I'm a linguist and my personal observation is that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (in its stronger form) is mostly thriving among non-linguists; it's usually psycho

I'm a linguist and my personal observation is that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (in its stronger form) is mostly thriving among non-linguists; it's usually psychologists (but there's also at least one instance of an economist) that make these "revolutionary" discoveries that have been considered disproved by linguists for several decades. Lera Boroditsky who's referenced in this piece is among those. Linguistic determinism (aka. The Whorfian Interpretation, aka. strong linguistic relativity) hasn't been "a thing" among linguists for a long time but the light, bidirectional version, "linguistic relativity", has always—more or less—been in play. Here the issue is mainly answering the questions: "To what degree do language and thought affect each other? And how?" One of the scientists I respect the most, Paul Kay[0], has been working with that in particular. He went from being a full-on universalist in the '60s to a relativist (now) because of new discoveries. He's done a bunch of research alongside Terry Regier et al. on linguistic relativity in the color domain (several great articles linked in [0]). Anyone interested in this topic would probably find those articles interesting. [0]: http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/ http://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/