AN ASSIGNMENT

WITH APPROPRIATE ILLUSTRATION, DISCUSS THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
WRITTEN BY
BASSEY, VICTORIA INNOCENT
20/AR/LG/1586
DEPARMENT OF LINGUISTICS
AND
NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
FACULTY OF ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF UYO, UYO
SUBMITTED TO
COURSE LECTURER; PROFESSOR WILLE WILLE
COURSE CODE AND TITTLE; LIN 412
PSYCHOLINGUISTICS
DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS
AND
NIGERIAN LANGUAGES
FACULTY OF ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF UYO, UYO

DECEMBER, 2024
INTRODUCTION
Language and thought are the basic fundamental and one of the most
important aspects of human cognition and communication.
Throughout history, philosophers and linguists have debated the
intricate relationship between these two elements, examining
whether language shapes thought or thought existed or is of more
value than language. Various definitions and theories proposed by
linguists such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Sapir, and scholars like Jean
Piaget and the proponents of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis highlight
the complexity of this relationship. Understanding the interaction
between language and thought provides insights into cognitive
development, communication, and cultural identity. This assignment
will explore the definitions, roles, features, theories, and perspectives
on language and thought, with a focus on their interdependence and
the influence each has on the other.

DEFINITION OF LANGUAGE;
The term language is used every day in different ways with a great
range of applications. Through language, man communicates and
interacts with fellow human beings, carrying out social and business
transactions. Yet, no single straightforward and accepted definition has
been assigned to it.
Many different definitions of language are found in the literature. Every
generation comes into existence to find a ready-made language for its
community. This existing language is then internalized. Many scholars
have said that language is part of the totality of human cultural
achievements. It is one of the greatest assets to man. Human society
cannot be complete without the use of language. "Language is any
system employed in giving, receiving or hiding information. It can be
made up of sounds and calls, signals and signs, postures and gestures
including silence. Language, therefore, is essentially a communication
system".
As a signaling system, the human language makes use of vocal sounds,
speech and writing as its materials. Language is defined as "a purely
human and non-instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions
and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols" (Sapir 1921:8).
This means that language is the communicate ideas, emotions and
desires as well as interact with each other by means of habitually oral,
auditory and arbitrary symbols. Although this definition is one of the
oldest and most cited definitions of language, it has been criticized by
many scholars for being too narrow and too broad at the same time. It
is said to be too narrow because language communicates much more
than ideas, emotions and desires. While it is considered too broad
because it is not every voluntarily produced symbol that is taken as
language except by an extended use of the term to gestures, postures,
etc.
Language has also been defined as 'a system of arbitrary vocal symbols
by means of which a social group co-operates' (Bloch and Trager
1942:5). This definition shows the communicative function of language,
because emphasis is on its social functions.
Another common definition is that of Henry Sweet which says that
language is a system of human communication, in speech or writing, by
means of a structured arrangement of sounds into morphemes which
are in turn arranged to form words; from words larger units, such as
phrases and sentences are constructed. Other scholars have defined
language based on their views example include:

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)

Ferdinand de Saussure is widely considered as the father of modern
linguistics and a significant figure in the development of structuralism.
He defined language as a system of signs, each consisting of a signifier
(the form, such as a word) and a signified (the concept it represents).
Saussure emphasized that meanings in language arise from the
differences between signs, rather than any inherent connection
between the signifier and the signified. He advocated for a synchronic
approach to linguistics, studying language as a system at a specific point
in time, rather than a diachronic approach, which focuses on historical
evolution. His seminal work, Course in General Linguistics (1916), was
published posthumously and laid the foundation for many modern
linguistic theories, particularly in semiotics and structural analysis.

Noam Chomsky (1928–Present)

Noam Chomsky revolutionized the field of linguistics with his theory of
generative grammar, which posits that language is governed by an
innate universal grammar shared by all humans. He proposed that this
universal grammar enables humans to produce an infinite number of
sentences from a finite set of rules and principles. Chomsky introduced
the distinction between competence (a speaker's knowledge of their
language) and performance (the actual use of language in real
situations). He argued that the capacity for language is a uniquely
human trait, biologically rooted in the human mind. His influential
works, including Syntactic Structures (1957) and Aspects of the Theory
of Syntax (1965), established him as one of the most influential figures
in modern linguistics and cognitive science.

Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951)

Ludwig Wittgenstein made profound contributions to the philosophy of
language, exploring its connection to thought, reality, and society. In his
early work, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Wittgenstein argued that
language functions as a mirror of reality, with its structure reflecting the
logical form of the world. In his later work, Philosophical Investigations,
he shifted his focus to the idea that language is a social tool, and its
meaning is determined by its use in various "language games." He
emphasized that understanding language requires examining its use in
specific social and cultural contexts, rather than abstracting it into fixed
logical rules. Wittgenstein’s work influenced various fields, including
philosophy, linguistics, and cognitive science, by highlighting the
practical and contextual aspects of language.

Roman Jakobson (1896–1982)

Roman Jakobson was a leading figure in linguistics and semiotics,
known for his functional approach to language. He developed a model
that identified six functions of language: referential, emotive, conative,
phatic, metalingual, and poetic, each serving a specific communicative
purpose. Jakobson also contributed significantly to the study of
phonology, proposing that the structure of sound systems in languages
is governed by universal principles. His work emphasized the
importance of signs and symbols in conveying meaning and the
interaction between linguistic forms and their functions. Jakobson’s
essay Linguistics and Poetics (1960) remains a cornerstone in
understanding how language operates as a system of communication
and artistic expression.

Michael Halliday (1925–2018)

Michael Halliday developed the theory of Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL), which views language as a social semiotic system. He
argued that language is fundamentally shaped by its role in social
interactions, with meaning created through the choices speakers make
from a network of options. Halliday identified three metafunctions of
language: the ideational (expressing content and experience), the
interpersonal (facilitating social interaction), and the textual (organizing
discourse). His seminal work, Language as a Social Semiotic (1978),
provided a framework for analyzing how language is used to create
meaning in different social and cultural contexts, emphasizing its
dynamic and functional nature.

Dell Hymes (1927–2009)

Dell Hymes was a key figure in sociolinguistics and is best known for
introducing the concept of communicative competence, which
encompasses the social and cultural knowledge required for effective
language use. He argued that language is deeply influenced by the
social and cultural contexts in which it is used, shaping the norms and
rules of communication within specific communities. Hymes developed
the SPEAKING model (Setting, Participants, Ends, Act sequence, Key,
Instrumentalities, Norms, and Genre) as a tool for analyzing speech
events in their social context. His work, particularly in Foundations in
Sociolinguistics (1974), emphasized the interplay between language,
culture, and communication, challenging purely structural or generative
approaches to language.

John Searle (1932–Present)

John Searle is renowned for his contributions to the philosophy of
language, particularly his development of speech act theory. He argued
that language is not just a means of expressing ideas but a tool for
performing actions, such as making promises, issuing commands, or
asserting facts. Searle distinguished between locutionary acts (the act
of saying something), illocutionary acts (the intention behind the
statement), and perlocutionary acts (the effect on the listener). His
seminal work, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language
(1969), provided a framework for understanding how speakers use
language to achieve social goals and how meaning is negotiated
through shared rules and conventions. His ideas have significantly
influenced linguistics, philosophy, and communication studies.

DEFINITION OF THOUGHT;
Thought" in philosophy is a term that refers to the application of
philosophical ideas in the humanities and other fields. It can also refer
to the work of writers who use abstract or systematic thinking.
In psychology, thought is a mental process that involves the
manipulation of information to form ideas, beliefs, and opinions. It's a
higher mental process that's unique to humans. It also defines
thought as a mental picture or image of an object, person, event, or
abstract concept formed from sensory inputs. Thoughts are stored in
the mind similarly to how digital images are stored electronically.
While invisible, active thoughts generate electrical signals in the brain.
Scientifically thought is thinking is based on science and is a process
using observation, investigation, and tests to gain knowledge.
In linguistics, thought is often described as a mental language, or
"sentences in the head". The language of thought hypothesis (LOTH) is
a theory that posits that thought is structured in a similar way to
language, with simple concepts combining to form more complex
thoughts. Here are some ideas about the relationship between
language and thought
Different theories propose different relationships between language
and thought.
First, we will discuss language and thought in psychology.
We will delve into the relationship between language and thought,
highlighting the theories of language and thought as we go along.
Finally, we will discuss some of the famous theorists involved in the
relationship between language and thought, namely Piaget and the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
Language is one of the systems through which we communicate, and it
typically involves communicating through sounds and written
communication with the use of symbols, but it can also involve our
bodies i.e body language. As we also tend to think using language,
Sapir-Whorf theorized that the language we use will affect how we see
and think of the world. However, Piaget highlights that children
develop schemas before they are capable of speaking, suggesting that
cognitive processes do not depend on language.
In contrast, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes that the language we
use to communicate determines how we think of the world around us,
affecting cognitive processes like memory and perception.
Theories of Language and Thought
The two main theories representing different perspectives on language
and thought you should know about are Piaget's theory and the Sapir-
Whorf hypothesis.

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

Edward Sapir was an American linguist and anthropologist. He and his

disciple Benjamin Lee Whorf put forward their views about the
relationship between language and thought – the famous Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis embodies two basic
principles: linguistic determinism and linguistic relativity.
Linguistic determinism refers to the concept that the language a
person uses determines the way in which the person views and thinks
about the world to some extent. Language determines certain
nonlinguistic cognitive processes; that is, learning a language changes
the way a person thinks. This concept has generally been broken
down into two basic components – “strong” determinism and “weak”
determinism.

(1) “Strong” determinism refers to the strict view that language

determines thought and that language and thought are identical. It
holds that the existence of linguistic categories creates cognitive
categories. “Strong” determinism is the extreme version of the
theory, and there is strong evidence against it, for instance, the
possibility of translation between languages.
2. “Weak” determinism holds that thought is merely affected or
influenced by languages. It recognizes that the existence of linguistic
categories influences the ease with which various cognitive
operations are performed. This version of determinism is widely
accepted by scholars today. Linguistic relativity refers to concept that
the distinctions encoded in one language are unique to that language
alone; that is, the cognitive processes that are determined are
different for different languages.
Therefore, speakers of different languages are said to think in
different ways.
The reasoning of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been revealed in several
famous quotes.“We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native
languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of
phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in
the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic
flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds – and this
means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature
up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do
largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this
way – an agreement that holds throughout our speech community
and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of
course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely
obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the
organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees
“Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in
the world of social activity as ordinarily understood but are very much
at the mercy of the particular language which has become the
medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to
imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of
language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving
specific problems of communication and reflection
[2] Whorf provided several examples to prove this hypothesis, among
which there is one widely known. According to his work experience,
Whorf found that the reasons causing fire include not only objective
factors but also people’s subjective factors – the understanding of a
language.“Thus, around a storage of what are called ‘gasoline drums,’
behavior will tend to a type, that is, great care will be exercised; while
around a storage of what are called ‘empty gasoline drums,’ it will
tend to be different – careless, with little repression of smoking or of
tossing cigarette stubs about. Yet the ‘empty drums’ are perhaps the
most dangerous, since they contain explosive vapor. Physically, the
situation is hazardous, but the linguistic analysis according to regular
analogy must employ the word ‘empty,’ which inevitably suggests a
lack of hazard [1]
3. Reasonability in Sapir-Whorf hypothesis – language’s influence on
thought. Setting aside the “strong” version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
there is a reasonable factor of this hypothesis
the weak form of the hypothesis – in which thought is affected or
influenced by languages to some extent.
Language affects the way people understand and remember, and it
predisposes people to look at the world in a certain way. This idea will
be discussed from two aspects: lexicon and grammar.

Lexical influences on thought

According to Palmer, a linguistic symbol seems to be like a stair, in
which thought climbs the stair and gradually becomes an abstract
concept. Language is not only the reflection of thought and feeling,
but also exerts influence on them
[3]One example to prove the idea that language influences thought
from the perspective of lexicon is that in some European languages,
there are plenty of words to describe colors, but in some African
languages, only “black” and “white” are used to describe colors; the
rich terms representing colors require people who speak these
European languages to spend time and energy recognizing and
distinguishing all kinds of colors, which ensue an improvement in their
ability to identify and distinguish all kinds of colors; however, to some
African people, since the terms representing colors are scarce, they
pay little attention to the differences of all kinds of colors; as a result,
their ability to differentiate colors is lower. Language can also
influence thought by providing new ideas and thoughts to people
through new words. With the development of science and
technology, many new things including new inventions, new ideas,
and new ways of living have emerged, and people have been
inventing new words accordingly in various fields, especially in
scientific and medical fields. Neologism also injects new ideas to
people, thereby affecting, changing, or even inspiring their thoughts.

Grammatical influences on thought

Carroll and Casagrande compared Navaho and English. In Navaho, the
form of a verb is related to the shape of the object that a doer
handles. If an object is long and flexible, the verb has a certain form,
but if an object is flat and flexible, the verb takes another form.
However, in English, the form of a verb has nothing to do with the
shape of an object. Carroll and Casagrande carried out a study on
Navaho and English children and found that Navaho children grouped
objects on the basis of form at an earlier age than English children
[4] From above, it can be appreciated that language can influence
thought, both in lexicon and grammar. To this point, Sapir takes the
same view.
In short, language can affect thought in terms of both lexical and
grammatical levels. A person’s cognitive development is inevitably
constrained by his or her native language under a certain linguistic
environment. The categories of language can influence people’s
thought by linking their language with their experience and leading a
speaker’s outlook of the world in a certain way.

4. Refutes on Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has both reasonable and unreasonable
factors. Weak determinism (language influences thought) has been
proven to be reasonable from many aspects. However, strong
determinism and linguistic relativity are supposed to be untenable,
and there are many proofs to deny them. Here, we

will discuss some of the proofs to disprove strong determinism and

linguistic relativity.

Mutual independence of language and thought

From the perspective of phylogenic development, Lev Vygotsky

suggested that language and thought have different genetic roots and
the development of language and thought does not reach a parallel
but often cross each other
[5]Contemporary cultural-anthropological and psychological research
showed that there might exist a pre-linguistic phase the early human
society, where human thought is referred to as behavioral and
imagistic thought

[6]. Similarly, Vygotsky and Piaget assumed that there exists a

preintellectual phase in children’s verbal language development and a
pre-linguistic phase in their intellectual development
[6]. Slobin hypothesized that “children begin the language-learning
process with a starting set of universally shared meaning” and “all
children arrive at the learning stage with a language-making capacity
that constructs similar early grammars from all input languages; the
surface forms generated by these grammars may vary since the
materials provided by the input languages vary; however, the basic
notions that first receive grammatical expression remain constant
across all early grammars and are independent of the input
languages”
[7]. Goldin-Meadow suggested that “the components of the motion
events that a deaf child conveys in gesture can be inferred to as those
of children’s pre-linguistic thought”

[8]. Therefore, based on the above evidence, some scholars came to

the conclusion that thought comes before language, and that
language and thought are mutually independent. Furthermore,
studies of cognitive neuroscience on aphasics also concluded that
consciousness and thinking do not completely depend on language.
Aphasia can only influence the extended consciousness; it does not
weaken the core consciousness. Even without the involvement of
language, aphasics could still generate some kind of nonverbal
conscious activity with images. Therefore, the research on cognitive
neuroscience challenges traditional psychological ideas, where
consciousness functions can be both, unified and relatively
independent.
In short, language and thought are independent to each other, and
thus language does not determine thought.

Overwhelming influence of thought over language

Sapir demonstrated that a linguistic symbol can easily transfer from

one kind of organ to another kind of organ and from one kind of
technology to another kind of technology. Therefore, only sound is
not the basic fact of language. The basic fact of language lies in the
classification of concepts, their structure, and their relations. As a
structure, the inner side of language is the thought. The world
reflected by the language of different nations is not the same.
Different languages reflect different thoughts and thought
perspectives of varied nations. For example, in English, Chinese, and
Japanese, there are four seasons in a year, whereas in Tagalog, there
are only rainy and arid seasons in a year. This is because in the eyes of
the Englishmen, the Chinese, and the Japanese, a year has colorful
and various seasons, and they view the year and the world through a
colorful lens, whereas in the eyes of the Tagalog, a year is
monotonous and lacks vitality, and they view the year and the world
from a monotonous perspective. Their languages reflect different
understandings of the world, thoughts, and thought perspectives.
How thought influences language can be reflected in the complexity
of a nation’s language. The more valuable something is to a nation,
the more detailed the language is in representing it. Taking the
Eskimos as an example, snow matters a lot to the Eskimos since it is
closely related to their life and production; therefore, there are many
terms that can be used to describe all kinds of snow, such as “falling
snow,” “slushy snow,” “wind-driven flying snow,” and so on; these
terms are convenient for the Eskimos. On the other hand, since snow
is not that important to the Englishmen, there is only one word to
represent this natural phenomenon, which is “snow.” The more
significant something is to a nation, the more people will think about
it and pay attention to it, resulting in a more detailed language
representing it, and vice versa. In short, thought influences language.
They way that people think and look at the world influences their
languages. Noam Chomsky proposed the notion “linguistic
universals,” which states that people’s shared thought influences the
characteristics of people’s languages
As is known to all, humans have thought universality. There are two
ways in which how thought universality leads to linguistic universals.

(1) People come to know and understand the world in the same way,
that is, from the basic object level or the basic category to the
superordinate level or the subordinate level. Based on this kind of
thought universality, people classify different types of animals,
vegetables, and other objects into categories and arrange these
categories into a hierarchical structure, which forms linguistic
universals.
(2) People perceive focal colors in the same way, which is a form of
thought universality. This thought universality can result in linguistic
universals. The languages describing colors are not arbitrary, and
people select the basic terms for colors from only eleven focal colors.

Piaget's stage theory of cognitive development

According to Piaget's theory, language is preceded by and depends on
thought. Before children can use words correctly they need to first
develop an understanding of the concepts behind them. This occurs
through the development of schemas, a process which precedes
language development.
The stage of a child's cognitive development will also limit their ability
to communicate meaningfully. In this way, language depends on
thoughts. For example, a child who is not yet able to mentally represent
the perspective of another person will not be able to talk about it or
account for it when they talk to others. In contrast, the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis proposes that the language we use to communicate
determines how we think of the world around us, affecting cognitive
processes like memory and perception.

CONCLUSION;
Language and thought are closely related. The relationship between
language and thought has raised intense discussion and disputes
among scholars since early times. Tracing back from Herder and
Humboldt to Sapir wholf and many others scholars in modern times,
their ideas and opinion have evolved and developed. Beginning from
Sapir Whorf and theory of language determinism and language
relativity, this write up agrees that language and thought are mutually
independent and thought has an overwhelming influence on language.
Therefore, the preferred relationship between language and thought
should be that they are independent but interactive

REFERENCES;

Berlin, B., & Kay, B. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and
evolution. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Carruthers, P. (1998). Language, thinking in language? Evolution and a
modularist possibility. In Language and thought: Interdisciplinary issues.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Carroll, D. W. (1999). Psychology of language. Brooks/Cole Publishing

Company, USA.

Chomsky, N. (1972). Language and mind. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,

New York.

Sapir, E. (2002). Language: An introduction to the study of speech.

Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, Beijing.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. The MIT Press and John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York and London.

Udoh, Anyanwu, & Osuagwu, (2019). Fundamental of linguistics.

Fruities' Publications Ltd.

Websites
Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com

StudySmarter. Retrieved from https://www.studysmarter.co.uk

Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org