Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Language as a Cognitive Tool

  • Published:
Minds and Machines Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The standard view of classical cognitive science stated that cognition consists in the manipulation of language-like structures according to formal rules. Since cognition is ‘linguistic’ in itself, according to this view language is just a complex communication system and does not influence cognitive processes in any substantial way. This view has been criticized from several perspectives and a new framework (Embodied Cognition) has emerged that considers cognitive processes as non-symbolic and heavily dependent on the dynamical interactions between the cognitive system and its environment. But notwithstanding the successes of the embodied cognitive science in explaining low-level cognitive behaviors, it is still not clear whether and how it can scale up for explaining high-level cognition. In this paper we argue that this can be done by considering the role of language as a cognitive tool: i.e. how language transforms basic cognitive functions in the high-level functions that are characteristic of human cognition. In order to do that, we review some computational models that substantiate this view with respect to categorization and memory. Since these models are based on a very rudimentary form of non-syntactic ‘language’ we argue that the use of language as a cognitive tool might have been an early discovery in hominid evolution, and might have played a substantial role in the evolution of language itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bechtel, W., Abrahamsen, A., & Graham, G. (1998). The life of cognitive science. In B. William & G. George (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer, R. D. (2000). Dynamical approaches to cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(3), 91–99.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, L. E. (1994). ‘Why children talk to themselves’, Scientific American, (pp. 78–83).

  • Brooks, R. A. (1990). Elephants don’t play chess. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 6, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., Greco, A., & Harnad, S. (2000). From robotic toil to symbolic theft: Grounding transfer from entry-level to higher-level categories. Connection Science, 12(2), 143–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi, A., & Harnad, S. (2000). The adaptive advantage of symbolic theft over sensorimotor toil: Grounding language in perceptual categories. Evolution of Communication, 4, 117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, P., & Boucher, J. (Eds.). (1998). Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, M. H., & Kirby, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language Evolution: The State of the Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchland, P. M. (1981). Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78(2), 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1997). Being there: putting brain, body and world together again. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (1998). Magic words: How language augments human computation. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes’ (pp. 162–183). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Clark, A. (2001). Mindware: An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2006). Language, embodiment, and the cognitive niche. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(8), 370–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R., & Tsivkin, S. (1999). Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science, 284, 970–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D.C. (1978). Brainstorms, bradford books, Montgomery, Vt.

  • Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained, little Brown & Co., New York, NY.

  • Dennett, D. C. (1993). Learning and labeling. Mind and Language, 8(4), 540–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life, simon and schuster, New York, NY.

  • Di Ferdinando, A., & Parisi, D. (2004). Internal representations of sensory input reflect the motor output with which organisms respond to the input. In A. Carsetti (Ed.), Seeing thinking and knowing (pp. 115–141). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, R., & Berk, L. E. (Eds.). (1992). Private speech: From social interaction to self regulation, Erlbaum. NJ: New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. (1972). What computers can’t do: A critique of artificial reason. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. (1975). The language of thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentner, D. (2003). Why we are so smart. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.) Language in mind (pp. 195–235). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language in mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, O., & Goschke, T. (2004). Executive control emerging from dynamic interactions between brain systems mediating language, working memory and attentional processes. Acta Psychologica, 115, 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, C., Hurford, J. R., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (Eds.). (2000). The evolutionary emergence of language: Social Function and the Origins of Linguistic Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupyan, G. (2005). Carving nature at its joints and carving joints into nature: How labels augment category representations. In A. Cangelosi, G. Bugmann, & R. Borisyuk (Eds.) Modelling language, cognition and action: Proceedings of the 9th neural computation and psychology workshop (pp. 87–96). Singapore:World Scientific.

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2005a). How can we explain the emergence of a language which benefits the hearer but not the speaker? Connection Science, 17(3–4), 325–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2005b). Language as an aid to categorization: A neural network model of early language acquisition. In A. Cangelosi, G. Bugmann, & R. Borisyuk (Eds.) Modelling language, cognition and action: Proceedings of the 9th neural computation and psychology workshop (pp. 97–106). Singapore:World Scientific.

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2006). Talking to oneself as a selective pressure for the emergence of language. In A. Cangelosi, A. Smith & K. Smith (Eds.) The evolution of language: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on the evolution of language (pp. 214–221). World Scientific Publishing.

  • Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2009). Towards a Vygotskyan cognitive robotics: The role of language as a cognitive tool. New Ideas in Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.001.

  • Nazzi, T., & Gopnik, A. (2001). Linguistic and cognitive abilities in infancy: When does language become a tool for categorization? Cognition, 80, 303–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1976). Computer science as empirical inquiry: Symbols and search. Communications of the ACM, 19, 113–126.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, D. (2001). Neural networks and Artificial Life. In David. Baltimore, R. Dulbecco, F. Jacob, & R. Levi-Montalcini (Eds.), Frontiers of life (Vol. 4). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, D., Cecconi, F., & Nolfi, S. (1990). Econets: Neural networks that learn in an environment. Network, 1, 149–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parisi, D., & Mirolli, M. (2006).The emergence of language: How to simulate it. In C. Lyon, C. Nehaniv & A. Cangelosi (Eds.) Emergence of communication and language. Berlin: Springer.

  • Port, R. F., & van Gelder, T. (Eds.). (1995). Mind as motion. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. (1963). Brains and behavior. In R. Butler (Ed.) Analytical philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  • Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L., and the PDP research group (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Schyns, P. G. (1991). A modular neural network model of concept acquisition. Cognitive Science, 15(4), 461–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (Eds.). (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spelke, E. (2003).What makes us smart? Core knowledge and natural language. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.) Language in mind (pp. 277–311). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Steels, L., & Brooks, R. (Eds.). (1994). The artificial life route to artificial intelligence: Building situated embodied agents. New Haven: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. K. R., Oden, D. L., & Boysen, S. T. (1997). Language-naive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) judge relations between relations in a conceptual matching-to-sample task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processses, 23, 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. J. (1998). The dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, T. J. (1999). Dynamic approaches to cognition. In R. Wilson & F. Keil (Eds.) The MIT Encyclopedia of cognitive sciences (pp. 244–246). Cambridge: MIT Press

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Waxman, S., & Markow, D. (1995). Words as invitations to form categories: Evidence from 12 to 13-month-old infants. Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 257–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper has been supported by the ECAGENTS project founded by the Future and Emerging Technologies program (IST-FET) of the European Community under EU R&D contract IST-2003-1940.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, CNR, 44 Via San Martino della Battaglia, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Marco Mirolli & Domenico Parisi

Authors
  1. Marco Mirolli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Parisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Mirolli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mirolli, M., Parisi, D. Language as a Cognitive Tool. Minds & Machines 19, 517–528 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-009-9174-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-009-9174-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation