Howdy Mr. Cur,

Not ot be contrary, but, I must write that I disagree with the assertion that language is the vehicle for acquiring thought. You might find these three examples persuasive:

First, what about prelinguistic children? They have no language yet much observation/experimentation tells us clearly that they do think.

Second, what of deaf persons, who through unfortunate circumstance, do not have the opportunity to acquire any language. There are a few such folks around who have grown to adulthood with no language at all (neither sign language nor spoken langauge). Yet, they can clearly think' e.g., they can repair locks - a task which involves plenty of if-then logic. (For an absolutely fascinating description of this see a book titled "A man without words." The author's last name is "Schaller" and I can't recommend this book enough. It's an extrordinary story.)

Third, what of polysemy? If words and their referents don't correspond on a one-to-one basis, we must acknowledge the ability of a sentence's context to guide us in determining the meaning of ambiguous words. So, the next logical question is how would a person cognitively represent this ability?

Thus, I think that the conclusions from modern cognitive science tells us that while it is likely that only the possesion of language allows one to acquire formal/abstract thought, the function of language in this dynamic is strictly an intrapersonal one.
Clearly, language can assist thougth, but it is not thought's equal, nor is it even a necessary condition for the acquisition of thought.

As you can imagine, most of my background has persuaded me of the above, but frankly, I have heard little of the other side of the debate. Can you fill me in on it, and describe how it could refute the three above propositions?