If I understand this question correctly, it is about the role of language on the thinking process (of the brain). I would like to take this opportunity to be the first to comment on this interesting question, and make a quick exit; before academic scholasticism and philosophical verbiage in the form of brain-cooked Kantian subjective idealism of logical categories (the usual form of modern discourse both in philosophy and the theoretical sciences -especially theoretical physics and cosmology, Einsteinian style) takes dominance.

For materialist dialectics, as elaborated by Frederick Engels in his booklet, “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man”; man created himself through his labour, with the (bipedal) freed hands and speech (language) as the most important and decisive early tools. Here I will only guide any body interested in this short but very powerful booklet by quoting few passages:

“Thus, the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations, by inheritance of the resulting special development of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods of time, bones as well, and by the ever-renewed employment of these inherited improvements in new, more and more complicated operations, has the human hand attained the high degree of perfection that has enabled it to conjure into being the pictures of Raphael, the statues of Thorwaldsen, the music of Paganini.”

…” First comes labour, after it, and then side by side with it, articulate speech - these were the two most essential stimuli under the influence of which the brain of the ape gradually changed into that of man, which for all its similarity to the former is far larger and more perfect. Hand in hand with the development of the brain went the development of its most immediate instruments - the sense organs. Just as the gradual development of speech is inevitably accompanied by a corresponding refinement of the organ of hearing, so the development of the brain as a whole is accompanied by a refinement of all the senses”.

..."The reaction on labour and speech of the development of the brain and its attendant senses, of the increasing clarity of consciousness, power of abstraction and of judgement, gave an ever-renewed impulse to the further development of both labour and speech. This further development did not reach its conclusion when man finally became distinct from the monkey, but, on the whole, continued to make powerful progress, varying in degree and direction among different peoples and at different times, and here and there even interrupted by a local or temporary regression. This further development has been strongly urged forward, on the one hand, and has been guided along more definite directions on the other hand, owing to a new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged man, viz. society".

Amalya Sukiasyan You need to explain what you mean by specifically "existential thinking". Quinean ontological commitment comes to mind, but I don't think that that's what you have in mind. Moreover, your question's subtext seems to steer clear of anything to do with existentialism.

Abdul Malek and Karl Pfeifer, thank you for sharing your insights.

The philosophy of language refers to examining language through philosophical reflection, deep thinking, and extralinguistic understanding. Language is not just a means of communication: it’s a tool for philosophizing thoughts, thinking patterns, and the cognitive functions of the human brain.

Regarding the essence of existential thinking, it has been defined by various philosophers, ethicists, and cognitive scientists. In my perspective, existential thinking refers to the meaning of life, its ontological depths, and transcendental quests. In the context of the philosophy of language, existential thinking is explored through linguistic means, semantic analysis, hermeneutic interpretation of texts, and other methods.

Amalya Sukiasyan : Sorry, if I annoyed you and any potential contributors to this discussion, with my comment above. I just tried to point out that philosophy of anything, of language included, can have meaning only when it has root (however obscure) in material reality, no matter how abstract thought is involved, in its discourse. I often like to refer to Raphael’s fresco “Scuola di Atene” where the central figures, an old and uncertain Plato pointing his finger to the heavens, while a young and confident Aristotle gestures to the ground with his hand. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuola_di_Atene#/media/File:Sanzio_01_Plato_Aristotle.jpg

Aside from idealism of Plato and materialism of Aristotle, there has been a quiet revolution in thought (philosophy) by G.W.F. Hegel with his dialectical method. Hegel divided epistemology into two, 1) which he called “the view of understanding” (or metaphysics) and 2) “the view of reason” or dialectics. 1) Metaphysics for Hegel is perceptual or “Picture Thought” of the reality; given by immediate, instinctive, ordinary thought and causality. This concerns with instant and the crude static pictures (images) in our brain created through perception (senses) giving rise to ordinary, (unprocessed) thought (“picture-thought” for Hegel) of things and events of time in objective reality. 2) Reason or Dialectics, for Hegel is conceptual or “Thinking Thought” in which our brain processes and refines the ordinary thought ("picture thought") through rational judgment and subjectivity, for a refined and better positive knowledge. So, it can be said that for Hegel, metaphysics is a negation (abstraction, distortion) of reality in the form of ordinary thought (sense perceptions) and dialectics is “the negation of the negation” of reality to advanced positive knowledge.

But unfortunately, in modern times under the rule of decadent monopoly capitalism; brain-cooked ideal mathematics and crass theology has replaced any other (theoretical) thought like its medieval counter-part under regressive feudalism. Famous theoretical physicists would disparage any philosophy at every turn. My materialist dialectics-based approach to modern theoretical physics and cosmology for the past few decades has faced intense hostility (even in RG). Aided by the Tech-Giants, my online published works (books and journal articles) are facing censorship. Links to my works or any favourable reviews on the Internet are either deleted, access denied and/or vandalized.

But what’s of post-Hegelian philosophy under monopoly capitalism? If natural science, in spite of its phenomenal achievements still finds itself begging at the door of theology (the Vatican), it has the satisfaction of seeing philosophy sink lower still. Modern philosophy maintains (as Engels put it) a pseudo existence in the state appointed academia, where, position-hunting, cobweb-spinning eclectic flea-crackers occupy the chairs of philosophy. Instead of looking for profound truths in the wide world of nature and human society like their predecessors, these namesakes either work openly as the apologists of monopoly capitalism or look inwards to “self” (existentialism) or to language (linguistic philosophy) etc. ad nauseam to hunt for absolute truth!