I like Fodor's framework, and I think it's useful. He probably goes too far with it, but that doesn't mean it's not a good tool to use to describe how we think and how we use language.
I wonder if *some* of the "mentalese" could indeed be embedded. Many animals simply react to their surroundings by way of reflex, and there's not much more than that. For us, there is plenty more. For instance, chimps can recognize the difference between nouns and verbs without any prior knowledge. I'm sure we can go much further than this with a very, very limited conceptual "language", but it's not until we have symbols for things (words and names) that the process really takes off. Without human invented language, thoughts could only go so deep.
I like Fodor's framework, and I think it's useful. He probably goes too far with it, but that doesn't mean it's not a good tool to use to describe how we think and how we use language.
I wonder if *some* of the "mentalese" could indeed be embedded. Many animals simply react to their surroundings by way of reflex, and there's not much more than that. For us, there is plenty more. For instance, chimps can recognize the difference between nouns and verbs without any prior knowledge. I'm sure we can go much further than this with a very, very limited conceptual "language", but it's not until we have symbols for things (words and names) that the process really takes off. Without human invented language, thoughts could only go so deep.