7.8.2. Thought as Determinant of Language

In Hindi and other Indian languages we use a number of different words for various kinship relationships. We have different terms for mother’s brother, father’s elder brother, father’s younger brother, mother’s sister’s husband, father’s sister’s husband, and so on. An English person uses just one word uncle to describe all these kinship relationships. In the English language there are dozens of words for colours whereas some tribal languages have only two to four colour terms. Do such differences matter for how we think? Does an Indian child find it easier to think about and differentiate between various kinship relationships compared to her English-speaking counterpart? Does our thinking process depend on how we describe it in our language?

In this chunk, the text explains how different languages have unique words for various concepts. This is particularly evident in kinship terms where, in some languages like Hindi, there are specific words for different types of uncles, whereas English uses the more general term 'uncle'. This raises the question of whether these linguistic differences affect how speakers of those languages think about relationships and categorize their social world. The suggestion here is that the way we express ourselves in language might shape our thoughts and perceptions of reality.

Imagine two children from different cultures: one speaks Hindi and the other speaks English. If they were playing a game where they had to describe their family structures, the Hindi-speaking child might provide detailed information about various uncle types, while the English-speaking child might simply say 'uncle' for all. This difference in vocabulary might lead to different levels of understanding and relational dynamics, suggesting that the richness of language can influence thought processes and the way individuals perceive their social environment.

Benjamin Lee Whorf was of the view that language determines the contents of thought. This view is known as linguistic relativity hypothesis. In its strong version, this hypothesis holds what and how individuals can possibly think is determined by the language and linguistic categories they use. Experimental evidence, however, maintains that it is possible to have the same level or quality of thoughts in all languages depending upon the availability of linguistic categories and structures. Some thoughts may be easier in one language compared to another.

This chunk discusses the linguistic relativity hypothesis proposed by Benjamin Lee Whorf, which claims that the structure of a language affects its speakers' worldview and cognition. In its strongest form, it suggests that language limits and shapes thought. For example, if a language has specific words for colors or emotions, speakers of that language might conceptualize these aspects differently than speakers of a language without such distinctions. However, empirical research indicates that while language influences thought, it does not strictly determine it; people can think similarly across different languages despite their linguistic frameworks.

Consider two painters, one who speaks a language rich in color terms and another whose language has only a few color distinctions. The first painter might easily differentiate between subtle shades while the second could struggle. This scenario illustrates how language might shape but not completely limit their creative thinking. They both can create art, but their experience and expression of that art might be colored by the depth of language they command.

The noted Swiss psychologist, Jean Piaget believed that thought not only determines language, but also precedes it. Piaget argued that children form an internal representation of the world through thinking. For example, when children see something and later copy it (a process called imitation), thinking does take place, which does not involve language. A child’s observation of other’s behaviour and imitation of the same behaviour, no doubt involves thinking but not language. Language is just one of the vehicles of thinking.

Jean Piaget proposed that thought develops prior to and independent of language. He emphasizes that children learn to understand their environment through thought processes such as observation and imitation, even before they can verbalize these concepts. For instance, a child can recognize and replicate someone else's actions (like clapping) without needing to articulate the action in words. This concept underscores that while language can express thoughts, it does not define or limit them; thoughts can exist in a non-verbal form.

Imagine a toddler watching their older sibling tie shoelaces. The toddler may not have the vocabulary to describe what they're observing and yet can learn this skill through observation and mimicry. It highlights the idea that actions and thoughts can occur without verbal cues, showcasing the ability to learn and understand through direct experience rather than solely through language.

--