#1 ·
If a person is born deaf, what language does their internal monologue actually inhabit? How does that even work? ☕
Home › Society › Psychology ›
How do people with congenital deafness master language and abstract reasoning?
How do people with congenital deafness master language and abstract reasoning?
Started by hollowwolf9 · · 👁 5 views · 69 replies
Participants
#2 ·
In the meantime, try to come up with a better title. This isn't how you start a thread if you actually want people to click. If you can't edit it yourself, just drop the new one right here.
#3 ·
And who actually thinks in speech? (I assume you mean that, given you're bringing up deafness rather than language)
Speech is a process that kicks in right before you actually intend to say something—something a deaf person obviously doesn't do. Honestly, I don't even hear a voice in my head when I'm reading, so why would I bother doing it while I think?
Speech is a process that kicks in right before you actually intend to say something—something a deaf person obviously doesn't do. Honestly, I don't even hear a voice in my head when I'm reading, so why would I bother doing it while I think?
#4 ·
Joseph Watson3 said:And who actually thinks in speech? (I assume you mean that, given you're bringing up deafness rather than language)
Speech is a process that kicks in right before you actually intend to say something—something a deaf person obviously doesn't do. Honestly, I don't even hear a voice in my head when I'm reading, so why would I bother doing it while I think?
But how do you read then?? I mean, if you are reading internally, you still have to "hear" your own voice...
hollowwolf9 has raised a compelling question (and I must concur, he chose a rather poor title for this topic 😛).
We are all familiar with the Wernicke area of the brain, responsible for the intellectual components of speech and writing (and since deaf individuals can certainly learn to write), as well as the Brooke area, which handles speech motor skills... there were previous studies where researchers hypothesized that people actually speak while they think, a notion they claimed was confirmed by minute micro-movements of the vocal organs—though, if you ask me, that whole theory is built on very thin ice.
This brings us directly to the dilemma regarding deaf individuals—specifically those who have never heard, the deaf from birth—because one cannot possibly claim they do not think; yet, since they could not have acquired the motor skills for vocalization simply by osmosis, they effectively debunk the claims made by those scientists.
How is this possible? 😕
The most prudent course of action would be to ask a deaf person 🤷
#5 ·
Maybe they’re just thinking in sign language? Or maybe it’s more abstract... like through images, smells, or some other sensory thing...
#6 ·
David Morgan72 said:But how do you read then?? I mean, if you are reading internally, you still have to "hear" your own voice...
hollowwolf9 has raised a compelling question (and I must concur, he chose a rather poor title for this topic 😛).
We are all familiar with the Wernicke area of the brain, responsible for the intellectual components of speech and writing (and since deaf individuals can certainly learn to write), as well as the Brooke area, which handles speech motor skills... there were previous studies where researchers hypothesized that people actually speak while they think, a notion they claimed was confirmed by minute micro-movements of the vocal organs—though, if you ask me, that whole theory is built on very thin ice.
This brings us directly to the dilemma regarding deaf individuals—specifically those who have never heard, the deaf from birth—because one cannot possibly claim they do not think; yet, since they could not have acquired the motor skills for vocalization simply by osmosis, they effectively debunk the claims made by those scientists.
How is this possible? 😕
The most prudent course of action would be to ask a deaf person 🤷
I don't. I read just like most people—I scan a sentence and grasp the meaning. What does that have to do with spoken language?
People can read hieroglyphics without "hearing" Ancient Egyptian in their heads, right? And when you look at a math equation, you understand the logic without any internal monologue.
#7 ·
It’s like when people look at hieroglyphics; their brain basically "hears" a translation instantly. Even when we're scanning through a long block of text—which usually happens way too fast to actually hear a distinct voice in our heads, unlike just glancing at a few isolated words—we still "hear" it somehow. It's just wired into us. It’s one of those things that developed when we were toddlers, and now it’s so subconscious we don't even think twice about it while reading.
#8 ·
placidjackal36 said:It’s like when people look at hieroglyphics; their brain basically "hears" a translation instantly. Even when we're scanning through a long block of text—which usually happens way too fast to actually hear a distinct voice in our heads, unlike just glancing at a few isolated words—we still "hear" it somehow. It's just wired into us. It’s one of those things that developed when we were toddlers, and now it’s so subconscious we don't even think twice about it while reading.
How exactly do you know they're hearing a translation in their heads? Take road signs, for instance; when I see one, there isn't some internal monologue translating the symbols—I just get the meaning instantly. It’s the same deal with math.
Unless by "wired," you really mean "learned." And if I had to guess, that part becomes almost entirely subconscious after you've spent enough time reading...
#9 ·
I don't think this is about deciphering hieroglyphics or trying to make sense of road signs. It’s not some mental exercise in decoding symbols; it’s more about how they process the mundane stuff—just thinking through everyday life and commenting on what's happening around them. He’s really just obsessed with figuring out which language they actually use when they're thinking to themselves. 🙂
#10 ·
Joseph Watson3 said:How exactly do you know they're hearing a translation in their heads? Take road signs, for instance; when I see one, there isn't some internal monologue translating the symbols—I just get the meaning instantly. It’s the same deal with math.
Unless by "wired," you really mean "learned." And if I had to guess, that part becomes almost entirely subconscious after you've spent enough time reading...
That holds true for certain symbols, especially abstract ones where the name isn't even something you'd say out loud. Like a yellow triangle with an exclamation point. I don't hear my brain shouting "Danger!"—I just get the gist. Or a skull and crossbones on a bottle. I rarely hear the word "Poison," yet I am fully aware that whatever is in that bottle isn't something you want to drink.
But once you hit a sign that actually uses letters or numbers, you *do* hear them. It just stays in your short-term memory for a few seconds. You drive or walk past, and you aren't even thinking about it anymore. You don't retain a conscious memory of having heard it, so as far as your brain is concerned, it doesn't matter. For all intents and purposes, "you didn't hear it."
Math? I wouldn't go that far. I almost always hear the digits and variables in my head, but that mental echo vanishes faster the moment I start writing them down.
I have absolutely no clue how it works for people born deaf.
#11 ·
Moving this over to Psychology, though this thread definitely needs a better title first. It’s a perfect fit for the Psychology section—it’ll be a nice change of pace to have something actually relevant and on-topic popping up amidst the usual pile of off-topic clutter.
#12 ·
Alright, if we’re calling this a Psychology thread... though honestly, it feels more like Philosophy...
Until recently, people actually argued—or rather, pushed the thesis—that those born deaf couldn't develop speech or complex thought. It led to this dark, fundamental question: were they even truly human? 😲😲
Until recently, people actually argued—or rather, pushed the thesis—that those born deaf couldn't develop speech or complex thought. It led to this dark, fundamental question: were they even truly human? 😲😲
#13 ·
Honestly, this is straight out of a Psychology textbook...
I’ve heard that people who are blind actually dream in scents, textures, and sounds, while those who lost their sight later on end up dreaming in full color and actually seeing things...
I’ve heard that people who are blind actually dream in scents, textures, and sounds, while those who lost their sight later on end up dreaming in full color and actually seeing things...
#14 ·
Morgan Bishop4 said:Honestly, this is straight out of a Psychology textbook...
I’ve heard that people who are blind actually dream in scents, textures, and sounds, while those who lost their sight later on end up dreaming in full color and actually seeing things...
I mean, this feels less like Psychology and more like Cognitive Science... honestly, it could have easily stayed over in Natural Sciences.
People who lose their vision dream in really fascinating ways. For instance—do they dream about someone they knew before they went blind and someone they met after? Apparently, they see them differently: they’ll see the first person as they used to, while the second one is processed through these entirely new perceptions.
And when it comes to the Deaf community, sign language is still just... language. You don't need to hear something to understand it, which is pretty much what sign language proves, right?
If I remember correctly, the Brooklyn and Wernicke areas still kick in for Deaf individuals—it's just that instead of responding to audio, they respond to visual input. The brain is still processing language the same way.
The real struggle for many Deaf people is that written text doesn't always carry much weight on its own—words don't exactly "sound" like anything to them the way they do to us.
#15 ·
steelskipper5 said:I mean, this feels less like Psychology and more like Cognitive Science... honestly, it could have easily stayed over in Natural Sciences.
People who lose their vision dream in really fascinating ways. For instance—do they dream about someone they knew before they went blind and someone they met after? Apparently, they see them differently: they’ll see the first person as they used to, while the second one is processed through these entirely new perceptions.
And when it comes to the Deaf community, sign language is still just... language. You don't need to hear something to understand it, which is pretty much what sign language proves, right?
If I remember correctly, the Brooklyn and Wernicke areas still kick in for Deaf individuals—it's just that instead of responding to audio, they respond to visual input. The brain is still processing language the same way.
The real struggle for many Deaf people is that written text doesn't always carry much weight on its own—words don't exactly "sound" like anything to them the way they do to us.
In what sense is that an actual problem?
#16 ·
placidranger said:In what sense is that an actual problem?
The alphabet basically follows pronunciation—graphemes more or less track phonemes. But sign language users can't really lean on that when they're reading.
It’s not that they have trouble reading per se, it’s more about the process of learning how to read.
Take me, for example—when I'm reading, I only "hear" the pronunciation if I slow down, really get into the dialogue and stuff like that. Otherwise, I read way faster than my internal voice could even articulate. So, yeah, speech and hearing aren't strictly necessary for reading itself.
#17 ·
Thanks, placidjackal36.
The thread has been renamed. Personally, I feel this topic would fit pretty much anywhere you discuss linguistics, communication, cognition, neuroscience, neurology, or learning—it honestly sits right at the intersection of Social Science, Natural science, and Psychology. For now, I’ll leave it here, just waiting for someone to drop by who might have encountered a real-world example of this... though, I suppose we have a better chance of finding that here than anywhere else.
If anyone is looking for a good read on this, check out: Oliver Sacks - Seeing Voices.
The thread has been renamed. Personally, I feel this topic would fit pretty much anywhere you discuss linguistics, communication, cognition, neuroscience, neurology, or learning—it honestly sits right at the intersection of Social Science, Natural science, and Psychology. For now, I’ll leave it here, just waiting for someone to drop by who might have encountered a real-world example of this... though, I suppose we have a better chance of finding that here than anywhere else.
If anyone is looking for a good read on this, check out: Oliver Sacks - Seeing Voices.
#18 ·
Hey everyone, cool topic here 🙂
I just remembered a great thread from Reddit that I found pretty interesting back in the day, so I’ll drop it here to give this discussion some more meat:
Hearing vs. Listening 🙂
All of this has me thinking again, so I’m diving back into some old research I dug up a while ago. Just thought I'd swing by and share.
I just remembered a great thread from Reddit that I found pretty interesting back in the day, so I’ll drop it here to give this discussion some more meat:
Hearing vs. Listening 🙂
All of this has me thinking again, so I’m diving back into some old research I dug up a while ago. Just thought I'd swing by and share.
#19 ·
steelskipper5 said:The alphabet basically follows pronunciation—graphemes more or less track phonemes. But sign language users can't really lean on that when they're reading.
It’s not that they have trouble reading per se, it’s more about the process of learning how to read.
Take me, for example—when I'm reading, I only "hear" the pronunciation if I slow down, really get into the dialogue and stuff like that. Otherwise, I read way faster than my internal voice could even articulate. So, yeah, speech and hearing aren't strictly necessary for reading itself.
I honestly have no idea how Deaf people actually learn to read.😕 I assume when they're learning letters, they're shown the corresponding hand sign or finger spelling, and then words are presented as a sequence of those signs—they just have to bridge the gap between the two.
Eventually, words are likely presented as a series of movements. (From what I gather, there are signs for entire words, which they might pick up later🤷).
Since hearing people have a certain way of thinking through "inner speech"—say, right before we speak or write something—maybe Deaf people visualize a sequence of movements as a sentence.
When I read, I only "hear" the pronunciation if I slow down and really sink into the dialogue—otherwise, I read much faster than my internal voice could ever articulate. Speech and hearing aren't strictly necessary for reading.
Personally, I feel like I have an inner voice more often than not, but yeah, articulation isn't required for reading. However, if we assume there’s a middle stage between learning to read and reading without articulation—where that inner voice is almost always present—the question is: what is the equivalent phenomenon for Deaf people?
It’s probably a sequence of finger movements that was paired with the letters they learned, much like sounds were paired for us.
#20 ·
At its core, language is just a collection of signs and symbols arbitrarily linked to concepts and objects in our environment. That’s the ultra-simplified version.
Take deaf people, for example. They learn sign language and finger spelling. It's interesting, though hardly surprising, that the brain uses nearly identical cortical structures to process sign language as it does written text—think things like the angular gyrus in the posterior inferior parietal lobe or Broca's area in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Language is a much broader concept than just phonemes, syllables, or spoken and written words. The real key is the manipulation of symbols.
Take deaf people, for example. They learn sign language and finger spelling. It's interesting, though hardly surprising, that the brain uses nearly identical cortical structures to process sign language as it does written text—think things like the angular gyrus in the posterior inferior parietal lobe or Broca's area in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
Language is a much broader concept than just phonemes, syllables, or spoken and written words. The real key is the manipulation of symbols.
🔗 Similar threads
- The "Multi-Hyphenate" Trap: Is it better to master one craft or chase everything? in Other Arts · Jul 30, 2026
- The pressure of performing for the people you love in Hobbies & Leisure · Jul 30, 2026
- Language and how we label things to make them palatable in Politics · Jul 30, 2026
- Legacy and the people who help us get there in Off-topic · Jul 30, 2026
- When the people in charge refuse to leave in Fans · Jul 30, 2026