The relationship between language and thoughts

The relationship between language and thoughts has always been one of the most
exciting topics for linguistics study. Language is inevitably produced in the process of
human labor to meet the needs of communication consciousness and information
transmission between groups. Once language comes into being, it becomes a significant
factor for the existence and development of thinking. However, thinking and language are
interdependent and mutually reinforcing. In early times, Sapir and Whorf insisted that
different languages represent different world-view and cognitive categories. However, in
the early 1980s, Chomsky and other linguists put forward the theories of universal
language and language acquisition against the theory of relativity. The sets of the structure
of the language are innate to human. With the development of children, this internal
mechanism is stimulated under certain conditions; children are capable of receiving
language as a result. It indicates that cognitive systems can shape how we perceive the
words and language does not influence the experience of the world. But follow on the
presentation of the theory which some scholars also bring doubt about it. This essay is will
analyze the timing order between language and thinking by two different thinkers and then
compare with them.

Edward Sapir was an outstanding American anthropologist, linguistic and one of his
students, Benjamin Lee Whorf was a legend in 20th-century linguistics, majoring in
chemical engineer. They did research and work together to explore how language can
influence habitual thoughts and behaviors. Based on their studies， they considered that
the structure of a language is able to determinate or affect the way of thinking about the
world around us and cognition, which is also famously known as Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
or Whorfianism. Edward Sapir once said that " The fact of the matter is that the ‘real world
' is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group …" (Sapir,
1956). Due to the set pattern of the world in mind, people are more likely to have a
unique understanding of the words when facing different linguistic descriptions, and it
may cause dangerous. For instance, people tend to be more careless and indifferent,
standing next to “empty gasoline drums “instead of "gasoline drums. “On a subconscious
level, people will think that it is a safe place to stand due to the world “empty." However,
people do not know that empty drums are more threatening because they contain vapor,
even can cause an explosion. One simple word can make them in danger. In order to
study interactions between language, thoughts, and culture, Benjamin further researched
the Hopi language. To compare with the SAE wdq (Standard Average European), he
found that language cannot be totally and correctly translated because of the different
concepts of things in terms of enumeration, plurality and nouns of physical quantity in
grammatical level between two different kinds of language and the ideas of languages
are related to their own culture. For example, in SAE, plurality and cardinal numbers can
be used to describe real plurals (e.g., ten men ）or imaginary plurals (e.g., ten days which
are not already experienced). Whorf argued that “CYCLICITY brings the response of
imaginary plurals. But a likeness of cyclicity to aggregates is not unmistakably given by
experience before language, or it would be found in all languages, and it is not,” (Whorf,
1956). Our habitual thoughts make the concept of time objective to us even we did not
experience yet. Nonetheless, in Hopi, it turns into a clear linguistic condition. Plurals and
cardinals cannot be applied to imaginary plurals. “They stayed until the eleventh day” will
replace “They stayed ten days.” Therefore, the Hopi do not consider time as a concept in
their mind, instead of putting the time as a smooth flowing continuum (Whorf, 1956). In
terms of nouns of a physical quantity, Hopi is also different than SAE. In Hopi, all
languages can regard as individual and count. “In a specific statement, ‘water’ means one
certain mass or quantity of water, not what we call ‘the substance water,’ (Whorf, 1956).
Based on these theories, Lera Boroditsky a cognitive scientist at the University of
California, San Diego, also researched the relation between language and mind world. In
her research, the Kuuk Thaayorre the language spoken in Pormpuraaw does not use
spatial terms, like left and right, instead of widely using absolute cardinal directions
( south, west, east, and north ). However, most people in American, even top students or
researchers; they are not able to point out the correct direction immediately. This unique
habit of the way of thinking exercises ability for the Kuuk Thaayorre.

Moreover, Boroditsky and one of her colleague, Alice Gaby, they studied together and
further found that people who have a different concept about space are likely to think
differently about time. When The Kuuk Thaayorre faces a different direction, they will have
different ways to rank the order of time. Even people do not tell them which direction they
are facing; the Kuuk Thaayorre can always easily distinguish and maker order of photos of
change of time correspondingly. What's more, Boroditsky argued that speakers who speak
various languages would have distinct ways of memory events and bilinguals will change
their cognitive system when using different language. People using multiple languages
may focus on different part on the sentence. When something unexpected happens,
English speakers are more likely to describe the events agentive than Spanish speakers
and Japanese speakers. As mentioned these examples, strongly prove that language can
affect people's world view and their behaviors as a result.

However, as linguists such as Noam Chomsky began to redefine the study of the meaning
of human language, linguistics generally changed their mind from language relative to a
more general approach, and scholars attempted to discover general principles of
language. （Josephine，2014). The theory of language relative has gradually denied by
people. Avram Noam Chomsky, an outstanding American philosopher, came up with the
philosophy of language acquisition. “Chomsky, in his celebrated “poverty-of-the-stimulus”
argument, has emphasized the difficulty of the language-acquisition task, and the fact that
children seem to have the capacity to acquire the grammar of their native language based
on highly limited and deficient evidence,”(John, 2010 ). He considered that language is a
kind of structure, and people have a natural language acquisition device, which indicates
that thoughts shape before owning the ability to say a language.

Due to Chomsky's the theory of generative grammar, he believed that It is language

competence refers to the fundamental understanding of the speaker of a language and the
ability to understand the essence of the language. It is creative for people, and it is an
inherent intuitive ability, so the speaker of a language after listening to some sentences,
can create some sentences which he has not heard. One specific example is that the
originality of children's speech, they are born with the ability to learn the human language
without any teaching from families or school and may create some sentences with the
error of structure and grammar but not affect understanding as same as other
physiological devices (organs), such as eyes, ears, mouth and nose, language acquisition
devices can perform their essential functions without any training. The principle has
universality and combinability.
A combination of policies can account for one set of linguistic facts, and a combination of
principles can account for another set of linguistic phenomena. The kaleidoscope of
languages can be explained with a few principles, as convenient as the use of modular
furniture. The combination theory of universal grammar can best explain why children of all
countries can master such a complex language in just two or three years. Therefore,
children can learn any language quickly during a specific year period, but when they grow
up, it will be hard for them to receive any other new languages. In Chomsky's opinion, this
is the scientific hypothesis to reveal the law of the human brain's language thinking. Also,
human language knowledge is not only syntactic, but also phonetic and semantic. For
example, we all know which word should be read most heavily in a sentence, what is the
meaning of a sentence, etc. Therefore, complete generative grammar should include
phonological rules and semantic rules, respectively, describing the potential phonological
knowledge and semantic knowledge in people's minds.

To compare with language reality and universal language, both they discuss the
relationship between language and thoughts and Language relativity supports the idea
that different structures of language can directly affect the speaker’s world view and
cognitive system while universal language states that thought shapes before language
and people can learn language innately. The research of the relation of language and color
perception becomes one of the exciting topics in this area because two different groups
insist on their idea. The Universalist sides argue that color terminology has absolute
universal constraints while the relativist side claims that the cross-linguistic variability of
color terms points to culture-specific phenomena. In this research, because people use the
same eyes to distinguish between different colors, based on the same visual system,
something will be the difference for sure. In 1969, Brent Berlin and Paul kay, in a book
published in the "basic color terms: their universality and evolution", they think that all
people have tag color rule: there are 11 kinds of basic color categories, if there are fewer,
they are in a particular order add (black and white, then black, white and red, then it black,
white, red and green or yellow). According to Josephine (2014) research showed that not
all human being could recognize all colors. It is hard to teach the Namibian Himba people
to know the distinction between Zuzu and burn; even both of them contain the blue color.

From the origin of language until now, the relationship between thought and language has
been one of the core issues discussed by philosophers, psychologists and linguists. Who
decides who between language and thought? Which comes first, language, or thought?
Either language relativity or universal language, there are no particularly convincing
answers to these questions because everyone has their ideas. Therefore, the exploration
and debate on this topic will continue. Boroditsky believed that “ research into how the
languages we speak shape the way we think is helping scientists to unravel how we
create knowledge and construct reality and how we got to be as smart an sophisticated
as we are. “And this insight, in return, helps us understand the very essence of what
makes us human,” (Boroditsky, 2011). The importance is that there is an integral
relationship between language and thoughts. Language is the expression form of
thinking, and thinking is the content of language. They exist together, interacting,
influencing, advancing, and restraining each other.