Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought
Abstract
Language is a defining characteristic of our species, but the function, or functions, that it serves has been debated for centuries. Here we bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking. We begin by introducing the brain network that supports linguistic ability in humans. We then review evidence for a double dissociation between language and thought, and discuss several properties of language that suggest that it is optimized for communication. We conclude that although the emergence of language has unquestionably transformed human culture, language does not appear to be a prerequisite for complex thought, including symbolic thought. Instead, language is a powerful tool for the transmission of cultural knowledge; it plausibly co-evolved with our thinking and reasoning capacities, and only reflects, rather than gives rise to, the signature sophistication of human cognition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The degree to which speech and language are used for thought is under debate.
“the degree to which speech and language are used for thought is under debate73,74.”
From Inner speech in motor cortex and implications for speech neuroprostheses (2025) · cites this paper as [73]
Human language is optimized for communication rather than reasoning.
“Further evidence indicates that human language is optimized for communication rather than reasoning (Fedorenko et al., 2024).”
From Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Space (2024) · cites this paper as Fedorenko et al., 2024
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 192 · Cited by 190
- Authors
- Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. A. F.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fedorenko, Evelina
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2024-06-19
- Volume
- 630
- Issue
- 8017
- Pages
- 575-586
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W4399803382
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 192
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 12.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC016950, R01DC016607)
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (U01NS121471)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- language, communication, language and thought, double dissociation, symbolic thinking, language evolution, cultural transmission, brain networks, language and cognition
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Brain, Cognition, Communication, Culture, Humans, Language, Linguistics, Thinking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review