Language Creates Experience

Operations ATF
Aug 11
19 min read

IJNGP Team

Mumbai.

11th August 2025

The Linguistic Construction of Experience

I don’t know where I learned to speak like this,” Ethan said, “but I know it’s not the voice I think in.” There was no defiance in his tone, just fatigue, like the language he used belonged more to expectation than to self. And that’s where the conversation always begins, not with grammar, but with a fracture. Not with what language says, but what it conceals while seeming to communicate.

The therapist leaned in, curious but gentle. “What do you notice about the way you speak? Is it different from how you feel inside?” He paused, eyes distant. “It’s like I’m repeating lines someone else wrote for me. Words that don’t quite fit the thoughts I have or the things I want to say.”

“When you speak, do you feel connected to the words, or do they sometimes feel like they’re telling a different story than the one inside you?”

He nodded slowly. “Yes. Sometimes I wonder if it traps me, like I’m living inside a story I didn’t choose.”

At first glance, the unusual linguistic patterns a client uses can feel disorienting, fragmented speech, unexpected connections, or shifting meanings. Yet these patterns are more than symptoms, they represent a unique way the client is attempting to navigate and make sense of their world. Rather than closing down these expressions, the therapeutic process invites curiosity. By engaging with the client’s language, therapists gain access to how the client experiences their environment and themselves, uncovering meanings and feelings that conventional frameworks might miss. Instead of picking apart words like a surgeon examining a body, this approach invites language to become a bridge, a way to reach deeper understanding and genuine connection. As Harold Pinter (1991, p. 96) wrote, “speech often acts as a stratagem to cover nakedness, a necessary veil that hides what remains unspoken. Beneath the words, there is always something left unsaid, something shaping our identity before we even realise it.”

We often forget that language is inherited like law. We are born into its jurisdiction. We follow its architecture before we ever question its scaffolding. Language doesn’t show up in nature. It’s something we built, like a house, not all at once, but over time, as a place to hold what couldn’t be held any other way. We shaped its walls so feelings could have a form, so memory could find a room to sit in. And yet, somewhere along the way, the house started shaping us. We began to move a certain way inside it. Certain words were spoken only in certain rooms. Some corners became places we avoided. There were doors we didn’t open, not because they were locked, but because no one ever told us they could be. We learned to walk around certain stories, to lower our voices near certain walls. Over time, it stopped feeling like something we made, and started feeling like the only place we knew how to live.

That’s the thing with language. It doesn’t just give us a way to speak. It gives shape to how we feel, where we’re allowed to go inside ourselves, and what we’ve learned to leave behind. It becomes the scaffolding through which inner life is accessed, structured, and sometimes restricted, often before we have any conscious say in it (Vygotsky, 1986). And most of the time, we don’t even realise we’re still living inside the script someone else started writing long before we had anything to say. We shape language, yet over time, it begins to shape the edges of our perception. It informs which feelings feel legitimate enough to express, which forms of connection seem natural, and which questions carry permission to be asked. These aren't neutral outcomes, they reflect histories, power, and context. What begins as a means of expression becomes a system of limits, guiding how we make sense of ourselves and the world around us. The categories and distinctions we perceive do not arise on their own, they are shaped by the linguistic systems we inhabit. Over time, language organises the way we think, making certain realities more accessible, while gradually pushing others beyond the edges of awareness (Whorf, 1956).

Language, in this sense, is a medium that shapes the very space in which thought and feeling occur. And like air or water, we move through it so constantly that we rarely stop to notice it’s there. We take it as natural, even when it quietly defines what we believe is possible to say, to feel, or to become. As Lakoff and Johnson have shown, the metaphors embedded in everyday language structure are the very frameworks through which we experience reality, shaping perception, behaviour, and even the boundaries of identity itself (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

And yet, for something so foundational, it remains remarkably fluid, language isn’t a structure we stand in, it’s a current we’re carried by. It moves like the weather. And just like weather, it responds to the atmosphere around it. It bends around silence, absorbs mood, collapses under ideology, expands when freedom enters the room. A word may harden over centuries into dogma, then soften overnight into poetry. The same phrase that comforts one generation can bruise another, because language never stands apart from culture. Its meanings shift with power, time, and emotional resonance, shaped by the social conditions that surround it (Cameron, 1995). And long before we speak, language is already inside us, structuring how we listen, what we notice, and what we believe can be said. It doesn’t simply give us words; it gives us the outlines of awareness. And because each language carries a different set of outlines, each one shapes a different way of perceiving. Studies in cognitive science suggest that the language we speak shapes what we notice, how we orient ourselves in space and time, and the way we encode and recall experiences, showing that language functions not merely as a tool for communication, but as a foundational framework for how experience is structured and understood (Boroditsky, 2011).

Every tongue, every dialect, every tonal shift holds its own perceptual geometry, its own logic of attention. There are nearly 7,000 spoken languages in the world today, and these aren’t just 7,000 ways to label reality, they’re 7,000 ways to construct it, each offering a distinct way of organising thought, perception, and meaning (Evans & Levinson, 2009). Some languages mark time as a straight line, others as a cycle, or not at all. Some map space relative to the body, while others orient by the movement of rivers, the slope of land, the pull of wind. For instance, the Guugu Yimithirr people from Australia, they don’t say “left” or “right” instead, they talk about “uphill” and “downstream,” always tying their directions to the land around them. That means they’re constantly aware of where they are, not just based on their own bodies but in relation to the world itself (Levinson, 2003). And then, far away in Namibia, the Himba people see colors a bit differently too. They use a word called “zoozu” to cover dark shades that we might separate into green and blue. Their eyes catch differences that might seem strange to us, showing how the language they speak actually shapes how they see the world (Roberson, Davies, & Davidoff, 2000).

Language does more than just name the world around us, it shapes which parts of that world we can actually see. In some languages, memory isn’t tied to dates or time but to the land itself. Forgetting, then, isn’t about losing track of moments, it’s about losing your place on the map. And when we call a language “foreign,” what we’re really saying is that its way of seeing the world feels strange, like an unfamiliar map we don’t yet know how to read. To shift from one language to another is not like changing tools, it is like shifting gravity. Syntax alters what feels central. Grammar decides what deserves emphasis. The ordering of a sentence trains the nervous system to anticipate, hesitate, interrupt, or yield. Over time, we begin to think in the rhythm we speak. Language is not just a filter of the world, it is the frame within which attention is trained, memory is arranged, and possibility is measured. As Terrence Deacon (1997) explains, language shapes neural pathways that organize how we predict, interpret, and respond to our environment, embedding itself deeply in the architecture of cognition.

And when a language dies, it’s not just words that vanish, it’s an entire way of perceiving and knowing the world that collapses with it. Each language carries unique cultural knowledge and worldviews that disappear when the language fades, erasing irreplaceable perspectives on reality (Harrison (2007). In this way when a language goes silent, an entire epistemology fades away. The metaphors that once made sense of grief stop flowing from elder to child. The humour that softens hardship loses its flow, and with it, a whole way of understanding the world begins to collapse. The ethical subtleties encoded in pronouns, kinship terms, or pauses can no longer be transmitted. A culture doesn’t end with conquest, it ends when its language no longer finds a mouth. When memory can no longer be sung, when longing has no grammatical home.

In therapy, this matters. Because what we call “lack of words” is often not an Alogia ( often a symptom common in schizophrenia) or a failure of intellect, it is the wound of linguistic absence. When clients search for a word and can’t find it, they are not only struggling with vocabulary, they are encountering the edges of their experiential mapping. This difficulty often reflects a disruption in how emotional and sensory experiences are internally represented and integrated, signaling that their awareness has reached a boundary where feelings remain unarticulated and elusive (Taylor, Bagby, & Parker, 1997). Some people might say, “I don’t know what I feel,” or people like Ethan might say, “I know it’s not the voice I think in.” But what they could really mean is, “My language has no way to hold this feeling.” There’s no bridge between what they experience inside and the words, or recognition, that could make those feelings understandable and real.The silence or the gap in here is not empty, it’s unrecognised with something unnamed.

Yet, despite this richness within silence, language is often seen simply as a vehicle, a way to carry thoughts from one person to another. Think of the classic communication model, where someone sends a message, and another person receives and decodes it, like passing a note across a room (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). Or consider how language is sometimes understood as a system of signs, a code we all share to make meaning move between us (Saussure, 1916/2011). Even in the study of how we speak and understand, language is often pictured as a process of turning thoughts into words and then back again, like translating an internal map into speech and then reading it back (Levelt, 1989). These ideas remind us that language connects us, but they don’t capture the full story. But language is not a transport system, it is a territory. A dynamic ecology where thought, memory, emotion, and identity all live together. A phrase like “I can’t” does more than express doubt; it organizes the body, triggers affective states, and activates perceptual filters, embedding itself within the very structure of experience. Every sentence carries not just meaning but a framework that can either expand or confine the self. According to Damasio (1999), language is intrinsically linked to the brain’s emotional systems, with words and phrases engaging somatic markers that shape consciousness. These embodied signals influence how possibilities and limitations are perceived, anchoring language in the interplay between cognition, emotion, and bodily experience. To ask a client “What do you mean by that word?” is not about definition, it’s about disclosing the map beneath the map. It is an excavation of how experience has been encoded. Because language does not just describe internal experience, it decides the texture of that experience. A person who says “I’m broken” is not just hurting, they are living inside a metaphor with sharp edges. Change begins not when they change their story, but when they realise the story is a structure, and structures can be altered.

As we move forward, we will explore how language does not simply reflect reality but constructs it. How does the grammar of our words shape the very dimensions of time, space, color, and identity? And how might these linguistic frameworks guide the way we navigate the world around us? The next section will invite you to step beyond language as mere communication and into the vast terrain where language builds our reality itself.

Grammar as Architecture, Language as World-Building

By the time a person says “I’ve always been like this,” they are not stating a fact, they are disclosing a grammatical certainty, shaped through years of repetition, context, and reinforcement. The phrase performs a continuity. It summons the past into the present and stretches it forward into the future, collapsing possibility into pattern. This is the often-invisible power of grammar, it doesn’t just structure speech, it organises the way experiences are sequenced, interpreted, and remembered. Tense, aspect, modality, these are not technicalities. They are neurological instructions. Commands that shape how experience is stored, retrieved, and projected. As Langacker (2008) explains in Cognitive Grammar, grammatical constructions are not merely surface-level features but are semantic structures that encode the speaker’s construal of reality, including temporal framing, agency, and emotional stance. Similarly, Hasson, Ghazanfar, Galantucci, Garrod, and Keysers (2012) demonstrate that language comprehension activates shared neural networks across individuals, suggesting that even subtle differences in temporal framing (e.g., past vs. present perfect) can change how events are mentally simulated and emotionally experienced.

Tense, then, is not just a label for time, it directs memory. Aspect is not just a verbal mood, it controls whether an experience feels resolved or ongoing. And modality, the grammar of possibility, permission, or necessity, directs how future experiences are imagined or constrained. These structures are internalized through repeated exposure and become the scaffolding through which identity is stabilized and self-narratives are maintained (Bruner, 1990). In other words, grammatical habits don’t simply reflect a person’s worldview, they become it. Consider how the past perfect tense, “I had already failed by then”, not only encodes sequence, but often carries a sense of inevitability. It doesn’t just mark what happened; it closes the door to revision. Meanwhile, the subjunctive mood, “If I were different”, gestures toward an alternate reality that remains unreachable. Though both forms refer to the past, they elicit vastly different mental and emotional states, the former may invoke resignation, while the latter activates longing, regret, or imagined possibility. These constructions are not neutral. They prime the nervous system with either closure or potential, remorse or imagination. As psycholinguists like Langacker (2008) suggest, grammatical choices are embedded with cognitive stances, how the speaker positions themselves in relation to agency, time, and the self. In therapy, such utterances are not corrected, they are attended to, traced back, and gently explored for the perceptual stance they encode.

In many clients, statements like “I can’t trust people” appear as clear declarations, but beneath the surface, they often carry more than belief, they carry a structure. The present tense in “can’t” gives the impression of something fixed, not emerging from a past event, but from an ongoing truth shaped by what has happened before. It speaks less of a moment and more of a rule, one that has become embedded over time. What often lies beneath is a memory, a rupture, a betrayal, a moment of disappointment that left its mark. This is where grammar quietly shapes how the client moves through the world. The difference between saying, “That happened” and “This always happens to me” isn’t just a shift in words, it’s a shift in perception. One leaves room for change, the other builds a closed loop. Over time, these grammatical patterns become more than speech, they become the structures through which experience is organised and reality is filtered. And in therapy, what sounds like a statement of fact often turns out to be the echo of something much older, still shaping what feels possible today. Helping them shift the grammatical shape of that world, from general to specific, from fixed to provisional, often opens up an entirely new register of experience. As Bateson (1972) argued, change does not only occur in what we say, but in the level at which statements are made, whether they encode facts, patterns, or premises.

This is why precision in language is not about correctness, it is about expansion. Each linguistic structure acts like a lens. A narrowed lens constrains what is visible; a widened one multiplies possibilities. The difference between “I am anxious” and “I am feeling anxious right now” is not merely semantic, it reflects a different orientation to the self and to time. The former fuses identity with emotion, while the latter situates the experience in a transitory state. As Hayes, Strosahl, and Wilson (2012) explain, the way emotions are linguistically framed can significantly influence whether they are experienced as fixed traits or passing states, which in turn shapes psychological flexibility and behavioral response. One makes the feeling part of who they are. The other shows it’s just something they’re going through right now. Reframing isn’t about sounding positive, it’s about finding language that opens space for change. As White and Epston (1990) highlight, shifting the language around a problem can help reorient perception and action without denying reality.

Even at the micro-level, grammar enacts worldviews. Articles such as a, the, and some carry assumptions about familiarity, ownership, and singularity. The definite article implies shared knowledge, while the indefinite leaves room for ambiguity. Prepositions like in, through, around, and under position the self in relation to experience, often reflecting internal spatial metaphors. These seemingly simple words act as cognitive tools, they don't just connect clauses, they structure how experience is conceptualised, directing attention, perspective, and relational meaning. In their framework, language is not just a means of description, but a system for shaping thought, where even function words influence how reality is constructed and understood (Evans & Green, 2006). A client once said, “I’m stuck in this relationship,” not realising that they were describing their experience through the metaphor of a container, something enclosed, with no visible exits. In therapy, this language became a starting point. Rather than challenging the belief directly, the conversation explored what “stuck” felt like in the body, where the weight was, where the movement stopped. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) explain, such metaphors are not random; they arise from the body and shape thought from the bottom up, linking physical sensation to abstract reasoning. Later in the session, the same client said, “It’s like I’m under a ceiling I can’t push through.” The metaphor of downward force, of being under pressure, showed up not just in words, but in their posture: slouched shoulders, shallow breath, tension in the jaw. The work wasn’t only to examine the metaphor, but to help the body find space. A deeper breath and eventually, a new image: a door, not a trap. One they hadn’t noticed before.

In practice, the way someone speaks often reveals the world they’re living in, not just what they believe, but how they know, feel, and move through experience. Saying “I know” lands differently than “I’m sensing.” One carries authority, finality. The other leaves space for uncertainty, curiosity. And a sentence like “I failed” feels far heavier than “That attempt didn’t work.” The first turns the event into something personal and enduring. The second keeps the experience specific, alive, open to learning. Language isn’t just the final step in expressing something we’ve already figured out. It’s often where experience begins to take shape. As Delozier and Grinder (1987) pointed out, the words we choose don’t just reflect how we see the world, they start to define the path we take through it. Left unexamined, those words can quietly become the script we follow. But when we pay attention, there’s room to redraw the map.

All of this has particular weight in therapeutic settings. When clients bring language shaped by shame, duty, or ancestral inheritance, they are not bringing “communication issues.” They are bringing the only maps they have been allowed to carry. Often, those patterns were formed in tight spaces, in families where obedience was mistaken for respect, or in cultures where every pronoun had to reflect someone’s rank. When love has to be earned, it starts to feel like that’s the only kind of love that’s real, the kind that takes effort, the kind that never fully feels safe. What once helped them survive can later be misunderstood. A way of speaking that once kept them safe can come across as distant or unsure. In such moments, therapy becomes less about gaining insight and more about grammatical liberation helping someone find a new way to speak, one that makes space for who they’re becoming, not just who they’ve been. So, language is not simply an expression of the self or the ideologies that one follows, but rather it is generative. It doesn’t just reflect reality, it helps bring it into form. Grammar is not a tool; it is a builder. It shapes how we hold time, agency, and meaning in everyday life. And metaphor is not decoration; it is instruction, a way of finding words to our internal experiences. It guides how we relate to our experiences, how we understand emotion, and how we navigate complexity.

Timing, Presence, and Meaning-Making in the Therapeutic Encounter

When clients begin to find new ways of speaking, they are not simply exchanging one set of words for another. They are shifting the outline of who they can become. Each change in grammar, metaphor, or phrasing opens a slightly altered horizon, reshaping how time, agency, and meaning live in the body. In these moments, therapy meets the living current of language , language as a stream that carries both the said and the unsaid.

Long before a sentence reaches its final word, its meaning begins to gather , not only in the words themselves, but in the pauses, the quickened or slowed breath, the shifts in tone and rhythm. In therapy, these small currents can be as telling as the sentence itself. A client might pause mid-phrase when speaking about a childhood memory, the air in the room thickening for a beat. Conversation analysis shows such pre-verbal cues can function as early signals of emotional stance, hesitation, or unspoken meaning (Berger & Rae, 2023). Fenner (2024) observes that these pauses are often held jointly by therapist and client, marking a place where the nervous system is recalibrating or where language is brushing against something it cannot yet fully hold. In those beats, the therapist is not waiting , they are listening with their whole body, as if leaning in to catch the sound of something still forming.

Meaning is rarely contained by the edges of a sentence. It moves in the air around it, shaping the atmosphere before the words fully land. To hear at this depth is to listen for coherence rather than only content. A client might say, “I’m fine,” with a pause between “I’m” and “fine” so long it feels like a thin bridge over deep water. Or their voice might drop half a tone on the last word. These are not mistakes. They are part of the message. In such moments, the therapist tunes themselves like an instrument, noticing the vibration that passes through the room when a word lands , and the dullness when it doesn’t.

Language, at this level, is breathwork between two people. It tightens when fear approaches, as if making less room for what feels dangerous. It slows when grief draws near, testing the ground before placing its weight. It circles when a memory resists straight lines, orbiting the same image like a satellite that cannot yet enter the atmosphere. Sometimes a client repeats a phrase, not to convince the therapist, but to convince themselves. This reflects the process of self-persuasion, where repetition shapes belief even without outside influence (Aronson, 2018). In those moments, the therapist becomes a midwife to words that have never been spoken aloud. The labour is real , the breath, the searching, the courage to push forward. To “find one’s voice” in therapy is not just a poetic phrase; it is a physiological coordination of breath, thought, memory, and permission. Each first-time utterance is a bridge between the known and the uncharted.

Linguistic incongruence, when the content of speech does not match its delivery , can be a doorway. A client may describe a traumatic event in calm, even words while their hands twist tightly in their lap. They may use the past tense for something their body is still living in the present. Here, the therapist does not rush to correct or interpret. Instead, they might ask softly, “As you say that, what do you notice happening right now?” The aim is not to gather more narrative detail but to bring the client’s awareness to the pace, weight, and texture of their own language. The therapist becomes a tracker, following the trail of how a story is assembled in real time. The speed of delivery, the hesitations, the sudden stillness , each is part of the terrain. A hurried confession can feel like a dam breaking; a slow disclosure can feel like a stone being placed carefully on the ground. The same sentence, carried on a different breath, can shift the emotional temperature of the room.

And then there is silence, not as absence, but as a vessel. A pause between words. A phrase left unfinished. A breath taken before an answer. These are moments when language steps aside, and something older than words takes the lead. Lane (2002) describes such intervals as revealing the very architecture of a client’s inner world , their loyalties, their guarded places, their ways of surviving. In these spaces, the therapist’s role is to hold the air steady, resisting the pull to fill it too quickly. Often, the meaning is still in gestation, waiting for a rhythm and a weight that match its truth.

None of this is a technical manoeuvre. It is a stance , the ability to let language move without grasping for control. Rogers (1961) recognised that the deepest change happens in the presence of someone who meets you without condition. In that presence, speech begins to slow, shifting from performance to discovery. Clients start noticing how they speak: the pause that comes before a hard truth, the word they rush past, the tone that drops when they are on the edge of saying something that matters. This noticing becomes an opening, a threshold to a more embodied way of speaking that feels unborrowed and true.

Language is both the path toward meaning and the ground on which meaning is built. And when that ground feels rigid or overly rehearsed, it is not loosened by force but by presence , the kind that attends patiently to what is emerging beneath the surface. As Stern (2010) suggests, even the smallest shifts in the flow of dialogue can reorganise the relational field. In practice, this means a therapist might simply match their breathing to a client’s slowing pace, or mirror a pause with a soft nod, letting the silence work until the next word arrives. In this way, therapy becomes less about filling the space and more about listening to the space itself, until the moment comes when the next sentence , the right sentence , steps forward.

References

Aronson, E. (2018). The social animal (12th ed.). Worth Publishers.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chandler.
Berger, E., & Rae, J. (2023). Pauses as relational acts in therapeutic dialogue: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231150393
Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. Routledge.
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. Harcourt Brace.
Deacon, T. W. (1997). The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. W. W. Norton & Company.
Delozier, J., & Grinder, J. (1987). Turtles all the way down: Prerequisites to personal genius. Grinder, DeLozier & Associates.
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fenner, P. (2024). The art of therapeutic presence. Wisdom Publications.
Harrison, K. D. (2007). When languages die: The extinction of the world's languages and the erosion of human knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Hasson, U., Ghazanfar, A. A., Galantucci, B., Garrod, S., & Keysers, C. (2012). Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lane, D. A. (2002). The significance of silence in counselling and psychotherapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 15(2), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070210140290
Lane, H. (2002). A journey into the deaf-world. DawnSignPress.
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge University Press.
Pinter, H. (1991). Various voices: Prose, poetry, politics. Faber and Faber.
Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a Stone-Age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.369
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.
Saussure, F. de. (2011). Course in general linguistics (P. Meisel, Ed.; W. Baskin, Trans.). Columbia University Press. (Original work published 1916)
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press.
Stern, D. N. (2010). Forms of vitality: Exploring dynamic experience in psychology and the arts. Oxford University Press.
Taylor, G. J., Bagby, R. M., & Parker, J. D. A. (1997). Disorders of affect regulation: Alexithymia in medical and psychiatric illness. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed. & Trans.). MIT Press.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. Norton.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). MIT Press.