The age-old question, "What is language for?" has been addressed by MIT researchers, who have brought forward evidence suggesting that its primary role is to serve as a tool for communication, rather than a vehicle for thought. In an article published by MIT News, the evidence is said to be drawn from the fields of neurobiology, cognitive science, and corpus linguistics, challenging longstanding assumptions about language's function in cognitive processes.
Neuroscientist Evelina Fedorenko from the McGovern Institute for Brain Research, alongside fellow colleagues, is determined to settle the debate. Their argument hinges on the claim, as stated in the Nature journal, which is that language is not employed to fundamentally structure thought. "I think there are a few strands of intuition and confusions that have led people to believe very strongly that language is the medium of thought," Fedorenko told MIT News. "But when they are pulled apart thread by thread, they don’t really hold up to empirical scrutiny."
Their research utilizes modern tools that were previously unavailable to scientists, such as functional MRI scans, which enable the identification of brain networks involving language during various cognitive tasks. The findings are clear: language-processing mechanisms do not appear to be active when individuals engage in different forms of thinking. A striking point from the research arises from observations of patients who have lost their linguistic abilities due to brain injuries. Despite this loss, they maintain the capacity to perform other intellectual tasks, providing compelling evidence that language, while intrinsic to communication, is not the scaffolding upon which thought is constructed.
On the other hand, the Nature Perspective also explores how language is crafted to streamline communication. Peculiar features common across a multitude of languages, both spoken and signed, are said to optimize information transfer, and this optimization is unnecessary if the sole purpose of language was to merely serve as a tool for internal monologue. For instance, commonly used words are often shorter, reducing the effort for the speaker and the listener. "It turns out that pretty much any property you look at, you can find evidence that languages are optimized in a way that makes information transfer as efficient as possible," Fedorenko elaborated to MIT News.
This perspective on language, separate from the romanticized notion of it as the bedrock of thought, reshapes our understanding of linguistic capabilities. It underscores the sophistication inherent in human communication and, according to scholars, emphasizes that our cognitive abilities do not derive from language but rather reflect the intricacy of human thought processes that exist independently. The research from Fedorenko and her team presents a compelling case, one that may alter how we perceive the interplay between language, thought, and communication.
