Evidence from formal logical reasoning reveals that the language of thought is not natural language

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Kean, Hope; Fung, Alexander; Jaggers, Paris; Chen, Jason; Rule, Joshua S.; Benn, Yael; Tenenbaum, Joshua B.; Piantadosi, Steven T.; Varley, Rosemary A.; Fedorenko, Evelina
• 署名单位: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); University of London; University College London; University of California System; University of California Berkeley; Manchester Metropolitan University
• 刊物名称: PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0027-8424; 1091-6490
• DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2520095123
• 发表日期: 2026-07-14
• 页码: e2520095123
• 关键词: language of thought; logical reasoning; aphasia; fmri; cognitive neuroscience; language; Fluid intelligence; functional neuroanatomy; PROGRESSIVE MATRICES; cognitive control; working-memory; brocas area; brain; mind; regions; network

摘要

Humans are endowed with a powerful capacity for inductive and deductive logical thought: we easily form generalizations based on a few examples and draw conclusions from known premises. Humans also arguably have the most sophisticated communication system in the animal kingdom: natural language allows us to express complex and structured meanings. Some have therefore argued for a tight relationship between complex thought and language, postulating that reasoning, including logical reasoning, relies on linguistic representations. We systematically investigated the relationship between logical reasoning and language using two complementary approaches. First, we used noninvasive brain imaging (fMRI) to examine neural activity as healthy adults engaged in logical reasoning tasks. And second, we behaviorally evaluated logical abilities in individuals with extensive lesions to the language brain areas and consequent severe linguistic impairment. Our findings reveal that the language brain network is not engaged during logical reasoning, and patients with severe aphasia exhibit intact performance on logic tasks. Instead, inductive reasoning recruits the domain-general multiple demand network implicated broadly in goal-directed behaviors, whereas deductive reasoning draws on brain regions that are distinct from both the language and the multiple demand networks. Together, these results indicate that linguistic representations are neither utilized nor required for inductive or deductive logical reasoning.