@article {Viger:2005:0268-1064:313,
title = "Learning to Think: A Response to the Language of Thought Argument for Innateness",
journal = "Mind & Language",
parent_itemid = "infobike://bpl/mila",
publishercode ="bp",
year = "2005",
volume = "20",
number = "3",
publication date ="2005-06-01T00:00:00",
pages = "313-325",
itemtype = "ARTICLE",
issn = "0268-1064",
eissn = "1468-0017",
url = "https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/mila/2005/00000020/00000003/art00003",
doi = "doi:10.1111/j.0268-1064.2005.00287.x",
author = "Viger, Christopher",
abstract = "Abstract: Jerry Fodor's argument for an innate language of thought continues to be a hurdle for researchers arguing that natural languages provide us with richer conceptual systems than our innate cognitive resources. I argue that because the logical/formal terms of natural languages are given a usetheory of meaning, unlike predicates, logical/formal terms might be learned without a mediating internal representation. In that case, our innate representational system might have less logical structure than a natural language, making it possible that we augment our innate representational system and improve our ability to think by learning a natural language.",
}