INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

A Proposed Solution to The Linguistic Relativity (Sapir–Whorf)

Hypothesis

Ioannis B. Rigas

PhD candidate in Linguistics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150100009

Received: 07 January 2026; Accepted: 12 January 2026; Published: 22 January 2026

ABSTRACT

The question of whether human language plays a constitutive role in shaping human thought, or merely dresses

up pre-formed thoughts—thus occupying a secondary role in the constitution of thought—has occupied scientists

and philosophers of language and mind for centuries. The present paper undertakes a philosophical investigation

of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and seeks to dispel certain confusions surrounding it. It is demonstrated that

human language is both an inseparable component of human psychology (a cognitive mechanism) and an

indispensable part of the social practices in which humans participate (a social tool, a technology that each

culture uses creatively). The distinction between language as a cognitive–semiotic system and as a culture

specific-national constituent is crucial when we investigate linguistic relativity. Ultimately, language

coordinates, influences, and directs thought and psychological processes; it also constitutes and reproduces

culture, helping it to evolve.

Keywords: Linguistic Relativity, Sapir – Whorf Hypothesis, Linguistic Anthropology, Philosophy of Language,

Philosophy of Mind

INTRODUCTION

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity (Sapir–Whorf hypothesis) and its two versions

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis emerged in the first half of the 20th century, articulated by linguists Edward Sapir

(1929) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1940). Although never explicitly presented in a joint publication, passages

from their respective works form the basis of this hypothesis, which exists in two versions: a strong and a weak

one.

The strong version (the strong Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis, or linguistic determinism) asserts that each human

language completely determines how its speakers understand the world. Linguistic categories—such as

grammatical gender, tense, aspect, or lexical distinctions for numbers or colors—are said to restrict speakers’

cognitive categories, thereby constraining their perception and understanding of reality.

The weak version (the weak Sapir–Whorf Hypothesis, or weak linguistic relativity) maintains instead that each

language merely influences, to some degree, the understanding of reality by its speakers, without absolutely

binding or determining it.

While the strong version has largely lost credibility among scholars, the weak version is widely accepted by

contemporary linguists and cognitive scientists (Pinker, 1994; Kay & Kempton, 1984; Ahearn, 2021). This raises

a crucial question: how are human language and human thought connected—first within the framework of human

psychology, and then within the cultural context in which all human activity unfolds?

www.ijltemas.in

Page 116

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

Language and Thought

Language and thought in the context of human psychology

Human language and human thought are intimately connected, a fact recognized since antiquity. Ancient Greeks

used the term logos to denote both speech and reason, while Plato, in his dialogue Cratylus, raises fundamental

questions about the relationship between language and reality (Dalimier, 1998). But what is the architecture of

the human psychology, and where exactly do thought and language fit within it?

Human psychology is a complex whole, composed of cognitive abilities, psychological states, psychological

behaviors and emotions, semiotic codes, and, underlying it all, a largely subconscious moral and value system.

Human thought, as a cognitive creation arising from human psychology, consists of the combined operation of

cognitive abilities, psychological states, emotions – psychological behaviors and semiotic codes.

It is fundamentally structured and directed through human language. The latter is understood as the primary

convention underlying and coordinating all other conventions and behaviors (Searle, 1995, 2010). In the table

below (Table 1), the components of human psychology are showcased to the readers:

Human Psychology Components

Cognitive Abilities (Nature; Biological

construction of human being)

Perception, Observation, Memory, Directedness,

Pattern Recognition, Aesthetic Judgment,

Categorization

Psychological States (Interaction of Nature and

Beliefs, Desires, Intentions, Logics, Mindsets,

Nurture)

Narratives–Myths, Ideologies, Prejudices

Foundation – Background Morality – Value System

Emotions – Psychological Behaviors (Naturally

developing; Distribution influenced by activities,

hormones, age, sex, etc.)

Joy, Enthusiasm, Anxiety, Sadness, Fear, Anger,

Irritation, Stress, Motivation, Satisfaction,

Gratitude, Impatience, Boredom/Perseverance,

Patience, Discipline, Interest, Indifference

Semiotic Codes – Cognitive Systems (Acquired in

Numbers, Language, Images, Music

human societies, further cultivated through practice)

Table 1: Architecture of human psychology (Pinker, 1994, 2007; Lakoff, 2014)

Thought evolved from imagistic to indexical and then to symbolic, following Charles Sanders Peirce’s tripartite

semiotic classification (Deacon, 1997). Linguistic representation builds upon prior mental representations, and

linguistic semantics derives from the logical connections within thought, as a “representation of representations.”

Thought is analogical, holistic, and continuous, providing a primary representation of experiential data;

language, by contrast, is digital, discrete, and segmented (into words). Language is composed of arbitrary

symbols, products of abstraction and generalization, which can be used independently of spatiotemporal

constraints (displacement), can refer to themselves (metalinguistic function), and can be combined in infinite

ways to generate new thoughts—digital thoughts subsequently applied to the physical world (Christidis, 2002).

The way in which individuals employ their cognitive abilities, emotions, psychological states, and semiotic codes

determines their distinctive idiosyncrasy, linking or differentiating them from others.

Correlation, but non-exhaustion, of human thought in language

While human thought is related to and expressed by language, it is not exhausted in language, for several reasons

(also see the relevant discussion in Pinker, 1994):

www.ijltemas.in

Page 117

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

(a) The formation of thought in response to environmental stimuli (external or internal) engages the full range

of cognitive abilities—perception, attention, pattern recognition, memory (procedural and episodic), sensory–

motor systems—not solely language.

(b) There are modes of thought, in which language plays little or no role (e.g., visual thinking, mathematical

thinking, musical thinking, the kinesthetic thought of an athlete in motion), or in which it operates peripherally

and secondarily. Acquiring such modes of thought requires immersion in the practices of those who already

possess them. Professional activities shape cognition by prioritizing certain forms of thought over others.

(c) Infants, as well as nonhuman animals (e.g., dogs, cats, bees), are capable of thought without having developed

or using language as a communicative system.

(d) The same ideas, arising from worldly experience or scientific inquiry (e.g., special and general relativity,

quantum mechanics), can be expressed in different languages or translated between them without substantial

loss.

(e) If thought and language were identical, metalinguistic reflection would be impossible—we could not think

about language using a specialized metalinguistic vocabulary.

Nonetheless, language remains central to human psychology because it:

(a) Expresses, directs, and generates thoughts—some of which could not exist without it—and at the same time

interacts continuously with all other cognitive faculties. It is infinitely expressive (given sufficient effort through

metaphor and explanation) and explanatory (everything can be explained in hindsight through language). It

enables the creation, maintenance, and participation in human intersubjective realities.

(b) Serves as a social convention at the core of all other social conventions (political, educational, athletic,

artistic, military). Declarative speech acts represent as existent that which is not yet actual, fostering imagination,

narrative thinking, and action beyond immediate needs (Searle, 1995, 2010).

(c) Encodes stances toward reality, with precision enabled by stylistic choices (familiar–formal, composed–

impulsive), framing reality through conceptual schemas, facilitating coordinated action and cooperation.

(d) Works in continuous interplay with the body and mind to categorize, organize, and represent reality via

grammatical categories (nouns, verbs, adverbs, prepositions) (Pinker, 2007).

(e) Supports other semiotic systems such as mathematics (expressing quantity, arithmetic operations) and music

(evaluating aesthetic decisions, guiding composition, aiding presentation).

(f) Enables self-communication: internalized yet externalizable, language allows silent thinking. “Talking to

oneself” brings memories, feelings, and ideas to the forefront of consciousness. Humans are always in a latent

social state, using an inherently intersubjective semiotic code (there is no private language in Wittgenstein’s

sense).

(g) Grants access to any domain of knowledge. Cultivating language—through reading, writing, and discourse—

enhances overall thought and cognitive capacity.

(h) Once an object, person, or situation is named, new thoughts about it become possible. You can comment on

it, praise it or reject it. Without language, complex social thought as we know it, becomes impossible.

Language and thought in the context of human culture

Language acquisition occurs within, and is shaped by, human culture. Language is both ontologically objective

(a biological trait common to all humans) and ontologically subjective (varying in mastery and use among

individuals). It is, in reality, an intersubjective convention—both material (signifiers in concrete situations) and

semantic - immaterial (signifieds in the minds of individuals). Social realities are linguistically mediated and

www.ijltemas.in

Page 118

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

progress through discourse. Each human domain (athletic, artistic, military, scientific, enterprising, religious)

has its own communicative code, which constitutes the stylistic hallmark of that domain’s practitioners.

Languages encode reality to varying degrees of detail depending on the needs of their communities. For example,

the language of an Amazonian tribe (e.g., Pirahã, Munduruku) lacks the extensive numerical vocabulary of a

Western European language because its speakers have no need for it in their simpler, non-commercial daily life.

Thus, each language encodes and expresses reality differently, but all languages have equal possible expressive

abilities. Research of recent decades (Berlin & Kay, 1969; Slobin, 1996; Boroditsky, 2001; Levinson, 2003;

Everett, 2008; Deutscher, 2010; Fausey & Boroditsky, 2010) has shown both universal similarities and

language–culture-specific differences in the conceptualization of space, time, number, and color (see 1.2.4

section for an in depth overview). All languages are structurally and functionally equal, serving the needs of

their speakers within their respective cultural contexts. Language, thought, and culture mutually shape one

another, forming a triangle (Ahearn, 2021):

culture

language

thought

Finally, a sociolinguistic reformulation of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, proposed by Stubbs (1997), transforms

it from a cross-linguistic to an intra-linguistic framework: different linguistic choices within the same language

activate different conceptual frames, thereby influencing perception and framing of reality. For example,

choosing the word refugee rather than illegal immigrant frames the same phenomenon in markedly different

ways. Intra-linguistic choice in this case affects human thinking and understanding of reality to a great extent.

Empirical studies on Language, Thought and Culture

A large body of empirical research demonstrates that thought, language and culture are closely related, without

either being reducible to the other.

Space and Time

Lera Boroditsky (2010) studied an Aboriginal community that speaks Kuuk Thaayorre and lives in Pormpuraaw,

Australia. Her findings showed that these speakers conceptualize time differently from English speakers because

they conceptualize space differently. The Kuuk Thaayorre language does not contain words such as left, right,

or in front of, as its speakers do not represent space relative to their bodies. Instead, all spatial relations are

expressed using the cardinal directions (North, South, East, West). For example, instead of saying “place the

glass to your left,” speakers say “place the glass to the North.”

Members of this community always know with great accuracy where North, South, East, and West are located.

With respect to temporal cognition, English speakers tend to place earlier events on the left and later events on

the right, largely due to the left-to-right direction of writing. Kuuk Thaayorre speakers, however, organize time

from East to West. Earlier events are located in the East and later events in the West; time flows from East to

West. When speakers face East, time moves toward them; when they face West, time moves away from them.

When facing North, time unfolds from right to left, and when facing South, from left to right (using English

spatial terms). For these Aboriginal speakers, time is not anchored to the body, but to the surrounding landscape.

Notably, significant differences also emerge among egocentric languages. For example, Greek speakers say the

meeting lasted a lot of time or a lot of time has passed, whereas English speakers say it was a long meeting or

it’s been a long time. Greek uses terms of quantity to describe duration, while English uses terms of length. The

www.ijltemas.in

Page 119

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

question arises whether this linguistic difference corresponds to different ways of perceiving temporal duration.

Daniel Casasanto and colleagues (2004) found precisely this through a series of experiments with Greek and

English speakers.

In the first experiment, participants were shown lines extending across a computer screen, one at a time. They

were then asked to reproduce, using two successive mouse clicks, either the duration of the line’s extension (how

long it took to extend) or its spatial displacement (length). The researchers’ primary interest was the estimation

of duration. They found that when English speakers estimated duration, they were significantly influenced by

the length of the line. Greek speakers, by contrast, were not substantially influenced by line length when

estimating duration.

In the second experiment, participants were shown virtual containers filling with water, again one at a time. They

were then asked to reproduce either the quantity of water in the container or the duration for which it remained

on the screen. Greek speakers were significantly influenced by the quantity of water when estimating duration,

whereas English speakers were not.

Such experiments provide evidence for genuine differences in thought rather than merely in language. This is

demonstrated by the fact that the tasks contain no linguistic stimuli and do not require participants to produce

language. Instead, participants are exposed to non-linguistic stimuli (lines extending on a screen, containers

filling with water) and respond solely through mouse clicks, relying entirely on cognitive processing. In this

case, linguistic differences reflect differences in thought.

Thus, Greeks not only talk about but also, to some extent, conceptualize duration in terms of quantity, whereas

English speakers conceptualize it in terms of length.

Perhaps most striking is that differences can be observed even between different historical stages of the same

language. For modern Greek speakers, the future lies ahead and the past behind. Expressions such as I move

forward refer to the future, while I do not go backwards refers to the past. This was not always the case. For

Ancient Greeks, the past was in front of them, because it had already occurred and was visible, whereas the

unknown future lay behind them. In Ancient Greek, the word opisō (“behind”) could be used to refer to the

future.

Numbers

There exists a language whose number words stop at five. Indeed, such a language exists: Munduruku, spoken

by the Munduruku people who live along the Amazon River in Brazil. This language has words for one (pug),

two (xep xep), three (ebapug), four (edadipdip), and five (pug pogbi). An interesting fact is that from one to four,

the number of syllables in each word corresponds to the number itself.

The linguist Pierre Pica (2004) studied the Munduruku for many years while living among them in the Amazon.

He sought to examine whether and how accurately they could perform numerical calculations. Experiments

conducted by Pica and his colleagues showed that the Munduruku can perform exact calculations with numbers

below five and approximate calculations for numbers above five. They were unable to perform any exact

calculation involving numbers greater than five and could not even determine the result of six minus four. Thus,

the absence of number words beyond five affects the precision with which they can perform numerical

calculations.

Color, Gender, and Grammar

Beyond numbers, researchers have also focused on color. Languages differ considerably in the number of color

terms they possess. For example, English and Greek both have separate words for blue and green. In contrast,

Tarahumara, a language spoken by the Tarahumara people of Mexico, has only one word, siyóname, which refers

to both blue and green.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 120

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

In a well-known experiment, Paul Kay and Willett Kempton (1984) found that native English speakers perceive

the distinction between blue and green more categorically than Tarahumara speakers, emphasizing the boundary

between the two colors. This difference in perception is attributed to the English language, which lexicalizes the

distinction.

In a more recent experiment, Jonathan Winawer and colleagues (2007) found that native Russian speakers detect

differences between light and dark blue more quickly than English speakers. Russian, like Greek, has two distinct

words for these shades: goluboy (light blue) and siniy (dark blue). English, by contrast, uses a single term, blue,

for the entire spectrum.

Another area of interest is grammatical gender. Grammatical gender (masculine, feminine, neuter) does not

necessarily correspond to biological sex. For example, in Greek, the boy and the girl are both grammatically

neuter, despite differing in biological sex. Moreover, the number of grammatical genders varies across

languages: French and Spanish, for instance, lack a neuter gender.

The grammatical gender assigned to the same object can also differ across languages, as illustrated by the

following examples:



der Tisch (masculine in German), la table (feminine in French), to trapezi (neuter in Greek)

le feu (masculine in French), i fotia (feminine in Greek), das Feuer (neuter in German)

o kosmos (masculine in Greek), el mundo (masculine in Spanish), but die Welt (neuter in German)

Boroditsky, Schmidt, and Phillips (2003) found that grammatical gender can influence how speakers perceive

the objects denoted by words. For example, the grammatical gender of the words key and bridge in German and

Spanish affects the adjectives speakers use to describe them. Key is masculine in German (der Schlüssel) and

feminine in Spanish (la clave). German speakers describe keys as hard, heavy, metallic, and jagged, whereas

Spanish speakers describe them as golden, complex, small, lovely, and shiny. Conversely, bridge is feminine in

German (die Brücke) and masculine in Spanish (el puente). German speakers describe bridges as beautiful,

elegant, fragile, and slender, while Spanish speakers describe them as large, dangerous, long, strong, powerful,

and tall. The researchers suggest that grammatical gender may even influence the design of objects and structures

such as bridges.

Syntax

Finally, syntactic structure provides further evidence for linguistic relativity. The preferred syntactic patterns of

a language guide speakers’ attention to different aspects of events. If a woman accidentally breaks a vase, English

speakers are more likely to say:

“She broke the vase,”

whereas Spanish speakers are more likely to say:

“Se rompió el florero” (“The vase broke”).

English emphasizes the agent, while Spanish emphasizes the event itself when describing an accident. Caitlin

Fausey and Lera Boroditsky (2010) designed an experiment that demonstrated this effect. They showed sixteen

videos depicting intentional actions and accidents to English and Spanish speakers. For example, in one video a

man deliberately popped a balloon; in another, he popped it accidentally. In a further example, a man

intentionally dropped his keys, or dropped them accidentally while trying to place them on a table. Participants

were then asked to describe what happened.

While both English and Spanish speakers emphasized the agent equally when describing intentional actions,

English speakers focused more on the agent when describing accidents, whereas Spanish speakers focused more

www.ijltemas.in

Page 121

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

on the event itself. This difference may have significant implications for eyewitness testimony, as syntactic

preferences appear to influence how events are described and, consequently, how responsibility and punishment

may be assigned.

In all the above cases, speakers are not incapable of thinking about or perceiving concepts such as space, time,

quantity, objects, or events. Nevertheless, the language they speak influences how these concepts are understood

by directing attention to different aspects of experience.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study utilizes previous studies on linguistic relativity and evaluates their findings. After a thorough

investigation of the relationship between language and thought in the context of human psychology, the focus

shifts to the relationship between language and thought in the context of human culture and the Sapir – Whorf

linguistic relativity problem is being reformulated accordingly. To solve the question of how language affects

thought, a distinction is necessary, which is discussed in Results (3). The studies utilized can be found in the

Bibliography section (5).

The analytical framework of the study draws inspiration from the analytic tradition in the philosophy of language

and mind (Wittgenstein, Austin, Searle), while simultaneously taking into account questions and findings from

empirical research in cognitive linguistics (Evans, 2019), linguistic neuroscience (Lakoff, 2014), and the

anthropology of language (Everett, 2017). In this way, it seeks to offer a multidimensional approach to the Sapir–

Whorf hypothesis, aiming to bridge the divide between thinkers and researchers who conceive of language either

exclusively as a subjective cognitive mechanism—such as generativists—or exclusively as a social tool

embedded within particular cultural contexts—such as functionalists. Both are true when they are combined and

neither is true on its own, as we will see below.

The sources considered constitute some of the most up-to-date and authoritative contributions to this significant

philosophical problem. References were selected from different fields and traditions within linguistics in order

to provide an analysis that is as multifaceted as possible, while remaining rigorously grounded in contemporary

scientific research and philosophical thought.

RESULTS

Reformulating the hypothesis (the actual Sapir–Whorf question and its resolution)

Taking into account the above discussion, we can now reformulate the Sapir–Whorf question as follows:

Does human language play a constitutive role in shaping human thought, or does it merely dress up already pre-

formed thoughts—thus playing a secondary role in the constitution of thought?

For centuries, scientists, philosophers of language and mind, and everyday speakers have disagreed over this

question—some arguing that language is a constitutive element of thought, others that it merely dresses up pre-

formed ideas. Can a clear answer be given?

A proposed solution to the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

As it is often the case in philosophy, both positions contain a grain of truth: language both participates in the

formation of human thought and dresses it up in the garment of a given culture.

The key lies in distinguishing between human language as a cognitive system of the human mind and the

particular national language of a given community - nation:

Human language, as a highly powerful cognitive–semiotic system unique to our species, participates in

structuring and constituting thought in ways impossible without it.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 122

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

A given national language, In turn, dresses up thoughts—already formed at an initial stage—in the attire of its

culture.

In this framework, the “language of thought” (Pinker’s Mentalese, 1994) correlates to language as a cognitive

system–together with the other cognitive abilities of the human mind that participate in the creation of human

thoughts-, while each national language corresponds to the cultural garment in which human thoughts are

dressed, at the time they are finally expressed.

DISCUSSION

With that distinction in mind, the linguistic relativity hypothesis begins to resolve. Language as a cognitive

system contributes to the constitution of human thoughts and as a cultural tool with national significance gives

our thoughts a culture specific flair. Different linguistic choices can influence thought within the broader context

of human psychology. However, thought is by no means imprisoned by language:

“Learning a language means immersion in a tradition composed not of empty words and phrases, but of words

and phrases whose meaning is inextricably bound up with the total tradition and life of a culture and society.”

(De Mauro, 2019)

The distinction between language as a cognitive system and national language is one that cannot be omitted

when we talk about linguistic relativity, and that is something that the present essay aspires to make clear to

future research works in the field. With this distinction in mind, cognitive linguists, anthropologists and

philosophers of language and mind can begin to see more clearly the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and pose relevant

research questions in the fields of the interrelation of language, thought, and culture.

The fact that we speak a language means that we have access to an incredibly rich semiotic system that changes

the way our brain works and processes reality -specifically, social human realities.

The fact that we speak one or more national languages means that we can dress up the same thoughts in different

ways, appealing to different cultures, relevant to the languages that we speak.

Also, it is important to note that language is not merely a communication tool. As we saw above language

coordinates and directs human thoughts, activates frames of interpretation, brings back memories, makes actions

and emotions understandable to others and creates thoughts about concepts that would not be possible without

it. In other ways, it organizes human thought and action in completely new ways, which are not available to

other representatives of the animal kingdom that do not have it, despite the fact that they communicate in other

various ways -e.g. shouts, gestures, etc.- (Deacon, 1997). Modern social realities wouldn’t exist without

language. And systematic complex thoughts, in the way we experience them today, also couldn’t form without

it.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, human language, as a cognitive system specific to humans, plays a constitutive role in the formation

of human thoughts, whereas a given national language dresses up those thoughts—already initially formed—in

the attire of its related culture. Human language is both an inseparable part of human psychology (a cognitive

mechanism) and of the social practices in which humans participate (a social tool, a technology) within a culture.

Ultimately, language both coordinates, influences, and directs our thought and psychology, constituting,

reproducing, and evolving at the same time our culture.

Only the moderate—weak version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis retains validity in light of this investigation;

the strong version must be rejected as false. Human thought is not exhausted in human language, although

language pulls its strings. Thought is shaped by human biology–physiology—of which language is a part as a

cognitive system interacting with the rest—and by cultural expectations (modes of reaction, collective goals,

national myths, cultural achievements) characteristic of a given culture and transmitted through the national

language or languages that are used within it.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 123

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ahearn, L. M. (2021). Living language: An introduction to linguistic anthropology. New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons.

2. Berlin, B., & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. California: University

of California Press.

3. Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of

time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748

4. Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of times East: absolute spatial representations of time

in an Australian aboriginal community. Psychological science, 21(11), 1635-1639.

5. Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S.

Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61–79).

MIT Press.

6. Casasanto, D., Boroditsky, L., Phillips, W., Greene, J., Goswami, S., Bocanegra-Thiel, S., Santiago-Diaz,

I., Fotokopoulu, O., Pita, R., & Gil, D. (2004). How deep are effects of language on thought? Time

estimation in speakers of English, Indonesian, Greek, and Spanish. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 575–580).

Cognitive Science Society.

7. Christidis, A.-F. (2002). Όψεις της γλώσσας [Opseis tis glossas]. Athina: Nisos.

8. Dalimier, C. (Trans.). (1998). Platon: Cratyle (Garnier Flammarion 954). Paris: Flammarion.

9. De Mauro, T. (2019). Mini-semantica [Mini-semantics]. Laterza: Laterza.

10. Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York:

W. W. Norton & Company.

11. Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages.

New York: Metropolitan Books.

12. Evans, V. (2019). Cognitive linguistics: A complete guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

13. Everett, D. (2017). How language began: The story of humanity's greatest invention. London: Profile

Books.

14. Everett, D. L. (2008). Don’t sleep, there are snakes: Life and language in the Amazonian jungle. New

York: Pantheon Books.

15. Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and

punishment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644

16. Fausey, C. M., & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness

memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 644–650.

17. Kay, P., & Kempton, W. (1984). What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? American Anthropologist, 86(1),

65–79. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1984.86.1.02a00050

18. Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain’s metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason.

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00958

19. Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

20. Pica, P., Lemer, C., Izard, V., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Exact and approximate arithmetic in an Amazonian

indigene group. Science, 306(5695), 499–503.

21. Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.

22. Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York: Viking

Press.

23. Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science.

https://doi.org/10.2307/409588

Language, 5(4), 207–214.

24. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.

25. Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

26. Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C.

Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

27. Stubbs, M. (1997). Linguistic relativity: A critical overview. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.),

Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 117–137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

www.ijltemas.in

Page 124

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue I, January 2026

28. Whorf, B. L. (1940). Science and linguistics. Technology Review, 42(6), 229–231, 247–248.

29. Winawer, J., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007). Russian blues

reveal effects of language on color discrimination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the United States of America, 104(19), 7780–7785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701644104

www.ijltemas.in

Page 125