Language and olfaction are thought to be weakly connected: western languages like English have few words to describe olfactory experience and speakers have difficulty naming odors. It has also been suggested that odor and language are weakly connected during language comprehension. Embodied accounts to language suggest word meaning is represented as sensory simulation, but so far there is little evidence of olfactory simulation during language processing. In order to directly test for a role of olfaction in word meaning, we compared performance on a set of pre-registered language tasks in 57 participants with acquired anosmia and 56 matched normosmics. Participants completed a lexical decision task with odor (e.g., lavender), taste (e.g., basil), and vision-related nouns (e.g., brick). We found no difference in response time or accuracy between the two groups. Next, participants completed a semantic similarity judgment task with odor-, taste-, and vision-related words. Participants had to judge which of two words was more similar in meaning to a target word (e.g., is patchouli or vinegar more similar to menthol?). Anosmics were overall slower and more accurate in the task, but this did not differ across word type. However, in an implicit memory task, anosmics remembered more odor-related nouns than control participants. Anosmics also rated odor- and taste-related nouns as more positively valenced on a seven-point valence scale than normosmics did. Together, these results suggest that olfactory simulation is not critical to the representation of odor-related language, but odor-related language is more salient and emotional to anosmic participants. Since no detriment to olfactory language was found in anosmics, this suggests odor-related language is not grounded in odor perception. Odor and language are weakly connected in language comprehension too.