Language And Language Persuasive Essay

Michelle Tong

Professor Finney

LING 100

27 April 27 2014

Persuasive Essay 4

Claim 7 states that language and culture shape the way we think. The Nominalist, Relativist, and Qualified Relativist positions present differing views on this claim. The Nominalist position states that thoughts are all the same regardless of the language through which they are expressed. This position suggests that the existence of different languages does not mean that people “inhabit different perceptual worlds” (Nature of Language, p. 154). Conversely, according to the Relativist position, the structure of a language determines perception of reality and also cultural patterns. Lastly, the Qualified Relativist position takes a more moderate stance and states that while language can influence perception, it does not completely determine them. This view presents language as less of a “prison,” but rather as something that “our culture has instilled in us” and contributes to shaping “our orientation to the world” (Nature of Language, p. 156).

Compared to the more radical Nominalist and Relativist positions, the Qualified Relativist position is the most reasonable, as it seeks middle ground in the connection between language and thought. This position makes the most convincing argument for language and perception because while it agrees with the Relativist view that the structure of language plays a part in shaping thought processes, it also acknowledges that there are other factors other than language that contribute to this. As the reading suggests, if language fully determines perception, then “language must precede, and only subsequently influence, thought” (Nature of Language, p. 156). It is also evident that factors other than language factor into ...

... middle of paper ...

...llowed to be kept intact (Nature of Language, p. 98).

Since English is widely acknowledged as the language of “political and economic adaptability,” it is technically already the official language in practice if not in theory; an official declaration of a national language would be superfluous and redundant (Nature of Language, p. 98). Also, if an official declaration of an official language were to deny services such as translation and other benefits to foreign-born immigrants and their children—as nativists advocate—then such a declaration would only serve to subvert the progress that America has made over the past centuries as the world’s melting pot. Therefore, the U.S. does not need to declare English as the official language since that would exclude many non-English-speaking Americans who have just as many rights to services and benefits as other Americans do.