LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
The link between thought and language has long been the focus of attention in the fields of philosophy, psychology, and linguistics. What is the relationship between what we think and what we say? There is increasing consensus that conceptual and linguistic representations are not the same, but specifying the similarities and differences more precisely is still an area of active investigation. Slobin (1996) shifts the attention away from the interaction between cognition and language and toward a conceptual preparatory process he refers to as “thinking for speaking.” His is a good example. The observation that experiences must be shared motivates this approach. When we chat, write, or speak, we are ‘… filtered via language into verbalised occurrences.’ The spectrum of diverse features contained in conceptualisation must be packaged into ideas that may be labelled to express meaning in language.by a linguistic expert There is a rather significant difference in some circumstances. There is a direct link between the linguistic form and the thought it expresses. To discuss the connection between the two entities, this image must be viewed as a relationship, the most likely being a reading experience, such as Sue reading the newspaper. Relationships like this are important. One does not come pre-packaged for encoding into a language but must be created. Unlike the participants in the event, it will be constructed. Because their subcomponents co-occur in space and time, newspapers can be pre-linguistically viewed as units. Perceptually, the subcomponents of the head, hair, body, arms, and hands are all one. As a result, it is simple to think of it as a unit. Relational situations, such as occurrences, are not regarded or understood of in a similar manner. Reading is an action that grows over time, with subcomponent actions such as gazing at the written words, inwardly processing the information, and many subcomponent entities, most notably Sue and the newspaper, but also the printed words and Sue’s eyes, hands, thoughts, and so on. Furthermore, to discuss the issue, it is necessary to speak not just to the individual but also to the collective not only to the connections between them, but also to the people involved. Even if only one entity is involved, the situation should be viewed as a relationship. Consider this thing, the event label connects the action’s multiple subcomponents, bringing something that is fundamentally different together. The order of things by considering language processing in this light, we may observe that to varied degrees, relational meanings.
Thinking of speaking:
By definition, conceptual representation must include many types of information, including visual, auditory, motoric, and encyclopaedic. Even though thinking input to the language system must in some way the language system itself is careful in only accepting certain input to reflect this variation. Only a schematic and skeletal depiction of the original meaning will be processed.
There are no models of language production that go into enough detail regarding the relationship between conceptual and linguistic processing to make explicit predictions regarding poor processing in aphasia.
Thinking of speaking in aphasia:
What happens if we do not have access to the linguistic system? Our study suggests that, all other things being equal, linguistic impairment should cause more output disruption than input in all cases. Those parts of processing that are most linguistically reliant to shape the interplay between language and technology, mediated limitations are used. Pondered In the works, reduced access to the linguistic system will eliminate or lessen the limitations on ‘thinking for speaking,’ especially for the most language-dependent components of output. Situations involving relationships between or among participants would be especially difficult to describe, as the selection of relevant participants and characteristics of the event would have to rely more on intuition. Coding that is not linguistic. This could lead to the creation of a message is not well-organized as a source of information for the language system and obstructing linguistic processing. Consider attempting to communicate that you have just knocked a glass off the table. Your perceptual and cognitive systems would most likely recognize you, the glass, and the table as key players in the scene. Circumstance, putting them in the foreground at the expense of other items and factors.
A bottle of wine, the tablecloth, the newspaper, and other items are also on the table because of the circumstance. However, how would you identify these three individuals to a listener, how would you connect them, and which would you choose? A concentration on linguistics would entail a variety of perceptual, cognitive, and affective factors. As well as linguistic constraints that would force you to pronounce one of the as follows:
i) A glass has just shattered on the table.
ii) Your glass is shattered.
iii) I knocked your glass off the table by accident.
iv) Do you remember that glass that was left on the table’s edge…?
v) Did you like the blue wine glass?
Thinking of listening:
Reversing the mechanisms in the paring-down process would not result in a completely richer conceptual framework in and of itself. To construct a coherent conceptualisation, the skeleton linguistic meaning must be supplemented with additional kinds of meaning. Enriching the skeleton with all the conceptual material connected with a single notion, on the other hand, would effectively swamp the system. The technology generates far too much data to allow for a meaningful interpretation. As a result, there must be some constraint processes that guide and select the specific ‘match’ between language form and conceptualization.
Thinking for listening in aphasia:
According to the growing body of research on verb impairments, comprehension of related concepts like verbs is less affected than production. Kim and Thompson, for example, found that the seven agrammatic aphasics they studied had normal comprehension of nouns and verbs, as well as noun naming. However, verb naming is degraded. Kim and Thompson conclude that there is no ‘necessary link’ between the production of verbs and their comprehension difficulties and proposes that Differences in comprehension and production’s beginning point, objective, and subsequent processing routines appear to play a substantial influence in the two’s varied levels of impairment modalities in people with agrammatic aphasia.
Conclusions:The pattern of performance (across a range of activities) typically described in the nonaffluent aphasia literature has been rethought in this review, using our definition of the gap between language production and comprehension. Our analysis of this distinction focuses on the interaction of concepts and their verbal manifestations, this results in a reduction in thought in language production and an increase in linguistic meaning in understanding. Our goal is to demonstrate how the pattern of severe production issues coexists with largely unaffected areas. Understanding is the result of a processing change that may be seen in the regular processing of language, language.
Vygotsky’s closely reasoned, highly readable analysis of the nature of verbal thought as based on word meaning marks a significant step forward in the growing effort to understand cognitive processes. Speech is, he argues, social in origins. It is learned from others and, at first, used entirely for affective and social functions. Only with time does it come to have self-directive properties that eventually result in internalized verbal thought. To Vygotsky, “a word is a microcosm of human consciousness.”
Theorists and educators, linguistic and psychology students will find illuminating insights in Vygotsky’s description of the sequences stages in word-meaning development, the genesis and function of inner speech, the nature of written spreech, and the role of school instruction in the development of higher mental operations.
