Language as an instrument of thought

Abstract

I show that there are good arguments and evidence to boot that support the language as an instrument of thought hypothesis. The underlying mechanisms of language, comprising of expressions structured hierarchically and recursively, provide a perspective (in the form of a conceptual structure) on the world, for it is only via language that certain perspectives are available to us and to our thought processes. These mechanisms provide us with a uniquely human way of thinking and talking about the world that is different to the sort of thinking we share with other animals. If the primary function of language were communication then one would expect that the underlying mechanisms of language will be structured in a way that favours successful communication. I show that not only is this not the case, but that the underlying mechanisms of language are in fact structured in a way to maximise computational efficiency, even if it means causing communicative problems. Moreover, I discuss evidence from comparative, neuropathological, developmental, and neuroscientific evidence that supports the claim that language is an instrument of thought.

Language design and communicative competence: The minimalist perspective

“…If language were optimised for communication, then syntax and interpretation would presumably opt to be implemented over linear distance, rather than some more abstract unit of hierarchical structure. As Asoulin (2016) and Reinhart (1983) discuss, it was originally believed that the way to capture the distinction between (4a) and (4b) a linear relationship of precede-and-command was computed, through which the pronoun cannot both precede (linearly) and (c-)command its antecedent (since 'her' in (4b) precedes but does not c-command 'Jane' it was thought that this explained the contrast).…”

Phrase structure grammars as indicative of uniquely human thoughts

“…That is, the underlying mechanisms of language (via the construction of structural descriptions) do not merely express pre-formed thoughts but also allow humans to think particular types of thoughts that are unavailable to beings who do not have these computational mechanisms. Language is thus an instrument of thought (Burton-Roberts, 2011;Chomsky, 2013;Hinzen, 2013;Asoulin, 2016).…”

The internal, the external and the hybrid: The state of the art and a new characterization of language as a natural object

“…In more recent times, an effort has been made by Chomsky himself to relate the view with the likes of Salvador Luria and François Jacob (Chomsky 2010: 55-59). The take-home message is that I-language relates asymmetrically with the interfaces, privileging the semantic interface (Asoulin 2016). The conclusion gives grounds to the more extreme view that language and thought can ultimately be equated and the resulting system kept apart from externalization, a qualitatively different phenomenon.…”