Inner speech and tacit knowledge
Probably each of us has talked to oneself, if not aloud, then at least “in thoughts”. Man is entangled in a continuous dialogue not only with other people but also with himself.
Probably each of us has talked to oneself, if not aloud, then at least “in thoughts”. Man is entangled in a continuous dialogue not only with other people but also with himself.
Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss linguist who lived at the turn of the twentieth century, understood language in two ways. He distinguished between “langue” – the nature of language devoid of the context of its daily use and “parole” – speech determined by such context. Consequently, we face two realities: “intra-” and “extra-linguistic”. Noam Chomsky, a contemporary American linguist, has referred to them as, respectively, “internal” and “external language”. This brings us close to “inner” and “outer speech”.
An act of speech is materialisation, “dressing” of thoughts into words.
“Outer speech” is a dialogue that we maintain with others, so it presupposes not only the knowledge of the same linguistic code, but also the ability of hearing, understanding, and interaction. So, an act of speech is materialisation, “dressing” of thoughts into words. Of course, the question arises as to what extent a language is able to reflect thought? After all, what we say not always fully reflects what we think. And what we are able to hear is not always what our interlocutor wanted to communicate.
On the other hand, “inner speech” is a form of debate with oneself, an implosion of speech from the outside to the inside. Dematerialisation of thought. “Silent speech” has its origins in early-childhood monologues spoken aloud between the third and fourth years of life. [1] Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist and educator defined it as “evaporation of speech in thought”. In his view, the fragmentary and abbreviated form of this speech constitutes only a bridge between “outer speech” and what he described as “pure thought”. The words within it can take on new meanings because our dictionary can no longer “update” itself in the reality devoid of external context.
Michael Polanyi (…) disagreed with the view that all knowledge is verbalised. He emphasised that a person can know more than they can express in words.
Michael Polanyi introduced to philosophy an even more interesting concept of the so-called “tacit (hidden, silent) knowledge” because he disagreed with the view that all knowledge is verbalised. He emphasised that a person can know more than they can express in words. This “know-how” ability is difficult to explain and communicate to others. We are able to distinguish between the faces of two people, but we cannot really say why (“know-why”).
Although a painting is an example of externalised knowledge and thus can be transferred, it is created with the use of tacit knowledge, which is based on intuition. The painter knows “how” but the surprised audience keeps asking “why”?
[1] Piaget, J., “Studia z psychologii dziecka”, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa 2006.