This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (61)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

McCay Vernon, PhD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1967;16(3):325-333.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

THE interrelationship of thought and language is an extremely complex problem. The disciplines of psychiatry, psychology, philology, and philosophy have grappled with the issue for many years, but the results have yielded no generally accepted resolution of the issue. In surveying the literature, this paper will attempt to present in cursory form a summary of the findings of the different disciplines.

Psychologists and psychiatrists seem to group themselves around two poles of thought on the subject of thought and language. On one end of the continuum are those whose theories fit within the broad scope of the behaviorist school, which believes that thought is nothing more than subvocal speech.¹ Holding this general view are people such as Piaget,² Watson,¹ Vigotsky,³ McCarthy,⁴ Oleron,⁵ Wells,⁶ Bruner,⁷ and Freud.⁸ Some experimental findings on transposition behavior, concept formation, and abstracting . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Chicago

From the Institute for Psychosomatic and Psychiatric Research and Training, Michael Reese Hospital, Chicago.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Oct 3, 1966.

Reprint requests to 29th St & Ellis Ave, Chicago 60616.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?