The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: Bonvillain vs. Pinker
             Do dogs think? If you asked any loving pet owner, they would of course say "Yes, without a doubt." If so, in what language do they speak? This is a question which is less easily answered. Since dogs do not have a language, they cannot logically think in words but rather pictures and images. As Pinker calls it, a sort of 'mentalese' (44). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis does not focus on this sort of mental imagery, but rather how language influences the speakers perceptions and therefore can affect their behavior and language (Bonvillain 50). Is this a fact? According to Nancy Bonvillain, this hypothesis is a valid theory which describes the processes of mental thought in any given language. Stephen Pinker, in his book The Language Instinct strongly disagrees, feeling that there is a much more universal, non-language-biased form of thought which determines our behavior. In this essay, I will look at both viewpoints and judge which theory I find a better explanation for the complexity of language and thought.
             Before reading Pinkers chapter 3, "Mentalese", I too gave credit to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. It makes sense to one who has a fairly limited background in linguistic thought that our culture determines our language and our thoughts and vice versa. They are, supposedly, and inter working mechanism as Bonvillain calls is, "coexisting in fluid and dynamic interactions" (50). What one thinks, one can express into words, and what one expresses in words then becomes part of the culture, which then goes back into the thoughts of that culture, right? Or is there something less tangible and less concrete than this circular idea of culture, thought and language? Can we always describe exactly what we are thinking, or are there moments in our thoughts that we can only picture it, in some inexplicable minds-eye picture, and in order ...