Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T10:03:42.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic structure and the languages-of-thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

Gabe Dupre Open the ORCID record for Gabe Dupre [Opens in a new window]
Gabe Dupre*
Affiliation:
School of Political, Global, and Social Studies, Keele University, Staffordshire, UK g.g.dupre@keele.ac.uk https://gabedupre.weebly.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quilty-Dunn et al. adopt a methodology for psychology connecting behavioral capacities to the format of the mental systems underlying them. This methodology opens up avenues connecting linguistic theory to comparative psychology. On the assumption that language structures thought, identifying the formal structure of human language can generate hypotheses connecting distinctively human cognitive traits to the distinctive structures of human language.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e274
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Carruthers, P. (2002). The cognitive functions of language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(6), 657–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N., Gallego, A. J., & Ott, D. (2019). Generative grammar and the faculty of language: Insights, questions, and challenges. Generative Syntax. Questions, Crossroads, and Challenges [special issue:] Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 229–261.Google Scholar
Dupre, G. (2020). What would it mean for natural language to be the language of thought? Linguistics and Philosophy, 44, 773–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, M. (1987). Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 633–657.Google Scholar
Hoerl, C., & McCormack, T. (2017). Animal minds in time: The question of episodic memory. In Andrews, K. & Beck, J. (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of philosophy of animal minds (pp. 56–64). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelbaum, E., Dunham, Y., Feiman, R., Firestone, C., Green, E. J., Harris, D., … Quilty-Dunn, J. (2022). Problems and mysteries of the many languages of thought. Cognitive Science, 46(12), e13225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthewson, L. (2006). Temporal semantics in a superficially tenseless language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 29(6), 673–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, E., & Wiltschko, M. (2009). Varieties of INFL: Tense, location, and person. Alternatives to Cartography, 153, 202.Google Scholar
Ritter, E., & Wiltschko, M. (2014). The composition of INFL: An exploration of tense, tenseless languages, and tenseless constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 32, 1331–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, W. A., & Feeney, M. C. (2009). The comparative study of mental time travel. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 271–277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sybesma, R. (2007). Whether we tense-agree overtly or not. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(3), 580–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, M. (2014). The universal structure of categories (Vol. 142). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar