Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T14:07:04.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The reemergence of the language-of-thought hypothesis: Consequences for the development of the logic of thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2023

Nicolò Cesana-Arlotti Open the ORCID record for Nicolò Cesana-Arlotti [Opens in a new window]
Nicolò Cesana-Arlotti*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. nicolo.cesana-arlotti@yale.edu; www.nicolocesanaarlotti.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quilty-Dunn et al. defended the reemergence of language-of-thought hypothesis (LoTH). My commentary builds up implications for the study of the development of our logical capacities. Empirical support for logically augmented LoT systems calls for the investigation of their logical primitives and developmental origin. Furthermore, Quilty-Dunn et al.'s characterization of LoT helps the quest for the foundation of logic by dissociating logical cognition from natural language.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e268
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.)

References

Bermúdez, J. L. (2007). Thinking without words (1st issued as an Oxford University Press paperback). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., & O'Brien, D. P. (1998). Mental logic. Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410603005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. (2010). Steps toward origins of propositional thought. Disputatio, 4(29), 39–67. https://doi.org/10.2478/disp-2010-0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cesana-Arlotti, N., Kovács, Á. M., & Téglás, E. (2020). Infants recruit logic to learn about the social world. Nature Communications, 11(1), 5999. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19734-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cesana-Arlotti, N., Martín, A., Téglás, E., Vorobyova, L., Cetnarski, R., & Bonatti, L. L. (2018). Precursors of logical reasoning in preverbal human infants. Science (New York, N.Y.), 359(6381), 1263–1266. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao3539CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cesana-Arlotti, N., Varga, B., & Téglás, E. (2022). The pupillometry of the possible: An investigation of infants’ representation of alternative possibilities. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 377(1866), 20210343. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0343CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chierchia, G. (2013). Logic in grammar: Polarity, free choice, and intervention (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1979). The language of thought (1st paperback printing). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gauffroy, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2011). The primacy of thinking about possibilities in the development of reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 1000–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023269CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., Feldman, J., & Griffiths, T. L. (2008). A rational analysis of rule-based concept learning. Cognitive Science, 32(1), 108–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701802071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, N. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gerstenberg, T. (2015). Concepts in a probabilistic language of thought. In Margolis, E. & Laurence, S. (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. 623–654). MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9383.003.0035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N., Khemlani, S. S., & Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Logic, probability, and human reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(4), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.02.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leahy, B. P., & Carey, S. E. (2020). The acquisition of modal concepts. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.11.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, Y., Hennefield, L., Mou, Y., vanMarle, K., & Markson, L. (2017). Infants’ understanding of preferences when agents make inconsistent choices. Infancy, 22(6), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piantadosi, S. T. (2021). The computational origin of representation. Minds and Machines, 31(1), 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09540-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piantadosi, S. T., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Goodman, N. D. (2016). The logical primitives of thought: Empirical foundations for compositional cognitive models. Psychological Review, 123(4), 392–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039980CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pietroski, P. M. (2018). Conjoining meanings: Semantics without truth values (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quilty-Dunn, J., & Mandelbaum, E. (2018). Against dispositionalism: Belief in cognitive science. Philosophical Studies, 175(9), 2353–2372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0962-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar