Those same relationships often influence how we do or do not express our thoughts. Language itself, and the way it is either delivered or received, is very important to the expression of our thoughts, both one's use (and the other person's use) of language, and the context of the language either spoken or received. On the other hand, everyone has had a circumstance where some thought, feeling, perception, or experience could not quite "be put into words." Arguably, also, language goes beyond words, such as the "language" of music or art. Still, it is through either spoken or written language that we most easily, and most commonly, express our thoughts, and in ways best understood by others.

However, since language is never independent of either a social context or relationship of power, the expression of our thoughts through language can never be just literal, uninflected expression. Instead, its meaning is always "loaded," sometimes more so, sometimes less so. Take, for example, the following exchange:

Speaker 1: Our environment is getting better.

Speaker 2: Right.

The true meaning of this exchange (and there could be many) depends on the context in which it was spoken (or perhaps overheard, or written, as an e-mail exchange) and the relationship of more or less power (or equality) between speakers.

For example, between friends, the above exchange could signal either agreement (i.e., yes, the environment certainly is getting better) or sarcastic disagreement (especially, nowadays, if the word "yeah" had preceded the word "right"). However, in another context, the meaning of the exchange would be different, and maybe even forced: say between an environmental engineer and his work subordinate.

In such a case, if the engineer said "our environment is getting better" to his subordinate, there would likely be an inflected expectation...

To reply negatively or sarcastically instead (as in "yeah, right") within such a context, a perfectly safe option between friendly equals, is less an option (that is, if one wishes not to offend one's superior) than it would be in the first case, among equals. In the first case, a truthful reply is more likely being sought; in the second, agreement is being sought, truthful or not.
Therefore, language can, and does, either limit or empower expression of our thoughts, depending on situation, context, and who is speaking and/or being spoken to. Literal limitations of language in expression of thought might be, for example, instances in which something seems "too beautiful" (or too special; horrible; wonderful, outrageous etc.) to "put into words" (although, having said this, most people usually manage to do so, anyway). Another such case would be, say, very young children, or non-native or otherwise impeded speakers of a language, who might have the facility or the vocabulary to express their desired thoughts. However, when none of these obstacles exists, language still either empowers or limits expression of our thoughts, since language never functions separately from social context, and context in turn impacts expression and meaning of language.

Bibliography

Certeau, Michel de. The Writing of History. Tom Conley (Trans.). New York:

Columbia University Press, 1988.

Derrida, Jacques. (1974). Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins

Foucault, M, (1980). Power/Knowledge. Pantheon, New York.

Saussure, Fernand de. Saussure's Third Course of Lectures on General

Linguistics (1910-1911). New York: Pergamon Press, 1993.