The Power of Language

Not everyone thinks in a language. Language is extremely helpful for conscious thought, but not because language itself has some inherent magical control over our thoughts, but because language embodies certain kinds of cognitive technology. The keystone paper for that point of view is "Number as a cognitive technology: Evidence from Pirahã language and cognition" (http://langcog.stanford.edu/papers/FEFG-cognition.pdf). Having words for colors makes it easier to remember the specific shades that you have words for, because it's easier to remember the abstract symbol, which you can use to access the concept later, than it is to remember the actual experience of that color. Same with numerical quantities, or anything else for which your language has labels and categories.

My oldest thinks in pictures. Sometimes, it is like speaking to a foreigner in that he makes translation mistakes. He and I have lots of interesting conversations about language and have talked about the blue green issue -- that it is one word in Japanese. One thing we wonder is if having one word says something about their eyesight.

Stephen Pinker from MIT has written some fascinating books on this very subject

The relationship between language and thought is unclear. To be polarising, psychologists believe that language influences thought/culture and linguists believe that thought/culture influences language. There are evidence to support both conclusions, but most of the debate in popular media focuses on examples that are severely misinterpreted. For example, if Language A does not distinguish green and blue, it does not necessarily mean that the speakers of Language A cannot distinguish them, but only that Language A does not distinguish them linguistically. A more concrete example: many languages, such as Chinese, lack linguistic tense (e.g. past, present, future)—using instead aspectual markers (e.g. perfective, imperfective)—, but this does not mean that Chinese speakers cannot understand temporal relations (nor that they could not still express such notions linguistically). Similarly, Russian has separate words for light blue and dark blue, but English speakers can still express these two distinct shades despite not having two separate, distinct words. In short, one has to be extremely cautious about making such broad generalisations without fully understanding the empirical data and, ideally, linguistic theory. See the debate in the Economist between Boroditsky and Liberman for more on this topic: http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/190