CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Social Representations and IdentityPsychology of Development and EducationCategorization, perception, and language

Concepts, abstractness and inner speech

Open access
Borghi, Anna M., Fernyhough, Charles·2023·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2021.0371PMC PMC9791492
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We explore the role of inner speech (covert self-directed talk) during the acquisition and use of concepts differing in abstractness. Following Vygotsky, inner speech results from the internalization of linguistically mediated interactions that regulate cognition and behaviour. When we acquire and process abstract concepts, uncertainties about word meaning might lead us to search actively for their meaning. Inner speech might play a role in this searching process and be differentially involved in concept learning compared with use of known concepts. Importantly, inner speech comes in different varieties—e.g. it can be expanded or condensed (with the latter involving syntactic and semantic forms of abbreviation). Do we use inner speech differently with concepts varying in abstractness? Which kinds of inner speech do we preferentially use with different kinds of abstract concepts (e.g. emotions versus numbers)? What other features of inner speech, such as dialogicality, might facilitate our use of concepts varying in abstractness (by allowing us to monitor the limits of our knowledge in simulated social exchanges, through a process we term inner social metacognition)? In tackling these questions, we address the possibility that different varieties of inner speech are flexibly used during the acquisition of concepts and their everyday use. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences’.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2021.0371

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A further reason for the growth of interest in inner speech has been the recent wave of studies emphasizing the importance of language in shaping cognition.

    “A further reason for the growth of interest in IS has been the recent wave of studies emphasizing the importance of language in shaping cognition [23][24][25][26].”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction (‘Abstract concepts’ and ‘Mouth effector involvement’; page unavailable) describes language as important to conceptual processing, and the Introduction mentions recent advances in inner-speech research. The Conclusion says the paper starts from the assumption that language deeply impacts cognition. Our copy does not say that a recent wave of studies on language’s role in cognition caused interest in inner speech to grow. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Developmentally, longer use of a pacifier slows down processing of abstract concepts at a later age.

    “Developmentally, longer use of a pacifier slows down processing of abstract concepts at a later age [69].”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [69]

    The Introduction’s “Mouth effector involvement” section reports that studies of 6- and 8-year-olds suggested long-term pacifier use might affect later abstract-concept processing, yielding longer response times. The claim presents this tentative association as a definite slowing effect. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Inner speech can underpin social metacognition, a mechanism for preparing to interact with others to ask for information, understand what they intend, or negotiate concepts and word meanings.

    “Similarly, IS can underpin social metacognition, a mechanism for preparing to interact with others to ask for information, understand what they intend (i.e., accessing the content of their concepts), or negotiate concepts and word meanings [23,67,71] (Figure 2).”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    In ‘Inner speech during conceptual use’ (page unavailable), the paper proposes that inner speech can prepare us to ask others to fill gaps in our knowledge, and describes dialogic inner speech as a form of ‘inner social metacognition.’ It does not say that this process helps us understand others’ intentions or negotiate concepts and word meanings with them. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [28]Vygotsky LS. 1987 The collected works of LS Vygotsky, vol. 1, pp. 39- 285. New York, NY: Springer.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Borghi, A. M., & Fernyhough, C.
Affiliations
  • National Research Council (IT)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Borghi, Anna M.
  • Fernyhough, Charles
ORCID
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2022-12-26
Volume
378
Issue
1870
Pages
20210371-20210371
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
DOI
10.1098/rstb.2021.0371
PMC
PMC9791492
OpenAlex
W4312143872
Cited by
45
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
1) TRAINCREASE: From social interaction to abstract concepts and words: towards human centered technology development; 2) WELLCOME TRUST grant (TRAINCREASE, grant n.952324, Wellcome Trust grant, WT108720)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Psychology of Development and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
inner speech, abstract concepts, concept learning, concept use, dialogicity, metacognition, emotions, numbers, Vygotsky
MeSH terms
Metacognition, Cognition, Concept Formation, Emotions, Speech

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