杏吧原创

Think straight 1 & 2

I think in English, but my Swedish friend thinks in Swedish. How do deaf people, who have never heard words in any language, think?

When I think, I think using words and sentences. Although I can鈥檛 remember for certain, I don鈥檛 think I knew any form of language as a baby, so how do babies think?

鈥� For prelingually deaf people who are neither exposed to nor allowed to communicate in a sign language, this is a very serious concern. It seems that the development of language allows humans not only to discuss, but also to conceptualise abstract ideas. Many deaf children in the past were assumed to have an intellectual disability, but the problem evaporated once they were given access to language via signing.

For those deaf people who do learn sign, sign languages seem to function just as any aural language does, the only difference being the channel used for communication.

Those who learn to sign as a first language will think in it as well, even if they go on to learn other languages, as is the case in hearing children of deaf parents. This is not such a strange idea 鈥� very few hearing people would claim to actually hear voices when they are thinking. When I think, it is in something like the impression of the English words I know, rather than the words themselves.

Interestingly, children who are exposed to sign languages as infants 鈥渂abble鈥� with their fingers and engage in kinetic wordplay in just the same way as other infants do. However, the signers develop slightly faster, probably because speech requires complex motor movements while sign languages uses very precise hand signals.

Contrary to popular belief, sign language is not merely a visual form of English, as English is spoken. It is actually a language in its own right, and in the US, American Sign Language (Ameslan) is much closer to spoken French than it is to English, thanks to its separate development.

Fiona-Grace Peppler

Northbridge, Western Australia

鈥� Recent research has produced reliable evidence of thought in babies, who obviously cannot think in words. Much adult thought, particularly abstract theoretical speculation, is language-based, and some is conditioned by the constraints of the language we know, but the idea that it is always so (known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis) is now thoroughly discredited.

Non-linguistic thought is more frequent than one might expect. However, any attempts to reflect on it (such as this answer) inevitably involve language, the normal form of abstract thought.

Because both this reflective process and the non-verbal thinking which is its object occur in the mind, it is easy to merge one with the other and ignore the wordlessness of much thinking. Hence the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the consequent prejudice that dumb animals lack consciousness.

Non-verbal thought consists of the logically integrated structuring of proprioception 鈥� awareness of the body鈥檚 posture and of the response to external and internal stimuli by its sense organs 鈥� and the recollection and projection of visual images, emotions and sense data. Wordless thought is clearly the norm for animals, much of whose behaviour cannot be explained without assuming they are capable of elaborate thought processes such as anticipation, correlation and deduction. Even a humble squid has enough cognitive ability not to eat itself.

Giovanni Carsaniga

Clovelly, New South Wales

鈥� The physicist Richard Feynman demolished the argument that thought necessarily involves language simply by asking how a crankshaft works. This can be explained in words, but he pointed out that a reader will only understand those words if he or she already knows how a crankshaft works.

One subset of thinking closely involves language, such as rehearsing what one is going to say or write. Other thinking, such as developing a logical argument that will later be put in words, is readily described in language. Some people conclude from these observations that they think in their native language.

To some extent, one might try to limit the definition of thought to exclude a lot of what I call thinking. You cannot easily put into words the processing that you use to work out how to jump over a puddle onto a slippery, non-horizontal tile without spilling your coffee or falling over. Nor can you easily put into words the processes that lead you to fail in this action and subsequently slip and fall. Perhaps it could be called a higher motor skill. However, surely jazz musicians improvising a solo are thinking, but not in words, and it is moderately difficult even to describe in words exactly what a jazz musician does.

I think in thoughts. When I want to talk or write, I use a spoken or written language. When I play, I use music. And when I jump over puddles, I have been known to fall over.

Joe Wolfe

School of Physics

University of New South Wales, Sydney

鈥� It is surely incorrect to say a person thinks in English, or Swedish or any other language for that matter. It depends what you are doing.

I write computer software and when I am doing that I tend to think in terms of the programming language that I am using at the time, or perhaps in terms of outcomes or maybe screen layouts. I also spend a lot of time woodworking, and when I am doing that I think in images of the desired result.

The point is that you think in whatever symbolism is appropriate for the task that you are carrying out at that particular moment. Language is merely symbolism for expressing thoughts to others, or for ordering a beer in the pub. At the moment I am thinking in English because it is appropriate for the task of composing this reply to your correspondent鈥檚 question. So surely deaf people have their own sets of symbols.

I expect that babies think in a symbolism that is made up of images, sounds, colours, movement, smells and tastes 鈥� as we all still do. As we grow older we simply add to this symbolism.

Greg Johnston

Melbourne

This week鈥檚 questions

Curious cuppa

When you add a few drops of lemon juice to a cup of black tea, the colour of the tea lightens considerably and very quickly. Why?

Stuart Robb

Strathaven, Lanarkshire

Icycle

I recently saw the IMAX film Shackleton鈥檚 Antarctic Adventure, which uses a mixture of 85-year-old archive footage combined with modern reconstructions.

Some scenes clearly showed a bicycle, but why would anyone take a bicycle to the Antarctic and what would they use it for? Was it introduced by the modern film-makers or did the expedition really take a bicycle with it?

Philip Crohn

Surrey Hills

Victoria

Killer chemical

How does chlorine in swimming pools kill harmful organisms and why is it the chemical of choice?

Tommy Krone

Copenhagen