The Language and Thought Debate: Piaget and Sapir-Whorf

Which way does the arrow point

Here is a question that sounds like wordplay and is not. You are thinking right now, and you are doing it largely in words. So which came first? One answer says thought did: you work out how the world behaves, and then you learn the words to describe what you already understand. The other says language did: the words your language happens to give you shape what you are able to think about in the first place. Your specification pairs these two positions deliberately, because they point the arrow in opposite directions, and almost everything examinable here follows from which direction you are arguing for. The second half of the topic asks the same question of other species. Animals communicate, sometimes in complicated ways, so what exactly is different about human language? It turns out that the properties human communication has and animal communication lacks are precisely the ones that look most like thinking. That is why these two halves belong in one module rather than two.

Terms for language and thought

Five terms this topic uses. The first two name the positions; the rest are what the debate is fought over.

The same psychologist, a different claim

You have already studied Piaget’s stage theory. Which claim of his does this topic actually examine?

• That language depends on thought, so a child can only use a concept in language once it has developed in their thinking
• That children pass through four stages of cognitive development
• That younger children fail conservation tasks
• That children build schemas through assimilation and accommodation

Which theory says what

Thought first, or language first

Set the two positions out this way and the disagreement becomes precise. Notice that they make different predictions, which is what makes this a scientific argument rather than a matter of taste.

Which two follow from Sapir-Whorf

Select the TWO statements that genuinely follow from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis as your specification describes it.

• Speakers of different languages might differ in how they recall an event
• The colour terms a language provides might affect how its speakers sort colours
• People cannot think about anything they have no word for
• Children develop concepts before they can name them

The version nobody defends

This is the part of the topic where careless revision does real damage, so it is worth being exact. The strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis says that language determines thought: that you cannot think what your language cannot express. Almost no researcher defends that today, for a simple reason. People invent words for things they have already noticed, learn ideas that their language had no term for, and understand distinctions before they can name them. If language determined thought, none of that could happen. What remains debated is a weaker claim: that language influences thought, perhaps by making some distinctions easier to notice or to remember. That weaker claim is genuinely open, and saying so is what an examiner wants. Two cautions about the evidence. Research on recall and on colour recognition across cultures has produced mixed results, and later cross-cultural work complicated the early findings considerably, so present it as contested rather than as a demonstration. And be careful how you write about the people involved. The point of the research is a claim about how language works, not a claim about any particular group of people or how they think. Describe the finding, attribute it to the researchers, and do not repeat colourful claims about other languages that you have seen quoted second-hand: several of the most famous ones turned out not to be true.

The debate in words

Piaget argued that language depends on _____, so a child can only use a concept in language once it has developed in their thinking. Sapir and Whorf argued the reverse: that thinking depends on _____. Their _____ version, which claims language determines thought, is widely rejected, while a weaker claim that language _____ thought is still debated. Research applied the idea to the recall of events and to the recognition of _____, and the evidence there is mixed.

The sentence that overstates it

Four sentences from an answer on this debate. Select the ONE that claims more than the evidence supports.

• Sapir and Whorf argued that the language a person speaks shapes how they think.
• The strong version of the hypothesis is widely rejected by researchers today.
• Research has proved that people who speak different languages see colours differently.
• Findings on colour recognition across cultures have been mixed rather than conclusive.

What animals communicate about

Your specification names four functions of animal communication. Put them in the order given in the specification, which groups them from staying alive to finding what you need.

• Survival
• Reproduction
• Territory
• Food

Only humans do this

Animals communicate a great deal, and some of it is remarkably precise: the study you need by name here is Von Frisch’s work on bees, which is associated with animal communication in your specification. What matters for this topic is not how any one species does it, but what the whole set of animal communication has in common, and what it lacks. Your specification names four functions animal communication serves: survival, reproduction, territory and food. Look at that list and notice what it has in common. Every one of them is about something happening now, or about to happen, in the immediate situation. Human communication does those things too, and then does something else. We plan ahead. We discuss events that have not happened and might never happen. We describe things that are not present, argue about ideas, and tell each other about the past. Now connect that to the first half of this module. Those extra properties, planning and discussing the future, are exactly the ones that look most like thought rather than signalling. That is why the comparison with animals is in this topic at all: it is not a digression about bees, it is a way of asking what language adds to thinking.

State the position carefully

Assemble a sentence about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that an examiner would credit.

Judging the two theories

A question asks you to evaluate explanations of the relationship between language and thought. Take the decisions in order.

• How should you open?
• You want to use the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Which version should you discuss?
• You mention the cross-cultural research on colour. How should you characterise it?
• How can the animal communication material strengthen the answer?

Explain which comes first

Explain and evaluate the two theories of the relationship between language and thought, and use the comparison with animal communication in your answer.

• State Piaget’s position and explain what it predicts about a child learning a word
• State the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and explain how it points the arrow the other way
• Distinguish the strong version from the weaker one, and say which is widely rejected
• Describe how the idea was applied to the recall of events and to the recognition of colours
• Say honestly what the evidence there shows, without overstating it
• Name the four functions of animal communication your specification lists
• Explain two properties of human communication that animal communication lacks
• Reach a judgement, attributing every claim rather than asserting any of them yourself