The question of the relationship between words and thoughts has been worrying people for a very long time.

Thinking- this is the spiritual activity of a person, which consists in reflecting objective reality, as well as the process of this reflection and the result of this reflection. This reflection is active. A person classifies experience, structures it and, as it were, models reality - first based on sensations. The way reality is modeled is determined by a person’s life and his needs.

The basic activity of thinking is classification and generalization (language is involved in it). Tree – tree in general (as a concept).

There are two extreme points of view on the relationship between language and thinking:

Language and thinking are independent. Language is the outer shell of thought. A person formulates a thought without language participation, only conveys it through language. Arguments: people who are deaf and mute from birth or children with developmental delays do not speak, but they are oriented in the world; with total aphasia, mental functions are preserved; animals are deprived of language, but not of thinking, etc.

Language and thinking are interdependent(Humboldt, Sapir, Whorf). A person’s thinking is determined by the language he speaks. People think and act as they say.

Both of these hypotheses are extremes. It is impossible to identify language and thinking, nor to separate them completely from each other.

There are biological ways of receiving and processing information: vision, hearing, smell, touch, taste. They also exist in animals. Man has developed another method of adaptation - social. This language is a way of transmitting received information to another person. A person re-codifies it, classifies it, makes it available for transmission.

Thinking is broader than what a person processes with language. Thinking includes both conscious and unconscious processes - language is only conscious; it is aimed at different forms of action - language only at social (communicative).

It is impossible to identify a person’s picture of the world with his thinking, but in humans there is at least two pictures of the world: logical (scientific)– analysis of real information that comes from external space (including using linguistic form). This is our idea of ​​the structure of the world. + linguistic picture of the world, which (often in figurative form) represents the same phenomena. The structure of the solar system (Sun, 9 planets) ≈ the sun sets, the sun rises. Language forms often preserve ancient ideas. The linguistic picture of the world is a recording of long-standing ideas and metaphorical expressions, and it does not have a significant impact on people’s everyday behavior and thinking.

Types of thinking

Language is connected only with some of them or with all of them, but not fully. The following types of thinking are distinguished:

- figurative(pre-linguistic) – a sensory image that becomes a substitute for an object in thinking. This refers to any images obtained using any sense organs. Most vary from person to person. The basis for the development of further forms of thinking.

- logical(linguistic) – an abstract sign formed based on language. The same word can be associated with different concepts; one concept - with different words. From here the theory of the concept is further developed.

- abstract(supralinguistic) – universal subject code. The substitute for an object is not a concept or a sensory image, but a complex scheme consisting of certain concepts and sensory images. This is the collapsing of several mental operations into one. This can only be taught. Interiorization (“collapse”, automation of the processes of walking, reading, etc.). Typical example– the thinking of a chess player, physicist, chemist.

The psychophysiological basis of the connection between language and thinking – brain. During evolution, specification of brain regions occurred (functional symmetry of the brain). The left hemisphere is dominant, speech; Broca's area (inferior frontal region) – speech production; Wernicke's area (temporal region) – speech perception. The connections between the hemispheres are very rich and fast.

The left hemisphere is responsible for analysis, detail, and discrimination between phonemes and letters. The right one is for synthesis, control, intonation and hieroglyphs.

Language functions

Jacobson considers the functions of language based on the communicative act:

- main – present in any communicative act:

Communicative;

Epistemological (thought-forming). But: thought exists not only in linguistic form; the central function is communicative, and the epistemological function follows from it, because in order to convey information, we must first formulate it.

- optional – appear under certain conditions:

Cognitive (cognitive, accumulative) – knowledge of the world through language;

Emotive (expressive) – expression of attitude towards the information being communicated;

Conative (voluntative) – influencing the listener through the transmission of information (vocative forms and cases, forms of the imperative mood, etc.);

Aesthetic (poetic) - the use of language as an object of aesthetic influence, a means of artistic creativity;

Axiological – a function of evaluation (not information, but everything in general, often from the point of view of usefulness);

Magical (omadative) - influencing the world through language, finds expression in divine hypotheses, sayings, proverbs, prayers, conspiracies, etc.;

Metalinguistic – the ability of language to act as a description of itself;

Functions of language units:

Nominative – the ability to give names;

Perceptual – the ability of language units to be perceived;

Significative (meaning-distinguishing, distinctive) – allows NL to differ from each other;

Constitutive – the ability to build more complex structures;

Grammatical - the ability to connect in a statement;

Phatic – establishing contact between people.

Thinking and language

A person’s thought is always expressed in language, which in a broad sense refers to any sign system that performs the functions of forming, storing and transmitting information and acting as a means of communication between people. Outside of language, unclear motives and volitional impulses can be conveyed only through facial expressions or gestures, which, although important, are incomparable with speech, which reveals a person’s intentions, feelings and experiences. However, the connection between language and thinking is quite complex.

Language and thinking form a unity: without thinking there can be no language, and thinking without language is impossible. There are two main aspects of this unity:

· genetic, which is expressed in the fact that the emergence of language was closely related to the emergence of thinking, and vice versa;

· functional - languages ​​of thought in today's developed state represent a unity, the sides of which mutually presuppose each other.

However, this does not mean that language and thinking are identical to each other. There are certain differences between them.

Firstly, the relationship between thinking and language in the process of a person’s reflection of the world cannot be presented in the form of a simple correspondence of mental and language structures. Possessing relative independence, language in a specific way consolidates the content of mental images in its forms. The specificity of linguistic reflection lies in the fact that the abstracting work of thinking is not directly and directly reproduced in the forms of language, but is fixed in them in a special way. Therefore, language is often called a secondary, indirect form of reflection, since thinking reflects, cognizes objects and phenomena of objective reality, and language designates them and expresses them in thought, i.e. they differ in their functions.

Secondly, differences also exist in the structure of language and thinking. The basic units of thinking are concepts, judgments and inferences. The components of language are: phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, sentence (in speech), allophone (sound) and others.

Thirdly, in the forms of thinking and language, actual processes are simplified in in a certain sense reflection, but in each case it happens differently. Thinking captures the contradictory moments of any movement. Developing itself, it reproduces in ideal images with to varying degrees depth and detail, gradually approaching the full coverage of objects and their certainty, to comprehend the essence. And where consolidation begins, language comes into its own. Language as a form of reflection of the world, like mental images, can represent reality more or less completely, approximately correctly. By consolidating the content of mental images in its forms, language highlights and emphasizes in them what was previously done by thinking. However, he does this with the help of his own means, specially developed for this purpose, as a result of which adequate reproduction of characteristics is achieved in the forms of language objective reality.

Fourthly, language develops under the influence of objective activity and cultural traditions of society, and thinking is associated with the mastery of the laws of logic by the subject, with his cognitive abilities.

Therefore, mastery of language, grammatical forms, and vocabulary is a prerequisite for the formation of thinking. It is no coincidence that the famous Russian psychologist L.S. Vygotsky emphasized that a thought is never equal to the direct meaning of a word, but it is also impossible without words. Language and thinking, being in such a contradictory unity, influence each other mutually. On the one hand: thinking represents the meaningful basis for language, for speech expressions; thinking controls use linguistic means in speech activity, speech activity itself controls the use of language in communication; in its forms, thinking ensures the development and growth of knowledge of language and experience in its use; thinking determines the level of linguistic culture; enrichment of thinking leads to enrichment of language.

On the other hand: language is a means of forming and formulating thoughts in inner speech; In relation to thinking, language acts as the main means of evoking a thought from a partner, expressing it in external speech, thereby making the thought accessible to other people; language is a means of thinking for modeling thought; language provides thinking with the opportunity to control thought, since it formalizes thought, gives it a form in which the thought is easier to process, rebuild, develop; Language in relation to thinking acts as a means of influencing reality, a means of direct, and most often indirect conversion reality through the practical activities of people, controlled by thinking with the help of language; language acts as a means of training, honing, and improving thinking.

Thus, the relationship between language and thinking is varied and significant. The main thing in this relationship is: just as language is necessary for thinking, so thinking is necessary for language.

BBK Sh100.3+Sh100.6

GSNTI 16.21.07

VAK code 13.00.02

Zhu Yingli,

intern at Moscow State University, Heilongjiang University, Jilin Institute of Foreign Languages ​​"Huaqiao"; 130117, China, Jilin Province (Girin), Changchun, st. Jing Yue, 3658; e-mail: [email protected].

RELATIONSHIP OF THINKING, LANGUAGE AND SPEECH

KEY WORDS: language; speech; thinking; mental activity; psycholinguistics; speech activity.

ANNOTATION. Language is an organized structure of symbols that has its own rules and laws. The words that we use in speech according to linguistic laws reflect the thinking process of a person and society as a whole. The symbol system of human language is relatively stable; language is passed down from generation to generation in oral or written form. It does not belong to any native speaker, although everyone possesses it; language is a product of social agreement. Saussure in his “Course of General Linguistics” draws clear boundaries between language and speech, which forms the basis of modern linguistics. In the process of thinking, language participates due to its material capabilities (the sound envelope of a word, the meaning and structure of a sentence). We cannot consider thinking and language as identical phenomena. But on the other hand, considering language and thinking as form and content is also incorrect, because the process of thinking is not content, but mental activity, as a result of which this content is manifested. Language itself is a unity of form and content.

Trainee, Moscow State University, Heilongjiang University, Harbin, Jilin Huaqiao University of Foreign Languages, Changchun, China.

CORRELATION OF THINKING, LANGUAGE AND SPEECH

KEYWORDS: language; speech; thinking; psycholinguistics; speaking.

ABSTRACT. Language is an organized structure of symbols, which has its own rules. Words that we use in speech according to the laws of the language reflect the process of thinking of a person and the society in general. The system of symbols has a relatively stable structure; language is passed from one generation to the other in written or oral form. It doesn"t belong to any speaker, although every native speaker uses it; language is the product of social cooperation. F.de Saussure in his book "General Linguistics" draws the border between language and speech, which is in the basis of modern linguistics. Language takes part in the process of thinking due to its abilities (sound matter of a word, meaning and structure of a sentence). as form and content, because the process of thinking is not content, but activity, the result of which reveals the content. Language is the unity of form and content.

1. Introduction

The distinction between language and speech was first proposed and substantiated by the father of modern linguistics, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. He believed that the separation of language and speech was necessary in order to “purify” the subject of linguistics - language. Humboldt noticed the contradictions of individual and social factors in language, and therefore paid special attention to the differences between language and speech. Language is unique system symbols, which underlies structural linguistics. Representatives of the neogrammatical school believed that language is the result of a person’s genetic inheritance and is born with him. The functional language school believes that language is the most important tool of human communicative activity, that is

we see that language has been the subject of study by many scientific schools. Language and thinking are closely related. Language and thinking as a social phenomenon condition each other: without thinking, people's activities are aimless and meaningless. Language is an organized structure of symbols that has its own rules and laws. The words that we use in speech according to linguistic laws reflect the thinking process of a person and society as a whole. Different ways of thinking determine word choice, processing, correction; the construction of a sentence, the choice of words, their order in a sentence - all this is a means of expressing expression and can be determined by external influence. On the other hand, the process of encoding speech as a process of mental activity is influenced by thinking and formed by centuries of human practice.

© Zhu Yingli, 2016

2. Differences between language and speech as the basis of language theory

The symbol system of human language has relative stability; language is passed on from generation to generation in the form of oral or writing. It does not belong to any native speaker, although everyone possesses it; language is a product of social agreement. Saussure in his “Course of General Linguistics” draws clear boundaries between language and speech, which forms the basis of modern linguistics.

2.1. Differences between language and speech

Language is a relatively fixed system of signs that is passed down from generation to generation. Speech does not have a fixed system of symbols; it is more flexible, but does not go beyond the structure of a particular language [see. other 18,

Types of Lex

With. 108]. The first relates to generalization social practices adopted by social groups, while the latter is an instrument of human communicative activity. Language is an abstract and relatively stable phenomenon; speech records individual linguistic fragments. Saussure viewed language as a social factor subject to external influences. Saussure wrote that language exists in a community as a set of imprints that everyone has in their heads, like a dictionary, copies of which, completely identical, would be in use by many people [see other. 2009, p. 35]. Russian linguist V. S. Vinogradov uses a table to highlight the difference between language and speech (see Table 1).

Table 1

th information

Constant (linguistic) information Occasional (speech) information

I. extralinguistic (significant)

1. Semantic (semantic) 2. Emotionally-expressive (stylistic) 3. Sociolocal (style) 4. Chronological 5. Background 6. Differential 1. Associative-figurative 2. Word-creative expressive-emotional 3. Allusive 4. Functional 5. Paralinguistic

II. Linguistic (service) 7. Grammatical 8. Phonemic (formal)

2.2. The connection between language and speech Saussure, in his studies of “pure” linguistics, clearly separates language and speech, but notes that this does not mean that language and speech are not connected in any way. On the contrary, he emphasizes the connection between them. Niu Wei-yin, explaining the concept of “speech,” speaks of the social crystallization revealed by Saussure: members of one collective reproduce approximately the same signs, correlating them with approximately the same concepts, which helps explain how the speaker is subordinated the “linguistic” component of freedom of choice in creating phrases and sentences. According to Saussure, language is both a tool and a product of speech. But all this does not prevent language and speech from being two completely different things [see. other 13, p. 41]. Based on the above, language is an abstract discourse for a specific communicative situation. The sign system of language is processed and used in the process of communication; if the language does not correspond to the system generally accepted in a given society or group, then the communicative act cannot take place.

2.3. Special differences between language and speech Subsequently, the linguistics of language and the linguistics of speech were separated, but questions remained unresolved, for example, is a sentence part of language or speech? The structure of the sentence has a certain pattern and is the largest structural unit language, a means of communication. At the same time, a complete sentence can express a private communicative meaning; verbal communication is the smallest unit of communication. Saussure in his “Course of General Linguistics” is inclined to believe that speech as a phenomenon is always individual. But a very important contradiction is hidden here: either “speech” is only individual, incidental, even accidental, or it is “combinations with the help of which the speaking subject uses the linguistic code,” which cannot in any way be incidental, much less accidental, and which is not even and individual, since it is something that lies outside the subject. The collective use of a language system depends on individual characteristics; there is no clear boundary

between freedom of choice linguistic phenomena. Later, cognitive linguistics, as an argument for rejecting the idea of ​​merging language and speech, they consider it necessary to distinguish between language and speech. Language and speech relate to the concrete, practical, and not to abstract forms. They believe that symbolism is formed in the use of any signs, even if they are abstract, it arises from the use specific words in specific scenarios, is part of the language of knowledge, which is equal to the language as a whole open system, constantly changing, without stability.

3. On the relationship between language and thinking

Language is not only a means of communication between social groups of people, but also an instrument of human thinking, both functions are integrated by the human brain. From early childhood, every person experiences the process of development and emergence of language and thinking. This process of development of language and thinking, their connection with each other, occurs outside of political history, development of a nation or race. But more controversial issues surround the relationship between language and thought.

3.1. Language and thinking are similar

Language and thinking. The American behavioral psychologist J. B. Watson believed that thinking is identical to the inaudible pronunciation of the sounds of loud speech, and these sounds themselves are a conditioned signal of the objects they designate, that is, he identified thinking with inner speech. Later, another pioneer of behaviorism, Skinner (B. F. Skinner), takes a similar point of view; he develops the concept according to which speech acquisition occurs according to the general laws of the formation of conditioned reflexes. When one organism produces speech sounds, another organism reinforces them (positively or negatively), thereby controlling the process of these sounds acquiring stable meanings.

3.2. Language and thinking are heterogeneous

One point of view suggests that

thought determines language. Already 2500 years ago, Aristotle proposed a solution to the relationship between thinking and language, believing that language, speech is, first of all, a means for expressing thoughts. Rationalist linguists of the 17th century. They also believe that for man, a rational being, the creation of language was necessary to express ideas. Many modern Western psychologists still adhere to this theory. The famous Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget believes that language teaches

caught by logical thinking; Considering the relationship between language and thinking from the point of view of the history of the origin of language, the scientist started from studying the formation of the linguistic and mental processes of individual children. Logical operations are more primary in origin than language or speech, but the more complex the structures of thinking, the more necessary language becomes for their processing. Therefore, language is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the construction logical operations. Another point of view is that language determines thought. Some Western linguists, such as Sapir, Wolf and others, adhere to precisely this view. Soviet psychologists also adhere to this point of view, suggesting that the development of mental structures and the language of thought is the main driving force thinking, and language is the basis of individual thinking. At the same time, Soviet psychologists also believe that the relationship between language and thinking is a symbol of the relationship between the “signifier” and “meaning”.

There is also an opinion that the relationship between language and thought corresponds to the interaction between form and content. The representative of the naturalistic trend in linguistics, August Schleicher (Walleyer), in his studies emphasized the material side of language, believing that the spirit is in itself superior product matter. Saussure compared the relationship between language and thought to a piece of paper. Thought is its front side, sound is its back; You can't cut the front side without cutting the back side too. Thus, the basis of Saussure's idea of ​​the sign and its concept as a whole is the dichotomy of signifier - signified. Many of our linguists also adhere to this point of view.

3.3. The dialectical relationship between language and thought

Language and thinking belong to different categories. In the process of thinking, language participates due to its material capabilities (the sound envelope of a word, the meaning and structure of a sentence). But we cannot consider thinking and language as identical phenomena; this is the same as the identification of verbal language and inner speech among behaviorists, whose positions in the modern scientific world are not relevant. But on the other hand, considering language and thinking as form and content is also incorrect, because the process of thinking is not content, but mental activity, as a result of which this content is manifested. Language itself is a unity of form and

content. Thus, language as a “shell material”, language as a “tool for thinking” and others similar phrases inaccurate, because language can be perceived not only in physical manifestations (sound), but also in content. Language takes part in the process of thinking when it acts as a thinking tool or a means for embodying material and intangible content. Language and thinking do not enter into a relationship of dominance or mutual conditioning (language is needed to think, and language is needed to think). Since language and thinking belong to different areas, there cannot be complete identity of language and thinking. Even inner speech is not a process of thinking in itself, but only a material shell of thought in those cases when we think without expressing our thoughts out loud.

The closeness of language and thinking is also undeniable. Being a means of communication and an instrument of thinking, they perform one function, being realized in speech activity. Even figurative and intuitive thinking must have a certain plan of expression, just like logical thinking. That is, language acts not only as a means of expressing thoughts, but also as a form of its existence (there may also be non-verbal forms of art, such as painting, music, sculpture, which embody human thoughts and feelings). Regardless of the type of thinking that is involved in the formation of speech, without human language the final thought cannot be understood. Arising at the level of a vague idea, a thought, taking shape in a linguistic shell, becomes visible and acquires clarity; the more thoughtful and conscious the thought, the more clearly and clearly it is expressed.

4. The defining condition of thinking and speech

Thinking is a function of the human brain; the human brain reflects objective processes occurring in the world. There are two stages of human cognition: sensory perception and rational. The thinking process at the rational stage of understanding is carried out at the level of concepts, judgments and reasoning to reflect the process of understanding the objective nature of things and laws. Human thought, realized through language in speech, can directly reflect the results of thinking as human activity. The process of speech involves, on the one hand, the formation and formulation of thoughts using linguistic means, and on the other hand, perception language constructs and their understanding. Thus, we see a close connection between thinking and speech.

4.1. Differences in speech as a manifestation of individual thinking

The functioning of language in speech is influenced by many factors, such as social factors, cultural, psychological and so on. Each of them will directly influence the use of language in speech, which will also depend on the individual thinking ability of the speaker. The ability to produce speech depends on the level of thinking. The higher the level of thinking and artistic speech, the more successfully and efficiently communicative tasks will be solved. The mental activity of people with a low level of speech skills leaves much to be desired. But there are exceptions to the rules related to individual characteristics: despite serious thinking skills, a person does not have the ability to verbally embody them, but this situation can be changed by specially training in communication skills.

4.2. Verbal communication and mental activity

Interpersonal communications are carried out using not only verbal but also non-verbal means. At verbal communication speech is an intermediary between communicants, expressing thoughts and feelings that must be conveyed. The exchange of information takes place through the mental activity of language: the encoding of thoughts to express one's feelings through language processing, transformation into the external form of speech. That is, the communicative act is realized through verbal stimulation of the brain; mental activity is necessary for organizing, selecting, analyzing, integrating, transforming thoughts to express feelings, and finally achieving the goal of communication. Of course, this transformation or reduction is inseparable from a mutual common understanding of social, cultural, psychological and other types of information, because without them there would be no mutual agreement on the material embodiment of thinking, without having any common platform, you can come to different results, and verbal communication will turn out to be unproductive and failed. A direct consequence of linguistic and cultural differences between symbols may be a failure to communicate.

4.3. Verbal Communication and Contextual Constraints

Even before the start of a communicative act, specific objects of communication, the purpose of communication must be established, the time, place and conditions that will be associated with a specific communication situation must be understood, that is, it is necessary to make sure that

all conditions for understanding have been created. The meaning of a speech utterance is realized using linguistic means, but some points can be expressed by elements of the non-linguistic sphere. People in the process of communication may encounter different situations, different people can express the same thought in different ways, and different versions of their thought can produce different communicative effects.

Whether a thought is spoken or written, a carrier of verbal information or inferred from other sources, there is a need to process information without thinking so that it does not become a problem in the chain of transmission of speech information.

Before verbalizing your thoughts, it is sometimes helpful to think out loud to organize your inner speech. Just think carefully. It is through mental activity that you can quickly organize the content of an expression and give your speech accuracy and smoothness. Possessing flexible thinking, the ability to generalize, a thought can be extracted from numerous layers of words and images, transformed into structured content and transformed into an ideal speech form.

5. Conclusion

Numerous studies in the field

The development of linguistics led to the emergence of structural linguistics, which distinguished between language and speech and made these differences the object of study, thereby making an outstanding contribution to the development of language. But she ignores speech, which also plays an important role. With the development of science, studying language in isolation at a certain point began to hinder scientific progress.

Language is the carrier of thinking. Our daily life inseparable from language. Internal mental activity, especially abstract thinking tools, with the help of language improves the quality of communication between people and promotes deeper understanding. Thinking is the core of human intelligence, and the use of language is closely related to it. Once an idea is thought out, it becomes meaningless without a material shell. Speech used in the process of communication is associated with non-linguistic factors: psychological, social, cultural, historical, etc., which influence and limit language; it is obvious that the use of language as a tool for studying human mental activity is the dominant tool when used correctly. This tool is even more necessary when studying language rules and laws.

LITERATURE

1. Arutyunova N.D. Language // Encyclopedia. Russian language. M., 1997.

2. Vinogradov V. S. Lexical issues of translation literary prose. M., 1978.

3. Reformatsky A. A. Introduction to linguistics. M., 1967.

4. M. Shch.: 1996.

5. Shh. gy*. SH^SHESHVSHZH. FI2010.

6. schsch. shtssht.sh sh. : 2012. No. 8.

7. ttsh. SH^SHZDSH^SHY

8. YAY, SHWSHSHIFSHSH. m^m 2015.

10. YASH. . 2012.

13. : y&vdsh, 2009.

14. gschzh ШВ^Ш^&В^-^^шш^шжшш.т^^^, 2011.

15.wa^. . w: ttk^scht%sht±, 1991-

16. shashtshi^-t, 2001.

17. pcs. ttshshm^a. sh: yshsh, 2005.

18. shya. - 2007.

1. Arutyunova N. D. Yazyk // Entsiklopediya. Russian yazyk. M., 1997.

2. Vinogradov V. S. Leksicheskie voprosy perevoda khudozhestvennoy prozy. M., 1978.

3. Reformatskiy A. A. Vvedenie v yazykovedenie. M., 1967.

4. M. Shch.: 1996.

5. Shh. gy*. SH^SHESHVSHZH. FI2010.

6. schsch. zhtshtshsh sh.: 2012. No. 8.

7. shtsh. SH^SHZDSH^SHY

8. YAY, SHWSHSHIFSHSH. m^m 2015.

12. everywhere. g^hytshsh^shvshzhet.” 1999.

13. Sh: Y&FS, 2009.

14. ITZ -2011.

15. -dash^sh. w: ttk^scht%sht±, 1991-

16. ptshshtshl sh, 2001.

17. ttshshm^ya. sh: yShSh, 2005.

18. - shshtshttshshshshttt^zh, 2007.

The problem of the relationship between language and thinking is one of the most complex and topical issues not only general linguistics, but also logic, psychology, philosophy. Perhaps there is not a single significant work in the field of these sciences throughout their entire development in which this question is not discussed in one form or another, or at least not raised.

The complexity of the problem is primarily due to the complexity and inconsistency of nature and thinking and language. Being necessary attributes of a person, both phenomena combine the social and biological (corresponding to the dual nature of man). On the one hand, both language and thinking are a product of the human brain as homo sapiens, on the other hand, language and thinking are social products, since man himself is a social phenomenon.

According to K. Marx, “the individual is a social being. Therefore, every manifestation of his life - even if it does not appear in the direct form of a collective manifestation of life, performed together with others - is a manifestation and affirmation of social life."

The unity of the social and individual-biological reveals the most general specificity of both language and thinking.

This, apparently, primarily explains the difficult-to-see variety of concepts that existed and exist in the corresponding sciences regarding both language and thinking, and thereby the relationship between them. At the same time, it is important to emphasize the conditionality of these concepts by certain philosophical systems, which were sometimes even unconsciously shared by their authors.

The solution to the problem of the relationship between language and thinking (the relationship between word and thought) “has always and constantly fluctuated - from the most ancient times to the present day - between two extreme poles - between identification and complete merger thoughts and words and between their equally metaphysical, equally absolute, equally complete rupture and separation.”

The identification of language and thinking (it should be noted that this does not always occur in explicit form) logically leads to the removal of the problem altogether. The question of the connection between language and thinking is declared a pseudo-problem and is removed from the field of view of the researcher.

The complete separation and opposition of language and thinking as independent and only externally related phenomena, consideration of the word as an external expression of thought, its garment, “only cuts the knot, instead of untying it,” because in this case the connection is considered as something so mechanical that it is possible to neglect it when considering both related phenomena.

Currently, both extreme trends continue to exist in various variants. So, different attitude to thinking and its connection with language underlies two different directions: “mentalistic”, which notes the desire to identify language and thinking, attributing to language the role in the human psyche that belongs to thinking, and “mechanistic” (behaviourist), which separates language from thought, considering thinking as something extralinguistic (extralinguistic) and excluding it from the theory of language, to the point that thinking is generally declared a fiction.

Apparently, the correct approach to this problem is one that starts from the obvious fact that there is a complex relationship between language and thinking. IN general view it is presented as follows. The basis of the content expressed in language is formed by thoughts. It is through thinking, through the reflective activity of the human brain, that language units can correlate with objects and phenomena of the objective world, without which communication between people through language would be impossible.

On the other hand, in the sound complexes of a particular language, which act as material signals of elements of the objective world reflected in thinking, the results of cognition are consolidated, and these results serve as the basis for further cognition. Therefore, language is often characterized as a tool, an instrument of thinking, and the relationship between language and thinking as their unity.

Recognition of the close connection between language and thinking is one of the main provisions of materialist linguistics. However, this postulate alone does not solve the whole problem. The relationship between language and thought (consciousness) is part of a broader problem - the problem of the relationship between three links: language - thinking - objective reality, or, as this problem is often formulated, words - thoughts - things.

In terms of the main question of philosophy, the relationship of thinking (consciousness) to objective reality comes to the fore in this triad, which in turn determines the relationship of language to things. The materialist concept of language solves this issue in this way: since consciousness is secondary to being and reflects objective reality, then, consequently, the world of things and phenomena cognized by man is also reflected in language through thinking.

It is to substantiate the materialist understanding of thinking - and thereby language - as opposed to the idealistic concept, that the statements of K. Marx in the “German Ideology” are aimed, on which the thesis about the unity of language and thinking, accepted in Soviet linguistics, is based. As is known, in this work K. Marx gives a critical analysis of the philosophy of the Young Hegelians, their idealistic concept of consciousness as an independent phenomenon, a “pure” spirit free from matter, “producing” real relations between people, all their activities. At the same time, justification of the material basis thinking goes in two directions.

It is emphasized that, firstly, thinking is materialized in language, in the sounds through which it is given to other people in the feeling that the immediate reality of thought is language. Secondly, special attention is drawn to the fact that “neither thoughts nor language form a special kingdom in themselves, that they are only manifestations of real life.”

Thus, the general philosophical basis of various concepts of language is manifested not only and not so much in how the question of the relationship between language and thinking is resolved, but also in how the problem of the relationship between consciousness and being is resolved.

Understanding the connection between language and thinking as their unity, that is, recognizing the complex interaction between them, does not yet sufficiently characterize this or that concept in a general philosophical sense, because in this case thinking itself can be interpreted idealistically as a primary phenomenon that determines being. An example is the concept of V. Humboldt, who in every possible way emphasizes the unity of the thinking process and its sound embodiment in speech activity, while remaining on an idealistic philosophical position on the issue of the relationship between thought and thing.

On the other hand, recognition of the materialist concept of the relationship between consciousness and the objective world as secondary and primary, ideal and material, can be combined with such an interpretation of the formula about the unity of language and thinking, which ultimately leads to their identification or to a complete separation from each other, that is, to one of the extremes mentioned above.

This is due to the fact that it is not enough to characterize this attitude as a unity of its members, it is necessary to determine, firstly, those general characteristics on the basis of which this or that relationship should be qualified as a unity, and, secondly, to prove the presence of these characteristics in this particular case.

The term “unity”, used without sufficient clarification and analysis of this concept, often leads to the fact that the connection between language and thinking, in an explicit or implicit form, is interpreted as the unity of form and content. Language is considered as a form of thinking, thinking as the content of linguistic formations. This essentially implies the identification of both phenomena, since form and content in their unity are integral aspects of one and the same object.

It should be noted that explicit consideration of the relationship between language and thinking as form and content has become less and less common in recent years. It is increasingly realized that language and thinking are special, very complex phenomena, each of which has its own specific form and its own specific content.

The task is to, based on the general thesis about the close relationship between language and thinking and their derivation from reality, opposing concepts that identify language and thinking or considering them as independent phenomena, to identify the forms of this relationship and the mechanism of interaction between them.

It is quite obvious that this is very difficult task, requiring joint efforts, research in the field of various sciences: psychology, logic, epistemology, cybernetics, linguistics, physiology of higher nervous activity. While science is still far from any tangible solution to a number of the most important issues related to this problem, the complexity of which becomes all the more obvious the deeper it penetrates research thought both in the area of ​​thinking and in the area of ​​language.

Being a unity of biological and social, both language and thinking have two sides to their functioning (being). On the one hand, they exist as certain static objects in which the achievements of social knowledge are realized and consolidated. This is, firstly, a system of language in which they were deposited in the form linguistic meanings the most general knowledge about the world, secondly, it is the totality language texts, monuments in which, based on these general knowledge more specific knowledge from various areas of the real world is recorded, the results of thinking of many generations are recorded.

Another form of manifestation (being) of both phenomena is the mental and speech activity of a person with all its complexities and patterns.

In the history of linguistics, in one form or another, this duality of the ontology of language and thinking has always been noted, which, depending on the direction represented, was interpreted differently (cf. logical and psychological aspects in so-called “mentalistic” theories of language, the virtual and actual side of the sign in different versions by E. Husserl, S. Bally and others, the paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of the linguistic sign and, finally, various theories language and speech).

It should be emphasized that with all attempts to distinguish between different forms of existence of language, its two-aspect nature has always been a stumbling block in the study of the nature of language and thinking, as well as the reason for one-sided concepts and various kinds of extreme points view of their interaction. S. L. Rubinstein characterizes these difficulties as follows: “The difficulty of resolving the question of the relationship between thinking and language, thinking and speech is largely due to the fact that when posing it in some cases, thinking is meant as a process, as an activity, in others - thought as a product of this activity; in some cases this means language, in others - speech.

The relationship between language and speech is taken either functionally or genetically, and in the first case we mean the ways of functioning of already formed thinking and the role that language and speech play in this case; in the second case, the question is whether language and speech are necessary conditions for the emergence of thinking in the course of historical development thinking in humanity or in the course of individual development in a child.

It is clear that if mainly one aspect of the problem is taken into account, and the solution then applies to the entire problem as a whole without differentiating its various aspects, then the solution, by virtue of this alone, turns out to be ambiguous.”

Serebrennikov B.A. General linguistics - M., 1970.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Introduction

1. The connection between language and thinking

Conclusion

Introduction

Language and thinking are two inextricably linked types of social activity, differing from each other in their essence and specific signs. Language is a necessary condition for the emergence of thinking, the form of its existence and the method of functioning. In the process of development of the human community and its culture, thinking and language develop into a single speech-thought complex, which serves as the basis of the majority cultural entities and communicative reality. In addition, thinking is such an aspect of human social activity that in itself is inaccessible to direct perception. The material on the basis of which thinking can be studied is the externally expressed elements of human behavior; the most convenient among them are speech and its product - language.

Just like thinking, language constitutes some aspect of human social activity and cannot be separated from a number of other aspects of this activity, in particular from thinking and communication processes: certain sounds, written signs and movements can be and are signs of language only then , when they express certain thoughts and serve the purposes of mutual communication. Just like thinking, language cannot really be separated from other aspects of human social activity, but at the same time, unlike thinking, language is something accessible to direct perception.

Dedicated to issues of their interaction large number scientific works. This topic is still the most attractive for study from linguistics, psychology, linguistics, psycholinguistics, logic and other sciences. Even without knowing the laws by which thinking carries out its work, and only having a rough guess, we have no doubt at all that thinking and language are interconnected. The problem of the relationship between language and consciousness is not the only one; there are a number of other questions: which element in this connection is dominant - language or thinking; we speak because we think so or we think because we say so.

Thus, all of the above justifies the relevance of this topic.

The purpose of the work is to find out, as far as possible, the relationship between language and thinking; the influence of language on the way of thinking and vice versa.

The work consists of an introduction, main part, conclusion and list of references. The total volume of work is 18 pages.

1. The connection between language and thinking

Language - system verbal expression thoughts. But the question arises: can a person think without resorting to language? Most researchers believe that thinking can only exist on the basis of language and actually identify language and thinking.

Even the ancient Greeks used the word "logos" to designate word, speech, spoken language and at the same time to designate reason, thought. They began to separate the concepts of language and thought much later.

Wilhelm Humboldt, the great German linguist, the founder of general linguistics as a science, considered language to be the formative organ of thought. Developing this thesis, he said that the language of a people is its spirit, the spirit of a people is its language.

Another German linguist, August Schleicher, believed that thinking and language are as identical as content and form.

Philologist Max Müller expressed this idea in extreme form: “How do we know that the sky exists and that it is blue? Would we know the sky if there were no name for it? ... Language and thinking are two names for the same thing.”

Ferdinand de Saussure (1957-1913), the great Swiss linguist, argued in support of the close unity of language and thought figurative comparison: “language is a sheet of paper, thought is its front side, and sound is the back. You cannot cut the front side without cutting the back. Likewise, in language it is impossible to separate either thought from sound, or sound from thought. This can only be achieved through abstraction.”

K. Marx, for example, called language “the immediate reality of thought.”

And finally, the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield argued that thinking is talking to oneself.

However, many scientists adhere to the exact opposite point of view, believing that thinking, especially creative thinking, quite possibly without verbal expression.

Norbert Wiener, Albert Einstein, Francis Galton and other scientists admit that they do not use words or mathematical signs, and vague images, use the game of associations and only then translate the result into words.

On the other hand, many manage to hide the poverty of their thoughts behind an abundance of words.

Many can create without the help of verbal language creative people- composers, artists, actors.

For example, composer Yu.A. Shaporin lost the ability to speak and understand, but could compose music, that is, he continued to think. He retained a constructive, imaginative type of thinking.

And the composer M. Ravel, after an accident in 1937, when his left hemisphere was damaged, could listen to music, but could no longer write it.

Russian-American linguist Roman Osipovich Jacobson explains these facts by the fact that signs are a necessary support for thought, but internal thought, especially when it is a creative thought, willingly uses other systems of signs (non-speech), more flexible, among which there are conditional generally accepted and individual ( both permanent and episodic).

Some researchers (D. Miller, Y. Galanter, K. Pribram) believe that we have a very clear anticipation of what we are going to say, we have a plan for the proposal, and when we formulate it, we have a relatively clear idea of ​​what what are we going to say. This means that the plan of the sentence is not carried out on the basis of words.

The fragmentation and condensation of reduced speech is a consequence of the predominance of non-verbal forms in thinking at this moment.

Thus, both opposing points of view have sufficient grounds.

The truth most likely lies in the middle, i.e. mainly thinking and verbal language closely related. But in some cases and in some areas, thinking does not need words.

2. The problem of the relationship between language and thinking

The problem of the relationship between language and thinking is one of the most complex and pressing issues not only of general linguistics, but also of logic, psychology, and philosophy. Perhaps there is not a single significant work in the field of these sciences throughout their entire development in which this question is not discussed in one form or another, or at least not raised.

The complexity of the problem is due, first of all, to the complexity and inconsistency of nature and thinking and language. Being necessary attributes of a person, both phenomena combine the social and biological (corresponding to the dual nature of man). On the one hand, both language and thinking are a product of the human brain as homo sapiens, on the other hand, language and thinking are social products, since man himself is a social phenomenon.

Language is the main sign system of man, the most important means human communication, a way of thinking. The sign is external expression the internal content of objects and phenomena - their meaning. Man is the only creature that models outside world using sign systems.

Signs are symbols of the periodic table, musical notes, drawings, names, etc. Signs expressing the meaning of phenomena can be either conventional or real (for example, local clothing features). Conditional, in turn, are divided into special and non-special. The role of a non-special sign can be played by, say, a tree used as a landmark; special signs are gestures, traffic signs, insignia, rituals, etc.

The most important conventional signs of human culture are words. Objects and phenomena of the surrounding reality are rarely completely under the control of a person, and the words - the signs with which we designate them - are subject to our will, connecting into semantic chains - phrases. It is easier to operate with signs, with the meanings that are attached to them, than with the phenomena themselves. With the help of words you can interpret other sign systems (for example, you can describe a picture). Language is a universal material that is used by people to explain the world and form one or another model of it. Although an artist can do this with the help of visual images, and a musician with the help of sounds, they are all armed, first of all, with the signs of a universal code - language.

Language is a special sign system. Any language consists of various words, that is, conventional sound signs denoting various items and processes, as well as from the rules that allow you to build sentences from these words. It is sentences that are the means of expressing thoughts. By using interrogative sentences people ask, express their bewilderment or ignorance, with the help of imperatives they give orders, narrative sentences serve to describe the world around them, to convey and express knowledge about it. The totality of words of a particular language forms its dictionary. The dictionaries of the most developed modern languages ​​contain tens of thousands of words. With their help, thanks to the rules for combining and combining words into sentences, you can write and pronounce an unlimited number of meaningful phrases, filling hundreds of millions of articles, books and files with them. Because of this, language allows you to express a wide variety of thoughts, describe the feelings and experiences of people, formulate mathematical theorems, etc.

You should distinguish between communicating with others and communicating with yourself. The peculiarity of communication with oneself is that it proceeds introspectively and differs significantly in the nature of verbalization from communication with others. It is characteristic that communication with others includes many non-verbal means of communication and understanding (gesture, pause, rhythm, facial expressions, eye expression, etc.). For now, language remains a unique universal way of communication. It is logical to assume that communication with oneself is carried out through the use of non-verbal communication. Everyone knows this state - “I know, I understand, but I can’t say.” It is advisable to distinguish two levels of internal speaking - not yet verbalized and already verbalized - this is what is usually called internal speech. Inner speech includes various degrees of verbal formalization of thought and, therefore, it is always characterized by at least primary verbal formalization, then it is transformed, achieving greater adequacy.

The discrepancy between “living thought” and inner speech, the complexity of the process of verbalization of thought, etc. allows us to question the generally accepted interpretation of language as the progenitor of thinking. Research by psychologists, physiologists, linguists, linguists and philosophers confirms the fact that language and thinking are connected by thousands of threads and mutual transitions. They cannot exist without each other. Speech without thought is empty, thought without speech is mute, and, therefore, not understood. But it would be a mistake to identify one with the other, because thinking does not mean speaking, and speaking does not always mean thinking, although speech was and remains the main condition and method for the implementation of thinking.

So, language should be considered the primary universal sign system, naturally formed at a certain stage of development of human society and dominant in rational sphere human activity. Thinking is more dynamic than language. As a strictly ordered system, language changes over a long period of time, gradually. Many categories lost by thinking are preserved in language.

How do language and thinking relate? First of all, it should be noted: humanity has different languages, but in principle the thinking is the same. This allows people of different nationalities to communicate (if, of course, you learn foreign language). Difficulties, of course, arise, but they can be overcome, because it is truly impossible to communicate only when the thinking of the “interlocutor” is fundamentally different. And we are people of the same planet, and although the specifics of thinking are different for everyone, we are able to understand each other.

We can divide two ways of the existence of thought with the help of language: “living thought,” i.e. actually experienced by a given person in a given interval of time and space and the “alienated thought” recorded in the text, etc. “Living thought” is actually thinking, its real ontological development. It is never abstract thinking, i.e. those with which science deals. The latter is possible only in a form alienated from humans, for example, in a computer. The real process of thinking carried out by an individual is a complex and dynamic formation in which many components are integrated: abstract-discursive, sensory-figurative, emotional, intuitive. To this should be added the indispensable inclusion in the thinking process of goal-setting, volitional and sanctioning factors, which have so far been extremely poorly studied. As you can see, the real process of thinking and thinking, as a subject of logic, as logical process are very different from each other. Thinking as a real process is one of the important forms of consciousness activity. Therefore, it cannot be adequately described and understood without the content-value and structural characteristics of consciousness. Being conscious activity, thinking is organically connected with information processes occurring at the unconscious mental level. Apparently, it would be more correct to even say that the real process of thinking is carried out in a single conscious-unconscious-conscious mental circuit, the analysis of which is special and very challenging task. Therefore, we limit ourselves to the level of consciousness, including consideration of those peripheral areas where the light of reflection gradually fades.

Thinking as an active, purposeful process is carried out consciously and is a form of activity consciousness. And this indicates the fact of evaluative regulation (self-regulation) of the thought process. Every conscious process, including thinking, is, to one degree or another, communication. Naturally, communication is impossible without language. However, language is the main, decisive, but not the only means of communication, and this allows us to think that the communicativeness of thinking is not limited to its verbalizability.

The areas of relationship between language and thought can be depicted as two partially intersecting circles:

those. Not everything in thinking belongs to language, but not everything in language can be classified as thinking. Firstly, thinking occurs without language (meaning, without speech). Even a monkey can figure out how to get a banana with a stick - this is the so-called practical thinking. Humans also have it; you’ve probably heard the expression “practical mind.” A “practical” person knows how to accept right decisions, acts “smartly,” but he will most likely find it difficult to explain in words why he did it this way and not otherwise.

There is also such a type of thinking as visual-figurative. It often prevails among people of art: artists, directors... A person with this type of thinking prefers to think not in words, but in pictures, images, ideas... Finally, there is verbal thinking, that is, verbal. Sometimes it is called verbal-logical or simply logical.

This kind of thinking: involves a search for truth, is not associated with feelings and assessments, does not deal with questions and motivations. Anything that goes beyond these limits is not a manifestation of logical thinking. For example, when you express your feelings (“Ah! Oh! Eh!”, “Cool!”) or when you ask “utilitarian” questions (“What time is it?”), you use language “without the participation” of logical thinking. Also: “Who do I see! Hello!” - you call out to a friend. Here, too, there is no thinking yet - with the help of language you simply establish contact. “Please bring some tea”, “Close the door”, “Stop it now!” - these are requests or orders, that is, your expression of will. Thus, language “serves” not only thinking, but also other areas of our consciousness.

The brain is considered the organ of thinking. Moreover, different types thinking "live" in different hemispheres brain Since thinking is associated with language, the “geography” of the brain is of considerable interest for finding out which zones are responsible for human speech. Left and right hemisphere brain have different specializations, that is, different functions, which can be defined as functional asymmetry of the cerebral cortex.

The left hemisphere is the speech hemisphere, it is responsible for speech, its coherence, abstract, logical thinking and abstract vocabulary. It controls the right hand. For left-handed people it’s usually the other way around, but most left-handed people have speech areas in the left hemisphere, while the rest have both or the right hemisphere. This verbal hemisphere is always dominant, it controls the left hemisphere in particular and the entire body in general. He is characterized by energy, enthusiasm, and optimism.

The right hemisphere is associated with visual-figurative, concrete thinking, with the objective meanings of words. This hemisphere is non-verbal and is responsible for spatial perception, controls gestures (but recognizes the language of the deaf and dumb, usually the left one). It is the source of intuition. Pessimistic. Able to distinguish between people's voices, gender of speakers, intonation, melody, rhythm, stress in words and sentences. But even after damage to the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere can distinguish nouns, numerals, and songs.

Damage to the left hemisphere is more serious and leads to pathology, while damage to the right hemisphere results in fewer noticeable deviations. It should be noted that in women the two hemispheres are less different than in men. Diseases of the left hemisphere cause fewer disorders in them.

Practical and imaginative thinking can do without words, but logical thinking does not exist without speech. Language is the “clothing” of thought (scientists say so - the material design of thoughts). And since people not only think “to themselves” (that is, inaudibly to others), but also strive to convey thoughts to others, they cannot do without the help of an intermediary language.

Thinking is carried out in certain forms. There are three of them:

1. Concept. The concepts reflect distinctive properties objects and relationships between them. The concepts “book”, “brochure”, “magazine”, “newspaper”, “weekly” belong to the same thematic group, but differ in such characteristics as “format”, “volume”, “periodicity”, “page binding”, “ fastening method" etc. In semasiology, a distinction is made between formal and substantive concepts. The “formal concept” is reflected in the explanatory dictionary: for example, water is a transparent, colorless liquid without taste or smell. A “meaningful concept” can only be virtual: it includes the entire volume of gadfly knowledge (H2O), accumulated in all physics, chemistry, biology, etc., combined. Speaking very schematically, a concept in thinking corresponds to a word (more rarely, a phrase) in language.

It is clear that with the development of science (and not only) ideas about this or that concept develop; the same thing happens with individual as he grows and learns. A child’s range of concepts is limited, for example, the hero of Chekhov’s story “Grisha” does not yet have the concept of “dog” in his mind, and he has to describe these animals as follows: “big cats with their tails up and their tongues hanging out.”

2. Judgment. Logical thinking and begins, strictly speaking, where the judgment appears. In a judgment something must be affirmed or denied. (Logical thinking, let us remind you, generally “works” only with affirmation and negation.) Second distinctive feature a proposition is that it can be either true or false. It is not difficult to distinguish a judgment from everything else. To do this, we need to mentally substitute the following beginning for the finished sentence: “I assert that...” If it works out, we have a judgment, if not, something else.

Example: take short sentences: “Hello!”, “Would you like some tea?” Let’s substitute the beginning... Indeed, something is missing...! This means that we can conclude: the statements taken as an example are not judgments.

Let's take others: “All men are mortal,” “An individual judgment is incomplete,” “All oysters are unhappy in love,” “No fresh bun is not tasty.” Let's substitute... Well, there you go! Although it is, of course, funny about oysters, and one can also argue about buns, it is still immediately clear that these proposals are judgments. True or false, that's another question.

In language, a sentence corresponds to a judgment as a form of thinking - and, note, it is narrative in purpose of the statement. Judgment has its own structure. It is absolutely necessary that it contains a subject and a predicate. The subject is the subject of thought itself; in a sentence it usually corresponds to the subject. A predicate is something that is affirmed or denied about an object. In the sentence it corresponds to the predicate.

G.Ya. Solganik explains it this way: “Thought moves from the known to the new. This is the law of movement of any thought. “The forest is impenetrable,” “The sea laughed.” The subject of thought (the subject of judgment) is the known, what I start from. Then to this subject (“forest”, “sea”) I add a new characteristic (“impassable”, “laughed”) This is the development of thought, as one English scientist figuratively wrote almost a hundred years ago, “sentences in the process of thinking are also, that the steps are in the process of walking. The leg on which the body weight corresponds to the subject. The leg that moves forward to take a new place corresponds to the predicate."

3. Inference is the process of thought itself - obtaining a new judgment from the content of the original judgments. How did the proposition “The cat is immortal” come about? Of the two: “All men are mortal” - correct? "A cat is not a person" - right? This means that out of two correct ones, the third one is also correct.

Language and thinking are most closely connected where deduction occurs. The word "deduction" ("deductive method") was made famous by Sherlock Holmes. This detective by hat or by wristwatch told almost the entire life of their owner. He admired his ability to take into account the most insignificant details and nuances at first glance, and extract from them necessary information and interpret it correctly, and then draw conclusions. Remember his thoughts, the logical chains that he built? Examples of "thinking out loud" show how speech completely coincides with the thinking process. Of course, we can only appreciate this coincidence if the speech is spoken or recorded, i.e. designed for perception. We cannot hear inner speech when a person thinks to himself.

Let us return once again to the fact that there is no direct correspondence between units of thinking and units of language. For example, the category of gender of nouns. If the noun is animate - everything is more or less in order, our thinking agrees that the word chicken is feminine, and the word rooster is masculine.

For INanimate nouns, the category of gender in language does not correlate in any way with thinking: try to answer (or at least think!) Why a river and channel are “she”, a stream, tributary and ocean are “he”, and the sea and lake are “he” "it"? “No reason, they say in such cases.” It is believed that the category of gender is formal, it is not related to the content of concepts. This means that the category of genus “does not exist” for thinking. What gender a living creature is is important, yes, but what kind of inanimate object is a tree, a bush, grass is absolutely unimportant.

The situation in our problem is similar (but not exactly the same!). One and the same thought can be framed in completely different ways: you can say “Come”, or you can say “I’m waiting for you.” Or: “I was happy about your message” / “Your message made me happy” / “You made me happy with your message.” The same concept or idea can be expressed in different words or phrases. And vice versa: the same word can be used for different concepts or ideas. For example, the verb to love is used in countless contexts; “I love” can be said about your city, about your mother, about football, about tomatoes, etc. But what different “loves” these are! Most words in the language are ambiguous, this creates additional opportunities, and at the same time unnecessary difficulties.

3. Hypotheses about the relationship between thinking and language

Hypothesis 1 - language is thinking.

It is implied that these concepts are identical, although it is more convenient to talk about their synonymy: for nothing is language, only language is language. But this would be a tautological characterization.

Yet, according to this formula, there cannot be language without thinking and thinking without language. Speaking (speech activity) is equated to voiced thinking, unexpressed thinking - to internal speaking.

A. Schleicher stated: “Language is thinking in sound, just as vice versa, thinking is silent speech.”

“Without speech,” wrote I.M. Sechenov, “elements of sensitive thinking, devoid of image and form, would not have the opportunity to be fixed in consciousness: it gives them objectivity, a kind of reality (of course fictitious), and therefore constitutes the main condition of thinking in non-sensory images."

Rejecting this opinion, critics argue that, firstly, speaking without thinking is possible. Secondly, words are often searched for for already prepared thoughts, and sometimes they are never found.

In the practice of speaking, there are also examples of false statements (with correct thoughts).

Hypothesis 2 - language is thinking, but thinking is not language.

In the first hypothesis, it was possible to rearrange the elements of equality without compromising this equality (language is thinking, thinking is language). According to this hypothesis, speaking and thinking are not the same thing, but different aspects of the same process.

Language and intelligence develop in close connection, but neither is the result of the other. We can think without language, but we cannot speak (meaningfully) without thinking.

Speech activity, according to G.P. Melnikov, changes the state of consciousness, but this change can occur without participation linguistic signs, for example, under the influence of signals received from the organs of vision, touch, etc. “Consequently, speech activity is always accompanied by thought processes, but thinking can proceed independently of language processes. That is why the same conceptual content can be expressed by different linguistic means."

Hypothesis 3 - language is not thinking, but thinking is language.

According to this thesis, everything that is expressed and realized in sensually perceived structures (sound scales, graphic signs, etc.) cannot in any way be equated to thinking and does not contain such elements. However, thinking as a process occurs in the forms own language. Psychologists call this process internal speech, which has a predicative structure, which is transformed into external speech.

There are two types in this group:

Language and thinking have nothing in common. A true understanding of the world can only be achieved in thinking free of language, although it is possible that language can make thinking more economical and serve as a support for it, however, another sign system can also play this role;

Language has no positive effect on thinking. The so-called aids serve as a hindrance to designate and fix thinking. In the same way, the transmission of what is known is carried out in language in a very imperfect way.

Hypothesis 4 - language is not thinking, and thinking is not language.

According to this position, language and thinking are different types of behavior. First a person thinks, then he speaks. Even if he speaks to himself, he thinks first.

Thus, E. Lenneberg is convinced that intelligence and speech, the intellectual and linguistic abilities of a person are completely independent and do not depend on each other.

But still, the dependence of these phenomena with relative autonomy is confirmed by most researchers. So, in general outline presents a set of existing opinions regarding the connections between thinking and language.

All four hypotheses are not unfounded and have a right to exist. However, in any case, it is impossible to deny the existence of a close connection between the processes of thinking and the functioning of language.

The relationship of thought to language is manifested in the fact that a person invents and creates certain forms of speech, forms and methods of linguistic expression.

Thought directed at speech and language, that is, thought about language, is called linguistic thinking.

A thought is embodied in a word not spontaneously, but consciously. In a word, our thought makes increasingly subtle structures meaningful.

A person’s comprehension, awareness, and feeling of his speech as a process of linguistic thinking develops, affecting ever new details of the structure of language.

Speech comprehension is usually divided into speech recognition and speech understanding.

Recognition is called recognition material form speech (sign).

Understanding refers to one or another type of awareness of the meaning of what is said and how it is expressed.

The close connection between language and thinking can also be justified by the fact that structural and conceptual meanings are closely related to each other. J. Fers believed that meaning can be revealed using the context of the situation, which includes not only the very setting of the speech and the interlocutors, but also the surrounding objects, the social and cultural experience of the speakers.

Complex and multidimensional connections are established between concepts and images in speech and lexical concepts. These connections undoubtedly involve both other semiotic systems and objective world reflected by consciousness. Connections constitute the essence of the relationship between the process of thinking in linguistic form and linguistic thinking, when comprehension of a linguistic expression arises.

Conclusion

So, based on the above, let's summarize briefly.

None of the hypotheses that we came across contain the idea that thinking and language are two substances that exist in parallel and are not related to each other. Some of the theories suggest that thinking can exist without language. But none of them indicate that language can exist without thinking.

Consequently, we can conclude that, while differing in their assessment of the degree of mutual influence of thinking and language, all of the above researchers are united in one thing - isolated sounds become language only if they perform the function of transmitting (receiving, displaying) information by a carrier of consciousness ( thinking).

The discrepancy between “living thought” and inner speech, the complexity of the process of verbalization of thought allows one to question the generally accepted interpretation of language as the progenitor of thinking. Research by psychologists, physiologists, linguists, linguists and philosophers confirms the fact that language and thinking are connected by thousands of threads and mutual transitions. They cannot exist without each other.

Speech without thought is empty, thought without speech is mute, and, therefore, not understood.

But it would be a mistake to identify one with the other, because thinking does not mean speaking, and speaking does not always mean thinking.

Thus, thinking is not an independent, directly given, directly perceived object of study; it is given to us primarily in language, or rather, we are given a language in which, in particular, thinking is carried out. But language, on the other hand, exists only in inextricable connection with thinking.

List of used literature

1. Vygotsky L.S. Thinking and speech / L.S. Vygotsky. - M.: Publishing House "Labyrinth" Publishing House, 2000. - 352 p.

2. Itelson L.B. Lectures on general psychology. Textbook / L.B. Itelson. - Mn.: Harvest, 2000. - 896 p.

3. Thinking and language / Edited by D. P. Gorsky. - M.: State Publishing House Political literature, 1957. - 360 p.

4. Serebryannikov B.A. General linguistics. Forms of existence, functions, history of language. - M.: Nauka, 1970. - 426 p.

5. Sidorov P.I. Introduction to clinical psychology: T. I., T II / P.I. Sidorov, A.V. Parnyakov. - M.: Delfa, 2001. - 780 p.

6. Stolyarenko L.D. Fundamentals of psychology / L.D. Stolyarenko. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2007. - 703 p.

7. Whorf B.L. The relationship of norms of behavior and thinking to language. http:// www. lingva.ru

8. Shapoval S.A. Language and thinking / Psycholinguistics. - [ Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www.ruscenter.ru/629.html, free

Similar documents

Features of the relationship between language and thought, research into problems of thinking and speech in scientific psychology. Steinthal's position on different types of thinking, each of which has its own logic. The meaning of inner speech as the verbal side of thinking.

abstract, added 11/30/2010


Development critical thinking through reading and writing: stages, methods, techniques. Age characteristics teenage schoolchildren. Ways to develop critical thinking among students in grades 7-8 in the classroom English language. Level of formation of thinking.

thesis, added 07/25/2017


Evolutionary foundations for the formation of thinking. Evolutionary biological aspect in the study of the brain. Features of human higher nervous activity. The relationship between language and thinking. Psychological foundations of thought processes (logical thinking).

abstract, added 03/29/2011


Speech and thinking as psychological concepts. Speech and its functions. Basic forms of thinking. Behaviorist model of speech utterance generation. The relationship between speech and thinking. Practical recommendations on the prevention of thought and speech disorders.

course work, added 06/09/2014


Thinking is an active process of reflecting the objective world in human brain in the form of judgments, concepts, conclusions. The essence of thinking as a cognitive process, its types and types. Individual characteristics of thinking. Speech as a tool of thinking.

abstract, added 12/10/2010


The concept of operations and types of thinking. Totality mental activity human: cognitive, emotional and volitional. Thinking as a type of cognition, the relationship of thinking with intelligence, creativity and speech. Connections between mental phenomena.

test, added 03/14/2014


The problem of the relationship between speech and thinking. Concept of thinking. Development of thinking. The connection between thinking and speech. Physiological basis thinking and speech. Speech and its functions. Speech development. Theoretical problems of the emergence of speech. The relationship between thinking and speech.

course work, added 12/22/2008


The role of thinking in cognition, the secret wisdom of language, types of definitions of concepts. Logic is a special, original world with its own laws, idealizations, traditions, and disputes. The art of thinking correctly. Sensation, perception, idea.

test, added 11/05/2003


Psychological essence thinking and its levels. Features of types of thinking. Individual psychological characteristics of thinking. The relationship between thinking and speech. Methods for diagnosing thinking. Methods for diagnosing thinking in preschool children.

course work, added 07/24/2014


The problem of the relationship between speech and thinking. Mechanisms of speech and thinking activity. General characteristics of thinking, as well as the concept and essence of speech in psychology. Modern views on the relationship between speech and thinking. Extracting phonological forms for lemmas.