The Premise

The authors (from Harvard, Berkeley, and MIT) of this June 2024 article in the journal Nature  “bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking.” They further propose that “language is optimized for communication”, and “does not appear to be a prerequisite for complex thought, including symbolic thought.” Language only “reflects, rather than gives rise to, the signature sophistication of human cognition.”

Support comes from studies of individuals left without the ability to communicate by damage to specific brain areas known to control language. Evidence from such aphasia research suggests that “all tested forms of thought are possible in the absence of language”. Functional MRI shows that engaging in diverse forms of thinking and reasoning does not activate the network of brain areas that control language comprehension and production.

Mathematical symbols, traffic signs, equations, and emojis (all forms of “symbolic non-linguistic representation”) successfully convey precise concepts without relying on words. Similarly, mathematical reasoning elicits no response in language-associated brain areas and is preserved in individuals with severe aphasia.

                  The authors view language “uncontroversially as a tremendously useful tool for cross-generational knowledge transmission.” But, at least for mature brains, intact linguistic abilities do not require intact thinking abilities. “There is at present no unequivocal empirical support for any form of thinking requiring linguistic representations (words or syntactic structures) . . . all tested forms of thought are apparently possible without language.”

The Fallout

The questions generated by this paper will vary among readers, as we attempt to fit its conclusions into our own educational framework, life experience, and perspectives.

Like any provocative piece, it generates, at least for me, more questions than answers. My (very) personal and professional interests are Aging, memory loss, cognitive decline, and dementia. Over the age of 60, changes in language (vocabulary, production, understanding, quality and quantity) in one’s patients, family members, friends, or oneself often trigger alarm and a cognitive evaluation.

• How should this formulation influence the way neuroscientists, family doctors, and family members “think” about how we recognize, screen for, diagnose, measure, and treat those demonstrating, through language or it’s failures, currently accepted definitions of cognitive decline?
• How important is knowing that LANGUAGE ≠ THOUGHT when you can’t get the thought out?
• Does recognizing that one has a problem diminish its potential magnitude?
• In the undamaged brain are thinking and language separate day-to-day, or only severable?

My own observable difficulties present as word-finding failures contributing to a lack of fluency.  In talking about my book, as I must, I find myself wanting to impose the caveat: “Don’t judge me by how I speak, judge me by what I write”. The same can go for casual or business conversations with strangers.

• If language does not reflect thinking, am I OK?
• Language? Thinking? What does it matter? Failures are equally problematic and can both affect activities of daily living.
• If language is not for thinking, what is “thinking out loud”?

What about large language model generative Artificial Intelligence and science-fiction-like fears of what they might be “thinking or planning”?

• Have they been constructed to better meld language and thought?
• Should we be more or less afraid after the publication of this paper?

Reference:

Fedorenko E, Piantadosi ST, Gibson EAF. Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature. 2024 Jun;630(8017):575-586.  doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w.

Supplementary information:  

The Premise

The authors (from Harvard, Berkeley, and MIT) of this June 2024 article in the journal Nature  “bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking.” They further propose that “language is optimized for communication”, and “does not appear to be a prerequisite for complex thought, including symbolic thought.” Language only “reflects, rather than gives rise to, the signature sophistication of human cognition.”

Support comes from studies of individuals left without the ability to communicate by damage to specific brain areas known to control language. Evidence from such aphasia research suggests that “all tested forms of thought are possible in the absence of language”. Functional MRI shows that engaging in diverse forms of thinking and reasoning does not activate the network of brain areas that control language comprehension and production.

Mathematical symbols, traffic signs, equations, and emojis (all forms of “symbolic non-linguistic representation”) successfully convey precise concepts without relying on words. Similarly, mathematical reasoning elicits no response in language-associated brain areas and is preserved in individuals with severe aphasia.

                  The authors view language “uncontroversially as a tremendously useful tool for cross-generational knowledge transmission.” But, at least for mature brains, intact linguistic abilities do not require intact thinking abilities. “There is at present no unequivocal empirical support for any form of thinking requiring linguistic representations (words or syntactic structures) . . . all tested forms of thought are apparently possible without language.”

The Fallout

The questions generated by this paper will vary among readers, as we attempt to fit its conclusions into our own educational framework, life experience, and perspectives.

Like any provocative piece, it generates, at least for me, more questions than answers. My (very) personal and professional interests are aging, memory loss, cognitive decline, and dementia. Over the age of 60, changes in language (vocabulary, production, understanding, quality and quantity) in one’s patients, family members, friends, or oneself often trigger alarm and a cognitive evaluation.

• How should this formulation influence the way neuroscientists, family doctors, and family members “think” about how we recognize, screen for, diagnose, measure, and treat those demonstrating, through language or it’s failures, currently accepted definitions of cognitive decline?
• How important is knowing that LANGUAGE ≠ THOUGHT when you can’t get the thought out?
• Does recognizing that one has a problem diminish its potential magnitude?
• In the undamaged brain are thinking and language separate day-to-day, or only severable?

My own observable difficulties present as word-finding failures contributing to a lack of fluency.  In talking about my book, as I must, I find myself wanting to impose the caveat: “Don’t judge me by how I speak, judge me by what I write”. The same can go for casual or business conversations with strangers.

• If language does not reflect thinking, am I OK?
• Language? Thinking? What does it matter? Failures are equally problematic and can both affect activities of daily living.
• If language is not for thinking, what is “thinking out loud”?

What about large language model generative artificial intelligence and science-fiction-like fears of what they might be “thinking or planning”?

• Have they been constructed to better meld language and thought?
• Should we be more or less afraid after the publication of this paper?

Reference:

Fedorenko E, Piantadosi ST, Gibson EAF. Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature. 2024 Jun;630(8017):575-586.  doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w.

Supplementary information:  https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-024-07522-w/MediaObjects/41586_2024_7522_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Reposted from: https://agingoralzheimers.com/category/in-the-news/