People frequently report that, at times, their thought has a vocal character. Thinking commonly appears to be accompanied or constituted by silently ‘talking’ to oneself in inner speech. In this paper, we explore the specifically epistemic role of inner speech in conscious reasoning. A plausible position—but one I argue is ultimately wrong—is that inner speech plays asolelyfacilitative role that is exhausted by (i) serving as the vehicle of representation for conscious reasoning, and/or (ii) allowing one to focus on certain types (...) of objects or relations, e.g., causal relations, abstracta, counterfactuals, etc., or to consciously entertain structured propositional contents that it would be hard (or impossible) to focus on or entertain with representations in other (e.g., imagistic) formats. According to this position, inner speech doesn't figure as a justificatory element in our reasoning or as the partial epistemic basis of our conclusions—it merely facilitates reasoning through (i) and/or (ii). In contrast to the view that inner speech is amerefacilitator, I establish that (outside of potentially playing roles (i) and/or (ii)) the language we use itself serves as a crucial source of information in reasoning. In other words, we reason from propositions about the language we use in inner speech as opposed to exclusively reasoning from the semantic contents of the speech. My conclusion follows from how we use language as a cognitive tool to keep track of information, e.g., the contents of premises, lemmas, previous reasoning results, etc., in reasoning. (shrink)

Is the application of more than one number system in a particular culture necessarily an indication of not having abstracted a general concept of number? Does this mean that specific number systems for certain objects are cognitively deficient? The opposite is the case with the traditional number systems in Tongan, where a consistent decimal system is supplemented by diverging systems for certain objects, in which 20 seems to play a special role. Based on an analysis of their linguistic, historical and (...) cultural context, we will show that the supplementary systems did not precede the general system, but were rather derived from it. Especially when notation is lacking, having such supplementary systems can even yield cognitive advantages. In using larger counting units, they both abbreviate counting and expand the limits of the general system, thus facilitating the cognitive task of mental arithmetic. (shrink)