←back to thread

549 points orcul | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
nickelpro ◴[] No.41889798[source]
As always, barely anyone reads the actual claims in the article and we're left with people opining on the title.

The claims here are exceptionally limited. You don't need spoken language to do well on cognitive tests, but that has never been a subject of debate. Obviously the deaf get on fine without spoken language. People suffering from aphasia, but still capable of communication via other mechanisms, still do well on cognitive tests. Brain scans show you can do sudoku without increasing bloodflow to language regions.

This kind of stuff has never really been in debate. You can teach plenty of animals to do fine on all sorts of cognitive tasks. There's never been a claim that language holds dominion over all forms of cognition in totality.

But if you want to discuss the themes present in Proust, you're going to be hard pressed to do so without something resembling language. This is self-evident. You cannot ask questions or give answers for subjects you lack the facilities to describe.

tl;dr: Language's purpose is thought, not all thoughts require language

replies(7): >>41889875 #>>41889973 #>>41890007 #>>41890316 #>>41890390 #>>41890861 #>>41892886 #
1. rhelz ◴[] No.41890007[source]
Great point. They even did a bad job of reading the title. The title wasn't "Language is not essential for thought", the title was "Language is not essential for the cognitive processes *underlying* thought."

We'd better hope that is true, because if we didn't have non-linguistic mastery of the cognitive processes underlying thought it's hard to see how we could even acquire language in the first place.