Michelle TongProfessor FinneyLING 10027 April 27, 2014Persuasion Essay 4Claim 7 states that language and culture shape the way we think. Nominalist, relativist, and qualified relativist positions present divergent views on this claim. The nominalist position asserts that thoughts are all the same regardless of the language in 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 the perception of reality as well as cultural models. Finally, the qualified relativist position takes a more moderate position and asserts that while language can influence perceptions, it does not completely determine them. 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, because it seeks common ground in the connection between language and thought. This position constitutes the most compelling argument for language and perception, because while consistent 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 it. As the reading suggests, if language fully determines perception, then “language must precede and only then influence thought” (Nature of Language, p. 156). It is also clear that factors other than language come into play in...the environment of the document...must remain 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 advocate – then such a declaration would only serve 'to reverse the progress America has made in recent years. centuries past as the crucible of the world. Therefore, the United States does not need to declare English as its official language, as this would exclude many non-English speaking Americans who have as much right to services and benefits as other Americans..