Michelle TongProfessor FinneyLING 10027 April 27, 2014Persuasive Essay 4Statement 7 states that language and culture shape the way we think. The nominalist, relativist, and qualified relativist positions present divergent 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). According to the relativist position, however, the structure of a language determines the perception of reality and also cultural models. Finally, the Qualified Relativist position takes a more moderate position and states that, although language can influence perception, it does not completely determine it. This view presents language less as a “prison” but rather as something that “our culture has instilled in us” and helps shape “our orientation to the world” (Nature of Language, p. 156). radical nominalist and relativist positions, the qualified relativist position is the most reasonable, since it seeks a middle ground in the connection between language and thought. This position constitutes the most convincing argument in favor of language and perception because, while it agrees with the relativist view that the structure of language plays a role in shaping thought processes, it also recognizes that there are 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 the linguistic factor in... half of the paper... were allowed to be kept intact (Nature of Language, p. 98). Since English is widely recognized 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). Furthermore, 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 argue – then such a declaration would only serve to subvert the progress America has made compared to the past. centuries spent as the melting pot of the world. Therefore, the United States does not need to declare English as an official language as this would exclude many non-English speaking Americans who have the same rights to services and benefits as other Americans..