Sapir vs. Benedict

Does linguistic relativism shape psychology writ large?

First things first: Please refute this post. I'm not an expert, so feel free to share/respond.

I wanted to offer some linguist evidence. I tend to want to relate culture to linguistics, and I noticed a few interesting lingual elements of the specific cultures Benedict cites. I'm emphasizing both linguistic determinism and also relatively long and distinct histories (vis-a-vis Boas) of the cultures Benedict describes.

--
The Kwakiutl are a well-established subset of the Amerind language family (If you're not familiar with the broad distinctions between American languages, the three major language families -- Amerind, Na-Dene, and Eskimo-Aleut, respectively -- all represent major migrations into the Americas across the Bering Strait, thousands of years apart from one another). See page 379 of Language in the Americas.

Zuni, however, is presently reckoned a language isolate (see ethnologue) and was intensely studied by Edward Sapir. Greenberg includes Zuni in the Amerind family (like Kwakiutl), under the "Penutian" tree, and I generally tend to agree with him (they use the characteristic n-/m- pronouns). That said, the two languages (Kwakiutl and Zuni) have quite visible differences.

Another interesting aspect of the Southwest area is that it houses both Amerind families and Na-Dene families. The Navajo (who live in vicinity to the Zuni) come from a language family much newer to the Americas than do the Zuni. Arguably these later migrations (including the one which brought the Navajo) carried with them an influx of new cultural traits. The marked differences between cultures within the Southwest area may have much deeper roots than Benedict could have envisioned -- roots that extend into Siberia and beyond. In addition, the profound differences in the Zuni language which led Sapir to go so far as calling it an isolate (not related to _any_ other language) suggest a very long occupation in the Southwest and rather older culture (areally, at least).

The differences between these cultures' "personalities" are probably partly a result of rather different histories.... not just individual personality particulars and cultural reinforcement. And what is more, the great differences in the languages doubtless influence the "personae" of the culture. A stigma, positive or negative, is attached to a word by a culture and influences the "deviant"/normative status of the aspect of culture which it describes.

Look at the word "cataleptic" contrasted with "touched by God" -- the respective negative/positive language stigmas are obvious here and, indeed, alter our own ideas of the "signified" concept which these words describe (regardless that these words actually describe precisely the same thing).
"gross indecency" (the criminal charge which designated homosexuality) vs. "GLBT"
Etc.

A slight change in terminology has a profound effect on perceived deviance! Imagine the vast differences in culture entirely special lexica could facilitate. So... 'personality writ large' or linguistic determinism? Or both?