We can work on Linguistic relativity (Language and Culture, it is a language and culture course))

Student’s Name

Professor

Institution

Course

Date

Linguistic Relativity; Critical Analysis

Scholars throughout history have considerably looked at the issue of linguistic relativity, in an attempt to assess the real influence of language to individual thoughts. Most scholars agree that indeed language influences thought and decision making but the extent and specific elements affected vary substantially. Phillip Wolff and Kevin Holmes have also partaken in the discussion, through their article titled “Linguistic relativity”. The article mainly suggests that language impacts on certain forms of thinking and could also make some distinctions challenging to avoid. The authors also note that language is capable of inducing a relatively schematic form of thinking, and negates the presumptions that language determines the primary sets of thoughts or that it overwrites conventional conceptual distinctions. The article effectively communicates to readers of the evidenced influence of language, and this paper highlights elements attributed to the success.

Firstly, the authors’ credibility appeals to the ethos if the readers. Kevin J Holmes has a bachelors in Human Biology, a masters in psychology and a doctorate in Psychology; cognition and Development, and is currently an Associate Professor of Psychology at Reed College. He has partaken in numerous research project in the area of cognition which affirms his authority in this area. Phillip M. Wolff is also a cognitive scientist with intense command in the field as he has engaged in numerous research and publications on the same. Readers can easily trust the information presented in the article easily, seeing that it comes from people with credible authority on the subject matter.

The authors also appeal to the logos of readers by providing realistic examples when extending their conventions. For instance, the work cites the differences between English speakers and Japanese speakers in light of spatial relations by citing a straightforward example. English speakers are cited as more inclined to differentiate objects based on shape, whereas Japanese and Yucatec Maya population tend to choose based on material. This connects readers to a real encounter. This then allows the authors to express their contention that even though there’s a difference based on language, it doesn’t rigidly hinder individuals from cogitating elements of encounter not encrypted in their language (Wolff & Holmes 2011).

The texts effectiveness is also accentuated by the fact that it draws heavily from the works of other researchers. Throughout the text, the authors provide significant findings by other researchers which adds into their conventions. Drawing data from other scholars, and employing it to affirm or negate an ideology gives the work more weight. This is because readers can attain a concise comprehension of the matter. For instance, the differential in spatial relations between Japanese and English speakers is drawn from research by Imai et.al. McDonough et al. provide data on the differences between the above groups regarding the distinction between loose and tight, which affirms that there is a difference (Wolff & Holmes 2011). The integration of notions held by different scholars thus allowed the readers to be more engaged in the subject matter, thus understanding the authors’ convictions. Readers are made to understand that there’s indeed a difference but it not sufficient to alter an individual from considering a viewpoint different from that encoded in their language.

To wrap it up, the article is effective in its delivery, subject to several factors which include appeal to ethos, appeal to logos and integration of numerous credible sources. These factors jointly make the text enjoyable while appealing to the reader’s attention. They allow the authors to express their conventions to readers deeming them successful.