<p>There's a quite active line of research (and debate) in experimental psychology and cognitive science on this. It often goes under the rubric of the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis". I only know some of the work in this domain, but I would suggesting checking out research (experiments, not just armchair discussion) by <a href="http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/" rel="nofollow">Lera Boroditsky</a> and <a href="http://sapir.psych.wisc.edu/" rel="nofollow">Gary Lupyan</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-22T02:52:40.663Z
I've followed this debate quite a bit and while its quite interesting, it appears to focus elusively on how having a *different* language affects cognition (e.g. English vs. French color concepts). My concern here is how language in general enriches our cognitive capabilities.
zergylord
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-23T01:35:01.133Z
Gary Lupyan has used paradigms like articulatory suppression to look at how task performance is impaired when the contribution of language is removed.
Dan M.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T21:26:12.193Z
Just realized Gary Lupyan had the same advisor as me; small world!
zergylord
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-21T18:08:48.877Z
2012-02-21T18:08:48.877Z
Dan M.
<p>For those unfamiliar, the 'cognitive conception of language' refers to a claim made by some theorists that, in the <a href="http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Cognitive-language.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">words of Carruthers</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;besides its obvious communicative functions, language also has a direct role to play in normal human cognition (in thinking and reasoning).&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I've found such accounts extremely intriguing, especially that of <a href="http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/rolelang.htm#2." rel="nofollow noreferrer">Daniel Dennett (1994)</a>, who basically claims that language is what turns our massively parallel brain into a decent serial processor.</p>
<p>However, I'm distressed that such discussions are generally tethered to the Philosophy of Mind and despite my efforts, I've yet to come across any empirical evidence or cognitive models that are for or against such hypotheses.</p>
<p>So, do such studies exist (or are underway)? Or is there something fundamental to this subject that keeps it only in the realm of armchair discussion?</p>
<h3>References</h3>
<ul>
<li>Carruthers, Peter (2002). <a href="http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Cognitive-language.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The cognitive functions of language.</a> Behavioral And Brain Sciences 25 (6):657-674. (DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X02000122)</li>
<li>Dennett, Daniel C. (1994). <a href="http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/rolelang.htm#2." rel="nofollow noreferrer">The role of language in intelligence.</a> In Jean Khalfa (ed.), What is Intelligence? The Darwin College Lectures. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-20T04:29:59.440Z
While language is not needed for all thinking, besides Dennett's serialization, you need language to think about abstractions and generalizations other than vaguely.  Third, one of our major limitations is in working memory and language helps in "chunking" ideas so we can think about more things at one time.
William B Swift
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-02-20T06:37:40.833Z
Preaching to the choir :-), I've come to similar conclusions from my readings in philosophy and theoretical cognitive psychology. The question remains however, as to whether or not any empirical and/or modeling evidence supports such claims.
zergylord
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T21:12:48.937Z
I agree that there are conflicting intuitions on this conception of language, but this is why I posed the question in the first place: what *evidence* is there supporting one side over the other
zergylord
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-03-15T21:18:01.680Z
Having a CS degree, I very much realize that serial processing is much easier than massive parallelism for both computer hardware and software engineers to produce. My claim is that serial processing is harder for *humans*, not harder in some general sense. This is a somewhat controversial claim, but has support from evolutionary psychology (other animals are terrible at symbol processing) and neuro-anatomy (the brain is massively parallel).
zergylord
<cognitive-psychology><cognitive-modeling><language><philosophy-of-mind>
Any attempts at testing or modeling the 'cognitive conception' of language?
zergylord
# Any attempts at testing or modeling the 'cognitive conception' of language?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-02-18)

For those unfamiliar, the 'cognitive conception of language' refers to a claim made by some theorists that, in the [words of Carruthers](http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Cognitive-language.htm):

> "besides its obvious communicative functions, language also has a direct role to play in normal human cognition (in thinking and reasoning)."

I've found such accounts extremely intriguing, especially that of [Daniel Dennett (1994)](http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/rolelang.htm#2.), who basically claims that language is what turns our massively parallel brain into a decent serial processor.

However, I'm distressed that such discussions are generally tethered to the Philosophy of Mind and despite my efforts, I've yet to come across any empirical evidence or cognitive models that are for or against such hypotheses.

So, do such studies exist (or are underway)? Or is there something fundamental to this subject that keeps it only in the realm of armchair discussion?

### References

* Carruthers, Peter (2002). [The cognitive functions of language.](http://www.philosophy.umd.edu/Faculty/pcarruthers/Cognitive-language.htm) Behavioral And Brain Sciences 25 (6):657-674. (DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X02000122)
* Dennett, Daniel C. (1994). [The role of language in intelligence.](http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/rolelang.htm#2.) In Jean Khalfa (ed.), What is Intelligence? The Darwin College Lectures. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, cognitive-modeling, language, philosophy-of-mind

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: While language is not needed for all thinking, besides Dennett's serialization, you need language to think about abstractions and generalizations other than vaguely.  Third, one of our major limitations is in working memory and language helps in "chunking" ideas so we can think about more things at one time.  
> **username_0**: Preaching to the choir :-), I've come to similar conclusions from my readings in philosophy and theoretical cognitive psychology. The question remains however, as to whether or not any empirical and/or modeling evidence supports such claims.  
> **username_0**: I agree that there are conflicting intuitions on this conception of language, but this is why I posed the question in the first place: what *evidence* is there supporting one side over the other  
> **username_0**: Having a CS degree, I very much realize that serial processing is much easier than massive parallelism for both computer hardware and software engineers to produce. My claim is that serial processing is harder for *humans*, not harder in some general sense. This is a somewhat controversial claim, but has support from evolutionary psychology (other animals are terrible at symbol processing) and neuro-anatomy (the brain is massively parallel).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2012-02-21. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

There's a quite active line of research (and debate) in experimental psychology and cognitive science on this. It often goes under the rubric of the "Sapir-Whorf hypothesis". I only know some of the work in this domain, but I would suggesting checking out research (experiments, not just armchair discussion) by [Lera Boroditsky](http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/) and [Gary Lupyan](http://sapir.psych.wisc.edu/).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I've followed this debate quite a bit and while its quite interesting, it appears to focus elusively on how having a *different* language affects cognition (e.g. English vs. French color concepts). My concern here is how language in general enriches our cognitive capabilities.  
> **username_2**: Gary Lupyan has used paradigms like articulatory suppression to look at how task performance is impaired when the contribution of language is removed.  
> **username_0**: Just realized Gary Lupyan had the same advisor as me; small world!  

---

