun differences. Then through in Hindi, Japanese, Chinese and a host of other languages in the differences in thinking are quite interesting (although in many cases the basic concept is the same, as BoulderHead has indicated).

For reference, see - Internet Grammar of English
German Grammar on the Web
An On-line Russian Reference Grammar

Perhaps in more complex concepts, the thinking is quite different. But language and culture are somewhat inseparable. See my next set of comments.

We should all be aware that a single word may have many meanings (rich in metaphor). The context in which a word is used is important; “dinner”, for example, may simply refer to food, or it may be a command to stand up, wash your hands, then walk over to a table and take your place. The vagueness of words, although leading so often to confusion, adds a genuine richness to words that enable people to conceptualize many different things, even with a single word.

Langauge provides context and content. Langauge and thinking go hand-in-hand, as in a closed loop with feedback. Adults and children think differently, because the knowledge and language are different. Langauge can be used to transmit indirect experience - e.g. children studying history of their culture or closer to home - their family.

The idea that thoughts are controlled or influenced by the language we speak can be attacked by realizing that while you may, in English, think: I want my new shirt to be ‘blue’, the Tiv speaker may think; I want my new shirt to be ‘dark’. It seems totally different upon cursory examination, yet while the words may be different both people can be conceptualizing the exact same color in their mind. This then is confirmed by their actions as each goes on to acquire a similarly colored shirt.

Some differences may be inconsequential or insignificant.

 

[bomba923]

As this is a thread on language, a year ago I started a very similar thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46014
However, it may have been less comprehensive (I was planning to mention the Whorf hypothesis, and the counterargument by Steven Pinker (I think it was in his essay, "Mentalese"))--anyway, be sure to see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=46014

 

[Ubern0va]

Squirrels manage to think without a language, so I don't see why humans couldn't.

I agree with that to an extent. I think (no pun intended) that language helps extend our thoughts into a more complex realm, acting as a sort of prerequisite, allowing advanced human development to occur. Therefore, though I don't believe that thought would be totally non-existent in an organism that can’t speak, I'm quite sure that complex thought would be scarce.

 

[servelan]

Nobody seems to have mentioned it but certain psychedelics allow one to see what it's like not to have language.

Putting any pre-conceived ideas of these substances to one side I would say psilocybin (magic mushrooms) is one of the most reliable - I took quite a large dose the other day and entered this state where all my powers of language were completely wiped out. All self-generated meaning was cleared away too and I was literally an organism just looking out and experiencing the world. Words occasionally came into my head but they didn't mean anything.

It was a very interesting experience because I couldn't language anything but just experience the world in a really fresh and immediate way. Definitely an invaluable experience for me as I realized how much we replace reality with language and we don't even realize we're doing it. Instead of seeing things as they are we seem to replace primary experience with words. Here's an example for you - a baby is lying in it's cot and the most amazing creature comes in through the window. It's a kalaidoscopicly, dazzling fusion of light, sound and movement. The baby's mother comes into the room and says "baby, it's a bird, it's a bird". By the time the child is a few years old he sees a bird and says "it's a bird" and doesn't think twice about it. The amazing reality of this creature has been conveniently tiled over with a word. Do you see what I'm getting at?

 

[professor]

about the languagees may alter our thought process... I am very skeptical i can speak english quite well...spanish somewhere near fluent and enough of other languages liek french and italian to make my way from one place to the next in a forign county... though before learning more than just english, i beleve my thought process must have been much alike, considering my style of writing has not changed any more then the addition of a few new words prehaps...i doubt very seriously that these philosophers were bilingual, or if hey were... then what a strange question to ask... in addition, how could one learn a language at all shortly after being born withuot the ability to think. pause...they couldent. sorry to maim your post, but just an expression of my thoughts on the matter. (though i will admit there ifs certainly a change of the way people think when learning a language...ie the ability to communicate greatly spurred the advancement of human civilization many years ago, and so does it still allow ideas to be more easily transferred and advanced upon.

 

[dexed25]

Just a Dumb Guess

I've long thought that English is lacking a good word for the feeling you have when you witness somebody else getting blamed for doing something (or for failing to do something) that you actually did (or failed to do). I wouldn't be surprised if there are other languages which do have such a word.

ONE WORD: GUILT

 

[tardis]

Good thread and interesting response Servelan. Having grown up in the east (global) and then moved to the US, I recall that there were words in Asia that spoke to different shades of shame, pride and honor. Shades that are not found (at least to the average Joe) in English. The difference in world view stemming from this are real. However the question that I ponder is whether this means that the language one learns first shapes our operating system to use a puter term. Clearly the default OS can be expanded, but how much and how quickly? and even more importantly, is there something we are missing by virtue of our language driven OS?

 

[Mariko]

I was just watching this talk show with a woman who is audtistic and she says audtistic people like animals use sensory thinking... so how does this prove the theory wrong??