Specifically: Why haven't naval carrier aircraft (especially WW2) ever had low aspect ratio wings (stubby but running further down the length of the airframe), allowing for the same amount of surface area whilst allowing for extra aircraft to be fit on the carrier, as well as a bigger tower?
My best guess is that:
Firstly, the wing has a very shallow stall angle, due to the length of the wing, and it has poor manoeuvrability characteristics, acting as a vane keeping the aircraft pointing straight, making dives dangerous. It also would not allow for large control surfaces, or long roll moment arms.
And secondly other methods such as folding wings, and larger carriers have taken prominence, and have been researched more (no point dropping a well understood technology).
Am I correct in my thinking?
While a low aspect ratio wing makes an aircraft more compact, it also makes it less manoeuvrable. As you note, such wings make dives dangerous. They also make rolling harder, as the moment acting on the aircraft is lower - this is also disadvantage when trying to turn, as banking relies on the same forces as rolling. Carrier aircraft are, first and foremost, combat aircraft. Making them less manoeuvrable makes them less capable in combat - a fighter that can't turn or dive-bomber that can't dive isn't much use. While you might be able to fit more aircraft on a carrier, if those aircraft are not fit for purpose, you have gained little.