 3. This theory refers to language determination in terms of shaping our perceptions of nature. According to this theory, language determines or shapes our perception of nature, which means that the learning of language will determine or influence the way we perceive the physical world visually and auditory. So basically it is the language which shapes our thinking or which develops certain perceptions that we have about the world around us. So it provides the clues with the help of visually and auditory mechanism and enables us to develop some kind of perceptions and views about the world around us. The proponent of this theory believes that one's knowledge of vocabulary or syntax influences one's perception and understanding of nature. So their primary focus is the fact that it's not the thought which actually enables or facilitates the language process, it's the language with the help of vocabulary and grammatical rules or syntactic rules influences one's perception and understanding of the nature. So it shapes the way we look at the world, that is the job of the language according to this particular theory. So now we will again look at some of the inadequacies that are there as far as this theory is concerned. Now let's see some of the inadequacies of the theory. The number one point is regarding perceptions, interest and need determine vocabulary. It is our interest and need that determine our coinage of vocabulary and its use. For example, children from all over the world are enchanted by dinosaurs. They perceive the types of dinosaurs then through perception they develop their interest in dinosaurs and later they feel the need to seek the names of these objects. The next point is color and snow vocabulary. Rather than language determining perception, it is perception that determines language. Color words, for example, speakers of a language with limited repertoire of color atoms appeared no different from speakers with broader repertoire of color terms in terms of distinguishing colors of rainbow. Another point is about snow words. For example, Hawaiians have only one the English word snow, but the inmates have single words for snow on the ground, hard snow on the ground, block of snow and others. As for English speaking skiers in cold countries, they name snow through its physical conditions by creating phrases namely powder snow, wet snow etc. It is because of the importance of snow in their lives that they have created more words for snow than the Hawaiians. It is this language device of creating phrases which every language has that makes up for any vocabulary deficiency. Then in the third point you have Hopi time and Chinese counterfactuals. Hopi people and time. People are not different because of their language, but because of their experience. Deep down we are all the same, it couldn't be otherwise. For example, Hopi people use periods relating to the harvest, the moon, the sun, and other significant events. And we also do the same in English such as when it gets dark, when the weather gets warm etc. Then the Chinese language and counterfactual. Chinese were not as able as English speakers to think hypothetically about what is not true because of certain grammatical features of Chinese language. This happened due to faulty translations, but once proper translations were made there was no basis for claiming a difference in thinking. Lack of vocabulary does not indicate lack of concept. We describe a thing which does not have a single word for it. With a phrase carrying a similar concept, for example, we have a name from the underside of our hand that is called palm, but we have no word for the top side. Instead we use the phrase back of the hand. This shows that lack of vocabulary item is not indicative of a lack of concept. Then we have knowledge overrides literal word meanings. We can believe something quite different from what the language literally specifies. And that the continual use of a language form may not change as underlying thought. In other words, one thing is set, but another is understood. For example, the word sunset. We always hear the use and not only hear it, we also use this word that it leads us to believe that the sun sets on its own. Although the truth is the earth that moves not the sun. Multilingual views of nature. If it is said that different languages have distinctive and important effects on the way we view nature, then the multilingual must similarly have distinctive and important ways of viewing nature. But this is not the case. Multilingual is a whole person who perceives nature as others human do. To conclude, all of these six objections to the theory show that there is no foundation to the claim that vocabulary affects our view of nature.