Cabulb wrote:I thought when people say they "hear" themselves think it's just a figure of speech. I don't exactly get a voice talking back when I think, it's more like a fury of disjointed sentences that form a general idea. Except when I speak or write, I'd have to form what I want to say or write in my head first but I never get a voice unless I say it out loud.
I guess it's only natural to think in your own voice. But it really doesn't make sense to have someone telling you what to do in a logical manner when you think.
I'm much like that, too. For example when I type a post, and hit a rough spot and try to figure out how to go on, I often repeat random fragments of what I've previously typed in my mind, but what I'm really doing is search for something to say and/or a way to say it. My thoughts are much less ordered than my speech.
***
Also: sign language isn't a language. It's a means to represent a language, like speaking and writing. Since you have signs for concepts, signing can be international (given that the respective grammars are similar enough). But the words the respective communicators associate with the signs will still be in the language they're thinking in. It's possible that you only think of the sing, and by-pass the - um - word? No, that's not the right way to put it.
A word has two components: a concept and a representation. Speech is one such representation. Writing is another. And sign language is yet another. The relations between these systems are intricate. Japanese hiragana, for example, is much more phonetically constant than English.
An example from Katawa shoujo: the rooftop scene where Misha talks to Hisao about sign language made me curious on two counts: (a) She uses the alphabet (romaji). I'd have expected the primary signs to be for hiragana. Rather than "a b c...", I'd expect an order I know from the tables: "a e i u o ka ke ki ku ko...". I then wondered whether they transport the difference between hiragana and katakana into sign, too, or if that's not significant enough (since signing's supposed to replace speaking, not writing). Things like that. I didn't research, because I was lazy. (b) Misha says that people tend to forget that there are signs for words. I wondered if that's true for Japan, where people are used to learning knaji from when they're little. Wouldn't they be used to that?
Basically, sign language seems to have aspects from both speaking and writing, but functionally it's supposed to replace speaking (that is: in the situations you use it). It's rather intricate and - I think - very interesting.
***
Also about the relationship between "hearing a voice" and "thinking": Here's a little thought experiment. Many people read a lot quicker silently (even if they read every word) than aloud. What do they hear? Do you think they hear a voice speaking very quickly? (Personally, I find that idea comical.) (A speed reader told me he trained himself to turn off vocalisation to be able to read quicker. Reading is now only visual pattern recognition to him.)