Between Language and Thought The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and Linguistic Relativism in Contemporary Debate

INTRODUCTION
The relationship between the language we speak and the way we perceive the world is one of the most fascinating fields to study. This dissertation explores whether our language is simply a tool for communication or if it acts as a "lens" that shapes our cognitive processes. The study is divided into three chapters, moving from the biological and evolutionary foundations of the human species to the major 20th-century linguistic theories, eventually focusing on the modern revival of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis through recent studies and evidence.

CHAPTER I: LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT: THE CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS
The first part of the chapter is aimed at establishing a clear terminological distinction between "natural language"—the innate biological faculty unique to humans—and "languages," which are the specific, historical-natural systems we learn within a community. I decided highlight the contrast between the normative approach of traditional grammar and the descriptive nature of linguistics, which seeks to identify the general laws governing all linguistic phenomena. An important theme of this chapter is
represented by "Great Leap Forward," the evolutionary turning point which took place between 150,000 and 70,000 years ago and that allowed Homo Sapiens to develop symbolic thought and complex communication. I analysed how physical changes, such as the increase in cranial volume and the acquisition of an upright posture, were not just biological features but the triggers for a cognitive improvement such as social learning and the creation of "symbolic artifacts". The analysis also addresses the debate between "continuist" and "discontinuist" theories. While some scholars see a link between animal communication and human speech, I highlight the unique features that set human language apart: discreteness, double articulation, and, most importantly, recursivity—the ability to generate an infinite set of sentences from a limited number of elements. Finally, this chapter explores categorization through "Prototype Theory," which explains how our minds does not organize reality in a rigid way but around "ideal examples" (like a sparrow representing the category "bird" better than a penguin), showing the first deep connection between mental representation and linguistic labeling.

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE RELATION BETWEEN LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT
This chapter explores the complex and long-standing debate about the interaction between our language and thought. To provide a comprehensive overview, I decided to provide the most influential theories developed in the fields of psychology and linguistics, specifically focusing on the interactionist, universalist, and deterministic perspectives. The first part of the chapter focuses on the interactionist view, represented by Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget. Although both scholars agreed that cognitive and linguistic development result from the interaction between an individual and their environment, they proposed different mechanisms for this process. Vygotsky argued that language is primarily a social tool that becomes internalized over time. He introduced the concept of the "Zone of Proximal Development," suggesting that children learn more complex tasks through linguistic feedback and collaboration with adults. For Vygotsky, language
effectively shapes thought, transforming from social speech into egocentric speech and finally into internal verbal thought. In contrast, Piaget considered language as a reflection of pre-existing cognitive structures. He described the early language of children as "egocentric," primarily aimed at fulfilling the child’s immediate needs rather than social communication, and argued that thought structures language rather than the other way around. The second section examines the "Universalist" revolution led by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky challenged the behaviorist idea that language is learned through simple imitation, in fact he held that humans possess an innate, biological faculty for language, which he called "Universal Grammar". According to this view, language is an independent cognitive system governed by universal principles that allow children to create an infinite number of sentences from a limited set of words. This perspective shifts the focus from social interaction to the internal, pre-programmed structures of the human mind. Finally, the chapter introduces the premises of linguistic relativism through the work of Franz Boas and Edward Sapir. Boas observed how different cultures adapt their languages to their specific environmental and social needs, for instance European languages make large use of abstract terms compared to more concrete descriptions in indigenous cultures. Sapir further developed these ideas, suggesting that our linguistic habits predispose us to certain interpretations of the world. These perspectives set the stage for a deeper analysis of how the specific language we speak might actually influence our perception of reality.

CHAPTER III: THE SAPIR-WHORF HYPOTHESIS: COORDINATES OF AN OPEN DEBATE
The third chapter is entirely dedicated to the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis," a theory that has sparked intense scientific and philosophical debate since the mid-20th century. According to this hypothesis, language is not merely a tool to talk about our daily experiences but a framework or a lens that actually shapes our perception and categorization of reality. In
this chapter I decided to introduce a distinction between the "weak" version of the theory (linguistic relativity), which suggests that language influences thought, and the "strong" version (linguistic determinism), which claims that language limits and totally controls what we are capable of thinking. A significant part of the chapter is dedicated to the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf, who expanded on Edward Sapir’s intuitions. Whorf argued that every language implies an "implicit model of the world". His studies of indigenous languages like Hopi and Aztec helped him to understand that their grammatical structures for time and space differed from the "Standard Average European" (SAE) languages. Whorf even used analogies such as the Indian "mantra" or mathematical formulas to explain how language acts as a specialized means that organizes our latent energies or scientific concepts into a functional reality. The chapter then addresses the period of crisis this hypothesis faced in the 1970s, primarily due to the rise of Chomskyan universalism and critiques from cognitive scientists like Steven Pinker, who argued for the existence of a universal "mentalese" (a non-linguistic thought medium). However, contemporary scholars such as Lera Boroditsky marked a resurgence of the Whorfian theory supported by scientific evidence. Boroditsky, in fact, provides empirical support for the idea that language shapes our cognition in fundamental ways. For instance, her studies on the Pormpuraaw community in Australia show that speakers of languages using cardinal directions (North, South, East, West) instead of relative terms (left, right) possess an extraordinary and constant sense of orientation that exceeds the cognitive abilities scientists thought were possible for humans. Furthermore, the chapter examines how linguistic structures deeply influence the perception of events and memory. In English, speakers tend to use "agentive" language (e.g., "John broke the vase"), whereas in Spanish or Japanese, accidental events are often described with non-agentive expressions ("the vase broke"). Boroditsky’s experiments demonstrated that these differences lead to variations in eyewitness memory, as English speakers are better at remembering the "agent" of an accident. Finally, the chapter discusses how bilinguism can shift a person’s worldview, this proves how even deep-seated preferences or biases can change depending on which language an individual speaks. This evidence suggests that language is a powerful set of tools that profoundly impacts our daily lives, and this includes important spheres such as politics, education, and law.

CONCLUSIONS
The dissertation concludes that the bond between language and thought is a dynamic interaction. If, on the one hand, we share common biological features, on the other hand our specific languages provide us with a "cognitive toolkit" developed over thousands of years. This means that language can significantly influence what we notice, how we perceive it and how we organize the perception of the world in our minds. Ultimately, even though the aim of this work is to acknowledge linguistic relativity, this is not aimed at creating barriers between cultures, on the contrary, it is about celebrating the diverse ways in which human mind can construct reality and make sense of the Universe