Challenging the Primacy of Mentalese: the Role of Natural Language in the Creation of New Words
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/az1s6j18Keywords:
Language of Thought Hypothesis; Mentalese; natural language; new words.Abstract
This paper aims to challenge Steven Pinker's argument that new words are primarily rooted in mentalese instead of in natural language. The significance of this research falls into its exploration of the deep interaction between thought and language, which is a long-standing topic in both the philosophy, linguistics, and cognitive science area. By examining the economics of language, language socialization, and sound symbolism, through an analysis of portmanteaus, political terminologies, literary expressions, fan fiction, and brand names, the paper argues that natural language, significantly shapes thought and language creation with its adaptability, socio-cultural influence, and phonetic features. This refutation of Pinker’s position not only contributes to the broader debate on the relationship between language and thought, but also sheds light on the mechanisms of linguistic innovation. Ultimately, this study reaffirms the pivotal role of natural language in shaping both thought and communication.
Downloads
References
[1] Fodor, J. A. (1975). The Language of Thought. Harvard University Press
[2] Pinker, S. (2007). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. Penguin UK, 55-82.
[3] Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: an Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge: Addison Wesley.
[4] Silby, B. (2000). Revealing the language of thought. PhilPapers. Retrieved August, from https://philpapers.org/archive/SILRTL, 71.
[5] Si, F. (2018). On the Theoretical Framework of Classification of English Word formation. Journal of Huaqiao University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), (03), 153.
[6] Gries, S. T. (2004) Shouldn’t It Be Breakfunch? A quantitative Analysis of Blend Structure in English. Linguistics, 42(3), 639-667.
[7] Wang, Y. (2023). A study on the formation of new words in contemporary English: a study based on the language economics and language sociology of the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Lexicographical Studies, (06), 94.
[8] He, Z. (2007). New Development in Pragmatics: Relevance, Adaptation and Memetics. ShangHai Education Publishing House, 142.
[9] Yorkston, E., & Menon, G. (2004). A Sound Idea: Phonetic Effects of Brand Names on Consumer Judgments, Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 31, Issue 1, June 2004, 43–51, https://doi.org/10.1086/383422.
[10] Cole, D. (1999). I don’t think so: Pinker on the mentalese monopoly. Philosophical Psychology, 12(3), 283–295.
[11] Pathak, A., Velasco, C., & Spence, C. J. (2019). The sound of branding: an analysis of the initial phonemes of popular brand names. Journal of Brand Management, 27(3), 339-354.
[12] Klink, R. R. (2003). Creating meaningful brands: the relationship between brand name and brand mark. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 143–157.
[13] Pathak, A., Calvert, G. A., & Lim, L. K. S. (2020). Harsh voices, sound branding: How voiced consonants in a brand's name can alter its perceived attributes. Psychology & Marketing, 37(6), 837–847.
[14] Ye, W., Xu, S., & Zhou, X. (2024). Impact of repeated two-syllable brand names on consumer ethical responses in different moral contexts: A mind perception theory perspective. Acta Psychologica Sinica, (05), 665.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
