Starting from the ancient Greek philosophers, sign has had various theoretical interpretations through history. Revolutionary Saussure's approach to language components as linguistic signs interrelated semiotics and linguistics in the early 20th c, only to lead us to a modified and more pragmatical approach of philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, who took into account context and identity of the interpreter of sign. Since we all humans have different social, environmental, political, cultural and historical factors that influence our thought, the perception of the same sign is claimed not to be universal. Every community has an entrenched habit of perception and different social myths in order to make sense out world, human relations and existence. Myths are, such as money and religion, abstract notions created by language. Abstract words are created by language and we use our bodily experience to create their concepts. Perception of concrete world and the abstract one varies between cultures and the difference grows in all linguistic levels the more we go into remote non-Western societies. “Has our language made our thoughs differ, or is the difference of thought responsible for different languages?“ Here arises the idea of linguistic relativity together with two prominent names: Whorf and Sapir, which claims that language influences/determines thought. On the other hand, the lack of data and supposedly illogical facts created a more sterile, scientific opposition. Finding the roots in Darwinism, Chomsky, Pinker and McWhorter agreed on the fact that language is an innate instinct to communicate and it is of a descriptive nature, enabling us to describe our surrounding. Latest research has shown that language influences thought to a very small extent, but it is not a shaper of a worldview.