Language, The Mind, Thoughts And Personality

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Human language is unique and vastly different from the sounds and noises of animals. It just so happens that humans’ position in the words is unique as well. We have created a regulated system of survival, generally referred to as civilization or society. Just like we are the only specie capable of language exchange we are the only specie with this highly complex and developed living circumstance. It might seem obvious that these two are linked, that we would not be able to have reached these heights of intelligence and society without the existence of language. What then is language, and why is human speech so unique? How does our intelligence and perception of the world affect language and how does language in turn affect our perception of reality? In short, can reality, as we claim to know it, exist without language?

More than just phonemes

In the first place, language is primarily a system of phonetic symbols for the expression of communicable thought and feeling. However, language is also used for perception of the surrounding world; understanding and interpretation of the world; recognition and memories of things and times; concentration and problem-solving; cooproration and interaction with others; as well as the development of social identity, self-confident and social belonging. (Linell, 1982, p.31)

We need a agreed upon system to convey information to the people around us. Without language Homo Sapien (Sapien) would not have been able to build civilizations. A society is built on rules, values and status. Language is needed by every individual in order to develop social identity and social belonging. Language is used to convey value to objects and abstract functions. All animals seem to communicate with each other in some form. Animals in a pack can share their food, have heirachesies and have pair bonding, however, they cannot have property, marriages or money. This is because those are agreed upon institutional forms of powers, rights and obligations. (Searle, 1996, p.70) Thinking about property, marriage or money, is to think about abstract values given to certain abstract functions or things. Marriage in itself cannot exist without the word. Symbols for marriage like rings or a signed contract may exist, but ”Marriage” still remain just a word. We can not see or hold it in our hand. We, as a society, agreed upon the value and function of the word. Language can covey value to things, such as paper becoming money or a profession having a certain status within society. The status of something, however, only exists if people believe it exists. (Searle, 1996, p.69)

Whenever we give a name or label for something, we also exclude all the things that is not included in that label. Therefor, whenever we agree to give something a name, eg. a rose, we also agree on what flowers or things that are not included in the description. Everything else becomes non-roses.

If we continue the example with flowers; a person familiar with the different names of flowers- Amaryllis, Dendrobium Orchid, Phalaenopsis Spray etc – would be more probable to be aware of the differences and able to point them out. They would also be able to convey information to another person much easier since they have names and words to do so. For anyone not possessing these specified labels flowers would be just flowers. However, even without being able to label the flowers with their correct names, anyone can see that there is a variety of differences within the label of flowers. The difference exists whether or not we have the knowledge to point it out.

How then is a person’s view of reality affected by the language they speak? According to the Sapir/Whorf-hypotheses our mother-tongue language determines what we are able to think. We are completely controlled by the limitations of the language we speak. The reality we create for ourselves, how we make sense of the world is, according to the so-called strong interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, also called linguistic determinism, controlled by the words we have to describe it. A specific culture’s language can express concepts unique to that culture that are impossible to express in the language of another culture. The language is adapted and created in order to be able to describe existing concepts. The concepts still exist and might even be visible for outsiders, but without a language sufficient to describe the phenomena it will never be fully understood by an outsider. A member of the culture who does indeed have the correct terminology to describe it can. ”We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation. ”(Sapir, 1983, p.69)

The reason we need words to describe certain things is because or thoughts are built up around language. Thinking without language would be without consciousness. We would be creatures of instinct, much like animals.

The mental images which are a word

According to the empiricists philosopher John Locke, man have an infinite multitude of thoughts. These thoughts are invisible and hidden from others, and since the comfort and advantages of civilization would not be possible without some of these thoughts to be uttered, man invented certain observable signs with which ideas could be made known to others. (Collin, 2000, p.17)

The philosophical school of empiricism believed that ”ideas” were the main components of human thoughts. These ideas were copies of former experiences made by the senses. The consciousness, according to the empiricists, contains nothing which had not been previously in the senses. When we talk about a ”pear” we recall the pear’s smell and taste, and by using the word ”pear” we refer to these mental images which for us constitute the word’s content of meaning.

A parrot can learn to repeat human sounds, but for the parrot these sounds are meaningless since they are not accompanied by the correct mental conceptions. Animals do use sounds to communicate with each other. The difference is that for animals each sound has a specific meaning, as for humans sounds themselves are meaningless. However, sounds can be created to form meningbearing entities. The number of phonemes in a human language varies between 10 to 100. The uniqness of human language comes from the ability to combine these sounds to make an infinite amount of messages (Parkvall, 2006, p.13) An individual knows approximately 100 000 words. There are room for creations of numerous more, but it seems as we have no need, use, or maybe ability, to comprehend more.

Our minds are like a library of mental images. In this library or dictionary, a connection is made between a word and its meaning. Associations are not only made between words describing the outer world- and meaning, but associations are made within the library. When a test group was asked to mention the first word that came to their mind when they heard the stimulus word Table, 84% responded Chair. (Sigurd, 2007, p.117) This indicates that our minds are organized by domains or categories.

The meaning of words

Connotation is the notion that words or phrases have strong emotional association and coloration. The specifics of connotation are of course variant from person to person. There are several levels in play here. First we might notice the general meaning and value society gives to a word. Secondly, each group of interest will add on their values, it is known for example that ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedomfighter.’ Depending on the interests of the group in question, and their position in society at large, the connotation given might be quite different from the rest of society’s. And finally, the individual in themselves make connotation according to personal experiences. It is of significance what words we choose and use in our thinking process. In his book Mind, Language and Reality1 (1995) Torsten Thurén states: ”New words make it possible for us to see and acknowledge things we have not noticed before. Words also control the mind- it is therefor important to be aware that words are not reflections of reality rather they contribute in the construction of it.” (28)

Human language could be described as a refection of human consciousness. In an online physiological publication (2000) Golubkov states ”There is an integral model of reality imprinted in the language, the one that coincides with the real-life activities of people and, thus, it has been ‘naturally verified’ to be true to actual experience.” This references to the actual physical things-objects and activities- that are universal and exist for all people and in all languages. Things like food, air, or water are more or less concrete and provable. These can as Golubkov calls it be ”naturally varified.” Concepts on the other hand, are were it gets tricky. Concepts- freedom, marriage, power, God- are relative and in many ways connotative.

The question of translation

Then yet again, we should not rule out the ability to learn new languages. When we learn a new vocabulary does or mind expand? Maybe, if the language is different enough from our own. Chances are, however, that if a language is very different from our own so is the corresponding culture. Language could be described as words stored in the mind as pictures (Gärdefors, p.8).When translating flower to fleur, the image of a flower remains the same in the mind of the speaker. Therefor, the obtainment of languages similar to each other (e.g indo-european) does not in fact expand the mental library of images.

Conclusion

I have tried to show that language is a regulated system of mental images. These images differ from person to person but are generally agreed upon by the society where the language is used. The status or value of something is fluent and in many ways personal to the speaker. I have tried to show that language is individual yet agreed upon. It seems that we live in several layers of reality. We may be aware of how our perceptions differ from others, that is, we can realize that our connotations are different from others’. In the end it comes down to the eternal question: What came first, thought or language; the chicken or the egg?

References

Collin, Finn; Finn Guldman. (2000) Språkfilosofi- en introduktion. Falun: Nya Doxa.
Dahl, Östen. (2008) Språkets enhet och mångfald. Poland: Studentlitteratur, Pozkal.
Linell, Per. (1982) Människans språk. Gleerups. Malmö.
Golubkov, S. V. (2000). The language model of personality and its perspectives within psychology. PsychNews International, Vol. 5, Issue 1. URL http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/-expert/ ftp_51/pn5_-_d.htm
Sapir, Edward. (1983). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality. Edited by David G. Mandelbaum. University of California Press.
Sigurd, Bengt; Gisela Håkansson. (2007) Språk, språkinlärning och språkforskning. Hungary: Studentlitteratur.
Thurén, Torsten. (1995) Tanken, språket och verkligheten. Stockholm: Tiger förlag.

Click Here To Order Now!