Though it's true that Hayakawa mentions this concept in the text, the idea suddenly crept back into memory and seemed to take root: Does language control how we think, or does how we think control our language? It's a question that has no answer. While one could go on for hours arguing for a certain side, a conclusive solution will always be out of hand for this sort of enigma. I am not sure what to believe, and I thought that by posting about it, I might try to organize my own thoughts and get feedback.
Words Control the Way We Think
It's easy to make the case that our language controls the way that we process thoughts, form ideas, and share opinions. It's often said that we should think before we speak; by thinking we often talk internally to ourselves just as we would talk out loud. If we use words to create our thoughts, then isn't it true that our control over language not only controls the way we think, but also limits what we contemplate? Readers of George Orwell's 1984 are familiar with the "Newspeak" language which seeks to eradicate words with "dangerous" connotations, as Deirdre mentioned. For example, the word 'bad' was not used because of the associations it might evoke; it was therefore replaced by 'ungood.' In reality, if we are not familiar with such words as rebellion, war, and peace (and the ideas which they symbolize), how can we even begin form thoughts based on those ideas? However, all that I have written heretofore has be based upon a single, individual person. Another way in which words could control our thought process is the way others influence them. If we had heard that a friend or family member had, for example, gotten mugged in a foreign country, we may slant our thoughts against that country based upon the negative words used to describe that experience. In this way, sometimes we cannot even control the way we think; the descriptions used by other people influenced us to make judgments about something we had never personally experienced. Words can command, in some fashion, the way in which we think due to our own control of language or some other individual's control.
Our Thoughts Control our Words
Yet another interesting theory is that our mind controls our use of words. Of course, this is an idea which is difficult to put into words. Picture something in your mind which you can only imagine- without using any words. For example, picture an imaginary animal that you made up when you were a kid. Now try to describe what you envisioned. This would be an example of our thoughts controlling or words. Without using words, or your control over language, you formed an image in your head. The reason that it is so different from the previous theory is because we are not limited by vocabulary and what ideas we have already been introduced to. Our thoughts were limited solely by our creativity. We have all had the experience of not being able to put something into words: it might have been a delicious meal or a horrifying encounter that we didn't want to relive. Just because we weren't able to describe it, that doesn't make our experience any less real. All in all, the idea that our thoughts control our usage of words (and our command of language) is a fascinating one, but very hard to explain!
We cannot be sure whether words or our thoughts are dominant over the other. While time-consuming, it is interesting to ponder over these theories. In the end, I'd like to think that we are controlled nearly equally by both. But I'm interested to know what everyone else thinks on the topic. Are our thoughts controlled by words? Or is it the other way around?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Although there will never be a real answer to this question, I find it a fascinating inquiry. Personally, I feel that our thoughts control our words.
The reason I presume that our thoughts control our words is because recently I have had difficulty finding the words to properly express what I mean to say. People often use the expression ‘writer’s block’ to describe those who simply have no ideas or words to scrawl out onto a page. Having experienced it many times (particularly on these long and languid summer days) it is a frustrating sensation that I am sure has seized the creative minds of multiple celebrated writers.
I have often had the inability to translate what I am thinking into words. Sometimes I don’t even use words to think, I just have these sensations that evoke a certain familiarity. It’s as if I know that I have used a word to describe it before but I have forgotten it. These nameless sensations are what lead me to believe that thoughts come first. After all, is it really possible to have words before thoughts? (barring the expression ‘think before you speak)
With regards to your last question, I don't think that words ever come completely before thoughts. I guess what's really at the heart of the issue is the idea that our command of language has some control over our thoughts. For example, reading or hearing "loaded" words can cause us to cast a positive or negative light on the subject at hand. Of course, nothing is completely impartial. Even what I am typing is biased somewhat.
I would like to believe both the theories. Nobody is invincible to the associations of "loaded" words and most people slant their thoughts unconsciously. But I believe that the more self-aware we are, the more we use thoughts to control words. 'Writer's block' is a perfect example of this: the writer knows exactly what he or she wants to say but sometimes the words cannot reproduce the thoughts. The opposite of 'writer's block' would be mindless talking. We often unconsciously say things in response to other people's words. For example, in "Seinfeld," Jerry is dating a "low-talker" (she doesn't speak up). Because Jerry just wants to make her happy, he says "yes" to a question which he didn't hear. As we find out later, Jerry had been asked to wear "the puffy shirt" on a television appearance. On another note, it's fascinating to contemplate whether words or thoughts control us more. For me, I sway more towards the 'thought-over-word' theory.
And another (completely unrelated thing): why is my font so big? I set the font size to 'small' and it's still huge!
"These nameless sensations are what lead me to believe that thoughts come first. After all, is it really possible to have words before thoughts?" (Donna).
Human beings are not born with the ability of speech. Our brains haven't yet developed at the time of birth to decipher words and their meanings. At this stage of life, thoughts are supreme; words don't even come into play. An infant will cry to alert his parent that he is hungry, sick, or in desperate need of a diaper change. Is this cry a language? Does a baby's thoughts sound exactly like his cry? My thoughts right now are pretty much what I'm writing down, so how does thought process change so dramatically?
As a toddler, I, like every other child in America, watched "Sesame Street" and "Barney," shows created to help children with intellectual development. Today's phenomenon is "Blue's Clues." Characters such as Mailbox, Slippery Soap, and Shovel appear on the program. This demonstrates that children slowly fill their heads with words. A mailbox was just a picture in a child's head. He probably could recognize it, but he didn't have a label for it until he watched "Blue's Clues." Slowly he learns to replace the image of a mailbox with the word "mailbox" in his thoughts.
The idea of symbolism comes into the discussion. I think, maybe, as infants our thoughts are strings of pictures instead of words. Eventually, we learn words and learn that to function in society you need words. Even as children, we learn that it's easier to ask, "Cookie?" than it is to put all our energy and effort into wailing and frantically pointing at a treat we may have spotted. Over time thoughts become strings of words because we learn to associate the word with an object or thought. At first we use images to symbolize thoughts, but as our brains develop and our thoughts become more complex, we think in words.
"The word is not the thing."
So are our thoughts controlled by words? I'm very slightly leaning towards no. Words do influence our thoughts: "If we had heard that a friend or family member had, for example, gotten mugged in a foreign country, we may slant our thoughts against that country based upon the negative words used to describe that experience" (Ian). Images, however, also influence our thoughts. Muslims in our country are looked at suspiciously, and for a time after Columbine, teenagers who wore a trench coat were targeted. It may seem like our lives are completely full of words, but there are just as many images. Pictures of Tienanmen Square, the flag at Iwo Jima, or just a child in his mother's arms evoke so many thoughts. These thoughts may be in words, or they may just be a hazy feeling or memory. We think in words, but our thoughts aren't words. We can think of smells, melodies, and touch that can't possibly be expressed in words.
An interesting thing to note is that these letters, these "... black marks on paper that stand for such noises [speech] ..." (Hayakawa 6), only mean something because we assign meaning to them in our brains. In chapter 2, Hayakawa elaborates on the symbolic process and later on the two different worlds - the verbal and the extensional, but the key thing to note is that the verbal world has no meaning unless our minds, through the symbolic process, assign meaning. Words simply do not pop out of thin air, they are written down or said by someone, and are given meaning by the brain of the reader. While words may never mean the same thing twice, this is only true because our brains have the power to assign hundreds of meanings and interpret words in infinite ways. As a result, words are a tool by which others may control the way we think, but not the originators of the control. For example, in 1984, "Newspeak" was used to control the way people think, but "Newspeak" didn't just appear one day. People were behind its creation. In short, brainpower gives words their "wordpower". After this long, rambling comment, the essential gist is that we can control our words and words can control the way we think, but only because someone else controlled those words in the first place and because we assign meaning to these black symbols in our brains. The source of all wordpower is brainpower.
I think that Arka brings up another intriguing point. Any individual or group of people can control our words to ultimately alter the way we think.
However, this kind of control exhibits itself as either conscious or unconscious. To once again bring up 1984, we know that the 'Ministry of Truth' controlled what words were used and how their connotations led to uniformity and constant feelings of warfare among the people of Oceania. However, the exclusion of certain words can also have a huge effect on thought. Thinking back to the America in the 1950's, nearly everyone envisions a family-friendly, P-G atmosphere. But it wasn't completely for the facts that the people themselves decided to act this way; the culture and society of America back then condemned any overt acts of sexuality or unconformity. Thus, once again, a population was kept in line in accordance with what was considered "correct." I am not condemning or condoning this type of control. Many instances in history show that it can beneficial; other demonstrate how severely harmful it may be.
Both of these examples are ones of conscious inclusion of exclusion of words which led to a desirable effect. However, it would quite impossible for me to try to give examples of unconscious word-control, and therefore I will not even try. But in the end, whether we like it or not, some individual or group is subtly manipulating the nature of everyday words to lead us down the preferred avenue of thought. (I say this in the least conspiracy-theorist kind of way)
I wanted to add on to Sara and Donna's comments. I am talking about the thoughts that are just too hard to put into words. When we try to explain them, we know we are only giving the listener a faint idea of what we experienced. I feel this way a lot after having a fantastic dream in a make-believe world and unrealistic characters. If words completely made up my thoughts in that dream then I would have no problem explaining it. But i can't exactly explain the adventure plot and my feelings so i guess i side with "Brainpower" haha. Another thing is smell and how it is the largest trigger of memory. For instance I will often comment on how "it smells like summer" or it "smells like rain" most people can relate to that but its still very hard to explain in words. Stranger still is how some smells will make me extremely happy just because of their association, like how sun tan lotion is an instant mood-lifter. This has nothing to do with words but it still connects me directly with thoughts and feelings. So I disagree that words are solely what influences our thoughts or that they create our thoughts.
Very briefly, I would just like to add that Cristy makes an interesting point – everyone is limited in his/her understanding of what another says to them: personal experience and influence from those in a person’s life helps compose their opinions and beliefs, and trying to express some occurrence one person may have had that another has never experienced will not have the same connotations. I believe association is fully based on what has happened in one’s life, and while the general meaning can be conveyed through simple definitions found in dictionaries, the essence and feeling of the communicated thought may never be conveyed, and will thus reap a totally different effect.
It's hard for me to say which "controls" which. What do we mean by control. Words ands thoughts exist in a cycle...so does "control" mean pinpointing the start of the cycle?
I completely agree with what Cristy and Steph said. There are many ideas that one can have a very clear picture of in their mind, however when asked to explain this idea to another person in words, they often come up short. I came across a great example of this this summer. I did a show called "A Place Called Up" and it was about a two-dimensional plane where a myriad of geometric shapes live together. Something happens to the main character, a small circle named Dot, and she is exposed to the third dimension. When she returns to the second dimension, she cannot explain to the other shapes what she saw until she meets my character. My character (a star named Dash) also was exposed to the third dimension and explains it as "a place called up". One of the lines was "it's not left and it's not right" because that was all the shapes knew, left and right. My director (who also wrote the show) said that the inspiration for the story came from hearing this guy talk about how someone in the second dimension would explain the third dimension. I thought this was a very clever way of thinking about it and when you mentioned this concept of inexplicable ideas, this show instantly came to mind. As crazy and ridiculous as it sounds (and believe me it was; two words: pool noodles), I thought the ideas presented in this show were a perfect example of this concept.
I think Grace's example is a great one. As she mentioned the only way the character could describe what she had seen was that it was "not" this and "not" that in terms everyone was used to. She didn't have a word for it at all and all she could do was talk about it in terms they understood. I think this example shows the limiting power of words. (*1984!)
How about words for tastes and feelings those are also pretty limiting. In some languages there are numerous words that are different variations for deep feelings. Whereas in English we only have one word "love".
Post a Comment