Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 December 2022
Mental representations remain the central posits of psychology after many decades of scrutiny. However, there is no consensus about the representational format(s) of biological cognition. This paper provides a survey of evidence from computational cognitive psychology, perceptual psychology, developmental psychology, comparative psychology, and social psychology, and concludes that one type of format that routinely crops up is the language-of-thought (LoT). We outline six core properties of LoTs: (i) discrete constituents; (ii) role-filler independence; (iii) predicate–argument structure; (iv) logical operators; (v) inferential promiscuity; and (vi) abstract content. These properties cluster together throughout cognitive science. Bayesian computational modeling, compositional features of object perception, complex infant and animal reasoning, and automatic, intuitive cognition in adults all implicate LoT-like structures. Instead of regarding LoT as a relic of the previous century, researchers in cognitive science and philosophy-of-mind must take seriously the explanatory breadth of LoT-based architectures. We grant that the mind may harbor many formats and architectures, including iconic and associative structures as well as deep-neural-network-like architectures. However, as computational/representational approaches to the mind continue to advance, classical compositional symbolic structures – that is, LoTs – only prove more flexible and well-supported over time.
All authors contributed equally; authorship is in reverse alphabetical order.
To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
Target article
The best game in town: The reemergence of the language-of-thought hypothesis across the cognitive sciences
Related commentaries (30)
A language of episodic thought?
Advanced testing of the LoT hypothesis by social reasoning
Animal thought exceeds language-of-thought
Compositionality in visual perception
Concept learning in a probabilistic language-of-thought. How is it possible and what does it presuppose?
Developmental and multiple languages-of-thought
Do nonlinguistic creatures deploy mental symbols for logical connectives in reasoning?
Evidence for LoTH: Slim pickings
Incomplete language-of-thought in infancy
Is core knowledge in the format of LOT?
Is evidence of language-like properties evidence of a language-of-thought architecture?
Is language-of-thought the best game in the town we live?
Language-of-thought hypothesis: Wrong, but sometimes useful?
Linguistic meanings in mind
Linguistic structure and the languages-of-thought
Natural logic and baby LoTH
Neither neural networks nor the language-of-thought alone make a complete game
Never not the best: LoT and the explanation of person-level psychology
On the hazards of relating representations and inductive biases
Perception is iconic, perceptual working memory is discursive
Properties of LoTs: The footprints or the bear itself?
Putting relating at the core of language-of-thought
Representational structures only make their mark over time: A case from memory
Stop me if you've heard this one before: The Chomskyan hammer and the Skinnerian nail
The computational and the representational language-of-thought hypotheses
The language of tactile thought
The language-of-thought as a working hypothesis for developmental cognitive science
The reemergence of the language-of-thought hypothesis: Consequences for the development of the logic of thought
Toward biologically plausible artificial vision
Using the sender–receiver framework to understand the evolution of languages-of-thought
Author response
The language-of-thought hypothesis as a working hypothesis in cognitive science