9.08.2003 :::
 
We were discussing the relationship between language and thought today in sociology. Leading the discussion was Diana Kendall's theory, “If people are only able to think through language, then language must precede thought.” Several examples of neglected children, whose parents threw them in an attic and gave them minimal human contact. When they were discovered, tests were run and the children were found devoid of any normal human thought. Thus, it was concluded that, due to lack of linguistic communication, they were unable to think or feel “normal” human thoughts and emotions.

I find this theory flawed. Firstly, it isn't to be assumed language is a prerequisite for sensation. If such is the case, any animal sans language is incapable of feeling pain, as are all infants who have not yet learned to verbally communicate. An objective observer would quickly conclude such ideas as false. We are capable of feeling and sensation, even if we don't have the words to describe them.

As a poet, i know this to be true. The frustration I often encounter striving to envelop what my heart pours forth in words is evidence enough. I feel these things, but haven't the language to describe them. Even when I find the words, they strain to contain the emotions I wish to express. Language is a prison for thought, not its father.

::: posted by Peter at 12:13