Will we ever know how language and thought are connected? HANNAH NESBITT gives it some thought.

After decades of theories and criticisms, just what is the connection between language and thought? This blog summarises the three main viewpoints: linguistic determinism, linguistic relativity and no-connection, acknowledging critiques encountered along the way.

Linguistic determinism is the belief that a speaker’s native language determines how they perceive the world. Like a train track that dictates the route of a train, our world perception is trapped by what is and is not possible in our language. Presently dismissed due to a lack of feasibility, Whorf famously justified this theory by referring to the language of the Inuits. Inuits possess a mass of snow-related vocabulary and this, Whorf argued, causes them to perceive snow in ways that English speakers, with their ‘lone’ word for the substance, cannot (see Whorf 1940 in Carroll, 1956, p.216).

This controversial outlook has since been met with numerous critics. Pullum (1991) rejects any notion that English speakers have a single word for snow, confirming English snow-related lexis such as: ‘slush’, ‘sleet’, ‘hair’ and ‘frost’ (see p.163). Pullum also references Boas (1911) to illustrate how additional words are created though the modification of the root word ‘snow’ i.e. ‘snowflake’, ‘fluffy snow’, ‘good-packing snow’ etc. (see Pullum, 1991, p.163). Similarly, Garnham & Oakhill (1994) use the example of skiers to demonstrate that the reason for the Inuits’ snow-heavy vocabulary is not because of a difference in their concepts of snow, but because of their environmental requirements (see Lund 2003, p. 14). They state that skiers have a snow-full vocabulary but that this is different again to Inuits due to their differing surroundings (see Garnham & Oakhill 1994, cited by Lund 2003, p. 14). This point is reiterated further by Pastorino & Doyle-Portillo who argue that “researchers have found that despite significant differences in language, cognitive processing of information is often very similar across cultures.”(2011, p.283).

The other, less extreme half of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis claims that “[w]e see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation” (Sapir, 1929, p.207). Linguistic relativity judges language to not determine thought, but to influence it. Evidence to support this theory can be found when observing the way that speakers of gender marked languages percieve the world. Fromkin, Rodmano, Hyams, (2013) give the example of a study which required Spanish and German speakers label the word ‘bridge’ with English adjectives (p.24). The results found that speakers described the word using adjectives which possessed connotations in line with its grammatical gender e.g. Spanish speakers labelled the femininely-marked bridge as “beautiful, elegant [and] fragile” and German speakers defined their masculine-marked bridge as “big dangerous [and][…] strong” (Fromkin, Rodman, Hyams, 2013, p.24).  Here the influence that gender-marked languages have on a speaker’s perception of the world is clearly exhibited.

Despite this, some linguists still dismiss the language and thought connection all together. Pinker (1994) rejects the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, raising problematic matters such as the invention of novel words, which would be unfeasible if thought was reliant on language (see pp.57-58). Instead, Pinker puts forward the idea of ‘mentalese’, an “internal language upon which the expressed language draws” (Birtchnell, 2003, p.178). To demonstrate this claim, Pinker gives the example of writing a sentence that doesn’t accuraely express what we intended it to; this intended expression is the “language of thought” (1994, p.57). Defined by Birtchnell (2003) as “the ideas, meanings and concepts that lie behind the words, to which the words give expression” (p.178), Pinker highlights the more straightforward nature of mentalese with “constructions (like a and the) [being] absent” (1994, pp.82).

Although seemingly sounder than linguistic determinism, this theory also has its critics. As Gethin (1999) points out, a potentially problematic issue with Pinker’s mentalese is that “if words such as a and the do not exist in Mentalese, how can they arise in languages humans actually use?” (p.39). Surely we can think about these articles when translating thought into verbal language, but then how would this be possible if the language of thought did not contain them? (see Gethin, 1999, p.40).

So what, if any, is the connection between language and thought? I have tried to provide a small insight into the vast research available and the most rational explanation encountered thus far, is that of Birner (1999). Birner uses the metaphor of a braid, with the three strands represented by language, thought and culture, to comment on how “each one affect[s] the others” (see Birner 1999). Surely there is a slight connection between language and thought, but how can we truly prove that our language determines, influences or has no connection to our worldly perception?

HANNAH NESBITT, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK


Birner, B. (1999). Linguistic Society of America. [Weblog]. Retrieved 1 December 2015

Birtchnell, J. (2003). The Two of Me: The Rational Outer Me and the Emotional Inner Me. New York: Routledge.

Boas, F. (1911). Introduction to The handbook of’ North American Indians, Vol. I , Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40, 1 , Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Reprinted by Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. (c. 1963) and by University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska (1966).

Fromkin. V, Rodman, R. & Hyams, N. (2013). An Introduction to Language. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Garnham, A & Oakhill, J. (1994). Thinking and Reasoning. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gethin. A. (1999). Language and Thought: A Rational Enquiry Into Their Nature and Relationship. Exeter, UK: Intellect Ltd.

Lund, N. (2003) Language and thought. London: Routledge.

Pastorino, E. E & Doyle-Portillo, S. M. (2011). What is psychology? (3rd ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Harper.

Pullum, G. K. (1991). The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 159-171.

Sapir, E. (1929). Language. New York, USA: Harcourt, Brace and World.

Whorf, B.L. (1940/1956). Science and linguistics. Technology Review, 42, 8, 229-231, 247-248. Reprinted in Carroll, J.B. (Ed.), Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 207-219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.


One thought on “Will we ever know how language and thought are connected? HANNAH NESBITT gives it some thought.

  1. Amber Pickering says:

    Hannah, this is a well written and argued blog entry and delves into the different aspects of language and thought. I think it is great how you’ve explained the differences between linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity in a way that is coherent. I liked the example of the Inuit’s, because it is good way of emphasising how native speakers of a certain language can create a vocabulary around their surroundings, and represents how they perceive the world. The example of the Inuit’s can show how language can be determined by thought, because they have many words for snow, which are different depending on the concept they are used in; such as snow on the ground and falling snow.

    However, for me, I think that language and thought are two separate concepts, because people can think of things which have no actual word, such as the example of tapping someone on the shoulder to fool them, or moving hot food around in your mouth. There is no word for these things, yet they are still concepts that people do and think about.

    The ways in which children use overextension too, could perhaps argue how language and thought are unconnected, because although children can recognise certain objects, it is not to say that they have a word for them. So, although children have awareness of objects in their surroundings, it does not mean that they are linguistically aware of these objects in their vocabulary.

    What I’d like to know is, do you think there is a connection between language and thought?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s