Does Language Shape How We Think?

If you've ever taken a linguistics or cognitive psychology class, then you've probably heard of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (otherwise known as linguistic relativity), which posits that the structure of language affects the way we see the world. You can perhaps think of hypothetical examples - the number of different colours a language contains may alter the way its speakers see colours in the physical world, the ways a particular language refers to aspects of time may affect the way speakers experience the real flow of time. Much of the research that went into this popular theory has been quite flawed, however. A glaring example is the idea that  Eskimo languages have an unusually large number of words for "snow." This has become known as the "Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax" since it has been since demonstrated that Eskimo languages have no more words for snow than the English language does.

Noam Chomsky, the renowned linguist, cognitive scientist, and political thinker, disagrees with the notion that language shapes thought. Chomsky revolutionized the field of linguistics when he posited that all human languages had a core component that was hardwired at birth - a concept called Universal Grammar. Chomsky believes that language acquisition can be broken down into two components: principles and parameters. This view posits that grammatical principles underlying language are innate and hardwired from birth, while certain parameters must be learned after birth (such as whether the language calls for agreement between a verb and a subject, whether affixes can be added onto words, or whether the language is subject-object-verb or subject-verb-object). Chomsky believes that all humans are programmed for language, and that we do not simply learn language from our surroundings, but rather turn certain linguistic "switches" on and off depending on the language we're first exposed to.

Surely, language must shape the way we see the world in some ways, right? Do we not think in words? Doesn't that challenge the view that language does not shape thought? The jury seems to be out on this debate. What do you think?