This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (4)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kenneth W. VanderWoude, PhD

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1970;23(4):337-342.

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

HISTORICALLY, there seems to be a waxing and waning of interest in the relationship between thinking and verbal language. It seems that at one point or another philosophers, physiologists, linguists, anthropologists, psychiatrists, and Psychologists have all made an attempt to clarify their thinking about thinking. But the efforts to unravel the "thought-language" question have not always been very rewarding, leading some students of the problem to conclude that the area is logically or methodologically intractable, or both.

The current interest in the area of thinking is stimulated by the field of Psycholinguistics,¹ by the constant search for appro Priate methods of investigating the Problem,^2-4 and by the continued dissatisfaction with the notion that thinking can be reduced to language manipulation.^2,5,6

The thought-language controversy is formed by two diverging theoretical approaches. One group of theorists maintains that in substance thinking is language manipulation.^7-11 Each of these . . . [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 Dec 26, 1969.

Reprint requests to P&PI, Michael Reese Hospital, 2959 S Ellis Ave, Chicago 60616.

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