Wilhelm von Humboldt explained language to be the medium of thought whilst Johann G. Fichte understood language as encoding thought. Both readings depict language to be a means of effecting or conveying something, thus implying that the thing is already perceived and dictating that language is subjective to thought. Such definitions would leave no room for debate as the answers lie within the rigid definitions and therefore I would like to clarify my personal definitions of thought and language respectively. Thought is the product of mental activity or mental activity in itself and language is a form of visual and auditory communication considered to be intimately human.
Image theory is the idea that the meaning of a word is defined by the image it conjures in the mind. This idea proposes that thought can exist absolutely before and without language. Some argue that human beings think in images, this could explain why we are often faced with the predicament of not being able to communicate effectively what we are thinking. If our thoughts exist as images we do not need language to know and understand these words. For example, in the Inuit community there are many words for different kinds of snow - aput ’snow on the ground', gana 'falling snow', piqsirpoq 'drifting snow', and qimuqsuq ‘ a snow drift’ – The images that the different words conjure can exist without the words themselves, and the images do not change because of the word but rather the word changes because of the image. It is arguable then that the words only exist as they are necessary for communication in a community where snow is an integral part of everyday life.
However, the Inuit are an archaic community where there has not been much revolutionary change in culture and customs. In other societies such as in East Asia and Europe, literature and the use of language has become so prevalent that language seems innate from birth. The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis suggests that language determines our experience of reality and that we can only see and experience what a language allows us to. This hypothesis construes how language limits our thought and perhaps why people who speak different languages my think differently. For instance as a speaker of both Yoruba and English who thinks primarily in English I find that when I am communicating with people who primarily think in Yoruba they tend to seek out an underlying meaning to the thoughts I convey to them. This could be owing to the fact that Yoruba is a language rife with proverbs and puns and speakers of it are accustomed to thinking on the subject matter what is said. Therefore proving that the style of the Yoruba language limits what speakers interpret and therefore what they think and know.
I personally believe that a limited amount of thought can exist without language. It is not necessary to consult and communicate with other human being about our thoughts on simplicities. However how would we know the abstract concepts without language? How would we think of love and woe? The lack of language can limit our experience and thought thereof. Thought can exist without language, but language enriches thought and is therefore an integral part in developing the human mind.