Thought in Linguistics

Language and Thought Psychology

Language is one of the systems through which we communicate, and it
typically involves communicating through sounds and written
communication with the use of symbols, but it can also involve our bodies
(body language, how we smile, move, and approach people are all forms up
for interpretation in the game of language).Language is often closely related
to the culture that uses it and reflects culturally relevant ideas.

Many languages have words that are not present at all in others.
For example, there is no English equivalent to some German words

Relationship Between Language and Thought

The main use of language is to transfer thoughts from one
mind, to another mind. The bits of linguistic information that
enter into one person's mind, from another, cause people to
entertain a new thought with profound effects on his world
knowledge, inferencing, and subsequent behavior.

Language is a symbolic tool that we use to communicate our

thoughts as well as represent our cognitive processes. Language is
the mirror of thinking, and it is one of the ways in which we
communicate our rich cognitive world. As Wittgenstein suggests, we
may see the world within the boundaries of our language, and we
think that way. Therefore, we can argue that the language we speak
not only facilitates thought communication but also shapes and
diversifies thinking.
Can we understand a concept that does not exist in our language?
For example, the German word “schadenfreude” consists of the
words “schaden (evil)” and “freude (pleasure), and it means “being
pleased because others experience bad things.” Does it mean that
we do not understand this feeling, or we have not experienced it
because no word in English gives the same meaning? Above all, how
can we think without language? More importantly, can we even
think?

We can talk about three different interactions when we investigate

the complex relationships between language and thinking. First, the
existence of language as a cognitive process affects the system of
thinking. Second, thinking comes before language, and the learning
of a language interacts with the conceptual process that is formed
before language use. Third, each language spoken may affect the
system of thinking. We will discuss these three interactions under
these subsections: “thinking without language,” “thinking before
language,” and “thinking with language.”

THINKING WITHOUT LANGUAGE

Unlike animals, humans use language both for communication and

for symbolic reasoning. This strengthens the argument that
language facilitates concept formation. It is known that animals too
communicate thoroughly, give warning cues in case of danger,
imitate sounds, and communicate with hand gestures as observed
with primates. Still, processes such as cause-effect relations and the
acknowledgment of others’ thoughts, demands, and goals are
believed to be more advanced in humans. For example, hearing-
impaired children born to hearing parents, sometimes learn sign
language with a delay. Such children can communicate with people
inside the home using signs that they develop. However, it is only
with a delay that they learn words to describe abstract cognitive and
emotional notions such as understanding, thinking, and feeling.
Additionally, it is shown it takes longer for them to comprehend the
notion of mind, when compared to their peers who can hear and
express abstract words.

Another example is about understanding numbers. The Piraha tribe

in the Amazon uses a limited number of words that describe
numbers. The tribe uses specific words for 1, 2, and 3. They label
any number bigger than 3 as “a lot.” Research conducted with this
tribe shows that the members have difficulty in numeric tests,
especially in the calculation of absolute sizes. Deprivation of the
number system in a language seems to affect calculation processes.

Unlike these examples, we see that thinking continues without

verbal language. For example, people with aphasia who have trouble
speaking due to brain damage can have complex thinking structures
despite the problems in their expressing abilities. Our research
conducted with brain-injured patients shows that they can express
their thoughts in a non-verbal language when they do not have
conceptual problems. For example, if spatial knowledge is still
available in the brain, they can describe a route with hand gestures
when asked.

Research shows the importance of language, especially a language

that describes concepts in the emergence of cognitive processes.
Despite language and thought being closely tied to each other, the
expression of thought is not always achieved with words. People who
have speech problems can express their thoughts in other ways
using nonverbal communication.
THINKING BEFORE LANGUAGE

The best example to understand whether thought or cognitive

processes exist before language is research on babies’
comprehension of concepts and how they may change with
language. Babies can categorize objects and actions, understand the
cause and effect relationship between events, and see the goals in a
movement. Recent studies on action representation and spatial
concepts have shown that babies’ universal and language-general
action representation productively changes with the learning of the
mother tongue. For example, languages use prepositions to express
the relationship between objects, i.e., in, on, under. However,
languages also vary how they use these relations. One of the most
significant studies suggests that babies can differentiate between
concepts expressed with prepositions such as containment (in) and
support (on). The Korean language specifies the nature of these
containment and support relationships using the tightness of the
relationship between objects: tight or loose. For example, a pencil in
a pencil-size box represents a tight relationship, while a pencil in a
big basket represents a loose relationship. This is not a possible
encoding in the English language. It has been found that while five-
month-old babies in the USA were sensitive to the tight- loose
relationship between objects, they lost this sensitivity around the
age of 2.5. The same experiment repeated with Korean children
showed they were sensitive both before and after they learn the
language.

In short, while children universally perceive the different

relationships of concepts, they differentiate notions expressed in
their mother tongue and lose sensitivity in differentiating others as
they learn their mother tongue. When they grow up, however, they
can still learn such differences if they pay attention or if they receive
training to do so.
THINKING WITH LANGUAGE

In the late 1800s, anthropologist Franz Boas laid the foundations of

cultural relativity. According to this point of view, individuals see
and perceive the world within the boundaries of their cultures. The
role of anthropology is to investigate how people are conditioned by
their culture and how they interact with the world in different ways.
To understand such mechanisms, it suggests, implications in
culture and language should be studied. The reflection of this view
in the relationship between language and thought is the linguistic
determinism hypothesis advanced  by Eric Safir and Benjamin Lee
Whorf.

This hypothesis suggests that thought emerges only with the effect
of language and concepts that are believed to exist even in infancy
fade away due to the language learned. This hypothesis builds a
pole among the diverse views on language and thought interaction.
Today we see the reflection of this hypothesis on several views. One
of them is the linguistic relativity hypothesis, which suggests that
languages differ based on their linguistic structures as well as the
words of which they consist.

According to the linguistic relativity hypothesis, the language we

speak changes our perception of the world and shapes our concepts.
In short, language is not used only for communication purposes. In
this view, people speaking different languages have different world
views. For example, the Russian and Greek languages identify
shades of green and blue in detail and people speaking these
languages can differentiate between such shades much more easily
and with greater speed. A more striking example comes from
languages that use gender in identifying objects. Languages such as
Spanish, French, and German attribute gender to objects. More
interestingly, an object with a female affix in a language may have a
male affix in another language. For example, the word “key” has a
male affix in German and a female affix in Spanish. Similarly, the
word “bridge” has a female affix in German and a male affix in
Spanish. These are random matches in a sense. People with mother
tongues like German or Spanish take a test in English as their
second language. Some proper nouns (i.e., Tom, Kathy) are matched
with different object names, and participants are asked to learn
these matches. Some matches are congruent with their mother
tongue (if German, Tom — Key, both male), and some matches are
incongruent (Tom — Bridge: male and female). The results show
that people have difficulty in learning incongruent matches and
therefore their attentional mechanisms may be affected by the
specific structures in their languages. The essential takeaway is that
this effect could be prominent and observed even in a test
conducted in participants’ second languages. The language features
some of the concepts or matches.

The other hypotheses on “the relation between language and

thought” suggest that language does not have any significant effect
on concepts while thinking. According to this view, the language we
speak indirectly and/or temporarily affects our cognitive processes.
Symbols specific to a language can affect only online thinking. While
speaking, it is inevitable for people to use the notions expressed in
their language. However, recent studies show that people speaking
different languages that focus on separate aspects of an action (i.e.,
the manner of the action “hopping” or direction of the action “over”)
have similar hand gestures that describe the direction of the action.
These results suggest that language does not always affect thinking.

While children universally perceive the different

relationships of concepts, they differentiate notions
expressed in their mother tongue and lose sensitivity in
differentiating others as they learn their mother tongue.
The conclusion is that language and thought have interactive
relationship in that language dictates thought whereas thought
also influences language.

Different theories propose different relationships between language and

thought. Piaget's theory of cognitive development argues that children's
ability to use language and the content of their speech depends on their stage
of cognitive development.

In contrast, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes that the language we use to

communicate determines how we think of the world around us, affecting
cognitive processes like memory and perception.

Theories of Language and Thought

The two main theories representing different perspectives on language and
thought you should know about are Piaget's theory and the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis.

Piaget's stage theory of cognitive development

According to Piaget's theory, language is preceded by and depends on
thought. Before children can use words correctly they need to first
develop an understanding of the concepts behind them.
This occurs through the development of schemas, a process which precedes
language development.

Schemas refer to mental frameworks that guide children's behaviour and

expectations.
According to this view, to communicate their dislike of broccoli, a child
needs to first develop a schema about not liking it. Having developed the
schema and expectations about how broccoli tastes the child can express their
dislike.
Children can be taught phrases like "no broccoli" before they ever see or try it
but they won't be able to use it in a meaningful way until they understand
what the phrase means.
The stage of a child's cognitive development will also limit their ability to
communicate meaningfully. In this way, language depends on thoughts.

For example, a child who is not yet able to mentally represent the perspective
of another person will not be able to talk about it or account for it when they
talk to others.

How the linguistic abilities of a child correspond to their stage of

cognitive development.

Stage of development Age Language development

Sensorimotor stage - children explore

0-2 Children are able to imitate sounds and
the world through their senses and
years vocalise their demands.
motor movements.

Children begin to use private speech, which

Preoperational stage - children begin to
according to Piaget reflects their
think symbolically, form ideas and
2-7 egocentrism. They still lack the ability to
represent images mentally. Children
years maintain a two-way conversation and take
may not be able to reason logically and
the perspective of the other person they
see beyond their egocentric perspective.
communicate with.
 Children start to adopt the perspectives of
Concrete operational stage - children
others in conversations. The conversations
start to recognise the perspectives of 7-11
they engage in are limited to discussing
others but may still struggle with some years
concrete things. Children recognise how
logical thought and abstract ideas.
events are placed in time and space.

Formal operational stage - children are

able to reason hypothetically, and 12+ Children can discuss abstract ideas and see
logically, think abstractly and solve years different perspectives.
problems in a systematic manner.

Evaluation of the theories of language and thought

While Piaget's theory appears to make sense and has some face validity, it
generally lacks empirical support. This is due to the difficulties of studying
cognitive and thought processes like schema development in pre-linguistic
children.

The concept of universal stages of cognitive development has also been

widely criticised. Some studies have found that children can attain many of
these developmental milestones earlier than proposed by Piaget.

Differences in cognitive development have also been found across cultures,

suggesting that Piaget's idea of cognitive development was culturally biased
(Mangan, 1978).

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

The central idea behind the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that our
native language affects how we think about the world. The words we use to
create narratives about the world influence how we represent it internally.
According to this view, we can only hold mental representations of the
concepts we can name. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis supports the idea of
linguistic determinism.

Linguistic determinism is the idea that the language we use determines and
constrains how we think about the world. The weaker version of the Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis has been termed linguistic relativity, this idea proposes
that while language may not completely determine our thoughts it can
influence them to some extent.
Whorf supported his claims with research on native American cultures. He
proposed that differences in language can change how a culture understands
the concept of time or how it perceives natural phenomena.

Whorf argued that the Native American Hopi culture lacks an understanding
of the concept of time. He attributed this to the lack of terminology that
places events in time in their language. According to his theory, the lack of
linguistic expression of time changed the way this culture thought of and
understood time.
He also pointed to the fact that the Inuit language has a lot more words for
snow than the English language, suggesting that the Inuit culture perceives
snow differently from Europeans and is able to distinguish between different
types of snow.

Evaluation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

The original examples in support of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis have been
refuted. It was found that the Hopi language does have a way of expressing
time. Moreover, the number of Inuit word's for snow has been shown to be
largely exaggerated by Whorf as the true number is around 4.

However, later psycholinguistics research has found some evidence of

differences in memory and perception across speakers of different languages,
supporting linguistic relativism.
Studies have found that our native language can influence how we remember
past events as well as how good we are at recognising differences between
colours.
Fausey and Broditsky (2011) investigated the memory of intentional and
accidental events in English and Spanish speakers. Both groups remembered
the person responsible for intentional actions equally well. However, English
speakers had a much better memory of the agent behind the accidental action
compared to Spanish speakers.
The difference in memory found in the study of Fausey and Broditsky
(2011) was attributed to linguistic differences between English and Spanish.
In Spanish accidents are typically described with non-agentive language. For
example, Spanish speakers would use the expression "A pen broke" instead
of "A man broke the pen" to describe a pen accidentally breaking.
Winawer et al. (2006) investigated the ability of English and Russian
speakers to discriminate between different shades of blue. The different
shades have distinct names in the Russian language, but not in the English
language.
Russian speakers were much better at discriminating between the colours.
This effect was attributed to how the Russian language categorises the shades
of blue.
Memory and language can shape how we interpret the world, freepik.com

Other Theories of Language and Thought

Other developmental conceptualisations of language include the theories of
Chomsky and Vygotsky. Chomsky focuses on how children acquire linguistic
abilities at such a young age. Vygotsky's theory highlights how language
drives further cognitive development in children.

Language and Thought Chomsky

Chomsky proposed that language acquisition is an innate ability. Children are
already born with the ability to acquire the rules that govern languages.
Grammatical rules are common to all languages even though they might
differ across them.
An innate ability to acquire grammatical structures of a language allows
children to quickly learn the language, even based on the limited linguistic
input they receive in infancy.

Language and Thought Vygotsky

According to Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of cognitive development, in
early development speech and thought are independent. The two processes
merge when speech is internalised. In Vygotsky's theory, language is
considered to be a cultural tool that plays a key role in development.

 Firstly, verbal guidance from adults supports children's learning and

development. Language allows adults to share their knowledge and
communicate with the child.
 Secondly, when language becomes internalised and develops into inner
speech, it allows children to guide themselves when making decisions,
problem-solving or regulating their behaviour.

Language and Thought - Key Takeaways

 Piaget's theory proposes that language is preceded by thought during

development. Moreover, children's ability to use language is
constrained by their stage of cognitive development.

 The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes that the language we use

determines how we think of the world around us, affecting cognitive
processes like memory and perception.

o Whorf used examples from Native American culture to support

his claims.
  The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has received some empirical support.
Studies have found that our native language can influence how we
remember past events as well as how good we are at recognising
differences between colours.

 Chomsky proposed that the ability to acquire language is innate.

 According to Vygotsky, language plays a key role in development.

Language can be used to provide children with verbal guidance. Later,
when children internalise it, language helps them solve problems and
regulate their behaviour.

Discussion Questions about Language and Thought

1. How does language affect our thoughts?

2. Does language determine thought?
3. Are language and thought the same?
4. What is the relationship between language and thought?
5. Does language shape thought or does thought shape
language?

Speech in Linguistics
In linguistics, speech is a system of communication that uses spoken words (or
sound symbols). 
The study of speech sounds (or spoken language) is the branch of linguistics
known as phonetics. The study of sound changes in a language is phonology.

Speech Sounds and Duality

  "The very simplest element of speech--and by 'speech' we shall henceforth
mean the auditory system of speech symbolism, the flow of spoken words--
is the individual sound, though, . . . the sound is not itself a simple
structure but the resultant of a series of independent, yet closely correlated,
adjustments in the organs of speech."

(Edward Sapir, Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech, 1921)

 "Human language is organized at two levels or layers simultaneously. This

property is called duality (or 'double articulation'). In speech production,
we have a physical level at which we can produce individual sounds,
like n, b and i. As individual sounds, none of these discrete forms has any
intrinsic meaning. In a particular combination such as bin, we have
another level producing a meaning that is different from the meaning of
the combination in nib. So, at one level, we have distinct sounds, and, at
another level, we have distinct meanings. This duality of levels is, in fact,
one of the most economical features of human language because, with a
limited set of discrete sounds, we are capable of producing a very large
number of sound combinations (e.g. words) which are distinct in
meaning."
(George Yule, The Study of Language, 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press,
2006)

Approaches to Speech
 "Once we decide to begin an analysis of speech, we can approach it on
various levels. At one level, speech is a matter of anatomy and physiology:
we can study organs such as tongue and larynx in the production of speech.
Taking another perspective, we can focus on the speech sounds produced
by these organs--the units that we commonly try to identify by letters, such
as a 'b-sound' or an 'm-sound.' But speech is also transmitted as sound
waves, which means that we can also investigate the properties of the
sound waves themselves. Taking yet another approach, the term 'sounds' is
a reminder that speech is intended to be heard or perceived and that it is
therefore possible to focus on the way in which a listener analyzes or
processes a sound wave."

 (J. E. Clark and C. Yallop, An Introduction to Phonetics and Phonology.
Wiley-Blackwell, 1995)

Parallel Transmission
 "Because so much of our lives in a literate society has been spent dealing
with speech recorded as letters and text in which spaces do separate
letters and words, it can be extremely difficult to understand that spoken
language simply does not have this characteristic. . . . [A]lthough we write,
perceive, and (to a degree) cognitively process speech linearly--one sound
followed by another--the actual sensory signal our ear encounters is not
composed of discretely separated bits. This is an amazing aspect of our
linguistic abilities, but on further thought one can see that it is a very useful
one. The fact that speech can encode and transmit information about
multiple linguistic events in parallel means that the speech signal is a very
efficient and optimized way of encoding and sending information between
individuals. This property of speech has been called parallel
transmission."
(Dani Byrd and Toben H. Mintz, Discovering Speech, Words, and Mind.
Wiley-Blackwell, 2010)

On the True Nature of Speech

 "It is usually said by grammarians, that the use of language is to express
our wants and desires; but men who know the world hold, and think with
some show of reason, that he who best knows how to keep his necessities
private is the most likely person to have them redressed; and that the true
use of speech is not so much to express our wants, as to conceal them."
(Oliver Goldsmith, "On the Use of Language." The Bee, October 20, 1759)
Speech production in Linguistics
Speech production is an activity embodied in a complex
physical system. It is produced by a cooperation of lungs, glottis
(with vocal cords), and articulation tract (mouth and nose cavity).
The speaker produces a speech signal in the form of pressure waves
that travel from the speaker's head to the listener's ears.

What are the 4 processes of speech production?

Speech, then, is produced by an air stream from the lungs, which
goes through the trachea and the oral and nasal cavities. It involves
four processes: Initiation, phonation, oro-nasal process and
articulation.

Refer to PDF

What factors affect Speech production?

Kent (1993)
 suggests several factors assist in determining whether a
child will be a good or poor oral communicator. These factors
include reliance on speech, appropriate social use of language,
appropriate use of conversational repair strategies, and high
levels of speech intelligibility. Positive interactions among
these factors appear to produce good oral communicators. For
example, individuals who rely on speech demonstrate high levels of
speech intelligibility and are rarely poor oral communicators. Poor
communicators, on the other hand, rely less on spoken speech,
have lower levels of overall speech intelligibility and tend to need to
implement communication repair strategies more frequently. When
poor communicators fail to use appropriate oral communication
and repair strategies, their success in the social use of language is
diminished. Global and discrete components of oral communication
may be at risk in young children with profound hearing losses and
it appears perceptual information from an implant may diminish
these risks.

Speech intelligibility is one core, global oral communication skill

that appears to improve after cochlear implantation. Gains in
overall speech intelligibility after cochlear implantation are reported
in several studies using rating scales or item identification. Studies
contrasting speech intelligibility before and at various times
postimplantation routinely demonstrate significant increases in
intelligibility. Significant increases in speech intelligibility are
associated with increased experience with the implant ( Allen, Nikolopoulos, &
O’Donoghue, 1998
).

Speech intelligibility postimplantation is higher in children with

cochlear implants than in children with hearing losses averaging
103 dB HL and approaches intelligibility levels reported for children
with less severe hearing losses (mean pure tone averages of 93 dB
HL). Improvements are found in speech intelligibility after cochlear
implantation, regardless of whether intelligibility is measured with
minimal pair words, key words in sentences, total words in
sentences, or rating scales (Chin, Finnegan, & Chung, 2001).

Positive alterations in speech intelligibility also are associated

with more appropriate language used for communication. Language
skills in children with profound hearing losses appear to be
positively influenced with increased experience using cochlear
implants. Improvements in the use of verbs, pronouns, adjectives,
nouns and determiners are observed 3 yr postimplantation ( Vieu et al.,
1998
). Measures of standardized receptive and expressive language
use demonstrate steady improvement of language skills with
increased experience with cochlear implants, particularly in
children who are implanted at early ages and who use the most
current cochlear implant technology (Svirsky, 2000).
Social use of language also is evident in preverbal communicative
behaviors of young children with profound hearing losses. Children
who demonstrate a high reliance on auditory-vocal pragmatic
behaviors preimplant demonstrate higher language performance
postimplantatio. In particular, measures of autonomy characterized
by contributions or interactions of a child that do not directly follow
an adult’s contributions in a communication endeavor appear to
account for 16 to 27% of the variance noted in later language
assessments (Archbold et al., 2000;Lutman et al., 1995). Some studies examining the
language performance of cochlear implanted children relative to
normative data from hearing-impaired children observe ceiling
effects in the cochlear implanted data, suggesting their language
use may be more appropriately measured using normative data
from normal-hearing children.

Interactions between speech intelligibility and language use are

observable in communication situations involving familiar and
unfamiliar partners. Speakers who are less intelligible are more
frequently involved in communication breakdowns .
Communication breakdowns involve both the speaker and the
receiver. Speakers who are less intelligible are usually less well
understood by their listening partner. Listening partners who may
have limited hearing, as in the cochlear implant situation, usually
experience more difficulty in understanding the messages of
speakers. During conversational situations, adult cochlear implant
users tend to control conversational situations, particularly if the
communication partner is unfamiliar to them ( Tye-Murray, Witt, Schum, &
Sobaski, 1994
). Thus, familiarity effects are evident in decisions regarding
speech intelligibility and conversational abilities.

In addition to these more global measures of communication skills,

improvements in more discrete oral communication skills are noted
in young children postimplantation. Several investigators observe
increases in the accuracy of consonant and vowel production
postimplantation. Phonetic accuracy appears to improve with
increased experience with a cochlear implant. Decreases in the
number of substitutions, omissions, and distortions of consonants
appear postimplantation (Geers & Tobey, 1992). Improved accuracy in sound
production is noted when stimuli are elicited from pictures,
repeating words or sentences after an examiner, or when engaged in
communication samples. Similarly, measurements of acoustic
variables such as duration of words and formant frequencies also
appear to move toward values associated with normal-hearing
speakers postimplantation.

Although improvements across both global and discrete features of

oral communication are observed in children using cochlear
implants, variability across children also is a key feature. No
measure of oral speech communication skills seems to escape a
wide range of performance levels. That is, many children
demonstrate high levels of performance and other children
demonstrate low levels of performance. Several variables have been
suggested to play roles in the variability of speech production
performance noted in children with cochlear implants. One of the
most important variables suggested to play a key role is mode of
communication (Geers et al., 2000;Geers & Moog, 1992).

Modes of communication may incorporate signs or gestures, as

well as listening and speaking. Systems of signing may incorporate
full language structures as in American Sign Language, language
structures similar to spoken English as in Signed English, or signs
designed to highlight distinctive features of speech as in Cued
Speech. However, it remains unclear precisely how mode of
communication enhances or detracts from the development of oral
communication skills. Oral communication skills in children using
cochlear implants also are influenced by other critical variables
including factors associated with the child and their family, device
characteristics, school settings, and patterns of intervention.