How do animals have thoughts?

[rich p]

That is going to make it very hard for any animal that lacks the physical ability to make the same noises as us.

Leave @threebikesmcginty out of this.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Dogs know things. We know that we know things. There lies the difference.
I can't lick my b0ll0cks either*, but most male dogs can**.

*I've tried
**their own, not mine.

@Fnaar

Your asterixing (?) excludes the option of you licking a dogs rollocks - worrying.

 

[growingvegetables]

Can you expand on that? I can't imagine one without them.

BSL

 

[JtB]

I am not convinced that we really think our thoughts in words. Certainly not exclusively and maybe not at all. I reckon we add the words at a higher level on some of our thoughts but for a lot of stuff there isn't time.

^^^^ I learned to speak Spanish from someone who couldn't speak English so my second language evolved mainly in the language itself without referencing back to my first language (a bit like a child's first language evolves). In the early days there were times when I wanted to express a concept but didn't have the vocabulary and the strange thing was that sometimes when I thought back to my first language the words didn't immediately come to mind either. So I must have thought the "concept" first then applied the language afterwards.

 

[robjh]

BSL

Sign languages such as BSL can encode everything that spoken language can, it is only the nature of the symbols that changes. Sign users manage to ask, apologise, express emotions etc just as fluently as users of spoken languages.

That is going to make it very hard for any animal that lacks the physical ability to make the same noises as us.

See my reply about BSL. I think the nature of the symbols is of relatively low importance, but the communicative use of them and the way they can be recombined to transmit meaning, of all kinds, are more significant.

 

[robjh]

Sorry Rob, I don't think you really understand what BSL is. It does not encode spoken language, it is a language in its own right, with all the attributes of a spoken language plus aspects of space and time that spoken language is less efficient at making use of. Speech is a form of language, not a definition of it.

I didn't say it encodes spoken language, I said they are both capable of encoding exactly the same range of meanings which of course includes speech acts.
Nor did I say that speech is the only definition of language, but more the archetype against which other claims of 'languageness' should be judged. I agree that sign languages are languages in their own right.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Leave @threebikesmcginty out of this.

Touché ya feck!

 

[robjh]

OK, I misunderstood you. But the 'archetype' myth is wrong and problematic.

OK, I was struggling to find the best terminology there, but bear with the term 'archetype' for the moment.
If we are going to attempt to decide what does and doesn't count as a language, then we have to know what we mean by 'language', and judge each candidate by its similarity or distance to our base definition. Spoken languages are the primary form of language, in that they are universal in human societies, and have existed far longer than written forms, which until recently have been the preserve of a minority. Fully-functional sign languages are an even more recent addition.
Everyone agrees that English, Hindi, Igbo, Quechua etc are languages, so for me the definition of what constitutes a language must lie in the features that are common to all of these. It is then a matter of rational debate as to what level of divergence from these features is permissible before a system stops being a true language.

If there's a better word than 'archetype' for this then I'll gladly use it.

 

[robjh]

FWIW I don't believe that computer languages are languages in any general meaning of the term.

 

[JtB]

FWIW I don't believe that computer languages are languages in any general meaning of the term.

11001111000001111

 

[robjh]

Well, I don't at all agree that "spoken languages are the primary form of language" is a base definition. It's very likely that humans communicated fluently and effectively with gesture and body language long before speech began to evolve. And animals also use the language of their bodies to communicate with each other incredibly effectively, which brings us neatly back to Accy's original question about how thought could exist without words.

Profoundly deaf children don't have empty brains just because they can't hear speech. Deaf people dream in sign, and Oliver Sacks records seeing an elderly profoundly deaf woman signing in her sleep. These aren't offshoots of spoken language, it's the other way around. Speech is a relative newcomer in the language stakes.

What is your definition of 'language' then, as opposed to simply 'communication'? Compared to mine, you seem to include a range of communications that I would class as non-linguistic, eg. body language.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

To be fair to @Accy cyclist I think it's a damn good question to ask - I've pondered it myself as well.

Sadly I have no answer though.

 

[robjh]

A language is the method by which communication takes place. Speech is one form. Gesture is another. Runes are a language. The people who try to fix faulty communication in humans are called "Speech AND language therapists" for the good reason that communication consists in far more than just speech. The trouble is that the world is dominated by speech, to the point that anyone who doesn't speak for whatever reason is thought of as disabled (or sometimes in the case of Deaf people who do not have speech, I'm sorry to say, "dumb").

Fair enough. I think we're coming at the question from different disciplines, I'm approaching it from that of linguistics, where the object of study is clearly what are conventionally called 'languages'. The role of other types of communication is acknowledged, indeed it can't be otherwise as once you start looking at socio- or psychological aspects of language the boundaries become quite blurred, but the stuff with the semantics, phonetics*, words(another matter of debate!) and syntax still forms the core.

*with sign language, just about every linguist agrees that gestures fulfil the same role and AFAIK no-one seriously questions its status as a language.

Anyway, I hope we can agree to differ on this while seeing each other's standpoint.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

What's on your mind Accy?

 

[Accy cyclist]

What's on your mind Accy?

Right now. Everything. Mainly, should i let Mrs Accy lock our dog up tomorrow for 10 hours. Or should i go and rescue him and risk me getting a warning for having a pet in this place.