Can language influence thinking?

Here we will have to dwell on the so-called "theory of linguistic relativity", which is directly related to the problems of psycholinguistics. So what is this theory about?

It is associated with the names of well-known, correctly said, the largest linguists of the past and present centuries: Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 - 1835), Edward Sapir (1884-1967) and Bedjamin Whorf. We will talk about how legitimate this is. And now - quite briefly - about the essence of the theory itself. Here it is necessary to clearly separate the basic facts that formed the basis of the theory from the conclusions that were drawn from these facts; The facts themselves are indisputable. They consist in the fact that there are national and tribal languages ​​(and so far not all languages ​​have been described, but more than 3,000 described ones), which are quite

significantly different from the "usual" (the largest and most well-known - in the first place).

Of course, it’s not the case that the words and the grammatical system of different languages ​​are different - this is a well-known truth - a banality. And the fact is that the differences do not allow to answer the question: what do all the languages ​​of the world contain in general? Is this common? After all, we are so accustomed to our native language that, studying some other or third, we are surprised to learn that, for example, the nouns of English have no signs of a grammatical gender. But there are personal pronouns that can be used to distinguish a male from a female. It seems all the more obvious and obligatory to find in any language a means of distinguishing between inanimate and animate. However, in such an ancient and well-developed literary language as Armenian, there is generally no category of gender. It seems strange, but it is a fact that there are languages ​​where there is no category of grammatical time; in many languages ​​there is no usual set of words for the seven basic colors of the spectrum, but there are only three words: one of them denotes black, the other - the entire left side of the spectrum, the third - the entire right one. There are so many similar differences in different languages ​​that for at least a mental representation of a standard language, where universal universal, i.e., compulsory laws for designating already known elements of objective reality and already known relations between them could be gathered together, there is no sufficient grounds. There are no "absolute" universals! Only one "relativity" remained. Well, linguistic scholars have to look for partial universals that are suitable only for groups of languages. After all, there are many other important tasks waiting to be solved!

But there was a landmark event for linguistics, psychology, philosophy, and even for politics. Several quite authoritative foreign experts made articles and reports in which “linguistic relativity” was declared the principle basis for far-reaching conclusions. The main one said: since every language is a means of thinking (in the sense that it is impossible to think without language), and these means turn out to be different for people speaking (and therefore thinking) in different languages, then “world views” representatives of different human communities

The societies are different: the greater the difference in language systems, the greater the “pictures of the world”. From where politicians and ideologists could easily conclude: there is no and there can be no mutual understanding within the human community (and where can it come from if people think “in their own way”), therefore ... What? It is no wonder if there are continuous conflicts in the world - people cannot agree with each other. And they will not be able until they speak in any one (common) language.

This conclusion from the "theory of linguistic relativity" was, of course, too categorical and did not belong to linguists. But there was a certain logic in it: if we, people, think in our national language, others - in our national, then ... The thing, however, is that science has long been and has a way to study thinking as such and without relying on linguistic achievements. There is, for example, the definition of thinking as the ability to plan and solve various tasks, adjusting the planning and decision-making process at each stage of moving towards a goal. If we, say, solve a chess problem in our minds (and who will say that such a process is not an act of thinking?), Then speech in any language in this process is not at all necessary. We need a figurative representation of the position of our figures, enemy figures, and the mental imagination of changing positions by the number of moves ahead that we are capable of. No "different pictures of the world" players can have if they have learned the rules of the game taught them in any of the known terrestrial languages.

Take another example. It is necessary, say, to assemble a complete image from the fragments on the model - such a task is known to all children of preschool age. Or, say, it is necessary to solve the labyrinth problem, which is also understandable to everyone. Is it really here, where analysis of fragments is required, checking them with a sample, evaluation of the results obtained, i.e., where all the signs of the thinking process are present - can the type of language really play any role here? Does any special “picture of the world” interfere with successfully passing through the maze? And why, in general, all supporters of the opinion that “language dictates knowledge of the world to a person” have never turned to concrete evidence that thinking is “imposed by a language system”? Why they did not engage in specific studies of the thinking process? Answering these questions is as difficult as it is simple: not

They did not investigate because they did not consider it necessary, being sure that they were right without special evidence. Moreover, they saw the similarity of their thoughts with the thoughts of the great Humboldt, with the opinion of the largest other specialists (we have already called their names). We will definitely turn to special studies, but let's see what W. Humboldt wrote. Here are some quotes.

The first. “The peculiarities of times and peoples are so closely intertwined with the language, that languages ​​are sometimes undeservedly attributed to the fact that the languages ​​were involuntarily preserved” (highlighted by us - IG, K. C). This quote absolutely can not play the role of support for our opponents. On the contrary, the author writes that, unwittingly, languages ​​retain what is achieved by people, that is, a certain thought is fixed with the help of language, and not dictated by language!

Quote 2nd. “The discovery of truth, the definition of laws in which distinct spiritual boundaries are acquired, do not depend on the language.” Again, the obvious “not that” that our opponents would like to read and ascribed to Humboldt's authority.

Quote 3th. “Language expresses thoughts and feelings as objects, but it also follows the movement of thoughts and feelings ... Man feels and knows that language is only a means for him, that outside the language there is an invisible world in which man seeks to get comfortable only with his help. ” Why is "only with his help"? Is there no other means? Humboldt does not write about these, other means. But what he wrote is far, very far from the ideas of the "followers" unfamiliar to him. What - elementary fraud? Of course not. Humboldt gave his "followers" a reason to understand his words in a simplified way, to "squeeze" what he wanted from him: the texts of Humboldt's works are not without contradictions.

Let us turn to quotes from the works of E. Sepira. At least to one quote: “Language is in its essence a function of pre-concept. He humbly follows thinking , the structure and form of which are hidden ... language is not a shortcut, finally imposed on an already ready thought. ” Not very clear yet, but it is clear that E. Sapir subordinates language to thinking, and not vice versa, as supporters of the idea that “language dictates to people how they should see the world” do. For the sake of truth, let us add that Sapir was not unequivocal in his reasoning, that he hesitated and doubted that he was right and wrong - this is common to all major scientists.

nym. This is not typical of the not too deep "followers" of the ideas of Humboldt and Sapir. B.Worf we will not quote here, although relatively recently he clearly expressed regret that he too hastily formulated some ideas about the relationship of thinking to language. Let us turn to the problem on the merits, as if not knowing the opinions of the authorities.

If it is stated that any two phenomena or processes are interconnected by an inseparable bond, then one can check the accuracy of such an assertion by removing one of the “related” phenomena alternately (by neutralizing) one to find out whether the other continues to exist. If one without the other is not observed, but is observed only in connection with the other, then both phenomena are related to each other (without quotes) and then the original statement is true.

Recall the deaf-and-dumb Gerasim from “Mumu” ​​by I. S. Turgenev. “Speaking” as a modern scientific language, Gerasim was deprived from birth of a “second signal system” (as I. P. Pavlov, as we know, called any human language). did he rationally understand himself, that is, did he understand the world around him correctly, did he orient himself correctly in a situation, in a word — could he think? Judging by the text, Turgenev could certainly have. But you have to check whether Gerasim’s figure is not fiction ... Until such a test, the “phenomenon of Gerasim” cannot be considered scientific fact. Now, numerous observations of the behavior of deaf-and-dumb people from birth who have not yet been trained in any language show (this is confirmed by scientific publications) that such deaf-and-dumb people behave adequately in society, they can do various jobs, i.e. reasonable, they think.

Another group of facts concerns the behavior of patients with aphasia syndrome, especially total aphasia. This pathological form is observed in psycho-neurological clinics where people who have suffered a stroke or external trauma are delivered to the place of the brain where the Wernicke zone and Broca's center are located - brain areas responsible for understanding and producing speech. The sufferer of total aphasia cannot either understand the speech addressed to him, nor express his thoughts and feelings in his native (or other, learned later) language. Total aphasia is like a model of the “Gerasim phenomenon”, its pathological specific form.

The difference is that total aphasia, as well as other forms of aphasia, can take place during the course of treatment - unlike inborn deaf-mutism. So can aphasic think? To think is to plan and solve any tasks, to be able to adjust your Actions in accordance with the goals set. We have already called such mental operations as labyrinth, like a game of chess or checkers, as an assembly from fragments of some holistic image. These and similar tasks serve, in particular, as tests in determining the level of human mental development. Aphazic solves the test problem "without language," he thinks.

The third group of facts concerns a problem that has already been discussed in the pages of our book - an amazing practice of educating and training deaf and dumb from birth. Even at the turn of the XIX and our century, the phenomenon of Elena Keller, an American writer who was born not only deaf and dumb, but also blind, became widely known. The whole story of her life, described by her, is a feat. But the scientific explanation of how and with the help of which a person of such a fate could become a writer is best sought not in her book, but in the already mentioned book of our contemporary A. I. Meshcheryakov, “Deaf and Dumb Children,” published in 1974; it is built on the long-term practice of educating deaf-blind and mute in the boarding school of Zagorsk. We do not have the opportunity to retell this book in detail (it should be read carefully), we will give only the author’s idea that we need now: “the idea that the human psyche is born or wakes up only with the assimilation of language and speech is experimentally refuted”. We can put some kind of “preliminary point” on this; It should be considered proven that the ability to think and the ability to speak a language (speech) are not at all characterized by the “continuity” that was discussed above. But why are we talking about a “preliminary point” and not about a “final point”? Yes, for the simple reason that the process of thinking is not united, not homogeneous, but represents a multi-level entity. After all, when we say that both a small child thinks and a great scientist thinks; when we state the phenomenon of Gerasimus or see a blind-deaf-and-dumb child in Meshcheryakov’s orphanage; when we claim that we are ordinary but free from aphasia

or other pathologies, people are able to think, then all this is not the same thing, but different !

A child, say, three years old and perfectly healthy, does not develop in the same way as it is, but it is deaf and dumb. A normal adult, of course, knows how to think, but not in the same way as a prominent scientist, etc. Here we should talk about different thinking abilities, and most importantly - about different possibilities and abilities for thinking. At the same time, one of the most significant in these capabilities and abilities is thinking at different levels of abstraction. Depending on these levels, we can talk, for example, about the elementary, simplest level (humanoid, chimpanzee), about children, about the thinking of a teenager, about the thinking of an adult, about the thinking of a person of outstanding abilities, about the thinking of a genius person. Nowadays, it is appropriate to distinguish the level of an educated person who is used to abstractions of every kind, and the level of an illiterate person who speaks only a spoken language.

A special level of abstract thinking is achieved solely through the mastery of human language by its environment. It is here that the clearest boundary between the levels of thinking lies, between the possibilities to develop the mental level itself: there is language - maybe a high level of abstract thinking is reached (in principle), not - there is no such possibility.

Let us explain this with simple examples. In order to learn with full understanding to say the simple phrase "It is now about eleven o'clock in the evening," we must, of course, first learn to count. But the number itself is an abstract entity, a “distraction” from the essence of those items that are calculated: eleven hours are definitely not that eleven people, but those and others are eleven! No three-year-old child can learn how to count precisely because he is not able to abstract himself from the substantive essence of the things he observes and to understand the essence of numbers. The time will come, and he will learn to count, as well as distinguish between any "evening" from any "day" or "morning" - while he cannot follow the signs of "the passage of time" at all, time for him is invisible and inconsequential, outside of his attention and understanding. For the same reason, if he has already learned the word “near” in combinations like “near a chair”, “near a crib”, the child cannot understand the meaning of the combination “about eleven

evenings ”-“ about ”for him so far only spatial, and not a temporary sign.

Note this word ("sign"), because only with the help of special signs (signs of language) is it possible for a person to comprehend abstractions and designate them in speech. Let us recall our “Gerasim phenomenon” and ask ourselves if Gerasim could - if he was not specifically taught the language - mentally and absolutely correctly combine all the multi-functional objects into groups like “furniture”, “dishes”, “musical instruments”, “locksmith tools”? We believe that could not. For such a group, appropriate word signs are needed. But no one reported them to Gerasim. He could see individual objects (a boat, an ax, a boot, a bench, etc.), could point at them with a gesture, could understand where (on what object) the gesture of another person was directed; practically, Gerasim could, of course, understand the purpose of each of these subjects (remember that he was a serviceable worker) and possess them practically. But after all, it is impossible to form the concept of "dishes" or "furniture" with a gesture. And why should a janitor own such notions? We know that he loved a dog, but whether he could understand the concept of “love” without language, and even extend it to his feelings for a dog, to pears or plums, and to his parents (and we say “I love my mother”, “I love doggie "," I love plums "," I love early autumn ", etc.)? No, I could not! Only language allows man for such generalizations (abstractions).

The question arises, by what means can a person carry out his thinking activity if he does not have at his disposal any national language? With what system does a person learn language at all (child, deaf, dumb, deaf and dumb)? After all, the process of mastering the language is undoubtedly a thought process! This problem is the main subject of psycholinguistics. And on its basis a number of private problems arise: how is speech generated (each individual statement)? How is speech understood by those to whom it is addressed? To answer the many unresolved questions, as is already clear from the above, one has to refer to the data of various sciences, which psycholinguistics calls its “adjacent areas”.

We give here another example of such treatment. Above casually it was noted that in some languages ​​we are not familiar

color designations, but there are only three ("cold" and white, black and all "warm"). Спрашивается, отличают ли на практике носители этих языков, скажем, красный цвет от желтого (оба цвета - «теплые») или синий от зеленого (оба цвета - «холодные»)? Выяснить это можно, только ознакомившись с цветной орнаментикой (например, на одежде, на раскрашенной утвари, на магических знаках и т. п.).

Оказывается, что орнаментика (а это уже объект другой науки, этнографии) как раз и «выдает» реальное положение вещей в культуре данных языковых сообществ: все цвета спектра, все их оттенки носители этих языков превосходно различают и используют в своем практическом творчестве. Используют, не умея назвать? Да, именно так! Но как же тогда художник передает свой опыт другим? Как сохраняется традиция разноцветных украшений, если не с помощью языка? Да просто через наглядную практику: видишь, как составлен этот конкретный цветовой узор -делай так же!

А как, например, на индонезийском острове Бали взрослые приучают к делу детей, с которыми запрещено разговаривать, пока ребенку не исполнится 4 года? Тоже через наглядность: смотри как делаю я, и делай так же. Кстати, известно ли вам, что в армиях - у нас и в других странах - существует команда «Делай как я»? Командиры танковых и авиационных подразделений дают такую команду, подчиненные танкисты и летчики повторяют действия командира. Почему же не рассказать, что именно надо делать, используя развитый превосходно язык? Да потому, во-первых, что «долго рассказывать», а, во-вторых, - некогда без конца отдавать команды в быстро меняющейся ситуации танкового или воздушного боя: сам командир обязан молниеносно принимать различные решения, менять свои собственные действия - тут не до разговоров! Взрослый балинезиец-папа и взрослая балинезий-ка-мама отлично выходят из положения: побуждающим жестом и окликом привлекается внимание ребенка и показывается, что он должен повторять действия родителя. И ребенку все понятно, потому что все наглядно. Следовательно, наглядная ситуация может быть осмыслена с помощью предметно-действенного уровня мышления, который функционирует в особой системе психического отражения. О ней будет рассказано особо.

А сейчас еще один пример. Во всех работах по общему языкознанию рассказывается, что в языках народностей Севера нет

общего названия для снега. Какое-то слово обозначает, скажем, падающий снег, другое - снег тающий, третье - снег с твердым настом, всего - более десятка названий. А для «снега вообще», «любого снега» нет слова. А в нивхском языке, наоборот, есть одно общее слово, которым обозначается и рыбья чешуя, и перья птицы, и кожа человека.

Но ведь первый (с названием для снега) и второй случаи противоречат друг другу (в первом случае язык вроде бы «не дорос» до абстракций, во втором - вроде бы «не спускается с высот абстракций»), хотя образ жизни нивхов и чукчей достаточно сходен, потребности у людей близки.

Приходится выяснять в ходе специального эксперимента, в чем дело. Группа студентов отделения народностей Севера приглашается в Русский музей; там им показывают разнообразные пейзажи с изображением снега и получают от них названия (слова, действительно, разные). А потом их спрашивают: - Как бы вы рассказали другим, какой снег видели на разных картинах? Обязательно ли вам перечислять все виды снега подряд? Оказывается, что не надо. В таких случаях дают названия двух-трех видов снега, затем произносят (или пишут) соединительный союз типа нашего «И» и делают паузу (в речи) или ставят точку (на письме). И все понятно: не только о перечисленных видах снега идет речь, а, следовательно, о любых. Обобщающее понятие не выражено в слове, но мыслится, подразумевается. Стало быть, понятие есть, а словесного обозначения язык не выработал. Но это не мешает косвенному обозначению и верному его пониманию.

Б. Уорф писал о том, что в некоторых языках американских индейцев нет привычной для нас системы глагольного времени. И предположил, что и у носителей таких языков нет и не может быть подобных нашим понятий о времени. А другой ученый, описавший один из племенных языков в центральной Африке, обнаружил то же самое, что и Б. Уорф, да еще добавил, что и в лексике данного языка нет слов типа «давно», «вчера», «завтра», «потом», и др. Вывод: носители данного языка не имеют понятия о «ходе времени». Невероятно, не правда ли? Ведь и в самом отсталом племени есть практика создания запасов пищи и воды -для чего? Для будущего! Люди не могут не знать, что некоторое событие уже прошло, что оно в прошлом, что кто-то умер и уже не может, например, принимать участие в жизни племени; все-

possible initiation rites of adolescents and burials are prepared ahead of time; observations of the change of day and night are extremely important and cannot suddenly “fall out” of the field of attention and interest of people. How so?

And later it turned out that in this tribal language, although there are no “words of time”, there are non-verbal communicative signs of temporary designation. When telling about a particular event, the speakers from time to time raise their hands and point the finger behind the listener's back. This means that the story is about the future. What sign would a narrator from this tribe need if he spoke about past events? That's right - mark your finger over your back over your shoulder! How did you guess about such a sign? True, you yourself noticed: in our society, with its richest language, the speaker quite often makes this sign, explaining that this is a matter of the past. Well, what sign is needed to signify the present tense: Some people think that you should point your finger down. We often do this by demanding: “Now that I bring it!” Or: “Now do it!"But in that tribal language there is no gesture for the present tense. The absence of a gesture is the sign of the present.

Ясно, что открыть это мог только тот человек, который не поверил, будто люди вообще не представляют себе «хода времени» и не могут об этих своих представлениях поведать другим. Но как же быть с индейцами, у которых нет (согласно Б. Уорфу) и жестов такого рода? Оказывается, их высказывания содержат указания о положении солнца или луны (и это - знаки времени суток), а для обозначения прошлого есть сочетание типа «много лун и много солнц» перед сочетанием типа «я не говорю»: прошло много лун и много солнц, прежде чем я заговорил об этом. Для будущего: «я говорю» плюс сочетание «много лун и много солнц»: сначала я говорю, а потом пройдет много лун и много солнц, прежде произойдет то, о чем я говорю. Для уточнений конкретного порядка используется конкретное число лун и солнц, чтобы сказать «пять дней назад» или «через восемь дней». Так что для выяснения образа мышления приходится не только очень внимательно описывать язык, но еще и описывать невербальные коммуникативные знаки и еще знать признаки, по которым то или иное сообщество отмечает «ход времени».

А еще нужно понять, что вообще не все, что мы чувствуем и понимаем, может быть обозначено средствами языка. Как, на-

пример, словесно рассказать о вкусе или о запахе? Никак не получится! А на практике все отлично различают на вкус и запах, скажем, курятину и яичницу с луком... Не надо преувеличивать , потенции языка. Федор Иванович Тютчев не зря написал: «Мысль изреченная есть ложь!» Не в том дело, что мы говорим неправду, а в том, что понимаем и чувствуем гораздо тоньше и больше, чем наш замечательный язык позволяет выразить. Вот откуда все «муки словесного творчества» и острая неудовлетворенность писателя и поэта тем, что удалось написать «не все» и «не так», как мыслилось. Психолингвистика пытается искать и находить и эту разницу, этот «остаток» мыслей и чувств, который неподвластен словам языка.