Does the medium of language impact thought?

In Goody’s article, pg 43, he states “As for personal awareness of this individualization, other factors doubtless contributed, but writing itself (especially in its simpler, more cursive forms) was of great importance. For writing, by objectifying words, and by making them and their meaning available for much more prolonged and intensive scrutiny than is possible orally, encourages private thought; the diary or the confession enables the individual to objectify his own experience, and gives him some check upon the  transmutations of memory under the influences of subsequent events. And then, if the diary is later published, a wider audience can have concrete experience of the differences  that exist in the histories of their fellow men from a record of a life which has been partially  insulated from the assimilative process of oral transmission.”  To this, I think we must question his basic assumption, that the written word may be subject to more intense scrutiny, given that earlier in the piece Goody brought in and agreed with Plato’s argument that the oral culture has a deeper effect on the individual and their culture.  However, I think a much deeper question is present here as well.  Is the manner in which an idea or thought delivered impact the depth of the idea and the thought which may take place regarding it?  To that extent, does the language one speaks/communicates in affect the depth of individual thought that can take place, and if so does a society which exists in an exclusively oral medium placed at a disadvantage?