The Interconnection Between Language And Thought

Running head: THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 1

The Interconnection between Language and Thought

Name of Author

Institutional Affiliation

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 2

The Interconnection between Language and Thought

Introduction

Known as the principle of linguistic relativity, the belief in the connection between

language and cognition expresses the opinion that the structure of a language affects the

speaker’s way of reasoning and viewing things. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf resulting in

the naming of the theory as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis coined the theory explaining this

principle. In explaining the way this theory’s linguistic effects on speakers of various languages,

the proponents adopted divergent approaches that produced two versions of the same theory.

These are categorized as the strong version and the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

According to the weak version, only thoughts and decisions of speakers of a language can be

affected and influenced by the linguistic categories in question. On the other hand, the strong

version establishes a stronger connection between language and cognition. Hence, it expresses

the belief that thoughts are determined by language; it further gives linguistic categories the

abilities to determine or limit cognitive categories.

The Interconnection between Language and Thought

In his description of this principle of connection, Sapir (1958) indicated that no instances

exist in the world where two languages posses the ability to achieve similar representations of

social reality in their divergent worlds. In this sense, language cannot be merely viewed as a tool

of communication and reflection. Instead, language qualifies to be the foundation upon which the

essentials of societal understanding are based. Elementarily, two societies speaking different

languages cannot experience the same cognition in their different worlds. If this were possible,

such societies would have language as a mere label difference because of their linguistic origins.

Nonetheless, the fact that the different societies experience a great diversity in cognition

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 3

indicates the strength of language in either building of influencing cognitive and perceptual

processes of human beings.

As presented by Whorf (1940) the organization of kaleidoscopic flux of impressions of

the world that ultimately creates order is achieved because of the presence of a language. All the

dissections of nature made by individuals from different communities remain achievable because

of the presence of language. To this extent, all systems of perceiving, cognizing, and

understanding nature are created by the linguistic systems established in our minds. A decree to

this rule by the author indicated that there is a system of organization and classification of data

that defines societal cognition and interaction. In essence, linguistic establishment in every

society that uses a language determines this distinct system. Because of this, different societies

perceive and cognize differently.

Notably, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is divided into two factions with the weak and

strong versions. While the weaker version is perceived as linguistic relativism, the stronger one

gets considered as linguistic determinism. It is worth noting that many linguists and authors

consider the weaker version a possibility and reality while they do not view the stronger version

of this hypothesis as a possibility. They express the belief that linguistic relativism is true

because language can influence the way a society views elements. However, the entirety of

societal cognition cannot solely depend on language. Therefore, it may be true that thoughts and

decisions of speakers of a language can be affected and influenced by the linguistic categories.

However, this reasoning dissuades the belief in the analysis that thoughts are determined by

language with linguistic categories having the abilities to determine or limit cognitive categories.

The review by Whorf and Carroll (1964) is perhaps one of the most explicit ones with

wide coverage on the subject of discussion. In the review of the Whorfian Hypothesis, this

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 4

publication covers numerous elements and keeps to the idea that both linguistic relativism and

linguistic determinism are a reality. The authors use multidimensional approaches in analyzing

the topic and carry out extensive research on the topic. Specifically, the researchers did analysis

of the psychological, grammatical, habitual, and verbal extents of language. The review by the

authors establishes a deep connection tying linguistics, science, logic, mind, and reality. It

identifies linguistics as an exact science and presents it as a logical specification. To that extent,

the authors settle on the ground that linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism are both a

reality.

A criticism of this theory by Pinker (1994) indicated that many flaws existed in the

theory and foundations establishing the hypothesis. For example, pinker pointed out Whorf's

presentation of the concept of time among the Hopi as different from that of the Western world.

By so doing, he attached linguistic categories of both societies to this concept and ultimately

argued that the presence of diversities in the concept of time in these two societies came about

because of the fact that language lays foundation for societal cognition. This idea was largely

disputed by Pinker who indicated that Whorf did not travel to interact with people from the Hopi.

Resultantly, he could not have had such explicit detail as to claim the effect of language on the

tribe. A further argument by Pinker provided evidence of anthropologists who later travelled to

the Hopi, interacted with them, and found out that the time-concept among the Hopi was not

significantly different from that of the western world. Pinker also indicated that the belief that the

essentials of societal understanding are established by language was wrong because clarity of

distinction between languages of different communities does not exist. To this effect, he

introduced the idea of translatability. In the event that each language was uniquely established

with a distinct encoding, it would not have been possible to translate freely from one language to

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 5

another. Yet, as it occurs in reality, everyday translation takes place on almost all societal

matters.

A separate evaluation by Wolff and Holmes (2010) also adopted a perspective that shifts

more towards linguistic relativism than linguistic determinism. Assessing what the authors

referred to as the Whorfian Hypothesis, they established the fundamental rule of linguistic

relativity. In their view, it expressed the basic belief that people who speak different languages

actually think differently. The foundational reason for this nexus was the idea that language

remains responsible for establishing the basic elements responsible for thought and societal

organization. The authors went ahead to assess insights into the idea that language can have an

impact on thoughts through reviewing societal occurrences and analyzing publications by other

authors on the same topic. In their analysis, they established a wide range of domains that they

considered to bear the influence of language. These seven hypothetical domains included motion,

color, spatial relations, number, and false belief understanding.

After review, the authors expressed categorically that they did not support linguistic

determinism. In their opinion, it was not possible for language to establish the fundamental

categories of thought and overwrite other conceptual distinctions. While the authors admit that

research on linguistic relativity remains highly controversial, they find three grounds on which

proof for linguistic relativism is possible. The first category explains that the usage of language

in different settings bears the potential of making some distinctions difficult to avoid. This makes

the influence of language on thought a possibility. Secondly, they express the idea that language

bears the ability and potential of augmenting various types of thinking. To this extent,

augmenting thinking results in explicitness and clarity. Lastly, the authors present the view that

language had the capability of inducing a relatively schematic mode of thinking. In a way, this

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 6

hypothesis is similar to the second one that focuses on augmentation. However, its emphasis lies

of the induction of order in thinking styles. In all these aspects, the authors find the influencing

role of language on thinking and not the determinative role on the same.

In their conclusion, the authors suggested that at least two approaches in the Whorfian

were worth dismissing based on their roles on language rather than their roles on thinking. Wolff

and Holmes (2010) agree that language can influence thinking and meddle with its original

establishment. However, they point to the lack of evidence that language can be a determinant

for thought.

Another author focusing on the subject of language, society and thoughts is Deutscher

(2010), in his book “Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other

languages.” In this publication, the author shares the ideas held by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in

many ways. The publication seeks to analyze and establish various facts about the functionality

of language in societies. Among them are questions as to whether culture, elements of culture

have an influence on language, and if the reverse is true. Another issue of concern in the book is

the question as to whether different languages make the people who speak them have different

thoughts in life. A direct question tie on these quests asks for the possibility of human

experiences in the world depending on whether each language used at every different world has a

word for the color blue.

Using intellectual discovery and performing insightful research, the author resolves that

the answer to all these questions is a resounding yes. Deutscher delivers his analysis in two

separate parts. Part one is entitled The Language Mirror while part two is called The Language

Lens. He picks specific issues concerning language and culture in different ways. By traversing

through cultures across the world, Deutscher manages to establish a connection between

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 7

language and culture as well as the reverse. To a large extent, this also proves a connection

between between language and thoughts. An example of another question defining the

foundations of language and tying it to functional thoughts is the sub-topic, “Those Who Said

Our Things Before Us.” This sub topic covers important information on why other languages

inspire different perspectives of reason in their perspectives. Overall, Deutscher conforms to the

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language can influence as well as determine thoughts within the

society.

According to Casasanto (2016), there is a nexus connecting linguistics to thought in

various ways. The article by Casasanto begins by analyzing the history and controversy on

linguistic relativity from various authors. Identifying that this unlimited coverage and

contestation may deny readers a chance for fair judgment, he requests the reader to assume that

they had neither read nor encountered the text in question. This leaves the reader with few and

limited options. To make judgment on fair ground; it is at this point that that Casasanto poses the

determining questions on the topic. “Does language influence how we think?” in his personal

opinion the use of independent reasoning and the application of basic principles leads to a three

dimensional answer to this question. First, all contexts in which people use their minds are

characterized by the presence of language. Secondly, the act of thinking largely depends on the

element of context. It is therefore possible that language can pervasively influence the way we

think and what we think about.

Using this analysis, Casasanto arrives at the decision that language is highly connected to

thought. In a detailed further analysis, the author sets to look for further proof to the logic above.

While in agreement that language is highly connected to thought, he proceeds to the question of

how language shapes thought. This furthers the question again, delving into finding the parts of

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 8

language involved in shaping thoughts and the aspects of cognition and perception affected by

the former. Lastly, he pursues the mechanisms involved in the thought-shaping process of

language. A keen analysis of years of attempts to resolve these challenges reveals that no

significant achievement was made in any of the parameters for years. However, Casasanto

indicates that twenty-first century, theoretical and experimental advances reinvigorated research

and resulted in noticeable advancements in this field. His coverage of these analyses is done in

two phases.

In the first phase, Casasanto pulls from previous concerns that Whorfian questions were

circular because of the use of language in research. To this, he indicates the success of linguistic

relativity in producing research that overcomes the problem of circularity. This achievement is

made by finding patterns of behavior differing as a function of linguistic experience.

Nonetheless, the patterns involved do not get explained by the usage of language as the linguistic

tests are carried out. Secondly, concerns about the magnitude language has on cognition get

overcome by the usage of words found in various languages and not in others… indicating that

such words transform minds radically and reshape the way those who encounter them view the

world.

In the whole research and review, Casasanto seeks answers to numerous questions all of

which he addresses. The first is whether Whorfian effects remain restricted to the acts of

“thinking for speaking”, which eliminates other concerns involved in the line of thinking. He

tackles the psychophysics involved in the Whorfian approach of thinking for speaking. Under

this review he evaluates topics like ideas beyond the correlation of language and thought and the

roles played by language in the process of shaping mental metaphors. Casasanto shows that it is

possible that for language to impact thought importantly and negligibly. He proceeds to analyze

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 9

which impacts are important and which ones are negligible. He concludes the analysis by

identifying five varieties of linguistic relativity effects. Fundamentally, this approach complies

with the agreement with both linguistic relativism and linguistic determinism.

Overall, there is a general connection between language and thoughts. As revealed by

many authors, all contexts of thinking are done using elements of language. Thinking can only

occur in the contexts of parts of speech. Someone will think of a name, an act, an event, a

process, or a desire. All these are named using language. Therefore it is not possible to eliminate

language from the context of thinking. While most authors agree on this connection between

thought and language, many disagree as to whether language plays an influencing or determining

role and thus leading to linguistic relativism or linguistic determinism. The authors that support

the belief that linguistic relativism and linguistic determinism occur in the connection between

thought and language adapt the original versions of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and find their

own justifications for it. Those who do not believe so express reservations as to whether

language can be the sole source of thoughts; and determine all that humanity thinks. To Whorf,

language remains responsible for the kaleidoscopic flux of impressions of the world that

ultimately create order and foundational impressions. It performs the role of determining

impressions, thoughts, and decisions that result in human mentations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, linguistic relativity is the theory that seeks to explain the connection

between language and cognition. This theory holds that linguistic structures of a community

determine how the speakers of a language cognize and develop a world view. The theory is also

recognized by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which was coined by Edward Sapir and Benjamin

Whorf. The first version of this theory, also known as the weak version, states that only thoughts

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 10

and decisions of speakers of a language can be affected and influenced by the linguistic

categories in question. Conversely, the strong version establishes a stronger connection between

language and cognition. It expresses the belief that thoughts are determined by language and

gives linguistic categories the abilities to determine or limit cognitive categories. Examples of

the impact of language on thought assessed by Whorf; included time and numbering in different

languages. By evaluating the SAE and Hopi languages, Whorf revealed that the SAE language as

characteristically defined by a language of substances that presented time as a commodity. On

the other hand, the Hopi had a language of events where the view was that of eventing. While

various authors supported this theory, many criticized it pointing to numerous facts that were

considered flowed. One such example is a criticism by Pinker, which pointed out that language,

may influence thoughts but cannot determine or originate thoughts. If all languages were unique

and exceptionally instituted, the concept of translatability may not have existed. Yet, some words

have no satisfactory translations from one language to another. Additionally, there are words that

only exist in one language and never occur in another. Encounters with such words affect the

lives of the involved in unique ways. A review of different authors provides a background of

evidence-based research and methodical presentations that attempt to qualify or disqualify

various elements of linguistic relativity. For some, language is the foundational basis for societal

organization. It determines and influences the way we think because it is contextually

omnipresent in all thinking environments. For others, it is worth acknowledging the presence of

language in thought and its effects on thought. However, it can only influence but not originate

or determine thoughts.

THE INTERCONNECTION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 11

References

Casasanto, D. (2016). A Shared Mechanism of Linguistic, Cultural, and Bodily

Relativity. Language Learning, 66(3), 714-730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/lang.12192

Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other

languages. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Company.

Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Sapir, E. (1958). Culture, Language and Personality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Whorf, B. (1940). Science and Linguistics. Technology Review (1940) 35: 229-31, 247-8.

Whorf, B. L., & Carroll, J. B. (1964). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of

Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. Press.

Wolff, P., & Holmes, K. (2010). Linguistic Relativity. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:

Cognitive Science, 2(3), 253-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcs.104

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."