Can we think without language?

As part of our Ask the Brain series, Anna Ivanova, a graduate student who studies how the brain processes language in the labs of Nancy Kanwisher and Evelina Fedorenko, answers the question, “Can we think without language?”

Anna Ivanova headshot
Graduate student Anna Ivanova studies language processing in the brain.


Imagine a woman – let’s call her Sue. One day Sue gets a stroke that destroys large areas of brain tissue within her left hemisphere. As a result, she develops a condition known as global aphasia, meaning she can no longer produce or understand phrases and sentences. The question is: to what extent are Sue’s thinking abilities preserved?

Many writers and philosophers have drawn a strong connection between language and thought. Oscar Wilde called language “the parent, and not the child, of thought.” Ludwig Wittgenstein claimed that “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” And Bertrand Russell stated that the role of language is “to make possible thoughts which could not exist without it.” Given this view, Sue should have irreparable damage to her cognitive abilities when she loses access to language. Do neuroscientists agree? Not quite.

Neuroimaging evidence has revealed a specialized set of regions within the human brain that respond strongly and selectively to language.

This language system seems to be distinct from regions that are linked to our ability to plan, remember, reminisce on past and future, reason in social situations, experience empathy, make moral decisions, and construct one’s self-image. Thus, vast portions of our everyday cognitive experiences appear to be unrelated to language per se.

But what about Sue? Can she really think the way we do?

While we cannot directly measure what it’s like to think like a neurotypical adult, we can probe Sue’s cognitive abilities by asking her to perform a variety of different tasks. Turns out, patients with global aphasia can solve arithmetic problems, reason about intentions of others, and engage in complex causal reasoning tasks. They can tell whether a drawing depicts a real-life event and laugh when in doesn’t. Some of them play chess in their spare time. Some even engage in creative tasks – a composer Vissarion Shebalin continued to write music even after a stroke that left him severely aphasic.

Some readers might find these results surprising, given that their own thoughts seem to be tied to language so closely. If you find yourself in that category, I have a surprise for you – research has established that not everybody has inner speech experiences. A bilingual friend of mine sometimes gets asked if she thinks in English or Polish, but she doesn’t quite get the question (“how can you think in a language?”). Another friend of mine claims that he “thinks in landscapes,” a sentiment that conveys the pictorial nature of some people’s thoughts. Therefore, even inner speech does not appear to be necessary for thought.

Have we solved the mystery then? Can we claim that language and thought are completely independent and Bertrand Russell was wrong? Only to some extent. We have shown that damage to the language system within an adult human brain leaves most other cognitive functions intact. However, when it comes to the language-thought link across the entire lifespan, the picture is far less clear. While available evidence is scarce, it does indicate that some of the cognitive functions discussed above are, at least to some extent, acquired through language.

Perhaps the clearest case is numbers. There are certain tribes around the world whose languages do not have number words – some might only have words for one through five (Munduruku), and some won’t even have those (Pirahã). Speakers of Pirahã have been shown to make mistakes on one-to-one matching tasks (“get as many sticks as there are balls”), suggesting that language plays an important role in bootstrapping exact number manipulations.

Another way to examine the influence of language on cognition over time is by studying cases when language access is delayed. Deaf children born into hearing families often do not get exposure to sign languages for the first few months or even years of life; such language deprivation has been shown to impair their ability to engage in social interactions and reason about the intentions of others. Thus, while the language system may not be directly involved in the process of thinking, it is crucial for acquiring enough information to properly set up various cognitive domains.

Even after her stroke, our patient Sue will have access to a wide range of cognitive abilities. She will be able to think by drawing on neural systems underlying many non-linguistic skills, such as numerical cognition, planning, and social reasoning. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that at least some of those systems might have relied on language back when Sue was a child. While the static view of the human mind suggests that language and thought are largely disconnected, the dynamic view hints at a rich nature of language-thought interactions across development.


Do you have a question for The Brain? Ask it here.

Brain’s language center has multiple roles

A century and a half ago, French physician Pierre Paul Broca found that patients with damage to part of the brain’s frontal lobe were unable to speak more than a few words. Later dubbed Broca’s area, this region is believed to be critical for speech production and some aspects of language comprehension.

However, in recent years neuroscientists have observed activity in Broca’s area when people perform cognitive tasks that have nothing to do with language, such as solving math problems or holding information in working memory. Those findings have stimulated debate over whether Broca’s area is specific to language or plays a more general role in cognition.

A new study from MIT may help resolve this longstanding question. The researchers, led by Nancy Kanwisher, the Walter A. Rosenblith Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, found that Broca’s area actually consists of two distinct subunits. One of these focuses selectively on language processing, while the other is part of a brainwide network that appears to act as a central processing unit for general cognitive functions.

“I think we’ve shown pretty convincingly that there are two distinct bits that we should not be treating as a single region, and perhaps we shouldn’t even be talking about “Broca’s area” because it’s not a functional unit,” says Evelina Fedorenko, a research scientist in Kanwisher’s lab and lead author of the new study, which recently appeared in the journal Current Biology.

Kanwisher and Fedorenko are members of MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research. John Duncan, a professor of neuroscience at the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit of the Medical Research Council in the United Kingdom, is also an author of the paper.

A general role

Broca’s area is located in the left inferior frontal cortex, above and behind the left eye. For this study, the researchers set out to pinpoint the functions of distinct sections of Broca’s area by scanning subjects with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as they performed a variety of cognitive tasks.

To locate language-selective areas, the researchers asked subjects to read either meaningful sentences or sequences of nonwords. A subset of Broca’s area lit up much more when the subjects processed meaningful sentences than when they had to interpret nonwords.

The researchers then measured brain activity as the subjects performed easy and difficult versions of general cognitive tasks, such as doing a math problem or holding a set of locations in memory. Parts of Broca’s area lit up during the more demanding versions of those tasks. Critically, however, these regions were spatially distinct from the regions involved in the language task.

These data allowed the researchers to map, for each subject, two distinct regions of Broca’s area — one selectively involved in language, the other involved in responding to many demanding cognitive tasks. The general region surrounds the language region, but the exact shapes and locations of the borders between the two vary from person to person.

The general-function region of Broca’s area appears to be part of a larger network sometimes called the multiple demand network, which is active when the brain is tackling a challenging task that requires a great deal of focus. This network is distributed across frontal and parietal lobes in both hemispheres of the brain, and all of its components appear to communicate with one another. The language-selective section of Broca’s area also appears to be part of a larger network devoted to language processing, spread throughout the brain’s left hemisphere.

Mapping functions

The findings provide evidence that Broca’s area should not be considered to have uniform functionality, says Peter Hagoort, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands. Hagoort, who was not involved in this study, adds that more work is needed to determine whether the language-selective areas might also be involved in any other aspects of cognitive function. “For instance, the language-selective region might play a role in the perception of music, which was not tested in the current study,” he says.

The researchers are now trying to determine how the components of the language network and the multiple demand network communicate internally, and how the two networks communicate with each other. They also hope to further investigate the functions of the two components of Broca’s area.

“In future studies, we should examine those subregions separately and try to characterize them in terms of their contribution to various language processes and other cognitive processes,” Fedorenko says.

The team is also working with scientists at Massachusetts General Hospital to study patients with a form of neurodegeneration that gradually causes loss of the ability to speak and understand language. This disorder, known as primary progressive aphasia, appears to selectively target the language-selective network, including the language component of Broca’s area.

The research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Ellison Medical Foundation and the U.K. Medical Research Council.