You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Relationship Between Language and Thought
The Relationship Between Language and Thought
One of the most fundamental questions in psychology is: What is the relationship between language and thought? Do we think in language, or do our thoughts exist independently of the words we use? Does the language we speak shape the way we see the world? This lesson introduces the key theories that address these questions.
Three Possible Relationships
Psychologists have proposed three main views of the relationship between language and thought:
| View | Key Idea | Theorist |
|---|---|---|
| Thought determines language | We think first, then find words to express those thoughts | Piaget |
| Language determines thought | The language we speak shapes and limits what we can think | Sapir-Whorf (strong version) |
| Language influences thought | Language does not determine thought but does influence it | Sapir-Whorf (weak version) |
Piaget's View: Thought Comes Before Language
Jean Piaget argued that thought develops before language. He believed that children develop cognitive abilities through interaction with the world, and that language is simply a tool for expressing thoughts that already exist.
Evidence for Piaget's View
- Object permanence — infants understand that objects continue to exist before they have the language to express this concept
- Sensorimotor stage (0–2 years) — children develop complex understanding of the world through action and sensation before they can speak
- Children can solve problems and understand concepts before they have the vocabulary to describe them
Evaluation of Piaget's View
| Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|
| Supported by evidence that pre-verbal infants can think (e.g. object permanence) | Underestimates the role of language in shaping thought |
| Explains how children develop understanding before language | Does not account for evidence that language can influence perception and categorisation |
The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed the linguistic relativity hypothesis — the idea that the language a person speaks affects the way they think and perceive the world.
There are two versions of this hypothesis:
Strong Version: Linguistic Determinism
The strong version (linguistic determinism) claims that language determines thought — if you do not have a word for something, you cannot think about it. Your language constrains and limits your thinking.
- Example: If a language has no word for "freedom," speakers of that language literally cannot conceive of freedom
- This is the most extreme version and is generally not supported by evidence
Weak Version: Linguistic Relativity
The weak version (linguistic relativity) claims that language influences (but does not determine) thought. Language affects how we perceive, categorise, and remember things, but we can still think about concepts even if we lack specific words for them.
- Example: A language with many words for different types of snow (e.g. Inuit languages) may make speakers more aware of subtle differences in snow — but speakers of other languages can still perceive these differences
- This version has more research support
Evidence for the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Colour Perception
Research on colour terminology provides some of the best evidence for linguistic relativity:
- Dani people of Papua New Guinea have only two colour terms (light and dark), yet they can still distinguish between colours — this challenges the strong version
- However, Russian speakers, who have separate words for light blue (goluboy) and dark blue (siniy), are faster at distinguishing between these shades than English speakers — supporting the weak version
Time Concepts
- Mandarin Chinese speakers tend to think about time vertically (earlier events are "above," later events are "below"), while English speakers tend to think about time horizontally (left to right)
- This suggests that language influences how we conceptualise abstract ideas
Evaluation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
Strengths
- The weak version is supported by research on colour perception and time concepts
- It explains cross-cultural differences in thought and perception
- It highlights the importance of language in shaping our experience of the world
Weaknesses
- The strong version is too extreme — people can think about concepts even without specific words for them
- It is difficult to test — how do you measure whether someone can "think" about something without words?
- Translation exists — the fact that concepts can be translated between languages suggests that thought is not entirely language-dependent
Exam Tip: Always distinguish clearly between the strong version (determinism — language determines thought) and the weak version (relativity — language influences thought). The strong version is generally not supported; the weak version has more evidence.
Key Points
- Piaget: thought develops before language — language is a tool for expressing pre-existing thoughts.
- Sapir-Whorf strong version (linguistic determinism): language determines thought — unsupported.
- Sapir-Whorf weak version (linguistic relativity): language influences thought — has research support.
- Evidence from colour perception and time concepts supports the weak version.
- The relationship between language and thought is complex and likely involves mutual influence.