Abstract<br>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 non-invasive 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.Significance<br>Which cognitive mechanisms allow humans to reason logically, to understand whether a conclusion follows from the premises? Are they the same ones that allow the assembly of words into structured representations? Scholars have debated for millennia whether logical reasoning is inextricably tied to natural language, or instead relies on a distinct “language of thought” (LOT). Using fMRI in healthy adults and evaluating logical ability in individuals with severe aphasia, we find that distinct neural systems support language processing vs. logical (inductive and deductive) reasoning. These results suggest that, at least in mature brains, language processing does not underpin logical inference, perhaps due to the distinct representational format of the logical LOT." />
800 individuals. Sci Data 9, 529 (2022)." />
Evidence from Formal Logical Reasoning Reveals that the Language of Thought is not Natural Language | bioRxiv
Skip to main content
Search for this keyword
Advanced Search
New Results
Evidence from Formal Logical Reasoning Reveals that the Language of Thought is not Natural Language
View ORCID ProfileHope Kean, View ORCID ProfileAlexander Fung, View ORCID ProfileParis Jaggers, Jason Chen, Joshua S. Rule, View ORCID ProfileYael Benn, Joshua B. Tenenbaum, Steven T. Piantadosi, View ORCID ProfileRosemary A. Varley, View ORCID ProfileEvelina Fedorenko
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.07.26.666979
Hope Kean<br>1Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>2McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site<br>ORCID record for Hope Kean<br>For correspondence:<br>hopekean{at}mit.edu<br>evelina9{at}mit.edu
Alexander Fung<br>1Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>2McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site<br>ORCID record for Alexander Fung
Paris Jaggers<br>3Department of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site<br>ORCID record for Paris Jaggers
Jason Chen<br>1Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site
Joshua S. Rule<br>1Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology<br>5Department of Psychology, UC Berkeley
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site
Yael Benn<br>4Department of Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site<br>ORCID record for Yael Benn
Joshua B. Tenenbaum<br>1Department of Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site
Steven T. Piantadosi<br>5Department of Psychology, UC Berkeley
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on PubMed<br>Search for this author on this site
Rosemary A. Varley<br>3Department of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London
Find this author on Google Scholar<br>Find this author on...