Study Suggests Language Shapes Thoughts

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Shakespeare once wrote ¿that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.¿ But does the fact that it's called a rose actually affect how people perceive the flower? That's a question that has been puzzling scientists since the 1930s, when Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed his linguistic theory that language can influence the nature and content of thought. Findings published online today by the journal Science support the Whorfian hypothesis and indicate that the language of numbers shapes how members of a small South American tribe count.

Peter Gordon of Columbia University spent years studying an isolated Amazon tribe called the Pirahã that has fewer than 200 members. Pirahã people use a counting system in which quantities beyond two are not differentiated but are instead referred to simply as ¿many.¿ In addition, the word for ¿one¿ can actually mean ¿approximately one.¿ To test whether this systems limits how the Pirahã perceive larger amounts, Gordon gave tribe members numerical tasks in which they were asked to match small groups of items based on how many objects were present. Although the adults performed well when there were one, two or three items, their accuracy declined when there were eight to 10 things. With larger groups, they always answered incorrectly.

The results indicate that language can define cognition, at least when it comes to numbers. ¿Whether one language chooses to distinguish one thing versus another affects how an individual perceives reality,¿ Gordon says. But he cautions that the situation may be unique, and that the linguistic determinism theory may not hold for all types of thought.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe