Two opposite views on the relation between language and culture/society: Universalism vs. Cutlrual Relativity

• Universalism (variation constrained):
  Chomsky (1987):
  
  • Language and thoughts . . . follow a largely predetermined course (much like biological properties) . . by the innate structure of the mind.
  • . . . the conceptual resources of the lexicon are largely fixed by the language faculty with only minor variation possible
    
  Wierzbica (1994):
  • "Human understanding is based on a universal, and presumably innate "alphabet of human thoughts" (Leibniz 1903: 430)"
  • "Alphabet of human thoughts: the catalogue of those concepts whch can be understood by themselves, and by whose combination all our other ideas are found."
  • "Simple ideas, on which human speech and human thought are based, are presumably the same for all people on earth.
  • Searches for lexical universals, concepts which have been lexicalized in all the language of the world
    
    
• Cultural relativism (exploring variation):

Sapir (1949):

• Language is a guide to social reality
• It powerfully conditions all our thinking about social problem and processes
• No objective world; the real workd to a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group
• Two languages are not sufficiently similar

Whorf (1956):

• Language is the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the indivitual metnal activity
• The world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds . . . by the linguistic system in our minds.
• Although language patterns and cultural norms influence each other, in this partnership the nature of the language is the factor that limits free plasticity and rigidifies channels of development in the more autocratic way.