Before language was invented, how did human beings even think? For example, even if you are dumb, you can have thoughts like "I am going to do so and so today", but before language was invented, he cannot do even that, because words such as 'I', 'doing' etc., didn't exist. As far as I can think, 'thinking' as we does today didn't exist for him/her.
The only possible explanation I can think is that they have instinctive thoughts like 'danger', 'pleasure' etc. without being to express what it is. (Like animals do... they do not have the gift of gab but they still get along, right?)
What are your thoughts on this?
How do infants think before they learn a language? My guess would be that if you don't think in a language, you can probably think with images, experience, and instincts. Those don't require any language.
How do animals think?
And, if you really try, you can think in other ways than language. I can tell if I've been online too much in one day if I start thinking in text, for one thing.
One example many here are probably familiar with is different types of puzzles. For many types of puzzles (like jegsaw puzzles, or the type where you try to assemble some object out of oddly shaped pieces) you have to think using spatial relationships and pictures in order to do it easily.
Another example would be artists. A good artist, be it a dancer, painter, or composer, would more often think using the medium involved rather than with words.
"Spoken Language" or "Body Language", which do you mean?
I guess humans had communicated with body language before spoken language was invented. However, before body language was invented.... maybe they didn't need to communicate at all. Otherwise, language could be invented immediately.
I think that language is more a way to express your thoughts. So it comes more after the thought rather than before or simultaneously.
I would say that the thought comes first without any "support" and then it is materialised using one support. Language is one support and images or just action are others. (by action I mean that would want to perform some action and you will perform it without having to say in your mind the sentence "I want to perform this action")
We also have to be careful to differentiate between thought and instinct.
Before language, man would still have felt the need for food. He wouldn't have had a word for it, he would have just feel it. He would also have known that that particular feeling meant he must find food. Again, he wouldn't have thought the words "find food", he would just have known instinctively what to do.
Now, what happened in a group of prehistoric people if 1 of them was injured and felt hungry? He may not have been able to go find food for himself. Somehow he had to let the others in the group know. Sign language was the answer. He possibly pointed to his mouth, rubbed his tummy, made eating movements with his jaw, or whatever. There would still be no words, no verbal language - but sign language is a language nonetheless.
But surely, by the time man reached that stage, he would be thinking - although without words - that he had to inform the others he needed food. That thought surely must have preceded the concept of making signs to convey his need.
Thought is not much use without language, and language is not much use without thought. So, it seems to me that thinking and language probably developed in tandem as a response to the need to communicate with other members of the group.
Commonly, modern man thinks in language (according to such as Chomsky) not pictures; although this is not always the case. Autistic Savants can sometimes be an exception - Kevin Peet being an example. He is a genius at maths, but he doesn't think numbers. Instead he sees colours, and those colours coalesce and intermingle to give him the answers to incredibly complex maths in an extraordinarily short time.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language is a straight-jacket for thought. That could indeed be true. Many times, our thoughts or communications with others are stifled because we can't put our thoughts into words. Misunderstandings are commonplace. How much better would communication be if we could send pictures & emotions to others instead of having to use words?
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
We also have to be careful to differentiate between thought and instinct.
Before language, man would still have felt the need for food. He wouldn't have had a word for it, he would have just feel it. He would also have known that that particular feeling meant he must find food. Again, he wouldn't have thought the words "find food", he would just have known instinctively what to do.
Now, what happened in a group of prehistoric people if 1 of them was injured and felt hungry? He may not have been able to go find food for himself. Somehow he had to let the others in the group know. Sign language was the answer. He possibly pointed to his mouth, rubbed his tummy, made eating movements with his jaw, or whatever. There would still be no words, no verbal language - but sign language is a language nonetheless.
But surely, by the time man reached that stage, he would be thinking - although without words - that he had to inform the others he needed food. That thought surely must have preceded the concept of making signs to convey his need.
Thought is not much use without language, and language is not much use without thought. So, it seems to me that although thinking probably preceded language, it is likely that the two would have largely developed in tandem as a response to the need to communicate with other members of the group.
Commonly, modern man thinks in language (according to such as Chomsky) not pictures; although this is not always the case. Autistic Savants can sometimes be an exception - Kevin Peet being an example. He is a genius at maths, but he doesn't think numbers. Instead he sees colours, and those colours coalesce and intermingle to give him the answers to incredibly complex maths in an extraordinarily short time.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language is a straight-jacket for thought. That could indeed be true. Many times, our thoughts or communications with others are stifled because we can't put our thoughts into words. Misunderstandings are commonplace. How much better would communication be if we could send pictures & emotions to others instead of having to use words? |
Doc,
why did you post that twice - once with quotes and one without?
As the resident 'plagiarism checker' I'm pretty sure that your original posting was original....
There are occasions when I'm brainstorming that I am thinking about certain things too quickly to have words go around. Sometimes there are words, but a lot of the times there are pictures or video-esque things flowing around my brain. I suppose without language you'd think like that most/all of the time.
After reading all the replies, I have this opinion :
The reason why we think in language, or words, even if we're trying to think in pictures is because we've been using it since childhood. We know language, and it is in our subconscious to use it to communicate or think. So, if you are a prehistoric man who doesn't know language, then, images and instinct might be the driving force behind communication, right?
| DoctorBeaver wrote: |
We also have to be careful to differentiate between thought and instinct.
Before language, man would still have felt the need for food. He wouldn't have had a word for it, he would have just feel it. He would also have known that that particular feeling meant he must find food. Again, he wouldn't have thought the words "find food", he would just have known instinctively what to do.
Now, what happened in a group of prehistoric people if 1 of them was injured and felt hungry? He may not have been able to go find food for himself. Somehow he had to let the others in the group know. Sign language was the answer. He possibly pointed to his mouth, rubbed his tummy, made eating movements with his jaw, or whatever. There would still be no words, no verbal language - but sign language is a language nonetheless.
But surely, by the time man reached that stage, he would be thinking - although without words - that he had to inform the others he needed food. That thought surely must have preceded the concept of making signs to convey his need.
Thought is not much use without language, and language is not much use without thought. So, it seems to me that thinking and language probably developed in tandem as a response to the need to communicate with other members of the group.
Commonly, modern man thinks in language (according to such as Chomsky) not pictures; although this is not always the case. Autistic Savants can sometimes be an exception - Kevin Peet being an example. He is a genius at maths, but he doesn't think numbers. Instead he sees colours, and those colours coalesce and intermingle to give him the answers to incredibly complex maths in an extraordinarily short time.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language is a straight-jacket for thought. That could indeed be true. Many times, our thoughts or communications with others are stifled because we can't put our thoughts into words. Misunderstandings are commonplace. How much better would communication be if we could send pictures & emotions to others instead of having to use words? |
I am not convinced that thought and language go so much together as you described.
For instance let's take the case of the "wild child" (I mean a child left alone after he was born and grew in the forest with animals). Would you say that this boy has just animal instinct and not thought at all because he has no language?
In my opinion it is not the case.
Even if the extreme case that you would be born alone on this planet (and then with no language at all, not even sign or body language needed because no communication needed) you would have thoughts IMHO. | fx-trading-education wrote: |
| DoctorBeaver wrote: | We also have to be careful to differentiate between thought and instinct.
Before language, man would still have felt the need for food. He wouldn't have had a word for it, he would have just feel it. He would also have known that that particular feeling meant he must find food. Again, he wouldn't have thought the words "find food", he would just have known instinctively what to do.
Now, what happened in a group of prehistoric people if 1 of them was injured and felt hungry? He may not have been able to go find food for himself. Somehow he had to let the others in the group know. Sign language was the answer. He possibly pointed to his mouth, rubbed his tummy, made eating movements with his jaw, or whatever. There would still be no words, no verbal language - but sign language is a language nonetheless.
But surely, by the time man reached that stage, he would be thinking - although without words - that he had to inform the others he needed food. That thought surely must have preceded the concept of making signs to convey his need.
Thought is not much use without language, and language is not much use without thought. So, it seems to me that thinking and language probably developed in tandem as a response to the need to communicate with other members of the group.
Commonly, modern man thinks in language (according to such as Chomsky) not pictures; although this is not always the case. Autistic Savants can sometimes be an exception - Kevin Peet being an example. He is a genius at maths, but he doesn't think numbers. Instead he sees colours, and those colours coalesce and intermingle to give him the answers to incredibly complex maths in an extraordinarily short time.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language is a straight-jacket for thought. That could indeed be true. Many times, our thoughts or communications with others are stifled because we can't put our thoughts into words. Misunderstandings are commonplace. How much better would communication be if we could send pictures & emotions to others instead of having to use words? |
I am not convinced that thought and language go so much together as you described.
For instance let's take the case of the "wild child" (I mean a child left alone after he was born and grew in the forest with animals). Would you say that this boy has just animal instinct and not thought at all because he has no language?
In my opinion it is not the case.
Even if the extreme case that you would be born alone on this planet (and then with no language at all, not even sign or body language needed because no communication needed) you would have thoughts IMHO. |
Yes, you would have thoughts, but what would you "think" them with?
Actually, that gives rise to another thought : If you were born deaf and dumb and blind (so that you wouldn't be able to hear, speak and see language) would you be able to learn a language, and have your own thoughts? | saratdear wrote: |
Actually, that gives rise to another thought : If you were born deaf and dumb and blind (so that you wouldn't be able to hear, speak and see language) would you be able to learn a language, and have your own thoughts? |
It has been done. But even without any language, you would still have thoughts. A thought could be considered connecting two (or more) different concepts, either by simple association, some action (another concept), or a more arcane relationship. Words are a convenient way to represent these different concepts, but they are not required; you can think of them by thinking of whatever sensory input you recognize them by.I noticed that most of the posts have a wrong opinion of "language". "Language" is a medium for communication, and it can take any form. As long as e same thing can convey the same message, it can be considered a form of language.
If you realised, facial and tone in voices can be a form of language too... For example, when someone uses a sacrastic tone to say something, we know that the message they try to come across is in fact the opposite. Likewise, if your colleague got asked into your boss office and you see that the boss looks fierce and angry, you'll most likely interpret that your boss scolded your colleague (for a mistake he/she made?).
Animals are better readers of facial and tonal expressions than humans. This can especially be seen in pets. When you are sad, they could see it through your facial expressions and come and cuddle with you. And when you shout it your dog for biting your favourite shoe, despite the fact that it doesn't understand "stupid dog, why did you bite my favourite shoe", it knows that it did something wrong. Humans, like us probably are good readers of such "language" before we knew written and verbal language. But now that we are too much into written and verbal language, we seemed to lose our observational power to notice facial and tonal expressions of language...
we have always had a language in one form or another for all we know "UG UG" could have meant "food food".
thats all they needed
example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
the piraha people use whistling as a form of language and thier language can be considered the most simple or basic language
so what i am saying is that we could always talk and communicate, not like children but really communicate, we were still dumb as a brick but i am sure we had ways to communicate | Bikerman wrote: |
Doc,
why did you post that twice - once with quotes and one without?
As the resident 'plagiarism checker' I'm pretty sure that your original posting was original.... |
Sorry. I meant to do an edit but clicked quote instead. I can't see how to delete itfx-trading-education - no, I am not saying a "wild child" would not have any thoughts. But monkeys & apes (early man included) are social creatures. They live and develop in groups. To find an isolated individual is a rarity and its development would not conform to the norm.
you do not really need a language to think..try thinking by instances or by reflection...dont bind ur thinking to a language. You lose the flavour of thinking!Thinking is supposed to be free and open..
All animals had the same kindda thinking............ atleast in those times..........
All they thought of was instances, images, sounds, series of events, etc..
for example:
In case they had to think that : "I should'nt eat that fruit, last time I did so, it made me vomit"
They'll just look at the fruit, and throw it out of there grain basket or whatever!!
Sounds may signal being attacked, coming of the rain, blah blah..
Series of events such as...... hmm..... a volcano errupted (making a lot of sound), then the hot magma ran down the slopes, and fire balls fell everywhere....... they might remember such things and then whenever the sound of the volcano errupting comes again, they'll run!!
well, its a theory alright!
| speeDemon wrote: |
All animals had the same kindda thinking............ atleast in those times..........
All they thought of was instances, images, sounds, series of events, etc..
for example:
In case they had to think that : "I should'nt eat that fruit, last time I did so, it made me vomit"
They'll just look at the fruit, and throw it out of there grain basket or whatever!!
Sounds may signal being attacked, coming of the rain, blah blah..
Series of events such as...... hmm..... a volcano errupted (making a lot of sound), then the hot magma ran down the slopes, and fire balls fell everywhere....... they might remember such things and then whenever the sound of the volcano errupting comes again, they'll run!!
well, its a theory alright! |
So, thinking by sensory associations?
That would explain a lot (though not all) of it.and
what did the man do before language think?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| speeDemon wrote: | All animals had the same kindda thinking............ atleast in those times..........
All they thought of was instances, images, sounds, series of events, etc..
for example:
In case they had to think that : "I should'nt eat that fruit, last time I did so, it made me vomit"
They'll just look at the fruit, and throw it out of there grain basket or whatever!!
Sounds may signal being attacked, coming of the rain, blah blah..
Series of events such as...... hmm..... a volcano errupted (making a lot of sound), then the hot magma ran down the slopes, and fire balls fell everywhere....... they might remember such things and then whenever the sound of the volcano errupting comes again, they'll run!!
well, its a theory alright! |
So, thinking by sensory associations?
That would explain a lot (though not all) of it. |
Ofcourse it would!
but well that is just an amature theory of mine, go on and expand it if you like!I think language came with education, and education was only possible when all the basic needs of man were met, i.e. need for food, shelter, safety, etc.
So I would imagine that at the time of no language our ancestors were pretty much be uneducated and fighting for survival for meeting their basic needs. Think the first thing that would appear in the eye of the mind in the morning when they woke up would be a picture of food. Perhaps chasing an antelope, or chewing on a bone, or some dried meat. At the same time pictures of and sounds that would reassure him/her of safety. Ears would be twitching. But yes, I would imagine that everything would be in pictures and instincts of self-preservation. Maybe those instincts would be even better developed than that of animals.
What an interesting thought. What would we do without language? Are we talking about the local beer drinking guys at the hockey game?
It is relative to the species but if you are a village idiot then not much is going on in there regardless of language. However, assuming that a reasonable amount of thought exists in a man’s brain to begin with but he does not have a practical language then the question could be, does that impair the thought process?
All jokes aside it might in fact even make things clearer, less clutter.
I say men can think without language although good language is better.
Say we have a man that spots this really nice place for castle but requires moving some very huge rocks to make that happen. There is not a machine, tools or a computer available but with a series of picture drawings it might be possible to make a plan. He would be able to show other people how to make a very cool method of wooden cribbing to actually move the rocks by under digging, sliding and raising slowly by balanced counter weights without the need of language nor high tech machinery.
How would he think this through? Pictures. However after a while with this kind of reasoning going on simple sounds could also translate into more complex meanings. In fact, the study of early languages show us certainly how one word took on more weight than what we have currently in our language data base.
In our modern times, people with disabilities which do not allow them to communicate verbally, can sign. If we look at the act of signing not all communication is spelling out a word but movements that depict action.
If we could accelerate a rocket ship at or past 1g (limited by the what the human body could endure) which would require an inexhaustible amount of fuel, the spaceship would reach a very extreme speed. Even after several months, years, even decades our astronauts on board would not even get out of our galaxy the milky way. Considering, that there are over billions of galaxies like ours, it is save to say that the universe is pretty big. How could we express that thought in a simple sound?
Awe
See up awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Supercalistespicallyespadocious?
Another question...
Is there such a thing as 'man before language?'
It may depend on your definition of 'man'... if we use a strict definition, then it very well might be that the first thing we would call 'man' already had a language from its ancestors. Apes, even 'lower' animals all have languages of sorts. But, supposing we use a loose definition that includes all the evolutionary steps towards being human...
I would guess that thought and language developed together, at the same time: that every time our ancestors had a new kind of thought, they immediately developed a 'word' for it.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Another question...
Is there such a thing as 'man before language?'
It may depend on your definition of 'man'... if we use a strict definition, then it very well might be that the first thing we would call 'man' already had a language from its ancestors. Apes, even 'lower' animals all have languages of sorts. But, supposing we use a loose definition that includes all the evolutionary steps towards being human...
I would guess that thought and language developed together, at the same time: that every time our ancestors had a new kind of thought, they immediately developed a 'word' for it. |
Good point ... so at the time when man was making grunts only, then the thought processes would have been on the same level. It was not thinking really. Then as the grunts grew into language, thinking started and developed accordingly. Makes sense.
I was thinking about the chimpanzee as well and what its thoughts would have been if it had been taken raw and before people would start to work with it. Maybe that would be a good simulation of starting with grunts only, and then evolving in tandem with its thinking. | DoctorBeaver wrote: |
We also have to be careful to differentiate between thought and instinct.
Before language, man would still have felt the need for food. He wouldn't have had a word for it, he would have just feel it. He would also have known that that particular feeling meant he must find food. Again, he wouldn't have thought the words "find food", he would just have known instinctively what to do.
Now, what happened in a group of prehistoric people if 1 of them was injured and felt hungry? He may not have been able to go find food for himself. Somehow he had to let the others in the group know. Sign language was the answer. He possibly pointed to his mouth, rubbed his tummy, made eating movements with his jaw, or whatever. There would still be no words, no verbal language - but sign language is a language nonetheless.
But surely, by the time man reached that stage, he would be thinking - although without words - that he had to inform the others he needed food. That thought surely must have preceded the concept of making signs to convey his need.
Thought is not much use without language, and language is not much use without thought. So, it seems to me that thinking and language probably developed in tandem as a response to the need to communicate with other members of the group.
Commonly, modern man thinks in language (according to such as Chomsky) not pictures; although this is not always the case. Autistic Savants can sometimes be an exception - Kevin Peet being an example. He is a genius at maths, but he doesn't think numbers. Instead he sees colours, and those colours coalesce and intermingle to give him the answers to incredibly complex maths in an extraordinarily short time.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language is a straight-jacket for thought. That could indeed be true. Many times, our thoughts or communications with others are stifled because we can't put our thoughts into words. Misunderstandings are commonplace. How much better would communication be if we could send pictures & emotions to others instead of having to use words? |
I agree, it is instinct. Not exactly thought | DoctorBeaver wrote: |
We also have to be careful to differentiate between thought and instinct.
Before language, man would still have felt the need for food. He wouldn't have had a word for it, he would have just feel it. He would also have known that that particular feeling meant he must find food. Again, he wouldn't have thought the words "find food", he would just have known instinctively what to do.
Now, what happened in a group of prehistoric people if 1 of them was injured and felt hungry? He may not have been able to go find food for himself. Somehow he had to let the others in the group know. Sign language was the answer. He possibly pointed to his mouth, rubbed his tummy, made eating movements with his jaw, or whatever. There would still be no words, no verbal language - but sign language is a language nonetheless.
But surely, by the time man reached that stage, he would be thinking - although without words - that he had to inform the others he needed food. That thought surely must have preceded the concept of making signs to convey his need.
Thought is not much use without language, and language is not much use without thought. So, it seems to me that thinking and language probably developed in tandem as a response to the need to communicate with other members of the group.
Commonly, modern man thinks in language (according to such as Chomsky) not pictures; although this is not always the case. Autistic Savants can sometimes be an exception - Kevin Peet being an example. He is a genius at maths, but he doesn't think numbers. Instead he sees colours, and those colours coalesce and intermingle to give him the answers to incredibly complex maths in an extraordinarily short time.
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis states that language is a straight-jacket for thought. That could indeed be true. Many times, our thoughts or communications with others are stifled because we can't put our thoughts into words. Misunderstandings are commonplace. How much better would communication be if we could send pictures & emotions to others instead of having to use words? |
I agree, it is instinct. Not exactly thoughtI think they've thought with mixture of associations, colours, sounds, feelings etc. That were their imaginations of the world around them as they see it. And yes, that way of thinking is very similar to the way the children think.
Even with language, not all people think in terms of sentences or having "brain conversations". There are many anecdotes out there of people who think in colors, for example. My guess is that early man, as well as many animals, think with images. Recalling places they've seen or been. In the case of early man, he didn't have to say to himself "I'm going to go to that tree with all the fruit on it", instead he could simply recall what the tree looked like and go there, making decisions doesn't require spelling them out to yourself.
Or maybe he just thought in terms of grunts.
I'm not a scientist however, so this is strictly conjecture. 
question had the potential ..but it has been answered
We think with our mind, and then we put pictures together
I observe deaf people and they just don't communicate through sign language with their hands, but rather with facial expressions and stuff. Maybe that's a good way to communicate and a more colorful way at that.
| guissmo wrote: |
| I observe deaf people and they just don't communicate through sign language with their hands, but rather with facial expressions and stuff. Maybe that's a good way to communicate and a more colorful way at that. |
But language isn't just audio... It can also include signs and words... Not all language is strictly oral (although many are/were)...
