Abstract thinking without languages

Krishna: Abstract thinking is the ability to understand and process ideas, concepts, or principles that are not tangible or directly observable, meaning they cannot be physically seen or touched, often involving complex reasoning and the ability to think beyond concrete details; it's a crucial skill for creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving.

According to current scientific understanding, languages likely emerged sometime between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago, coinciding with the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens, although the exact timing remains a subject of debate among researchers; while the ability to speak likely developed gradually over a long period of time within the human evolutionary timeline.

Language likely evolved alongside the development of the human brain and vocal anatomy, allowing for complex sound production.

Language has been shown to play a number of important cognitive roles over and above the communication of thoughts.

Image source: Shutterstock

A novel set of semantic memory task trials, designed for assessing abstract thought non-linguistically, were normed for levels of abstractness. The trials were rated as more or less abstract to the degree that answering them required the participant to abstract away from both perceptual features and common setting associations corresponding to the target image. The normed materials were then used with a population of people with aphasia [Aphasia is an acquired language impairment (receptive and expressive) caused by a brain lesion in the dominant language hemisphere (usually the left)] to assess the relationship of abstract thought to language. While the language-impaired group with aphasia showed lower overall accuracy and longer response times than controls in general, of special note is that their response times were significantly longer as a function of a trial's degree of abstractness. Further, the aphasia group's response times in reporting their degree of confidence (a separate, metacognitive measure) were negatively correlated with their language production abilities, with lower language scores predicting longer metacognitive response times. These results provide some support for the hypothesis that language is an important aid to abstract thought and to metacognition about abstract thought. (1)

Sometimes you feel emotions that cannot be described in words of any language!

“What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence”

"What we cannot speak about" is a phrase often associated with the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, which essentially means that certain concepts or experiences are beyond the reach of language and should be left unspoken, essentially "passing over in silence."

It suggests that some profound or abstract ideas like ethics, aesthetics, or the meaning of life cannot be fully captured by words and are better understood through experience or contemplation rather than verbal explanation.

Sometimes when you know several languages you find it difficult to express the same thing in all the languages you know! That ‘s my personal experience. I use several words to express some feelings in my mother tongue Telugu and some words in Urdu/Hindi to describe some feelings but can’t find similar words to express the same emotions in either English or French!

I can think in an abstract way in one language on a particular topic but can’t do that similarly in all the languages I know on the same one!

While I can express some feelings in one language, I can’t do that similarly in all the languages I know.

Strange!

While language significantly aids in abstract thinking, humans are likely capable of some level of abstract thought even without having learned any words, primarily through mental imagery and sensory experiences, although the extent of this ability is debated and remains a topic of study in psychology and cognitive science.

Some research suggests that humans can experience thoughts without relying on words or images, which is sometimes called "unsymbolized thinking." Even without language, people can visualize scenarios or concepts in their minds, which can be a form of abstract thought.

While not completely necessary, language provides a system for labeling and organizing abstract concepts, making it easier to communicate and manipulate complex ideas.

Can we think without language? Two researchers from the University of Nevada – Christopher L. Heavey and Russell T. Hurlburt – think the answer is yes. They coined the term “unsymbolized thinking” in a study about the inner experience in 2008, which aims to examine the frequency of five common phenomena of inner experience: inner speech, inner seeing (a.k.a. images), unsymbolized thinking, feeling, and sensory awareness (2). the researchers found that unsymbolized thinking was the second most frequent experience!

Unsymbolized thinking is “a particular, definite thought without the awareness of that thought’s being conveyed in words, images, or any other symbols”.

The idea that humans can think without language is also supported by Evelina Fedorenko, a neuroscientist at MIT’s McGovern Institute, and Rosemary Varley, a neuroscientist at University College London .

The available evidence indicates that the damage to a set of brain regions supporting linguistic processing adversely affects the person’s ability to interpret and produce language, but not other thinking processes, such as logical and mathematical problem solving, music appreciation, navigation, etc. Moreover, the scientists also find that the brain regions robustly associated with linguistic activities are generally not active when the person involves in non-linguistic tasks, like arithmetic, storing information in working memory, listening to music, etc. (3)

The existence of unsymbolized thinking indicates that much experienced thinking takes place without any experience of words or other symbols, acknowledging the existence of unsymbolized thinking may have substantial theoretical import.

What happened before the languages were ‘born’? Even before the development of language, our ancestors likely had some capacity for abstract thinking, potentially using visual cues, gestures, and other non-verbal communication methods to conceptualize complex ideas, even if they couldn't express them verbally as we do today; essentially, thinking abstractly without the full linguistic tools to articulate those thoughts.

Like somebody said, “I don't think in words, or in pictures. I think in thoughts”. What?!

What about completely deaf and mute people who never learned even a sign language? Don’t they think in an abstract way?

Deaf and mute individuals who never learned sign language may tend to think more visually and conceptually, potentially appearing "abstract" in their thought process, as they primarily rely on visual imagery to communicate and understand the world around them due to their lack of a linguistic system like sign language; however, this can vary depending on the individual and their specific communication methods.

Since they cannot access sound, deaf individuals often process information through visual cues, leading to a greater reliance on mental imagery when thinking.

Without a structured language like sign language, their thought process may not follow the same grammatical patterns as hearing individuals, potentially appearing more abstract.

The extent to which someone thinks in an "abstract" way depends on their experiences, communication methods, and level of cognitive development, not solely on their hearing or language speaking status.

Thinking visually and conceptually can be advantageous in certain situations, allowing for creative problem solving and strong spatial reasoning.

So, while language is essentially a communication tool, it is not entirely necessary to have abstract thoughts.

But I think more clarity comes when a language is used. More so when a particular language is used in the minds of  multilinguals like me.

Abstract reasoning; Image source: Shutterstock

Footnotes:

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001002772100...
2. https://philarchive.org/archive/NGUTWL#:~:text=Hurlburt%20%E2%80%93...
3. http://Fedorenko%20E,%20Varley%20R.%20(2016).%20Language%20and%20thought%20are%20not%20the%20same%20thing:%20evidence%20from%20neuroimaging%20and%20neurological%20patients.%20Annals%20of%20the%20New%20York%20Academy%20of%20Sciences,%201369(1),%20132-153.%20https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13046 (http://Fedorenko%20E,%20Varley%20R.%20(2016).%20Language%20and%20thought%20are%20not%20the%20same%20thing:%20evidence%20from%20neuroimaging%20and%20neurological%20patients.%20Annals%20of%20the%20New%20York%20Academy%20of%20Sciences,%201369(1),%20132-153.%20https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13046)