The Last Stand For

Mentalese

BRENT SILBY
Unlimited (UPT)
Pinker’s Resistance

Pinker’s book “The Language Instinct” is based on battle between

natural language and mentalese theories.

Pinker supports mentalese. He raises problems for the idea that

thinking is done in natural language. For example:

We have all had the experience of uttering or writing a sentence, then stopping and
realizing that it wasn't exactly what we meant to say. To have that feeling, there has to
be a “what we meant to say” that is different from what we said. Sometimes it is not
easy to find any words that properly convey a thought. When we hear or read, we
usually remember the gist, not the exact words, so there has to be such a thing as a gist
that is not the same as a bunch of words. And if thoughts depend on words, how could
a new word ever be coined? (Pinker 1994: pg 57-58).
Pinker’s Resistance

He makes several good points in that passage. Of course, the

ideas in that passage do not show that thinking must be done in
mentalese. They simply raise a problem for the idea that thinking
is done in Natural Language.

Lets look at each of Pinker’s points

Pinker’s Resistance

Saying something other than what I wanted to say

An example is the “tip of the tongue” phenomenom. You want to

express a point, but can’t find the right word to use in the sentence.
You end up using a slightly different word.

You can induce tip-of-tongue phenomenom in people by asking

them to provide a name for an object according to its definition:

For example: an instrument with a graduated arc of 60 degrees used in navigation

(especially at sea) and surveying for measuring the angular distance of objects by
means of mirrors
Pinker’s Resistance

You might form a mental image of the object but have difficulty
finding the right word to name it

Pinker thinks this shows that thought is independent of language.

Perhaps this case shows that thoughts are formed and sometimes
there is difficulty translating the thought into language.

If thinking was done in English, we would never experience this

type of phenomenon.

BTW: The instrument described was a Sexant

Another explanation

Perhaps a better way to explain the experience is to suggest that

the thought is not fully formed, and the difficulty lies in the formation
of the thought. We end up being forced to form a thought that we
are not happy with.

When this happens we might believe that there is a better thought

that would be more precise, but we just can’t form the thought.

We might also believe that we would recognize a better thought,

if only we could form it.
Another explanation

Maybe we formed the right thought, but then immediately forgot.

We then have a memory that we had another thought, and the
feeling of frustration comes from trying to retrieve that other
thought. It’s a memory problem, not a translation problem.

Similar situation to trying to remember the name of a familiar face

Another challenge

We usually remember the gist of what is said and not the

exact words

Pinker thinks the “gist” of a statement differs from sentences of

Natural language such as English. This is because we don’t
usually remember the thoughts of other people exactly as
they communicate them—instead, we remember roughly what
they said (the “gist”).

Does this show that the “gist” of a thought is stored as a hidden

sentence of mentalese?
Another challenge

Maybe true that don’t remember the exact words, but that doesn’t
refute the claim that thinking is done in natural language.

Pinker says the “gist” is different from a bunch of words, but I do

not agree. I think the gist of a sentence is itself a sentence.

If I think about the gist of a sentence I’ve heard, the thinking of

that gist is done in language. It may not be the same sentence,
but it is still a sentence (perhaps with slightly altered meaning).
Another challenge

Perhaps as I hear sentences from other people, my mind alters

the utterances to store them in the most efficient possible way.

Perhaps we should think of a “gist” as a recipe for reconstructing

the original sentence. The brain is not a recorder, it stores parts
of information then does reconstruction.

The reconstruction could involve fragments being pieced together

according to recipe while the brain fills in the missing details.
Another challenge

So, the gist of a sentence may be the recipe for reconstructing

a sentence.

But, couldn’t Pinker say that these recipes are in fact mentalese
encodings of sentences?

I’m don’t think so, because recipes contain fragments of

information and instructions to show how the information should
be reassembled. There is nothing in a recipe for a thought process
to get a grip on.

Furthermore, if mental process could manipulate the fragments,

then there would be no need for the recipe. Analogous to
attempting to slice a cake before it has been made. You can’t
perform such an operation upon the recipe and raw ingredients.
Another challenge

If thoughts depend on words, how could new words ever be

invented?

Pinker seems to think that new words are invented to express

new thoughts formed in mentalese.

After all, if thinking was done in words of natural language,

then new words would never appear because there would be
no new thoughts needing to be expressed with new words.
Another challenge

I do not think this poses a problem for the idea that thinking
is done in natural language

Meanings of new words can always be expressed in terms of

existing words. New words catch on because they form
complex meaning in a quicker, more direct way.

In other words, they make thinking more efficient.

Consider “eftpos”, originally an acronym for

“electronic funds transfer at point of sale”

Many people do no know what “eftpos” stands for, but if asked

what it means, they describe it in similar terms.
Another challenge

It is not the case that a new thought arose that needed a word.
Rather, the new word appeared in order to form a complex
thought that was originally made from a number of words.

Another example is the word “scuba”. Most people know what

“scuba” means, but do not know where it came from.

It was an acronym:
“Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus”

The acronym caught on for obvious reason—its easier, thus

making talk and thought more efficient.
Another challenge

What about a phrase like “Rock ‘n’ Roll”?

It caught on because of the way it sounds. Doesn’t really resemle

the style of dance. But it sounds good. It uses alliteration.

It is difficult to see how “rock ‘n’ roll” could have been coined if
thought was done in mentalese. There is no letter “R” in mentalese
so there is little reason for why a mind would put these two words
together.

As far as mentalese thought would be concerned, the phrase

“Rock ‘n’ Roll” could mean “Stone ‘n’ Tumble”, and it is difficult to
see why a mind would think this thought when thinking about a
musical genre.
Another challenge

The phrase “Rock ‘n’ Roll” only exists because of its appeal in
natual language

Next time:

The problem of ambiguity,

Einstein’s thoughts
The case of Brother John
Powerpoint by BRENT SILBY

Produced at UPT
Christchurch, New Zealand
www.unlimited.school.nz