Slezak, P. P. (2002) Talking to ourselves: The intelligibility of inner speech. [Comments to Carruthers: The Cognitive Functions of Language.] Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(6), 699-700 doi:10.1017/S0140525X02490127 Link Text
[Abstract]The possible role of language in intermodular communication and non-domain-specific thinking is an empirical issue that is independent of the “vehicle” claim that natural language is “constitutive” of some thoughts. Despite noting objections to various forms of the thesis that we think in language, Carruthers entirely neglects a potentially fatal objection to his own preferred version of this “cognitive conception.”
[Citing Place (1956)]  
Citing Place (1956) in context (citations start with an asterisk *):
* U. T. Place (1956) famously observed that it is a “phenomenological fallacy” to suppose that when someone describes an experience of how things look, sound, smell, taste, or feel, then “he is describing the literal properties of objects and events on a peculiar sort of internal cinema or television screen” (Place 1956, p. 37).
Just as Place noted we are not likely to have anything green in our heads when we have a green afterimage, more recently, Edelman (1998) suggests that when we imagine a cat, we are unlikely to ascribe furriness to the mental representation. However, this very mistake seems remarkably compelling, though no more defensible, in the case of other attributes. Of course, in these remarks Place anticipated what Dennett (1991) has made well known as the fallacy of the Cartesian Theatre.