From what I read in this paper, it seems like the authors are depending on some very strict definition of what can be considered language. Can anyone provide more context on what definition they're using?
I ask because certain assumptions that seem to be built into the paper and its references seem to exclude a lot of things that I would personally consider other forms of language. For example, they say the subjects with impairments to the parts of the brain supposedly required for speech could "follow non-verbal
instructions" and "understand what another person believes". What makes those exchanges distinct from use of language, albeit a poorly defined one? I know nothing about this field of study, so I assume there's some assumptions and definitions they aren't stating explicitly. It seems weird to me that they say "these
representations need not be specifically linguistic: they could
be symbolic but non-linguistic (for example, ‘9’), and the use of
symbolic non-linguistic representations does not engage linguistic
resources (for example, mathematical reasoning elicits no response
in the language brain areas and is preserved in individuals with
severe aphasia". Why not go back and question the initial assumption that all language depends on those specific parts of the brain? Why are symbols not language?
I ask because certain assumptions that seem to be built into the paper and its references seem to exclude a lot of things that I would personally consider other forms of language. For example, they say the subjects with impairments to the parts of the brain supposedly required for speech could "follow non-verbal instructions" and "understand what another person believes". What makes those exchanges distinct from use of language, albeit a poorly defined one? I know nothing about this field of study, so I assume there's some assumptions and definitions they aren't stating explicitly. It seems weird to me that they say "these representations need not be specifically linguistic: they could be symbolic but non-linguistic (for example, ‘9’), and the use of symbolic non-linguistic representations does not engage linguistic resources (for example, mathematical reasoning elicits no response in the language brain areas and is preserved in individuals with severe aphasia". Why not go back and question the initial assumption that all language depends on those specific parts of the brain? Why are symbols not language?