What does discussion of inner language imply about its relation to spoken language?

• A. Inner language is the same as spoken language
• B. Inner language could be a language of thought distinct from spoken language
• C. There is no inner language
• D. Inner language is always natural language

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that the way we think in our heads can be a separate system from the language we actually speak aloud. Discussing inner language suggests there could be a language of thought—often called mentalese—that structures our reasoning, planning, and reflection in a form that isn’t identical to any spoken language. This means inner language might have its own syntax and concepts that don’t map one-to-one onto the grammar or vocabulary we use when talking. So, thinking and speaking are related but not forced to be the same thing, and inner language could be distinct from natural, spoken language.

That’s why other options don’t fit as well: inner language isn’t necessarily the exact same thing as spoken language, there is indeed an inner language or form of thought, and inner language doesn’t have to be limited to what we call natural language in everyday speech.