Limited vocabulary becomes a big hurdle in expressing exact feeling. This limits ability to express clearly and cleverly.Limited vocabulary makes one to say general things.Reasoning can be done in better way if more words are available. Without exact clear and lucid word reasoning will become superficial.Thus limited vocabulary becomes limitation on ability to reason.
You can't picture the thing they're talking about in your mind, obviously this limits the ability to think about what design flaws there might be in whatever thing they're talking about.
Also the field of logic that one needs to understand to reason well uses uite a bit of advanced vocabulary.
If by reason you mean like reasoning as in reasoning with another person then definitely.
If you just mean thinking "reduce" isn't always the right word but it changes it. Language effects thought. However, a person may sometimes think of things visually rather than verbally and sometimes this way may be more effective but if you have a big vocabulary you may be disinclined to think visually rather than verbally and so take longer or make more errors in some cases. Of course one could know when to use different types of thinking with practice.
We should all broaden our vocabulary as doing so allows us to express ourselves more succinctly.
This allows for a way to reason on a given topic with more focus and greater depth.
It should also mean that we are be able to express ourselves in broader terms and be less superficial in our meanings.
Yes, a limited vocabulary reduces ability to reason, because words, even words in thought, are the way that people reason. Without a large vocabulary, a person is unable to give their reason a voice. It is important to be able to communicate with your own thoughts, as well as with others, through vocabulary.
I lived and studied in Madrid specifically to learn Spanish. It took me awhile to develop an eclectic vocabulary. Once I did, I was finally able to deal with more complicated situations effectively like: clearing up misunderstandings, expressing exactly how I'm feeling and what I want/need, and negotiating terms of a contract.
Clearly, my ability to reason was greatly hindered until my vocabulary in Spanish expanded. Learning a second language also enhanced my ability to reason in English.
A person with a limited vocabulary struggles to find the words they also often give up.They know what they want to say they just do not know the words for it and they don't want to do it .A person with rich vocabulary can twist the words to make new arguments even if they aren't good thinkers.We should keep in mind=d if someone is skilled in debating it does not all come from a rich vocabulary,and if someone cant debate they could be just not very goo thinkers.
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that the language an individual knows shapes the way they think about events in the world around them (Ashcraft & Radvansky, 2010). This means the language each individual knows affects their thought process, how they think, and what they think about. An example of this would be the English concept of “green, an individual can only think about the color green by using the word green. The thought is dictated by the word used in that language.
There are even different degrees of the theory. Strong “Whorfianism” concludes that language controls both thought and action to a large degree. In other words an individual cannot think outside of their language and their language determines what that individual does. Returning to our example of green, an individual under strong “Whorfianism” has only the ability to think about “green” using the word dictated by the language.
The less extreme point of view is known as weak “Whorfianism”. Weak “Whorfianism” states that language influences and shapes thought. This means that individuals can have different concepts of what something is but our label of that thing influences our thought about it. Returning to our example, an individual can picture the color green in their mind and they have label for that color which is “green”. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, at all levels, has caused a lot of clamor among theorists, linguists, and scientists.
If you have a small lexicon, surely you won't think in a deep way, even if you can think in a deep way, you cannot express. Lots of genius thoughts were killed as infants in people's mind. On the contrary, if you have a large lexicon, given that you know all of these words to describe the process of reasoning, and you can use the words you know to say it, to spread it to other people, then it's much more easier to reason.
A rich vocabulary helps you state your opinions and arguments clearly and productively in a way that everyone will be able to understand. A rich vocabulary gives you the ability to express yourself with ease and help you in many aspects of your everyday life such as supporting your beliefs. A limited vocabulary on the other hand can be an obstacle.
Deaf people, even those that do not know how to read are capable of being able to reason very well, some of them even do it much better than normal healthy people at times. I hope people can take this into consideration really well because it is actually true ok.
Doing exceptionally on the vocabulary section of the Verbal section of the SAT does not, by any means, mean that you will do better on the logical reasoning section of the LSAT. There is admittedly a correlation between expansive vocabulary and high reasoning capacity (because the cultures with expansive vocabularies tend to emphasize the activity of formal "reasoning" more than those with more limited vocabularies), but there is no evidence of causation between them. A vocabulary is, in a sense, the VARIABLES of logical reasoning, and more variables does not mean that can reason more efficiently; rather, it means that more variables happen to be culturally relevant to you. Reasoning is not about the variables themselves, but rather how those variables are used. I recommend reading William Labov's article "The Logic of Nonstandard English" for more information about this matter.
"Vocabulary" is the word itself while the "thoughts" are the "definitions" of that words or terms. To give an example, every word you see is part of the vocabulary. What I typed here is part of the vocabulary. It extends from "is, are, was, were" to words like "philosophy, mathematics, quantum physics, rummage, guile," and etc. Concepts on the other hand comprises the "definition". A tree for example, its concept include its characteristics of having roots, trunk, stem, leaves, etc. Let's assume that I don't know the word "tree", but I know the concept, therefore, I can still express myself.
Reasoning does not rely on how many words you know; rather, on how you formulate your thoughts and concepts. In fact, reasoning links concepts. While it requires vocabulary, the limits you have there isn't a necessity. As long as you can express your thoughts and pattern it in a structured way, you can reason!
A limited vocabulary to some degree limits a person's ability to communicate with others, particularly with those who place high value on the use of a colorful and expanded vocabulary. A limited vocabulary also limits, to some degree, a persons ability to understand what is being spoken. The lack of advance vocabulary does not impair a person's ability to have rational thoughts or to make logical judgments. The communication of a concept, or decision, differs from the formation of the concept or decision. A limited vocabulary does not reduce a person's ability to reason.
A person with an excellent command of vocabulary can also fail in communicating the basis for their reasoning. They do this if they fail to communicate in a manner that their target audience understands. This doesn't mean that they failed in their reasoning; it does mean that their use of language is impairing their ability o communicate. The same can be said for a person having a limited vocabulary. They may have difficulty putting their thoughts into words that are familiar to their audience. For either situation a solution lies in the willingness to ask questions, rephrase responses, and learn new words.
What I call reasoning my father called "common sense". I understand his concept of "common sense" because of my association with him. To him it meant something akin to attacking a problem or question by thinking through it. In words that he would not have used, he applied logic to the process of evaluating concepts and forming opinions, or judgments.