The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (or principle of linguistic relativity) holds that language affects its speakers cognitive process and world view (neo-Whorfianism). Some hold this true even for programming languages, assuming coding in some language implies thinking in that language.
K.E. Iverson, inventor of APL, argued that more powerful notations aided alogorithmic thinking (ACM Turing Award Lecture).
P. Graham claims that coders are "satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs" (The Blub Paradox).
One could argue that some think in the programming language they code in, where others translate into code, step by step, the jargon they think in. Both ways have their advantage. The former are usually more productive coders while the latter write more solid code because they do not hammer down screws.
If this is true, domain-specific languages should offer the best of both worlds. There is some empirical evidence that Rax does indeed make it easy to behavioral-data modelers to write solid code. But maybe that is only because solutions can be expressed in the idiom and at the level of abstraction of the problem domain.