rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.11
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
  
|
 |
Thought without language and Mentalese
« on: 2003-05-29 19:01:46 » |
 |
Today, I got my hands on Pinker's "The Language Instict" (1994). It is a very interesting book, more readable than a lot of fiction that I have encountered lately, and at the same time a serious reading. I'll give Pinker that.
Pinker starts by offering arguments for Chomsky's theory of an existing language acquisition mechanism in the human brain and goes over many interesting and controversial topics of cognitive science.
Among these topics are Sapir-Whorf's hypothesis that natural language largely defines thought.
<quote from Whorf>
We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds -- and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way -- an agreement that holds throughout our speech community and is codified by the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.
<end quote>
You can find more here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_thought_without_language
Pinker finds this theory "outrageously mistaken" and presents several arguments against it. He suggests that thought precedes (natural) language in our minds and does not require it. My impression is that Pinker's arguments refer mostly to a type of thought which is rather closely connected to direct perception.
Then, Pinker goes on to side with "Mentalese", an innate language of thought. Mentalese was an idea of Jerry Fodor’s which appeared in his famous book "Language of Thought" (1975) and still keeps philosophers and cognitive scientists busy generating passionate debates. Pinker's version of Mentalese is a bit different than Fodor's. For example, it allows a more significant part for "mental images".
One implication of Pinker's position is that he explicitly downplays the dangers of "Newspeak" (in politics or elsewhere), because he does not accept that natural language can alter our innate thoughts; all we have to do is recognize a lie or grant the old word to the "newspeakers" and fashion a new word for the meaning which it tried to hijack.
I must say that I still find Sapir-Whorf's hypothesis valuable, while I am still reading Pinker's book. Hopefully, I'll post more on that.
Here are some critical articles related to the topic:
I Don’t Think So: Pinker on the Thinker; mentalese monopoly in thought not vindicated
http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/pinker.htm
What Whorf really said
http://www.nickyee.com/ponder/whorf.html
Neuro-Cognitive Structure in the
Interplay of Language and Thought
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lamb/lt.htm
And a "heavier" one:
The Language of Thought Hypothesis
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/language-thought/
|
Author
Logged
