When doing a research action plan students in school would know that the first thing to do is to know your topic well enough. From expecting science projects to work based on your predictions and the results that may have been quite the opposite from how you depicted them. This also rings true in businesses. There is a term for that and it is often associated with the subject Science, but can also be associated with business . Scientific method or a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a scientific wild guess, a prediction in research . A wild guess, a say from someone without any known proof. A hypothesis can also mean a scientific, educated guess that most scientists and researchers do before planning out or doing experiments to check if their guesses or their scientific ideas based on their topics are exact or correct.
A well-structured hypothesis is crucial for guiding scientific research. Here’s a detailed format for writing a hypothesis, along with examples for each step:
Before writing a hypothesis, begin with a clear and concise research question . This question identifies the focus of your study.
Example Research Question: Does the amount of daily exercise affect weight loss?
Identify the independent and dependent variables in your research question.
Use the identified variables to create a testable statement . This statement should clearly express the expected relationship between the variables.
Research question: does caffeine affect cognitive performance, if-then statement:.
Non-directional hypothesis:.
Ensure that your hypothesis is specific, measurable, and testable. Avoid vague terms and focus on a single independent and dependent variable.
A hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables. It serves as a foundation for research by providing a clear focus and direction for experiments and data analysis . Here are examples of hypotheses from various fields of research:
Does sunlight exposure affect plant growth?
Does sleep duration affect memory retention?
Do interactive teaching methods improve student engagement?
Does a new drug reduce blood pressure more effectively than the standard medication?
Does socioeconomic status affect access to higher education?
Psychology research often explores the relationships between various cognitive, behavioral, and emotional variables. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in psychology:
Does regular exercise reduce anxiety levels?
Does social media usage affect self-esteem in teenagers?
Is Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) effective in reducing symptoms of depression?
Does parental involvement influence academic achievement in children?
Scientific research often involves creating hypotheses to test the relationships between variables. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples from various fields of science:
Does temperature affect the rate of a chemical reaction?
Does the mass of an object affect its speed when falling?
Do chemical fertilizers affect water quality in nearby lakes?
Does soil composition affect the rate of erosion?
In biology, hypotheses are used to explore relationships and effects within biological systems. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in various areas of biology:
How does light intensity affect the rate of photosynthesis in plants?
How does temperature affect the activity of the enzyme amylase?
Does the availability of nutrients in soil affect the growth of plants?
Does genetic variation in a population affect its resistance to diseases?
Does the pH level of water affect the health of aquatic life?
In sociology, hypotheses are used to explore and explain social phenomena, behaviors, and relationships within societies. Here are some well-structured hypothesis examples in various areas of sociology:
Does access to higher education affect social mobility?
Does income inequality influence crime rates in urban areas?
Does the use of social media affect face-to-face social interactions among teenagers?
Do traditional gender roles influence career choices among young adults?
Does cultural diversity in the workplace affect productivity levels?
1. research hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested and is often used in scientific research to propose a relationship between two or more variables. Understanding the different types of hypotheses is essential for conducting effective research. Below are the main types of hypotheses:
The null hypothesis states that there is no relationship between the variables being studied. It assumes that any observed effect is due to chance. Researchers often aim to disprove the null hypothesis.
Example: There is no significant difference in test scores between students who study with music and those who study in silence.
The alternative hypothesis suggests that there is a relationship between the variables being studied. It is what researchers seek to prove.
Example: Students who study with music have higher test scores than those who study in silence.
A simple hypothesis predicts a relationship between a single independent variable and a single dependent variable.
Example: Increasing the amount of sunlight will increase the growth rate of plants.
A complex hypothesis predicts a relationship involving two or more independent variables and/or two or more dependent variables.
Example: Increasing sunlight and water will increase the growth rate and height of plants.
A directional hypothesis specifies the direction of the expected relationship between variables. It suggests whether the relationship is positive or negative.
Example: Students who study for more hours will score higher on exams.
A non-directional hypothesis does not specify the direction of the relationship. It only states that a relationship exists.
Example: There is a difference in test scores between students who study with music and those who study in silence.
A statistical hypothesis involves quantitative data and can be tested using statistical methods. It often includes both null and alternative hypotheses.
Example: The mean test scores of students who study with music are significantly different from those who study in silence.
A causal hypothesis proposes a cause-and-effect relationship between variables. It suggests that one variable causes a change in another.
Example: Smoking causes lung cancer.
An associative hypothesis suggests that variables are related but does not imply causation.
Example: There is an association between physical activity levels and body weight.
A research hypothesis is a broad statement that serves as the foundation for the research study. It is often the same as the alternative hypothesis.
Example: Implementing a new teaching strategy will improve student engagement and performance.
A hypothesis is a critical component of the research process, providing a clear direction for the study and forming the basis for drawing conclusions. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to use a hypothesis in research:
Before formulating a hypothesis, clearly define the research problem or question. This step involves understanding what you aim to investigate and why it is significant.
Example: You want to study the impact of sleep on academic performance among college students.
Conduct a thorough review of existing literature to understand what is already known about the topic. This helps in identifying gaps in knowledge and forming a basis for your hypothesis.
Example: Previous studies suggest a positive correlation between sleep duration and academic performance but lack specific data on college students.
Based on the research problem and literature review, formulate a clear and testable hypothesis. Ensure it is specific and relates directly to the variables being studied.
Clearly define the independent and dependent variables involved in the hypothesis.
Choose an appropriate research design to test the hypothesis. This could be experimental, correlational, or observational, depending on the nature of your research question.
Example: Conduct a correlational study to examine the relationship between sleep duration and GPA among college students.
Gather data through surveys, experiments, or secondary data sources. Ensure the data collection methods are reliable and valid to accurately test the hypothesis.
Example: Use a questionnaire to collect data on students’ sleep duration and their GPAs.
Use appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data. This step involves testing the hypothesis to determine whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis.
Example: Perform a Pearson correlation analysis to examine the relationship between sleep duration and GPA.
Interpret the results of the statistical analysis. Determine if the data supports the alternative hypothesis or if the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.
Example: If the analysis shows a significant positive correlation, you can reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that sleep duration is related to academic performance.
Draw conclusions based on the results of the hypothesis testing. Discuss the implications of the findings and how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
Example: Conclude that longer sleep duration is associated with higher GPA among college students and discuss potential implications for student health and academic policies.
Write a detailed report or research paper presenting the hypothesis, methodology, results, and conclusions. Share your findings with the academic community or relevant stakeholders.
Example: Publish the study in a peer-reviewed journal or present it at an academic conference.
Writing a hypothesis is a crucial step in the scientific method. A well-constructed hypothesis guides your research, helping you design experiments and analyze results. Here’s a step-by-step guide on how to write an effective hypothesis:
Start by clearly understanding the research question or problem you want to address. This helps in formulating a focused hypothesis.
Example: How does sunlight exposure affect plant growth?
Review existing literature related to your research question. This helps in understanding what is already known and identifying gaps in knowledge.
Example: Studies show that plants generally grow better with more sunlight, but the optimal amount varies.
Determine the independent and dependent variables for your study.
A simple hypothesis involves one independent and one dependent variable. Clearly state the expected relationship between these variables.
Example: Increasing sunlight exposure will increase plant growth.
Decide whether your hypothesis will be null or alternative, directional or non-directional.
Example of Directional Hypothesis: Plants exposed to more sunlight will grow taller than those exposed to less sunlight.
Make sure your hypothesis can be tested through experiments or observations. It should be measurable and falsifiable.
Example: Plants will be grown under different levels of sunlight, and their growth will be measured over time.
Write your hypothesis in a clear, concise, and specific manner. It should include the variables and the expected relationship between them.
Example: If plants are exposed to increased sunlight, then they will grow taller compared to plants that receive less sunlight.
Ensure that your hypothesis is specific and narrow enough to be testable but broad enough to cover the scope of your research.
Example: If tomato plants are exposed to 8 hours of sunlight per day, then they will grow taller and produce more fruit compared to tomato plants exposed to 4 hours of sunlight per day.
To formulate a hypothesis, identify the research question, review existing literature, define variables, and create a testable statement predicting the relationship between the variables.
The null hypothesis (H0) states there is no effect or relationship, while the alternative hypothesis (H1) proposes that there is an effect or relationship.
A hypothesis provides a clear focus for the study, guiding the research design, data collection, and analysis, ultimately helping to draw meaningful conclusions.
A hypothesis cannot be proven true; it can only be supported or refuted through experimentation and analysis. Even if supported, it remains open to further testing.
A good hypothesis is clear, concise, specific, testable, and based on existing knowledge. It should predict a relationship between variables that can be measured.
A hypothesis is tested through experiments or observations, collecting and analyzing data to determine if the results support or refute the hypothesis.
Types of hypotheses include null, alternative, simple, complex, directional, non-directional, statistical, causal, and associative.
A directional hypothesis specifies the expected direction of the relationship between variables, indicating whether the effect will be positive or negative.
A non-directional hypothesis states that a relationship exists between variables but does not specify the direction of the relationship.
Refine a hypothesis by ensuring it is specific, measurable, and testable. Remove any vague terms and focus on a single independent and dependent variable.
Text prompt
10 Examples of Public speaking
20 Examples of Gas lighting
(Entry 1 of 2)
Definition of research (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
intransitive verb
These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'research.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.
Middle French recerche , from recercher to go about seeking, from Old French recerchier , from re- + cerchier, sercher to search — more at search
1577, in the meaning defined at sense 3
1588, in the meaning defined at transitive sense 1
research and development
Cite this entry.
“Research.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/research. Accessed 26 Jun. 2024.
Kids definition of research.
Kids Definition of research (Entry 2 of 2)
Nglish: Translation of research for Spanish Speakers
Britannica English: Translation of research for Arabic Speakers
Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about research
Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!
Word of the day.
See Definitions and Examples »
Get Word of the Day daily email!
Plural and possessive names: a guide, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, birds say the darndest things, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), games & quizzes.
Skip navigation
Synthetic users: if, when, and how to use ai-generated “research”.
June 21, 2024 2024-06-21
Of the new AI-based tools flooding the landscape of user and product research, few have caused as much debate as AI-generated users — also known as “synthetic users”.
What are synthetic users, cost-saving solution or the dawn of a research apocalypse, valid use case for synthetic research: desk research, limitations of synthetic users, how to use fake findings responsibly, is fake research better than no research.
A synthetic user is an AI-generated profile that attempts to mimic a user group, providing artificial research findings produced without studying real users. A synthetic user will express simulated thoughts, needs, and experiences.
A synthetic user is based on large language models (LLMs) that have been trained on vast amounts of data about people.
While general-purpose AI chatbots like ChatGPT can be used to create synthetic users, there are also dedicated AI-based platforms designed for this task — perhaps the most famous being the company named Synthetic Users . (In this article, we use capitalization to refer to this company’s product and lowercase to refer to the concept of synthetic users.)
In a conversation with Hugo Alves, cofounder of Synthetic Users, we learned about the product's practical applications. According to Alves, Synthetic Users is particularly useful in scenarios where swift decision making is crucial and absolute certainty isn't required. The tool allows teams to access the thoughts, reflections, and emotions of specific user groups, providing timely and frequent access to user insights.
At first glance, a Synthetic Users’ synthetic user profile looks similar to a user persona—it contains demographic details like a name, age, and education level. Like a persona, such a profile is intended to be an imaginary representation of a real group of people. However, unlike a persona, the profile is “alive” — meaning that you can chat with it.
To generate these AI-generated users, you specify the user group and the goal of your study.
Example User Group:
Medical-detailing representatives who work in Latin America
Example Goal:
How do medical-detailing representatives work?
The product then uses some dynamic parameters to create different users and uses the study goals to craft interview questions. Within a few seconds, your synthetic users have been created, and interview transcripts are ready to read. Synthetic Users provides the ability to ask followup questions and continue the interview (which we tried).
We have long argued that UX without user research isn’t UX . But, we did not anticipate that people would attempt to conduct user research without real users. We need to rephrase our slogan:
UX without real- user research isn’t UX.
In our interview, Alves stressed that he does not intend for his product to replace user research completely.
“You're never gonna stop talking to real people and you shouldn't. You shouldn't. There are some decisions that you shouldn't even go to synthetic users. You should just go to humans.” Hugo Alves, cofounder of Synthetic Users
However, the current marketing copy on the Synthetic Users site does not clearly reflect that stance.
If you know NN/g, you know that we never recommend that teams skip user research. Research with real people provides many intrinsic benefits; for example, it creates empathy and builds a vivid representation of the user in each team member’s mind (something reading a transcript from a synthetic user does not adequately do).
Putting those benefits aside, we tested synthetic users to see if there was a qualitative difference in the insights gained from real users compared to synthetic ones.
We used Synthetic Users and ChatGPT to generate synthetic users and insights for three studies we had performed with real users. Currently, these tools are limited to replicating text-based attitudinal methods, specifically interviews and surveys. In our evaluation, we focused on interviews.
In Synthetic Users, we specified the user group and the goals for our research. The tool then generated fake people and performed simulated interviews for us.
Since ChatGPT doesn’t generate the same outputs as Synthetic Users without a lot of prompting, we began each synthetic user interview with a prompt that asked the chatbot to pretend to be a particular person.
Example prompt used with ChatGPT: Pretend you are a medical detailing representative working in Bogotá, Colombia. For some context: You've been working in the role for 6 years. Your day-to-day work involves meeting with doctors in hospitals and clinics around Bogota. You use a CRM solution that helps you track and plan your doctor visits. Pretend you are a participant in a user research session. I will be the interviewer.
While ChatGPT and Synthetic Users produced similar content, speaking with a synthetic user generated by Synthetic Users felt a bit more like speaking to a person (although the responses were still very unhuman and wordy).
Our experimentation revealed some interesting possible use cases for synthetic users. However, we also found the results to be much less useful than many UX and product professionals claim.
When used responsibly by mature research teams, AI-generated user profiles can complement real user research.
One of the advantages of a synthetic user is that it can synthesize vast amounts of available data about a specific user group and present it in a digestible way.
For example, there are products and systems designed to support the work of medical-detailing representatives, academic literature regarding medical detailing, forums dedicated to medical-detailing representatives, and more. LLMs have been trained on all this data. When we asked a synthetic medical-detailing representative to describe a typical day, the result was very similar to what real users told us in our study.
Response from a synthetic user: Sure, I'd be happy to. My day usually starts around 7 AM when I go over my schedule and prepare for the meetings I have lined up with doctors and healthcare professionals. First, I make sure I have all the necessary materials —brochures, samples of cardiovascular drugs and antibiotics, and any follow-up information from previous visits. I aim to be very organized and prepared because it helps in establishing trust and reliability with the doctors I meet. By 8 AM, I'm usually on the road, visiting clinics and hospitals across Bogotá. I typically have about five to six appointments daily, where I discuss the latest research and benefits of the products I'm detailing. A crucial part of my job is building strong relationships, so I always make it a point to understand the specific needs of each healthcare professional and tailor my conversations accordingly. This might involve bringing personalized gifts or simply remembering details about their practice that show I’m paying attention. ( Generated by Synthetic Users)
Synthetic users could support researchers and designers working on projects in completely new domains. They could be a useful starting place for identifying points of discussion that might crop up in real-user-research sessions.
A synthetic user can be useful if researchers treat the output as a hypothesis to guide future research.
There are many limitations to AI-generated research that pose extreme risks to teams relying on AI to fill in for users. In fact, there are too many for this article.
In the sections below, we discuss the limitations that we think will continue to exist regardless of near-term enhancements to these models and products.
AI chatbots have a tendency to want to please (known as sycophancy ) and they do not always model human behavior well . For example, Jeff Sauro and his colleagues found that ChatGPT was not an acceptable replacement for real users in tree testing , because it vastly outperformed most real people.
In our recent study of online training, a common theme was that learners (despite their good intentions) often start online training but don’t complete it. When we asked our synthetic users whether they completed all the courses they had taken, they responded (overoptimistically) that they had.
|
|
This tendency for idealization was a theme we observed over and over.
For example, most participants in our self-paced-learning study reported not using discussion forums for their courses because they found the interactions contrived and not useful.
However, our synthetic users viewed them favorably and argued that this feature would be important to them in an online learning environment.
Real interviewer: Have you contributed to any forums (when they were available) when you were taking a course? Synthetic user response: Yes, I have actively participated in forums and discussion boards when taking online courses. I've found that contributing to these forums is not only a way to deepen my understanding of the course material but also an opportunity to connect with fellow learners from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. [Four more paragraphs about how the synthetic user asked questions and shared their professional experience and resources, and how they felt a sense of community via the forums] (Generated by Synthetic Users)
The large discrepancy between what real and synthetic users told us in these two examples is due to two factors:
UX research explores human behavior. We need to hear about real human experiences to understand why people make specific choices, what specific contextual factors influence behavior, what’s important, and when. This cannot be learned through currently available synthetic users.
One reason we do user research is to identify which problems need to be solved and their priority. Synthetic users readily generate a long list of needs or pain points, with only a limited understanding of their priority.
For example, when a synthetic user was asked what makes an online course engaging, they responded with 7 factors. (For brevity’s sake, we include the full text for the first factor only.)
Interactive Content: Courses that include interactive elements such as quizzes, exercises, and practical projects engage me more deeply than those that are purely lecture-based. Interaction not only helps in reinforcing the learning but also makes the experience more dynamic and enjoyable. Real-World Applications High-Quality Materials Community and Instructor Interaction Personalized Learning Paths Feedback and Progress Tracking Flexibility (Generated by Synthetic Users)
Real people care about some things more than others. Synthetic users seem to care about everything. This is not helpful for feature prioritization or persona creation.
In addition, the factors are too shallow to be useful . For example, the synthetic user lists quizzes, exercises, and practical projects as examples of interactive content, but which is better? When? Why? How can they be done well or poorly? All these questions remain unanswered, and further probing leads to further vague responses. We are left knowing that these are common needs of all online learners but have no idea how to address them or what each factor looks like. To know this, we’d have to study real users, watch them interact with real courses, and hear real stories from them.
Synthetic research cannot produce behavioral data . AI can’t actually use a product like a human does (at least for now), so it certainly cannot have specific experiences.
As a result, fake users’ profiles tend to be more accurate in their opinions than their stories about their “past experiences.”
Some UX and product professionals are turning to synthetic users to validate or product concepts or solution ideas. Synthetic Users offers the ability to run a concept test: you describe a potential solution and have your synthetic users respond to it.
This is incredibly risky. ( Validating concepts in this way is risky even with human participants, but even worse with AI.) Since AI loves to please, every idea is often seen as a good one.
Interviewer: Our team is also thinking about creating another application that could allow reps to deliver samples by drone. Would this be something you would use? Synthetic user: [after pointing out pros and cons] As a medical detailing rep, I would find this application very useful, especially for delivering samples to doctors quickly and efficiently. The time saved from not having to deliver samples personally would allow me to focus more on building relationships and providing detailed product information to doctors. Additionally, the ability to fulfill urgent sample requests promptly would enhance the service quality we provide to healthcare professionals. If implemented well, this drone delivery system could be a game-changer, improving efficiency, reducing costs, and providing a modern, high-tech solution to sample delivery. (Generated by ChatGPT)
We found our synthetic users' feedback was often favorable and vague. Recognizing this issue, Alves and his team have invested substantial time and energy in reducing the AI's tendency to agree with its interlocutors or provide generic responses. Still, sycophancy remains an ongoing challenge.
Product teams should avoid using AI as a litmus test for ideas and should instead seek feedback from real users to have confidence that solutions warrant investment. That being said, a synthetic user could point out helpful considerations to bear in mind when exploring a solution.
If your team plans to use synthetic research, here’s how we recommend doing it safely, to maximize its benefits and avoid its risks.
This question has been the subject of much debate within NN/g and also in the broader community. If a team does not have the ability to conduct real research (due to resources, skills, or inability to access its user population), are synthetic users better than nothing?
In terms of learning something about your users, synthetic research may be better than no research at all. The problem is that some of what you learn will be inaccurate or misrepresentative, and without real research, you won’t catch and correct those inaccuracies.
Making decisions without real-user research is dangerous. You run the risk that you’ll make an incorrect design or business decision and move forward, investing time and money, only to find out (too late) that it was a mistake.
We’re also extremely concerned about the likelihood that teams that start with synthetic research will get too comfortable and won’t move on to real-user research. If stakeholders feel that they’re getting some insight for a tiny investment, justifying the need for investing in real research may become difficult. And, if and when those fake findings prove to be incorrect, they could permanently damage the company’s understanding of the value of user-centered research and design.
The synthetic-user debate feels similar to another contentious argument around AI-generated fake friends and romantic partners. On one hand, these simulated human interactions serve an important purpose — they can alleviate loneliness. While alleviating loneliness can be extremely beneficial, does it damage someone’s long-term ability to build relationships with humans? Over time, will they run the risk of becoming dependent on their always accommodating fake friend, and incapable (or unwilling) to forge a real relationship (with all the messy human inconveniences that it entails)?
While using synthetic users seems alluring, relying on them too much can be harmful to your organization and product. UX professionals and product teams should be wary of insights produced by synthetic users and treat them as hypotheses that need testing. Synthetic users can be used to help with initial desk research about new user groups and to generate hypotheses and ideas that should be tested through research with real people.
Jeff Sauro, Will Schiavone, and Jim Lewis. 2024. Using ChatGPT in Tree Testing: Experimental Results. MeasuringU . Retrieved from https://measuringu.com/chatgpt4-tree-test/ .
Mrinank Sharma et al., 2023. Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models. arXiv:2310.13548. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.13548
Practical ai for ux professionals.
Leverage artificial intelligence tools to enhance your UX work and save valuable time
Interaction
You're Not Too Late to Use AI
Caleb Sponheim · 3 min
AI Isn't Ready for UX Design
AI on Intranets: 5 Valuable Features
Anna Kaley · 3 min
CARE: Structure for Crafting AI Prompts
Kate Moran · 9 min
Promptframes: Evolving the Wireframe for the Age of AI
Evan Sunwall · 12 min
Design Taste vs. Technical Skills in the Era of AI
Sarah Gibbons and Kate Moran · 4 min
AI UX-Design Tools Are Not Ready for Primetime: Status Update
Caleb Sponheim and Megan Brown · 6 min
Planning Research with Generative AI
Maria Rosala · 7 min
New Users Need Support with Generative-AI Tools
Feifei Liu · 8 min
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Nature volume 630 , pages 575–586 ( 2024 ) Cite this article
12k Accesses
857 Altmetric
Metrics details
Language is a defining characteristic of our species, but the function, or functions, that it serves has been debated for centuries. Here we bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied disciplines to argue that in modern humans, language is a tool for communication, contrary to a prominent view that we use language for thinking. We begin by introducing the brain network that supports linguistic ability in humans. We then review evidence for a double dissociation between language and thought, and discuss several properties of language that suggest that it is optimized for communication. We conclude that although the emergence of language has unquestionably transformed human culture, language does not appear to be a prerequisite for complex thought, including symbolic thought. Instead, language is a powerful tool for the transmission of cultural knowledge; it plausibly co-evolved with our thinking and reasoning capacities, and only reflects, rather than gives rise to, the signature sophistication of human cognition.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
24,99 € / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
185,98 € per year
only 3,65 € per issue
Buy this article
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Barham, L. & Everett, D. Semiotics and the origin of language in the Lower Palaeolithic. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 28 , 535–579 (2021).
Article Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. The origin of speech. Sci. Am. 203 , 88–97 (1960). A classic overview of the relationship between key features of human language and communication systems found in other species, with a focus on distinctive and shared properties .
Jackendoff, R. & Pinker, S. The faculty of language: what’s special about it? Cognition 95 , 201–236 (2005).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R. Language in the Light of Evolution: Volume 1, The Origins of Meaning (Oxford Univ. Press, 2007).
Kirby, S., Cornish, H. & Smith, K. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: an experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 10681–10686 (2008). This behavioural investigation introduces an experimental paradigm based on iterated learning of artificial languages for studying the cultural evolution of language; the findings suggest that languages evolve to maximize their transmissibility by becoming easier to learn and more structured .
Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Seyfarth, R. M. & Cheney, D. L. The Social Origins of Language (Princeton Univ. Press, 2018).
Gibson, E. et al. How efficiency shapes human language. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23 , 389–407 (2019).
Chomsky, N. The Minimalist Program (MIT Press, 1995).
Carruthers, P. The cognitive functions of language. Behav. Brain Sci. 25 , 657–674 (2002). This comprehensive review discusses diverse language-for-thought views and puts forward a specific proposal whereby language has a critical role in cross-domain integration .
Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (MIT Press, 2003).
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. & Levinson, S. C. Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8 , 108–114 (2004).
Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language (MIT Press, 2012).
Lupyan, G. The centrality of language in human cognition. Lang. Learn. 66 , 516–553 (2016).
Davidson, D. in Mind and Language (ed. Guttenplan, S.) 1975–1977 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1975).
Dummett, M. Origins of Analytical Philosophy (Harvard Univ. Press, 1994).
Gleitman, L. & Papafragou, A. in The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (eds Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. G.) 633–661 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).
de Villiers, J. in Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (eds Baron-Cohen, S. et al.) 83–123 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2000).
Gentner, D. in Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought (eds Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S.) 3–14 (MIT Press, 2003). This position piece articulates one version of a language-for-thought hypothesis, whereby human intelligence is due to a combination of our analogical reasoning ability, possession of symbolic representations, and the ability of relational language to improve analogical reasoning abilities .
Buller, D. J. Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature (MIT Press, 2005).
Gould, S. J. & Vrba, E. S. Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8 , 4–15 (1982).
Shannon, C. E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27 , 379–423 (1948). This article introduces a formal framework for systems of information transfer, with core concepts such as channel capacity, and lays a foundation for the field of information theory .
Article MathSciNet Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure (Univ. Chicago Press, 1995).
Jackendoff, R. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002).
Geschwind, N. The organization of language and the brain: language disorders after brain damage help in elucidating the neural basis of verbal behavior. Science 170 , 940–944 (1970).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6 , 78–84 (2002).
Bates, E. et al. Voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping. Nat. Neurosci. 6 , 448–450 (2003).
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing. Science 366 , 55–58 (2019).
Fedorenko, E., Ivanova, A. I. & Regev, T. I. The language network as a natural kind within the broader landscape of the human brain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 25 , 289–312 (2024).
Neville, H. J. et al. Cerebral organization for language in deaf and hearing subjects: biological constraints and effects of experience. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95 , 922–929 (1998).
Fedorenko, E., Hsieh, P.-J., Nieto-Castañon, A., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S. & Kanwisher, N. A new method for fMRI investigations of language: defining ROIs functionally in individual subjects. J. Neurophysiol. 104 , 1177–1194 (2010).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Vagharchakian, L., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Pallier, C. & Dehaene, S. A temporal bottleneck in the language comprehension network. J. Neurosci. 32 , 9089–9102 (2012).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Regev, M., Honey, C. J., Simony, E. & Hasson, U. Selective and invariant neural responses to spoken and written narratives. J. Neurosci. 33 , 15978–15988 (2013).
Hu, J. et al. Precision fMRI reveals that the language-selective network supports both phrase-structure building and lexical access during language production. Cereb. Cortex 33 , 4384–4404 (2022).
Article PubMed Central Google Scholar
Menenti, L., Gierhan, S. M. E., Segaert, K. & Hagoort, P. Shared language: overlap and segregation of the neuronal infrastructure for speaking and listening revealed by functional MRI. Psychol. Sci. 22 , 1173–1182 (2011). This fMRI investigation establishes that language comprehension and language production draw on the same brain areas in the left frontal and temporal cortex .
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298 , 1569–1579 (2002).
Pallier, C., Devauchelle, A. D. & Dehaene, S. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 2522–2527 (2011).
Bozic, M., Fonteneau, E., Su, L. & Marslen‐Wilson, W. D. Grammatical analysis as a distributed neurobiological function. Hum. Brain Mapp. 36 , 1190–1201 (2015).
Rodd, J. M., Vitello, S., Woollams, A. M. & Adank, P. Localising semantic and syntactic processing in spoken and written language comprehension: an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis. Brain Lang. 141 , 89–102 (2015).
Blank, I., Balewski, Z., Mahowald, K. & Fedorenko, E. Syntactic processing is distributed across the language system. NeuroImage 127 , 307–323 (2016).
Fedorenko, E. et al. Neural correlate of the construction of sentence meaning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113 , E6256–E6262 (2016).
Nelson, M. J. et al. Neurophysiological dynamics of phrase-structure building during sentence processing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , E3669–E3678 (2017).
Fedorenko, E., Blank, I. A., Siegelman, M. & Mineroff, Z. Lack of selectivity for syntax relative to word meanings throughout the language network. Cognition 203 , 104348 (2020). This fMRI investigation establishes that every part of the language network that is sensitive to syntactic structure building is also sensitive to word meanings and comprehensively reviews literature relevant to the syntax selectivity debate .
Giglio, L., Ostarek, M. O., Weber, K. & Hagoort, P. Commonalities and asymmetries in the neurobiological infrastructure for language production and comprehension. Cereb. Cortex 32 , 1405–1418 (2022).
Heilbron, M., Armeni, K., Schoffelen, J. M., Hagoort, P. & De Lange, F. P. A hierarchy of linguistic predictions during natural language comprehension. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2201968119 (2022).
Shain, C., Blank, I. A., Fedorenko, E., Gibson, E. & Schuler, W. Robust effects of working memory demand during naturalistic language comprehension in language-selective cortex. J. Neurosci. 42 , 7412–7430 (2022).
Desbordes, T. et al. Dimensionality and ramping: signatures of sentence integration in the dynamics of brains and deep language models. J. Neurosci. 43 , 5350–5364 (2023).
Shain, C. et al. Distributed sensitivity to syntax and semantics throughout the language network. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22 , 1–43 (2024). This fMRI investigation establishes distributed sensitivity to cognitive demands associated with lexical access, syntactic structure building and semantic composition across the language network.
Tuckute, G. et al. Driving and suppressing the human language network using large language models. Nat. Hum. Behav. 8 , 544–561 (2024).
Gentner, D. Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn. Sci. 7 , 155–170 (1983).
Google Scholar
Duncan, J. How Intelligence Happens (Yale Univ. Press, 2012).
Varley, R. A., Klessinger, N. J., Romanowski, C. A. & Siegal, M. Agrammatic but numerate. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 , 3519–3524 (2005). Patients with acquired damage to the language network display aphasia and linguistic deficits (including severe grammatical difficulties) but perform at the level of neurotypical control participants on diverse numerical reasoning tasks .
Klessinger, N., Szczerbinski, M. & Varley, R. Algebra in a man with severe aphasia. Neuropsychologia 45 , 1642–1648 (2007).
Lecours, A. & Joanette, Y. Linguistic and other psychological aspects of paroxysmal aphasia. Brain and Language 10 , 1–23 (1980).
Kertesz, A. in Thought Without Language (ed. Weiskrantz, L.) 451–463 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988).
Varley, R. & Siegal, M. Evidence for cognition without grammar from causal reasoning and ‘theory of mind’ in an agrammatic aphasic patient. Curr. Biol. 10 , 723–726 (2000).
Siegal, M., Varley, R. & Want, S. C. Mind over grammar: reasoning in aphasia and development. Trends Cogn. Sci. 5 , 296–301 (2001).
Varley, R. In Cognitive Bases of Science (eds Carruthers, P. et al.) 99–116 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
Woolgar, A., Duncan, J., Manes, F. & Fedorenko, E. Fluid intelligence is supported by the multiple-demand system not the language system. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 200–204 (2018).
Dronkers, N. F., Ludy, C. A. & Redfern, B. B. Pragmatics in the absence of verbal language: descriptions of a severe aphasic and a language-deprived adult. J. Neurolinguistics 11 , 179–190 (1998).
Varley, R., Siegal, M. & Want, S. C. Severe impairment in grammar does not preclude theory of mind. Neurocase 7 , 489–493 (2001).
Apperly, I. A., Samson, D., Carroll, N., Hussain, S. & Humphreys, G. Intact first-and second-order false belief reasoning in a patient with severely impaired grammar. Soc. Neurosci. 1 , 334–348 (2006). A person with acquired damage to the language network and consequent aphasia exhibits linguistic deficits but performs at the level of neurotypical control participants on theory of mind tasks .
Willems, R. M., Benn, Y., Hagoort, P., Toni, I. & Varley, R. Communicating without a functioning language system: Implications for the role of language in mentalizing. Neuropsychologia 49 , 3130–3135 (2011).
Bek, J., Blades, M., Siegal, M. & Varley, R. Language and spatial reorientation: evidence from severe aphasia. J. Exp. Psychol. 36 , 646 (2010).
Caramazza, A., Berndt, R. S. & Brownell, H. H. The semantic deficit hypothesis: Perceptual parsing and object classification by aphasic patients. B. Lang. 15 , 161–189 (1982).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Chertkow, H., Bub, D., Deaudon, C. & Whitehead, V. On the status of object concepts in aphasia. Brain Lang. 58 , 203–232 (1997).
Saygın, A. P., Wilson, S. M., Dronkers, N. F. & Bates, E. Action comprehension in aphasia: linguistic and non-linguistic deficits and their lesion correlates. Neuropsychologia 42 , 1788–1804 (2004).
Jefferies, E. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. Semantic impairment in stroke aphasia versus semantic dementia: a case-series comparison. Brain 129 , 2132–2147 (2006).
Dickey, M. W. & Warren, T. The influence of event-related knowledge on verb-argument processing in aphasia. Neuropsychologia 67 , 63–81 (2015).
Ivanova, A. A. et al. The language network is recruited but not required for nonverbal event semantics. Neurobiol. Lang. 2 , 176–201 (2021). In this fMRI study, semantic processing of event pictures in neurotypical individuals engages the language network, but less than verbal descriptions of the same events; however, individuals with acquired damage to the language network and consequent aphasia perform at the level of neurotypical control participants on a non-verbal semantic task .
Benn, Y. et al. The language network is not engaged in object categorization. Cereb. Cortex 33 , 10380–10400 (2023).
Varley, R. Reason without much language. Lang. Sci. 46 , 232–244 (2014).
Dehaene, S., Spelke, E., Pinel, P., Stanescu, R. & Tsivkin, S. Sources of mathematical thinking: behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science 284 , 970–974 (1999).
Hermer, L. & Spelke, E. Modularity and development: the case of spatial reorientation. Cognition 61 , 195–232 (1996).
Lupyan, G. Extracommunicative functions of language: verbal interference causes selective categorization impairments. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16 , 711–718 (2009).
Braga, R. M., DiNicola, L. M., Becker, H. C. & Buckner, R. L. Situating the left-lateralized language network in the broader organization of multiple specialized large-scale distributed networks. J. Neurophysiol. 124 , 1415–1448 (2020). This fMRI investigation of the language network establishes this network as one of the intrinsic large-scale networks in the human brain, distinct from nearby cognitive networks .
Fedorenko, E. & Blank, I. A. Broca’s area is not a natural kind. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 270–284 (2020).
Fedorenko, E., Behr, M. K. & Kanwisher, N. Functional specificity for high-level linguistic processing in the human brain. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 16428–16433 (2011). This fMRI investigation finds that arithmetic addition, demanding executive function tasks and music processing do not engage the language areas, thus establishing their selectivity for linguistic input over non-linguistic inputs and tasks .
Monti, M. M., Parsons, L. M. & Osherson, D. N. Thought beyond language: neural dissociation of algebra and natural language. Psychol. Sci. 23 , 914–922 (2012).
Amalric, M. & Dehaene, S. A distinct cortical network for mathematical knowledge in the human brain. NeuroImage 189 , 19–31 (2019).
Monti, M. M., Osherson, D. N., Martinez, M. J. & Parsons, L. M. Functional neuroanatomy of deductive inference: a language-independent distributed network. NeuroImage 37 , 1005–1016 (2007).
Monti, M. M., Parsons, L. M. & Osherson, D. N. The boundaries of language and thought in deductive inference. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106 , 12554–12559 (2009). This fMRI investigation finds largely non-overlapping activations of brain regions to language processing and logical processing, thus establishing the selectivity of language areas for linguistic input over logic statements .
Ivanova, A. A. et al. Comprehension of computer code relies primarily on domain-general executive brain regions. eLife 9 , e58906 (2020).
Liu, Y. F., Kim, J., Wilson, C. & Bedny, M. Computer code comprehension shares neural resources with formal logical inference in the fronto-parietal network. eLife 9 , e59340 (2020).
Paunov, A. M., Blank, I. A. & Fedorenko, E. Functionally distinct language and theory of mind networks are synchronized at rest and during language comprehension. J. Neurophysiol. 121 , 1244–1265 (2019).
Paunov, A. M. et al. Differential tracking of linguistic vs. mental state content in naturalistic stimuli by language and theory of mind (ToM) brain networks. Neurobiol. Lang. 3 , 413–440 (2022).
Shain, C., Paunov, A., Chen, X., Lipkin, B. & Fedorenko, E. No evidence of theory of mind reasoning in the human language network. Cereb. Cortex 33 , 6299–6319 (2023).
Sueoka, Y., Paunov, A., Ivanova, A., Blank, I. A. & Fedorenko, E. The language network reliably “tracks” naturalistic meaningful non-verbal stimuli. Neurobiol. Lang. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00135 (2024).
Piaget, J. The Language and Thought of the Child (Harcourt Brace, 1926).
Gentner, D. & Loewenstein, J. in Language, Literacy, and Cognitive Development: The Development and Consequences of Symbolic Communication (eds Amsel, E. & Byrnes, J. P.) 89–126 (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002).
Appleton, M. & Reddy, V. Teaching three year‐olds to pass false belief tests: a conversational approach. Soc. Dev. 5 , 275–291 (1996).
Slaughter, V. & Gopnik, A. Conceptual coherence in the child’s theory of mind: training children to understand belief. Child Dev. 67 , 2967–2988 (1996).
Hiersche, K. J., Schettini, E., Li, J. & Saygin, Z. M. (2022). Functional dissociation of the language network and other cognition in early childhood. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.08.11.503597 (2023).
Hiersche, K. J. Functional Organization and Modularity of the Superior Temporal Lobe in Children . Masters thesis, The Ohio State University (2023).
Hall, W. C. What you don’t know can hurt you: the risk of language deprivation by impairing sign language development in deaf children. Matern. Child Health J. 21 , 961–965 (2017).
Hall, M. L., Hall, W. C. & Caselli, N. K. Deaf children need language, not (just) speech. First Lang. 39 , 367–395 (2019).
Bedny, M. & Saxe, R. Insights into the origins of knowledge from the cognitive neuroscience of blindness. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 29 , 56–84 (2012).
Grand, G., Blank, I. A., Pereira, F. & Fedorenko, E. Semantic projection recovers rich human knowledge of multiple object features from word embeddings. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6 , 975–987 (2022).
Jackendoff, R. How language helps us think. Pragmat. Cogn. 4 , 1–34 (1996).
Jackendoff. R. The User’s Guide to Meaning (MIT Press, 2012).
Curtiss, S. Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-day Wild Child (Academic Press, 1977).
Peterson, C. C. & Siegal, M. Representing inner worlds: theory of mind in autistic, deaf, and normal hearing children. Psychol. Sci. 10 , 126–129 (1999).
Richardson, H. et al. Reduced neural selectivity for mental states in deaf children with delayed exposure to sign language. Nat. Commun. 11 , 3246 (2020).
Spelke, E. S. What Babies Know: Core Knowledge and Composition , Vol. 1 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022).
Cheney, D. L. & Seyfarth, R. M. How Monkeys See the World: Inside the Mind of Another Species (Univ. Chicago Press, 1990).
Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M. V., Hare, B. & Tomasello, M. Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: the cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science 317 , 1360–1366 (2007).
Tomasello, M. & Herrmann, E. Ape and human cognition: what’s the difference? Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 19 , 3–8 (2010).
Fischer, J. Monkeytalk: Inside the Worlds and Minds of Primates (Univ. Chicago Press, 2017).
Krupenye, C. & Call, J. Theory of mind in animals: current and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 10 , e1503 (2019).
Shimizu, T. Why can birds be so smart? Background, significance, and implications of the revised view of the avian brain. Comparat. Cogn. Behav. Rev. 4 , 103–115 (2009).
Güntürkün, O. & Bugnyar, T. Cognition without cortex. Trends Cogn. Sci. 20 , 291–303 (2016).
Hart, B. L., Hart, L. A. & Pinter-Wollman, N. Large brains and cognition: where do elephants fit in? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 32 , 86–98 (2008).
Godfrey-Smith, P. Other Minds: The Octopus and the Evolution of Intelligent Life (William Collins, 2016).
Schnell, A. K., Amodio, P., Boeckle, M. & Clayton, N. S. How intelligent is a cephalopod? Lessons from comparative cognition. Biol. Rev. 96 , 162–178 (2021).
Gallistel, C. R. Prelinguistic thought. Lang. Learn. Dev. 7 , 253–262 (2011).
Fitch, W. T. Animal cognition and the evolution of human language: why we cannot focus solely on communication. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 375 , 20190046 (2020).
Yamada, J. E. & Marshall, J. C. Laura: A Case Study for the Modularity of Language (MIT Press, 1990).
Rondal, J. A. Exceptional Language Development in Down Syndrome (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995).
Bellugi, U., Lichtenberger, L., Jones, W., Lai, Z. & St George, M. The neurocognitive profile of Williams syndrome: a complex pattern of strengths and weaknesses. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12 , 7–29 (2000).
Little, B. et al. Language in schizophrenia and aphasia: the relationship with non-verbal cognition and thought disorder. Cogn. Neuropsychiatry 24 , 389–405 (2019).
Mahowald, K. et al. Dissociating language and thought in large language models. Trends Cogn. Sci. 28 , 517–540(2024).
Chomsky, N., Belleti, A. & Rizzi, L. in On Nature and Language (eds Belleti, A. & Rizzi, L.) 92–161 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
Schwartz, J. L., Boë, L. J., Vallée, N. & Abry, C. The dispersion–focalization theory of vowel systems. J. Phonetics 25 , 255–286 (1997).
Diehl, R. L. Acoustic and auditory phonetics: the adaptive design of speech sound systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363 , 965–978 (2008).
Everett, C., Blasi, D. E. & Roberts, S. G. Climate, vocal folds, and tonal languages: Connecting the physiological and geographic dots. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 1322–1327 (2015).
Blasi, D. E. et al. Human sound systems are shaped by post-Neolithic changes in bite configuration. Science 363 , eaav3218 (2019).
Dautriche, I., Mahowald, K., Gibson, E., Christophe, A. & Piantadosi, S. T. Words cluster phonetically beyond phonotactic regularities. Cognition 163 , 128–145 (2017).
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 3526–3529 (2011).
Levelt, W. J. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation (MIT Press, 1993).
Kemp, C. & Regier, T. Kinship categories across languages reflect general communicative principles. Science 336 , 1049–1054 (2012). This study provides a computational demonstration that the kinship systems across world’s languages trade off between simplicity and informativeness in a near-optimal way, and argue that these principles also characterize other category systems .
Gibson, E. et al. Color naming across languages reflects color use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 10785–10790 (2017).
Zaslavsky, N., Kemp, C., Regier, T. & Tishby, N. Efficient compression in color naming and its evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 7937–7942 (2018).
Kemp, C., Gaby, A. & Regier, T. Season naming and the local environment. Proc. 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 539–545 (2019).
Xu, Y., Liu, E. & Regier, T. Numeral systems across languages support efficient communication: From approximate numerosity to recursion. Open Mind 4 , 57–70 (2020).
Denić, M., Steinert-Threlkeld, S. & Szymanik, J. Complexity/informativeness trade-off in the domain of indefinite pronouns. Semant. Linguist. Theor. 30 , 166–184 (2021).
Mollica, F. et al. The forms and meanings of grammatical markers support efficient communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2025993118 (2021).
van de Pol, I., Lodder, P., van Maanen, L., Steinert-Threlkeld, S. & Szymanik, J. Quantifiers satisfying semantic universals have shorter minimal description length. Cognition 232 , 105150 (2023).
Clark, H. H. in Context in Language Learning and Language Understanding (eds Malmkj’r, K. & Williams, J.) 63–87) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998).
Winter, B., Perlman, M. & Majid, A. Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition 179 , 213–220 (2018).
von Humboldt, W. Uber die Verschiedenheit des Menschlichen Sprachbaues (1836).
Hurford, J. R. Linguistic Evolution Through Language Acquisition: Formal and Computational Models (ed. Briscoe, E.) 301–344 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).
Smith, K., Brighton, H. & Kirby, S. Complex systems in language evolution: the cultural emergence of compositional structure. Adv. Complex Syst. 6 , 537–558 (2003).
Piantadosi, S. T. & Fedorenko, E. Infinitely productive language can arise from chance under communicative pressure. J. Lang. Evol. 2 , 141–147 (2017).
Gibson, E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68 , 1–76 (1998).
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S. & Van Dyke, J. A. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10 , 447–454 (2006).
Liu, H. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. J. Cogn. Sci. 9 , 151–191 (2008).
ADS CAS Google Scholar
Futrell, R., Mahowald, K. & Gibson, E. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 10336–10341 (2015). This investigation of syntactic dependency lengths across 37 diverse languages suggests that dependencies are predominantly local cross-linguistically, presumably because non-local dependencies are cognitively costly in both production and comprehension .
Dryer, M. S. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68 , 81–138 (1992).
Hahn, M., Jurafsky, D. & Futrell, R. Universals of word order reflect optimization of grammars for efficient communication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117 , 2347–2353 (2020).
Goldin-Meadow, S., Wing, C. S., Özyürek, A. & Mylander, C. The natural order of events: how speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 9163–9168 (2008).
Senghas, A., Kita, S. & Ozyürek, A. Children creating core properties of language: evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science 305 , 1779–1782 (2004).
Sandler, W., Meir, I., Padden, C. & Aronoff, M. The emergence of grammar: systematic structure in a new language. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 , 2661–2665 (2005).
Gibson, E. et al. A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychol. Sci. 24 , 1079–1088 (2013).
Levy, R. A noisy-channel model of human sentence comprehension under uncertain input. In Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 234–243 (2008).
Gibson, E., Bergen, L. & Piantadosi, S. T. Rational integration of noisy evidence and prior semantic expectations in sentence interpretation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 8051–8056 (2013). This behavioural investigation demonstrates that language comprehension is robust to noise: in the presence of corrupt linguistic input, listeners and readers rely on a combination of prior expectations about messages that are likely to be communicated and knowledge of how linguistic signals can get corrupted by noise .
Futrell, R., Levy, R. P. & Gibson, E. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96 , 371–412 (2020).
Hahn, M. & Xu, Y. Crosslinguistic word order variation reflects evolutionary pressures of dependency and information locality. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2122604119 (2022).
Hahn, M., Futrell, R., Levy, R. & Gibson, E. A resource-rational model of human processing of recursive linguistic structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2122602119 (2022).
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H. & Gibson, E. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122 , 280–291 (2012).
Quijada, J. A grammar of the Ithkuil language—introduction. ithkuil.net https://ithkuil.net/00_intro.html (accessed 27 February 2022).
Srinivasan, M. & Rabagliati, H. The implications of polysemy for theories of word learning. Child Dev. Perspect. 15 , 148–153 (2021).
Bizzi, E. Motor control revisited: a novel view. Curr. Trends Neurol. 10 , 75–80 (2016).
Darwin, C. On the Origin of Species–A Facsimile of the First Edition (Harvard Univ. Press, 1964).
Herculano-Houzel, S. The remarkable, yet not extraordinary, human brain as a scaled-up primate brain and its associated cost. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 10661–10668 (2012).
White, L. T. The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science 155 , 1203–1207 (1967).
Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar
King, M. C. & Wilson, A. C. Evolution at two levels in humans and chimpanzees. Science 188 , 107–116 (1975).
Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437 , 69–87 (2005).
Buckner, R. L. & Krienen, F. M. The evolution of distributed association networks in the human brain. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17 , 648–665 (2013). This review presents the evidence for the disproportionate expansion of the association cortex relative to other brain areas in humans .
Duncan, J., Assem, M. & Shashidhara, S. Integrated intelligence from distributed brain activity. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 838–852 (2020).
Saxe, R. & Kanwisher, N. People thinking about thinking people: the role of the temporo-parietal junction in “theory of mind”. NeuroImage 19 , 1835–1842 (2003).
Buckner, R. L. & DiNicola, L. M. The brain’s default network: updated anatomy, physiology and evolving insights. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 20 , 593–608 (2019).
Deen, B. & Freiwald, W. A. Parallel systems for social and spatial reasoning within the cortical apex. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.23.461550 (2021).
Mitchell, D. J. et al. A putative multiple-demand system in the macaque brain. J. Neurosci. 36 , 8574–8585 (2016).
Cantlon, J. & Piantadosi, S. Uniquely human intelligence arose from expanded information capacity. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 3 , 275–293 (2024).
Tomasello, M. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition (Harvard Univ. Press, 2009).
Boyd, R., Richerson, P. J. & Henrich, J. The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 10918–10925 (2011).
Henrich, J. The Secret of Our Success: How Culture is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter (Princeton Univ. Press, 2016).
Heyes, C. Cognitive Gadgets (Harvard Univ. Press, 2018).
Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
Piaget, J. Language and Thought of the Child: Selected Works , Vol. 5 (Routledge, 2005).
Gleitman, L. R. & Papafragou, A. in Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (eds Holyoak, K. & Morrison, R.) 2nd edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).
Fedorenko, E. & Varley, R. Language and thought are not the same thing: evidence from neuroimaging and neurological patients. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1369 , 132–153 (2016).
Gentner, D. Language as cognitive tool kit: How language supports relational thought. Am. Psychol. 71 , 650 (2016).
Frank, M. C., Everett, D. L., Fedorenko, E. & Gibson, E. Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition. Cognition 108 , 819–824 (2008).
Wernicke, C. The aphasic symptom-complex: a psychological study on an anatomical basis. Arch. Neurol. 22 , 280–282 (1869).
Lichteim, L. On aphasia. Brain 7 , 433–484 (1885).
Poeppel, D., Emmorey, K., Hickok, G. & Pylkkänen, L. Towards a new neurobiology of language. J. Neurosci. 32 , 14125–14131 (2012).
Tremblay, P. & Dick, A. S. Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language neurobiology. Brain Lang. 162 , 60–71 (2016).
Hillis, A. E. et al. Re‐examining the brain regions crucial for orchestrating speech articulation. Brain 127 , 1479–1487 (2004).
Flinker, A. et al. Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 2871–2875 (2015).
Long, M. A. et al. Functional segregation of cortical regions underlying speech timing and articulation. Neuron 89 , 1187–1193 (2016).
Guenther, F. H. Neural Control of Speech (MIT Press, 2016).
Basilakos, A., Smith, K. G., Fillmore, P., Fridriksson, J. & Fedorenko, E. Functional characterization of the human speech articulation network. Cereb. Cortex 28 , 1816–1830 (2018).
Obleser, J., Zimmermann, J., Van Meter, J. & Rauschecker, J. P. Multiple stages of auditory speech perception reflected in event-related fMRI. Cereb. Cortex 17 , 2251–2257 (2007).
Mesgarani, N., Cheung, C., Johnson, K. & Chang, E. F. Phonetic feature encoding in human superior temporal gyrus. Science 343 , 1006–1010 (2014).
Norman-Haignere, S., Kanwisher, N. G. & McDermott, J. H. Distinct cortical pathways for music and speech revealed by hypothesis-free voxel decomposition. Neuron 88 , 1281–1296 (2015).
Overath, T., McDermott, J., Zarate, J. & Poeppel, D. The cortical analysis of speech-specific temporal structure revealed by responses to sound quilts. Nat. Neurosci. 18 , 903–911 (2015).
Norman-Haignere, S. V. et al. A neural population selective for song in human auditory cortex. Curr. Biol. 32 , 1470–1484.e12 (2022).
Hickok, G. & Poeppel, D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8 , 393–402 (2007).
Friederici, A. D. The cortical language circuit: from auditory perception to sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16 , 262–268 (2012).
Wilson, S. M. et al. Recovery from aphasia in the first year after stroke. Brain 146 , 1021–1039 (2023).
Radford, A. et al. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1 , 9 (2019).
Jain, S. & Huth, A. Incorporating context into language encoding models for fMRI. in Proc. 32nd International Conf. Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Bengio, S. et al.) (Curran Associates, 2018).
Schrimpf, M. et al. The neural architecture of language: Integrative modeling converges on predictive processing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2105646118 (2021).
Caucheteux, C. & King, J. R. Brains and algorithms partially converge in natural language processing. Commun. Biol. 5 , 134 (2022).
Goldstein, A. et al. Shared computational principles for language processing in humans and deep language models. Nat. Neurosci. 25 , 369–380 (2022).
Tuckute, T., Kanwisher, N. & Fedorenko, E. Language in brains, minds, and machines. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-120623-101142 (2024).
Paulk, A. C. et al. Large-scale neural recordings with single neuron resolution using Neuropixels probes in human cortex. Nat. Neurosci. 25 , 252–263 (2022).
Leonard, M. K. et al. Large-scale single-neuron speech sound encoding across the depth of human cortex. Nature 626 , 593–602 (2024).
Fodor, J. A. The Language of Thought (Crowell, 1975).
Fodor, J. A. & Pylyshyn, Z. W. Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28 , 3–71 (1988).
Rule, J. S., Tenenbaum, J. B. & Piantadosi, S. T. The child as hacker. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 900–915 (2020).
Quilty-Dunn, J., Porot, N. & Mandelbaum, E. The best game in town: the reemergence of the language-of-thought hypothesis across the cognitive sciences. Behav. Brain Sci. 46 , e261 (2023).
Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L. & PDP Research Group. Parallel Distributed Processing, Vol. 1: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition: Foundations (MIT Press, 1986).
Smolensky, P. & Legendre, G. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality–Theoretic Grammar Vol. 1: Cognitive Architecture (MIT Press, 2006).
Frankland, S. M. & Greene, J. D. Concepts and compositionality: in search of the brain’s language of thought. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 71 , 273–303 (2020).
Lake, B. M. & Baroni, M. Human-like systematic generalization through a meta-learning neural network. Nature 623 , 115–121 (2023).
Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Dehaene, S. & Hertz-Pannier, L. Functional neuroimaging of speech perception in infants. Science 298 , 2013–2015 (2002).
Pena, M. et al. Sounds and silence: an optical topography study of language recognition at birth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100 , 11702–11705 (2003).
Cristia, A., Minagawa, Y. & Dupoux, E. Responses to vocalizations and auditory controls in the human newborn brain. PLoS ONE 9 , e115162 (2014).
Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Download references
The authors thank A. Ivanova, R. Jackendoff, N. Kanwisher, K. Mahowald, R. Seyfarth, C. Shain and N. Zaslavsky for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript; N. Caselli, M. Coppola, A. Hillis, L. Menn, R. Varley and S. Wilson for comments on specific sections; C. Casto, T. Regev, F. Mollica and R. Futrell for help with the figures; and S. Swords, N. Jhingan, H. S. Kim and A. Sathe for help with references. E.F. was supported by NIH awards DC016607 and DC016950 from NIDCD, NS121471 from NINDS, and from funds from MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Simons Center for the Social Brain, and Quest for Intelligence.
Authors and affiliations.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA
Evelina Fedorenko & Edward A. F. Gibson
Speech and Hearing in Bioscience and Technology Program at Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
Evelina Fedorenko
University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA
Steven T. Piantadosi
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
All authors contributed equally to conceiving, writing and revising this piece.
Correspondence to Evelina Fedorenko .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information.
Nature thanks Angelika Kratzer and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information, rights and permissions.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S.T. & Gibson, E.A.F. Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature 630 , 575–586 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w
Download citation
Received : 15 February 2023
Accepted : 03 May 2024
Published : 19 June 2024
Issue Date : 20 June 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes - specificity, clarity and testability. Let's take a look at these more closely.
Simple hypothesis. A simple hypothesis is a statement made to reflect the relation between exactly two variables. One independent and one dependent. Consider the example, "Smoking is a prominent cause of lung cancer." The dependent variable, lung cancer, is dependent on the independent variable, smoking. 4.
It seeks to explore and understand a particular aspect of the research subject. In contrast, a research hypothesis is a specific statement or prediction that suggests an expected relationship between variables. It is formulated based on existing knowledge or theories and guides the research design and data analysis. 7.
Definition: Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation. Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments ...
Developing a hypothesis (with example) Step 1. Ask a question. Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project. Example: Research question.
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
A research hypothesis, in its plural form "hypotheses," is a specific, testable prediction about the anticipated results of a study, established at its outset. It is a key component of the scientific method. Hypotheses connect theory to data and guide the research process towards expanding scientific understanding.
A research hypothesis helps test theories. A hypothesis plays a pivotal role in the scientific method by providing a basis for testing existing theories. For example, a hypothesis might test the predictive power of a psychological theory on human behavior. It serves as a great platform for investigation activities.
A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation ('x affects y because …'). A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses.
A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question. A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on ...
A research hypothesis defines the theory or problem your research intends to test. It is the "educated guess" of what the final results of your research or experiment will be. Before you can write the research hypothesis and its alternative, you must focus and define your research problem.
Step 5: Present your findings. The results of hypothesis testing will be presented in the results and discussion sections of your research paper, dissertation or thesis.. In the results section you should give a brief summary of the data and a summary of the results of your statistical test (for example, the estimated difference between group means and associated p-value).
A hypothesis is a prediction of what will be found at the outcome of a research project and is typically focused on the relationship between two different variables studied in the research. It is usually based on both theoretical expectations about how things work and already existing scientific evidence. Within social science, a hypothesis can ...
Research hypothesis checklist. Once you've written a possible hypothesis, make sure it checks the following boxes: It must be testable: You need a means to prove your hypothesis. If you can't test it, it's not a hypothesis. It must include a dependent and independent variable: At least one independent variable ( cause) and one dependent ...
Research Hypothesis Definition. A research hypothesis is a conjectural statement, a logical supposition, a reasonable guess, and an educated prediction about the nature of the relationship between two or more variables that we expect to happen in our study.
The steps to write a research hypothesis are: 1. Stating the problem: Ensure that the hypothesis defines the research problem. 2. Writing a hypothesis as an 'if-then' statement: Include the action and the expected outcome of your study by following a 'if-then' structure. 3.
A hypothesis (from the Greek, foundation) is a logical construct, interposed between a problem and its solution, which represents a proposed answer to a research question. It gives direction to the investigator's thinking about the problem and, therefore, facilitates a solution. Unlike facts and assumptions (presumed true and, therefore, not ...
An effective hypothesis in research is clearly and concisely written, and any terms or definitions clarified and defined. Specific language must also be used to avoid any generalities or assumptions. Use the following points as a checklist to evaluate the effectiveness of your research hypothesis: Predicts the relationship and outcome.
DEFINITION. Despite the seemingly established views on innovative ideas and hypotheses as essential research tools, no structured definition exists to tag the term and systematically track related articles. In 1973, the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) of the U.S. National Library of Medicine introduced "Research Design" as a structured ...
Carefully formulated research questions and hypotheses define well-founded objectives, which in turn determine the appropriate design, course, and outcome of the study. This article then aims to discuss in detail the various aspects of crafting research questions and hypotheses, with the goal of guiding researchers as they develop their own.
There are seven different types of research hypotheses. Simple Hypothesis. A simple hypothesis predicts the relationship between a single dependent variable and a single independent variable. Complex Hypothesis. A complex hypothesis predicts the relationship between two or more independent and dependent variables. Directional Hypothesis.
Research question. Interest in a particular topic usually begins the research process, but it is the familiarity with the subject that helps define an appropriate research question for a study. 1 Questions then arise out of a perceived knowledge deficit within a subject area or field of study. 2 Indeed, Haynes suggests that it is important to know "where the boundary between current ...
Hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a study. Hypotheses are drawn from theories and research questions or from direct observations. In fact, a research problem can be formulated as a hypothesis. To test the hypothesis we need to formulate it in terms that can actually be analysed with statistical tools.
Your hypothesis is what you propose to "prove" by your research. As a result of your research, you will arrive at a conclusion, a theory, or understanding that will be useful or applicable beyond the research itself. 3. Avoid judgmental words in your hypothesis. Value judgments are subjective and are not appropriate for a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is a critical component of the research process, providing a clear direction for the study and forming the basis for drawing conclusions. Here's a step-by-step guide on how to use a hypothesis in research: 1. Identify the Research Problem. Before formulating a hypothesis, clearly define the research problem or question.
The Research Hypothesis. A research hypothesis is a mathematical way of stating a research question. A research hypothesis names the groups (we'll start with a sample and a population), what was measured, and which we think will have a higher mean. The last one gives the research hypothesis a direction. In other words, a research hypothesis ...
The meaning of RESEARCH is studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws. How to use research in a sentence.
Synthetic users are useful for desk research and generating hypotheses, but not for final decision-making. ... However, unlike a persona, the profile is "alive" — meaning that you can chat with it. To generate these AI-generated users, you specify the user group and the goal of your study. Example User Group: Medical-detailing ...
Language is a defining characteristic of our species, but the function, or functions, that it serves has been debated for centuries. Here we bring recent evidence from neuroscience and allied ...