of course not, and if yes, then we cant think of thinking without language. language gives a rise to (meaningful) consciousness, nor does it contain thinking, as it is thinking itself. the concept of prelinguistic experience is already a linguistic construction
if language is constructing the idea of the silence it itself interrupts then there is no such thing as reliable non-linguistic thought, as such, language is where things Are, they do not implicitly get covered over by it but rather they are language
the mistake of "death of the author" is the view that author is dead epistemic authority, but a "dying" rather relocates author to consciously constructed horizons against which reader Others their assumptions, the nebulous figure assembled from textual and paratextual evidence
the author's access to their own intention is no more transparent than anyone else's access to the text, which is to say, thoroughly mediated and retroactive & organized around misrecognitions that the author cannot see from inside their own subject position
readers still care about authorial intent as it is a mirror-Other, providing an external surface against which the reader's own interpretive ideal can be checked and defamiliarized, the reader's own construction of a perspective sufficiently alien