“What is the structure of thought?” is as central a question as any in cognitive science. A classic answer to this question has appealed to a Language of Thought (LoT). We point to emerging research from disparate branches of the field that supports the LoT hypothesis, but also uncovers diversity in LoTs across cognitive systems, stages of development, and species. Our letter formulates open research questions for cognitive science concerning the varieties of rules and representations that underwrite various LoT-based systems (...) and how these variations can help researchers taxonomize cognitive systems. (shrink)

Young children with limited knowledge of formal mathematics can intuitively perform basic arithmetic‐like operations over nonsymbolic, approximate representations of quantity. However, the algorithmic rules that guide such nonsymbolic operations are not entirely clear. We asked whether nonsymbolic arithmetic operations have a function‐like structure, like symbolic arithmetic. Children (n = 74 4‐ to ‐8‐year‐olds in Experiment 1; n = 52 7‐ to 8‐year‐olds in Experiment 2) first solved two nonsymbolic arithmetic problems. We then showed children two unequal sets of objects, and (...) asked children which of the two derived solutions should be added to the smaller of the two sets to make them “about the same.” We hypothesized that, if nonsymbolic arithmetic follows similar function rules to symbolic arithmetic, then children should be able to use the solutions of nonsymbolic computations as inputs into another nonsymbolic problem. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that children were unable to reliably do so, suggesting that these solutions may not operate as independent representations that can be used inputs into other nonsymbolic computations. These results suggest that nonsymbolic and symbolic arithmetic computations are algorithmically distinct, which may limit the extent to which children can leverage nonsymbolic arithmetic intuitions to acquire formal mathematics knowledge. (shrink)

A science of prelinguistic infant cognition must take seriously the language-of-thought (LoT) hypothesis. I show how the LoT framework enables us to identify the representational and computational capacities of infant minds and the developmental factors that act on these capacities, and explain how Quilty-Dunn et al.'s take on LoT has important upshots for developmental theory-building.