Grace Covarrubias

Mr. Buescher
Philosophy, Period 1
9 December 2015
Language: Is It Necessary for Thought?
7.1 billion people on Earth. We all come from different backgrounds and cultures; each
with its own language that has developed over hundreds of years with each language, such as
French, Spanish, English, and even Sign Language being beautiful and unique. All of us have our
own thoughts, ideas, and imaginations, each that pertain to us directly having to do with who we
are and what we believe. The argument being made in this inquiry is this: is language necessary
for thought? In order for me to defend my position, I think some terms need to be defined. The
word language for this inquiry is defined as this: communication of meaning in any way;
medium that is expressive, significant, etc. Also, the term thought will be defined as this: the
product of mental activity; that which one thinks. I firmly believe that it, language, is not
necessary for thought and I will convince you of this using these two arguments: in many circles
of cognitive science, the language you speak does not affect how you think, and before being
exposed to words in a language such as English, all humans possess these concepts that these
words correspond to.
Cognitive science is defined as the interdisciplinary scientific study of the mind and its
processes. The first argument that will be made is that in many circles of cognitive science, the
language you speak does not affect how you think. According to Paul Bloom and Frank C. Keil,
Rich, powerful, and abstract cognition can take place in minds that due to injury or deprivation,
have no natural language (Bloom & Keil 1). This quote directly supports the claim that

language is not required for thought, which is summed up nicely within the quote. According to
Jerry Foder, thought is a language in itself. He calls the idea mentelese meaning language of
thought. In fact, he claims that all language learning is actually second language learning
(Bloom & Keil 2). This idea can be issued to the example of babies that before they learn a
language, they are only aware of the individuals and kinds that surround them; they just don't
know their names. This example then leads to my second argument: Before being exposed to
words in a language such as English, all humans possess the concepts that these words
correspond to (Bloom & Keil 3). Now, after one learns a language, then they know what names
or titles to give these concepts that were mentioned but not knowing their names never deprived
them from comprehending what they did or who they were to them.
My following up claim, which takes a different perspective on the subject and contradicts my
first argument, is that the language one learns has a profound influence on how one thinks. This
idea simply says that language affects and influences how we think by not necessarily is needed
for thought process to take place. There are many controversial views on language affects
thought claim. Many debate it, study it, and discuss it, but they all don't end up on the same
conclusion due to the fact that the subject has so many views. I am including this claim in order
for you, the reader, to not only be informed but for you to be able to conduct your own opinion
and argument for whether you agree or disagree. According to Donald Davidson, we are
pragmatically justified in attributing beliefs and desires to nonlinguistic animals on the ground
state that this is the best way of explaining and predicting their behavior (Davidson 1). He
later insists that animals do not have beliefs or desires.
Regarding the claim made above, I will argue against Davidsons claim in order for you to decide
which side to take. There are two specific arguments that I will use. First, there is our

knowledge of the information that is likely to be available to the animal concerned through
perception (which is based on our own access to the environment, and what we know about its
changing orientation, the sensitivities of its perceptual organs and its responses to various
stimuli) (Pendlebury 1). This claim gives a great clue to the beliefs that animals may have that
Donaldson believes are not there. Secondly, there is our knowledge about its standing and
occurrent biological needs and drives, which reveal many of its actual and possible desires
(Pendlebury 2). This quote addresses the desires part of the argument and gives a logical
explanation as to why those desires or needs are there. To wrap up arguing against Donaldson, I
will end with this claim: Given both these types of knowledge, our attributions of beliefs and
desires to a nonlinguistic animal need not be subject to radical indeterminacy (Pendlebury 3).
In conclusion, I believe that language is not required for thought; it is merely an influence on
how and what we think. Through these two arguments that in many circles of cognitive science,
the language you speak does not affect how you think, and before being exposed to words in a
language such as English, all humans possess these concepts that these words correspond to, I
hope you were informed and got to develop your own opinion regarding the subject!

Works Cited
"Study Finds Some Thoughts Really Do Require Language." Cognitive Daily. N.p., n.d.
Web. 17 Dec. 2015.
"Thread: Is Language Necessary For Thought?" Volconvo Debate Talk and Discussion F

orums RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2015.

Vygotskii, L. S. Thought and Language. Cambridge: M.I.T., Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
1962. Web.