Language and Thought: An Approach

The 430-page book was published by Hanoi National University Publishing House in the fourth quarter of 2013. (Photo: Thanh Long)

This treatise, as its title suggests, begins with the idea that language and thought are the most important, fundamental, and core relationship in all linguistic theory from ancient times to the present. This is because this relationship encompasses all elements of the language system and all events of linguistic activity. Furthermore, it is core because only by resolving these relationships can we have a basis for understanding a series of other issues on different levels of linguistics, from structure to semantics and pragmatics. Recently, many issues in applied linguistics (linguistic semiotics, language education, linguistic information services, etc.) in their approaches also revolve around this issue.

However, because it is a fundamental and core issue, language and thinking are also very difficult, complex, multi-faceted, and clearly not easy to systematically and comprehensively dissect and analyze the laws and phenomena. Our work is only a small contribution to this vast horizon.

Professor Dinh Van Duc, People's Teacher, was formerly the head of the Department of Linguistics.

Linguistic theories on this issue have been around, at least since the Greeks, ranging from logic and formalism to semantics. In fact, no linguist has ignored this relationship because everyone must establish their own position before tackling other specific problems.

At the beginning of the 20th century, F. de Saussure put forward many very important conclusions, but ultimately, behind his most important views on linguistic theory was the relationship between language and thought, centered on the issue of the native speaker's position in using the system of symbols. This issue was also a fundamental problem in the later theory of N. Chomsky. As one of the greatest linguists of the 20th century, N. Chomsky, in his capacity as a radical formalist linguist, never abandoned the relationship between language and thought through his key theories such as: universal grammar and specific grammar, linguistic competence and linguistic performance (in language acquisition), language and consciousness, control and constraint, the theory of minimalism, etc.

We, the authors of this treatise, have been interested in this issue since studying linguistic theory, particularly in our postgraduate linguistics program. However, identifying this problem systematically wasn't something that happened overnight; it required a long process involving years of practical experience in linguistics and Vietnamese linguistics. From our initial thoughts, we strived to find an approach that led to the first lectures on this topic at the undergraduate level (Class of 27 students) in the 1986-1987 academic year, more than a quarter of a century ago. Later, we elevated this issue to a specialized topic, "Language and Thought," for the first postgraduate class (1997). During this process, our understanding underwent many changes, incorporating additional elements and developing our own unique approaches. And this dissertation is based on the lectures we have given over many years and through exchanges and discussions in seminars with colleagues, undergraduate and graduate students, as well as doctoral candidates.

Looking back, there was a fortunate coincidence in my preparation for this work: during my postgraduate studies in Linguistics in the Soviet Union (1974-1978), I met my supervisor, a leading expert in this field, Professor. Ansevtrenko (1907-1987), an outstanding Ukrainian linguist, guided me during my General Linguistics course. This program was so vast that it was difficult to cover every aspect. He advised me to choose the most fundamental content, encompassing all issues. He gave me some introductory materials to begin my approach, and shortly afterwards, he introduced me to the book: *Language and Thought* (1867) by A. Potevtrenko, a distinguished Ukrainian linguist of the late 19th century, whose theories seemed to approach dialectical epistemology on this subject (especially through the concept of "internal form of words"). Frankly, when I read this book, I didn't understand much because I lacked the basic foundation for the subject. However, gradually, thanks to his introductions and analyses during my dissertation writing (related to the semantics of word classes), I began to understand the various aspects of the relationship between them. Language and thought.

Next, my exposure to 20th-century linguistic theories on this issue gradually led me to understand that language and thought are very unified in their function of reflection and expression. However, from the real world to the expression of thoughts through language, the intellect undergoes refractions, and each time, linguistic semantics is born from a creative process, both communicatively and artistically. Language today is not only an image of the world but also possesses the poetry and emotions of human beings. Our understanding of semantics is gradually reinforced by the principle that, with thought, language does not express logic directly but only through semantic representation. Logic expresses right/wrong (truth/falsehood), while language expresses meaning. These refractions of linguistic meaning also reflect the cultural thinking of native speakers in both structure and usage.

Professors Nguyen Tai Can and Cao Xuan Hao reminded us of our interest in this issue. Professor Can said, "Be careful, thinking and language are very difficult matters. Don't oversimplify them; be cautious lest you revert to the Port-Royal logic of the 17th century or the logical reasoning of the early 19th century." Professor Cao Xuan Hao once confided, "I am very discouraged by this because, even today, some people in our country are so simplistic that they make regrettable mistakes, viewing language as merely a means of expressing direct logic, while language only expresses meaning." I recognized this sentiment, strengthened my belief, and strived to view the relationship between language and thinking from a semantic and pragmatic perspective.

In the summer of 1970, Vietnamese readers learned about W.L. Chafe's work, "Meaning and the Structure of Language," which had just been published in the US, through a Russian translation. It was a rare book at the time that discussed semantics from a new perspective. Professor Cao Xuan Hao explained it to us (1973), and thanks to that, when we read this book, we realized that the focus of syntax is the semantic structures of language. It wasn't until Cao Xuan Hao's book, "Vietnamese - A Preliminary Functional Grammar, Volume 1" (1991), after carefully reading the book he sent me, that I realized that the important issues of language and thought are not only related to logical expressions, function words, levels of language, linguistic units, etc.—things I had previously taught my students—but that language and thought lie deeply within linguistic activities, within the mechanism of linguistic and speech dichotomy of F. De. Saussure, in N. Chomsky's work on linguistics and poetics, then expanded to other aspects of linguistics, especially semantics and pragmatism. Following this, another book that greatly influenced our understanding of this issue was HS Thayer's (1968) *Meaning and Action: A Critical History of Pragmatism*, a critical monograph on pragmatism from the perspective of Western philosophy. Looking at pragmatism from a non-positivist standpoint, we can gain a better understanding of the perspectives of North American and Western European pragmatists and semioticians. This also provides a basis for understanding the semantic position of these authors, the core of which is the influence of the relationship between language and thought on the dualistic and tripartite theories of signs in general and language in particular, as well as its influence on the study of pragmatism in the context of different native cultures.

This book, in fact, only touches upon a few crucial aspects of language and thought, primarily in terms of grammar and semantics. In-depth analyses related to phonology, which are necessary in principle, must be set aside, truly due to the limitations of our understanding and expertise in this field. While it would be more appropriate to separate this into a more in-depth topic, such as the relationship between thought, language, and culture, here we only dare to address a few aspects.

In our book, we consistently place great emphasis on language and thought in relation to native speakers, considering this a crucial pillar in the spirit of F. de Saussure's theory: language is the language of native speakers, culture is the culture of native speakers, stemming from the thought of native speakers. The role of native speakers has a significant influence on thought and language within the linguistic system and encompasses linguistic activities (i.e., the aspect of native language use). We strive to find a unique understanding within the general theory of reflection, of the creative and artistic refraction process of language: from reality to native language thought, from thought to language, from language to language types to the use of language in each language. All of this forms a continuous line, with different refractions, with localization for each specific language, etc.

For many years, we have successively introduced these topics to undergraduate and graduate students, but no two years have been exactly alike. We have strived to update the information, for example, in the early stages we paid more attention to the structural aspects of language, and later we added semantics and pragmatics. Throughout this process, we have received support from Vietnamese linguists, and we are very grateful for the research of authors such as Hoang Phe, Do Huu Chau, Li Toan Thang, Nguyen Van Hiep, Tran Van Co, and other colleagues. It must be said that this issue is becoming increasingly diverse in content and methodology, and therefore we cannot stop at what we have already considered. However, we only carefully select what we feel is mature enough to include in university lectures, which has given us a wonderful opportunity to share our thoughts with undergraduates, graduate students, researchers, and colleagues. The author has had the opportunity to exchange ideas and, in particular, has received valuable feedback that surprised us and prompted us to reconsider and adjust our own thinking. The most recent and fruitful exchanges were between us and Professor Ly Toan Thang, an expert in psycholinguistics, and Professor Nguyen Van Hiep, an expert in semantics and grammar, both of whom later shifted their research towards linguistic cognitive theory. The final chapter of this book is written in the spirit of that exchange.

This book was written over many years. However, even now, we still feel somewhat unsatisfied because theory continues to advance, while linguistic practice is constantly evolving. Therefore, our modest ambition here is simply to present our personal approach, gained from working in this field with unwavering passion and enthusiasm for a subject that has long interested us.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our colleagues for their very helpful and enthusiastic discussions, contributing both ideas and methods as we sought to shape the content of this book.
In the process of preparing this manuscript, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to Associate Professor Pham Van Tinh – Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Lexicography & Encyclopedia, a highly experienced expert in the publishing field who has provided us with invaluable assistance. We also extend our deepest thanks to the Hanoi National University Publishing House for giving us the opportunity to present our humble work to readers near and far.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my sincere and profound gratitude to the Faculty of Linguistics, University of Social Sciences and Humanities – Vietnam National University, Hanoi, where I have spent half a century working in the department and on the lecture halls, having had the chance to regularly introduce and share my academic ideas. I feel fortunate, and to this day, that sharing continues.