Which comes first, language or thought?
Babies think first
By William J. Cromie
Harvard News Office

It's like the chicken and egg question. Do we learn to think before we speak, or does language shape our thoughts? New experiments with five-month-olds favor the conclusion that thought comes first.

"Infants are born with a language-independent system for thinking about objects," says Elizabeth Spelke, a professor of psychology at Harvard. "These concepts give meaning to the words they learn later."

Speakers of different languages notice different things and so make different distinctions. For example, when Koreans say that one object joins another, they specify whether the objects touch tightly or loosely. English speakers, in contrast, say whether one object is in or on another. Saying "I put the spoon cup" is not correct in either language. The spoon has to be "in" or "on" the cup in English, and has to be held tightly or loosely by the cup in Korean.

These differences affect how adults view the world. When Koreans and Americans see the same everyday events (an apple in a bowl, a cap on a pen), they categorize them in accord with the distinctions of their languages. Because languages differ this way, many scientists suspected that children must learn the relevant concepts as they learn their language. That's wrong, Spelke insists.

Infants of English-speaking parents easily grasp the Korean distinction between a cylinder fitting loosely or tightly into a container. In other words, children come into the world with the ability to describe what's on their young minds in English, Korean, or any other language. But differences in niceties of thought not reflected in a language go unspoken when they get older.

Spelke and Susan Hespos, a psychologist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., did some clever experiments to show that the idea of tight/loose fitting comes before the words that are used/not used to describe it.

When babies see something new, they will look at it until they get bored. Hespos and Spelke used this well-known fact to show different groups of five-month-olds a series of cylinders being placed in and on tight- or loose-fitting containers. The babies watched until they were bored and quit looking. After that happened, the researchers showed them other objects that fit tightly or loosely together. The change got and held their attention for a while, contrary to American college students who failed to notice it. This showed that babies raised in English-speaking communities were sensitive to separate categories of meaning used by Korean, but not by English, adult speakers. By the time the children grow up, their sensitivity to this distinction is lost.

Other experiments show that infants use the distinction between tight and loose fits to predict how a container will behave when you move the object inside it. This capacity, then, "seems to be linked to mechanisms for representing objects and their motions," Hespos and Spelke report.

Their findings suggest that language reduces sensitivity to thought distinctions not considered by the native language. "Because chimps and monkeys show similar expectations about objects, languages are probably built on concepts that evolved before humans did," Spelke suggests.

The researchers describe their experiments and conclusions in the July 22 issue of the scientific journal Nature.

The sounds of meaning

Their findings parallel experiments done by others, which show that, before babies learn to talk for themselves, they are receptive to the sounds of all languages. But sensitivity to nonnative language sounds drops after the first year of life. "It's not that children become increasingly sensitive to distinctions made in the language they are exposed to," comments Paul Bloom of Yale University. Instead, they start off sensitive to every distinction that languages make, then they become insensitive to those that are irrelevant. They learn what to ignore, Bloom notes in an article accompanying the Hespos/Spelke report.

As with words, if a child doesn't hear sound distinctions that it is capable of knowing, the youngster loses his or her ability to use them. It's a good example of use it or lose it. This is one reason why it is so difficult for adults to learn a second language, Bloom observes. "Adults' recognition of nonnative speech sounds may improve with training but rarely attains native facility," Spelke adds.

Speech is for communicating so once a language is learned nothing is lost by ignoring sounds irrelevant to it. However, contrasts such as loose-versus-tight fit help us make sense of the world. Although mature English speakers don't spontaneously notice these categories, they have little difficulty distinguishing them when they are pointed out. Therefore, the effect of language experience may be more dramatic at the crossroad of hearing and sound than at the interface of thinking and word meaning, Hespos and Spelke say.

Even if babies come equipped with all concepts that languages require, children may learn optional word meanings differently. Consider "fragile" or "delicately," which, unlike "in," you can leave out when you say "she delicately placed the spoon in the fragile cup."

One view, Bloom points out, "is that there exists a universal core of meaningful distinctions that all humans share, but other distinctions that people make are shaped by the forces of language. On the other hand, language learning might really be the act of learning to express ideas that already exist," as in the case of the situation studied by Hespos and Spelke.

There are lots of situations involving the relation between ideas and language that Hespos and Spelke did not address, so the debate is still open. Do people think before they speak or do words shape their thoughts?

thought!

percept, recept, concept!

Thought!
Primate brakes open nut-shell with a stick or a rock to get to the nut. Behaviour learned by observation. No instructions. Thoughts into action without language inter-action.

The "language" doesn't have to be words. It can be pictures or analogues of video or sounds or smells etc. It's not as simple as.......blah, blah. Once a picture/video is in the memory (.. learned ..) it can be recalled. Then it is actually a series of pictorial (or other) instructions. Corrr, even poets know this (cf language of love).

I think the article makes a good argument that language influences our view of the world--not just what we think about but also how we think. Consider the example of how Koreans vs. English speakers conceptualize objects touching one another. Koreans focus on tightness/looseness while English speakers emphasize in-ness/on-ness. Conceptualization of object relationships is so basic that I don't think we can fully comprehend the huge impact it must have on our world view. I'm sure there are countless such differences in our language vs. others, many of which are substantial. Sure, babies' brains are veritable blank slates capable of taking in any language, but once they start learning their native tongue, certain limitations are introduced just by virture of the way that particular language is constructed.

It has been theorized that the reason most of us have no memories of our lives before age two is because we could not yet understand language. The memories are likely there but inacessible because we learned them without the benefit of language.

I've often wondered how frequently we think in words. It's a hard thing to nail down, really, because once you start trying to observe your own thoughts, you influence the way you're thinking. Years ago, I asked a friend to randomly ask me, "Are you thinking in words?" From this experiment, it appeared that I basically used language to think. However, I'm still not sure if even this type of random checking gives an accurate, objective reading. Any checking at all, even if sprung "pop quiz"-style, might corrupt the general thought processes.

Shows how "theories" need updating regularly. Having the experience of two of my own children and now a granddaughter of three, I can say, as an academic scientist of 30 years standing, that the "two year barrier" is well out of date.

That is, opinions are different to scientific data. Let's beware, eh?

As an aside, but related, what do we do when we dream, think (at all), think in words, think in pictures etc? Is dreaming really unconscious thought? Do the unborn dream? After all they are exposed to stimuli and might be able to recall it (?)

No. Any dream you can remember was conscious first. Dreaming is the lowest level of consciousness (Leary). Consciousness is essential to memory. Nothing is remembered that was not conscious first. Not everything conscious is remembered, but is merely potential memory.

I remember large, grey, floating stones repeatedly in dreams from an early infancy. I cannot remember any stones floating in my conscious life. Dear Dr Rick, can you do anything for me? Yours, Stoned from York England.

As Carl Jung might tell you, dreaming consciousness does not need to make rational sense. Perhaps you were an adulterer in an earlier life and were stoned to death for it, having no savior to remind people about casting the first stone. Or maybe you were a criminal sentenced to making little stones out of bigger ones.*

Pummice stones sometimes float in water. Perhaps your mother was doing something with pummice at one time. Most stones will float in mercury. Maybe your father was an alchemist looking for the philosopher's stone.

*There is no such thing as a past life. Information cannot be transferred from a dead brain to a live one, at least at this level of technological development.

So how can you explain my ex-mother-in-law's three-toed feet with 4 inch claws at the end of them? And I also had a repetitive chilhood dream that has frustrated me up to this day. It's very hard to describe, as it has also been impossible to replay in my mind all throughout my life as an adult and as an older child after the dreams stopped. I do remember a water fall, some rocks around it, and the most frustrating and impossible to imagine, much less to describe item of all: a warped version of space. Which affected all the other objects, incluiding my perspective of the whole scenario. Very, very strange. I'm almost sure I'm not alone in this, as others must have had similar experiences. I can remember a very joyous feeling and I desire to stay in this place and not ever want to leave it. What the hell was that, Dr. Rick!!!!

Okay, let's try this again.
Most of us cannot recall specific events in our lives that occurred prior to around age two--a phenomenon known as infantile or childhood amnesia. I recently heard from a reliable source that it has been theorized that early memories are inacessible because they were acquired without the benefit of language. When I mentioned this in my post, I was admittedly lazy and did not cite supporting scientific data. Anyway, here's a fairly recent article (June, 2005) describing a study conducted in May, 2002, which supports this theory (and I never claimed it was anything else):

http://cognitivedaily.com/?m=20050622
"Simcock and Hayne argue that these memories simply are not ever encoded in language, and for that reason, never become part of an adult’s autobiographical memory."

Here's the original research article documenting the entire study:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/member...ues/ps/1334.pdf
"...we hypothesize that the inability to translate early, preverbal experiences into language prevents these experiences from becoming a part of autobiographical memory. In this way, language development may be the rate-limiting step in the offset of childhood amnesia."

I do think that much more investigation needs to be done in this area before making any conclusions, as very little is known about how memories are formed, retained and recalled.

I don't do dream interpretation. For that, see Freud and Jung, or a Gypsy fortune teller. In my experience, dreams merely reflect our hopes, fears, and general nonsense. Background noise in the "magical vanishing memory machine." (Grace Slick)

I have a memory from when I was under a year old. I had just learned how to walk and wanted to go with my father and older brother across the street to the fruit and vegetable stand. At first my father said to stay there, but then he relented and said "come on." So I started forward and fell on my face (and started crying), and then he changed his mind again and I had to stay home. The memory is visual and auditory and also contains the pain and frustration I felt. I saw cars on the street on a sunny day with the colors of the fruits and vegetables, and felt the concrete walkway when I fell down on it.

....to be completely objective here, neither thought nor language come first!

Humans began with sense impressions of one kind or another, one built up and overlapping the others until that percept is received.

Rick--One idea holds that traumatic pre-language memories are sometimes accessible later on. I've also heard that it's sometimes hard to distinguish between a first-hand, pre-verbal memory and one that actually evolved later, presumably when people around you discussed the earlier incident. Your face-plant ordeal was likely a true memory--traumatic for you, but hardly remarkable enough for your father to speak of months later. It's also possible that you were exceptionally bright and had already started verbal development.

If you think about it, wouldn't one's own birth be right up there with life's major traumas? How come we can't remember it?

I suppose it's because in the brain of a newborn, the memory formation hardware isn't fully formed yet. You know, hippocampus and all that. There are annecdotes of hypnotic regression subjects being able to recall birth trauma, but those may be the result of suggestion and overly-helpful imagination.

Is that why your face appears to be so flat?

....as in 'dimensionless", lacking any depth?

Don, sorry to see that you lost your arm. And who is that pushing a bottle into your face? You seem to like it, Buddy.

Surely there are some papers out there showing that observation of newborns can give us the answer (with some help from MRI, physiology, responses [eg eye movement, crying] etc). Any leads anyone? Come on Don.

Rick, doesn't brain anatomy change with stimulation/usage? So that first bit of extra hippocampal development might be occurring from the moment of birth, or even during or prior to. So why shouldn't we remember it? And of course, there is some hippocampus at the time of birth, so why not inter-uterine memory?

lol, I do like it (and it is a budweiser, like drinking water, some people say piss).

....but I like my beer in a pint more though! Newcastle Brown Ale is a good brand from your neck of the world.

I do know the french structuralist of the 50's, 60's and 70's Jean Piaget wrote alot about the cognitive development of children.

Hey Hey, do you consider yourself a modernist or a post-modernist or a post post-modernist?

...or is it because I'm looking at it on a flat two-dimensional screen, flatland at the speed of light?

Well, I've successfully completed my 1st year of graduate studies! Yeeaaahhhh 4 me! That's why I haven't been tooo active in the past 8 months. It pretty much demanded all my focused attention. I also taught two painting clases, 'The Human Figure' and 'Abstraction'.

My thesis paper and exhibition for next year is starting to come together. I've left hints and clues dispersed throughout the forum as to what it will be.

Cheerio.

This must be a joke!

Yes. With a bit of Nouveau and Deco thrown in!

Why must this be a joke?

?

?

....besides there has been nothing new and thought provoking around here in about 8 months, as everything being said seemed redundant and merely echoes of previously held conversations (de Man's echo). Where has the synaptic spark gone around here? Oh, here I am, back to push a few coded buttons eh, hey! Do you remember the times?

Anybody know what my favorite button to push, rub and flick is? Anybody?

Thought you might appreciate this:

http://yoke.cc/sidewalk.htm

(Click to view attachment)

It makes me wish we had more sidewalk chalk artists in Sunny Southern California.

Yes, those are very cool, but I have seen them before. This page seems to be missing quite a few images though.

He is definitely talented, and seems to have found himself a good working niche.

ps I like his last name and all that it connotes, a lil' eroticixxxed phantasmagoria always pays off.

I don't get this one!

It can't be much of a secret if there is a sign pointing to the nuclear bunker.

Oh, I cee, ha ha. I guess my wits are slowing down with old age, although some have postulated that this is/can be a good thing! (Kaku's big freeze and observing <quantum> phenomenon)

Rick, if we parallel our posts to epochs in time, you would be a futurist and hey hey would be an extreme futurist, men ahead of their time, while I'm still living in the past, acqualong baby, 1925!

We might all need an aqua-lung if the ice keeps melting!

....especially when the levees start to break!

However, ice does melt, but water also freezes!

Its all just part of the machine, but don't mind me I'm just wond'ring aloud!