Natural language comes with meaning, and when we normally reason using natural language, we reason about things in terms that are meaningful we don’t just reason, and then find out what we were reasoning about and what our concepts meant. How did it come about that philosophers, linguists, and even many cognitive psychologists have come to view natural human languages in terms of formal syntax and formal semantics? The principal reason was the rise of mathematical logic, the enormous prestige that it acquired, and the fact that it was taught in European and American universities by objectivist philosophers, who viewed it as the study of reason.
- Lakoff (1987), a pag.226

The question of whether there is an independent syntax for natural language comes down to the question of whether the metaphorical definition that defines the enterprise of generative grammar is a reasonable way to comprehend natural language. Intuitively the idea that a natural language is made up of uninterpreted symbols is rather strange. The primary purpose of language are to frame and express thoughts and to communicate, not to produce sequences of uninterpreted sounds. If thought is independent of language (as it seems, at least in part, to be), and if language is a way of framing and expressing thought so that it can be communicated, then one would expect that many (not necessarily all) aspects of natural language syntax would be independent in at least some way on the thoughts expressed.
- Lakoff (1987), a pag.228