> I speak, and thus think, in both English and Japanese.
The vast majority of processing is happening outside language-related areas of the brain. There's certainly leaky interfaces between areas of the brain, but if you literally thought in a language, and that distinction persisted throughout the brain, that would seem to imply that speaking 3 languages would require 3x the number of connections in the brain.
The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis would presumably be true if we literally thought in a language, but the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited.
In other words, "thinking in a language" is an illusion.
I think this is partially correct. Inner monologue is not an illusion, and choosing a wrong linguistic construct for your audience (sometimes from another language) through temporarily forgetting to context switch does happen. However, thinking something without ever having done so in words does seem to strongly correlate with your assertion.
Tangentially, I realised in high school that I was doing almost all math operations as word transformations. I reasoned this was why even familiar procedures for which I confidently & consistently got correct results were taking substantially longer than everybody else. I was translating everything twice.
The vast majority of processing is happening outside language-related areas of the brain. There's certainly leaky interfaces between areas of the brain, but if you literally thought in a language, and that distinction persisted throughout the brain, that would seem to imply that speaking 3 languages would require 3x the number of connections in the brain.
The strong Sapir-Whorf hypothesis would presumably be true if we literally thought in a language, but the strong form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been thoroughly discredited.
In other words, "thinking in a language" is an illusion.