2020/1 PSYCHOLINGUISTICS

15.3   Theory 2: Language is essential for thought

15.3.1  Proponents of the theory

Theorists such as Sapir, Whorf, and Vygotsky hold that the language system, with its rules of vocabulary, is necessary for thought. This theory is broader than the prior theory, which held that thought was derived from speech

production, since it encompasses all of language, both speech production and speech understanding.

Let us consider some choice quotations to get some idea of the scope of this theory. For example:

The writer, for one, is strongly of the opinion that the feeling entertained by so many that they can think, or even reason, without language is an illusion.

(Edward Sapir, 1921, p. 15)

Thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them . . . The relation between thought and word is a living process: thought is born through words.

(Vygotsky, 1934, pp. 125, 153; emphasis ours)

The background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language . . . is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the indi- vidual’s mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade. Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly between different grammars. We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language.

(Benjamin Whorf, from his 1940 paper (Carroll, 1956, pp. 212–13))

15.3.2 Inadequacies of the theory

We have two objections to raise regarding this theory. They are: (1) Deaf persons without language can think; (2) Multilinguals are whole persons.

15.1.2.1          Deaf persons without language can think

There are many deaf children who do not begin to acquire language until quite a late age, often after 3 years, when they begin to attend special schools. These are typically children who have a congenital hearing loss of over 90 decibels and are unable to receive speech, and whose parents (usually hear- ing) do not know sign language. These children, when at play and when participating in activities around the home, behave just as intelligently and rationally with respect to their environment as do hearing children. If one holds that language is the basis for thought, one would have to argue that these children do not think; that they were automatons, mere robots.

Furthermore, if one holds that grammar determines how we ‘dissect’ nature, then it must be argued that either the non-language deaf children cannot dissect nature or, if they do, they do so differently from children who do have grammars. No such difference has ever been noted, nor has it ever been observed that deaf children who acquire language late undergo   a radical change of perception. Rather, research evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Furth (1966, 1971), for example, provides research data that shows no difference in intelligence between normal and deaf persons, even though the language knowledge of the deaf persons is generally far below that of hearing persons.

The case of Helen Keller, whose language knowledge was minimal until she was 7 years old, is also relevant to this issue. Keller reports in her book, The Story of My Life, many memories of the period in which she was without language (Keller, 1903/1996). For example, in one pre-language incident she remembers getting angry when her teacher tried to teach her the words ‘doll’ and ‘mug’. She got so angry that she threw the doll down on the floor. It would be insupportable to maintain that Keller could not think or sensibly perceive the world prior to the age of 8, when she had little or no language.

A more recent case is that of a 27-year-old deaf man (Schaler, 1991) who demonstrated that he understood objects, situations, and events even though he had no language for them. Furthermore, when he later acquired sign language, he was able to describe experiences in his life that had occurred before the acquisition of sign language. The man was a thinking human being even before he had acquired language. Such a fact cannnot be ex- plained by the theory that thought comes to existence through language.

15.1.2.2           Multilinguals are whole persons

Consider persons who are proficient in more than one language, where two or more languages had been learned in childhood. If the language system forms thought, and if different languages form different thought systems, then such persons would have formed more than one system of thought.   (It would not have been possible under the theory to form a single system because, according to the theory under consideration, opposing concepts derived from the different languages would be involved.)

If multilingual persons have more than one thought process (one for each language), such persons would not be able to think coherently or would have separate thought intelligences or personalities. Different guiding ideas would be involved with the different languages. Then, too, such persons would have difficulty in using the knowledge gained through one language when operating in the other language(s), since thought is supposed to be language-specific and not universal, according to this theory. However, no evidence of such malfunctioning or any other sort of problems for multi- lingual persons has ever been observed.

Cases of persons who live in only one environment but have learned a number of languages simultaneously in that environment provide perhaps the best test of the theory in question. The environment is constant except for language. In this regard, the first author would like to offer the case of a family he knows well since they are his friends. The two sons grew up in that family speaking English, Japanese, and Russian. They were trilingual by the age of 3 years! This occurred because the father spoke English to the children, the mother spoke Japanese, and the grandmother, who lived with them, spoke Russian. The two boys, four years apart in age, each learned all of these languages simultaneously from birth.