Editing Linguistic relativity (section)

== Universalism ==

Universalist scholars began a period of dissent from ideas about linguistic relativity. Lenneberg was one of the first cognitive scientists to begin development of the Universalist theory of language that was formulated by Chomsky as [[Universal Grammar|universal grammar]], effectively arguing that all languages share the same underlying structure. The Chomskyan school also includes the belief that linguistic structures are largely innate and that what are perceived as differences between specific languages are surface phenomena that do not affect the brain's universal cognitive processes. This theory became the dominant paradigm of American linguistics from the 1960s through the 1980s, while linguistic relativity became the object of ridicule.{{sfn|Gumperz|Levinson|1996|p=3, 6}}

=== Ekkehart Malotki ===
Other universalist researchers dedicated themselves to dispelling other aspects of linguistic relativity, often attacking Whorf's specific examples. For example, Malotki's monumental study of time expressions in Hopi presented many examples that challenged Whorf's "timeless" interpretation of Hopi language and culture,{{sfn|Malotki|1983}} but seemingly failed to address the linguistic relativist argument actually posed by Whorf (i.e. that the understanding of time by native Hopi speakers differed from that of speakers of European languages due to the differences in the organization and construction of their respective languages; Whorf never claimed that Hopi speakers lacked any concept of time).{{sfn|Lucy|1996}} Malotki himself acknowledges that the conceptualizations are different, but because he ignores Whorf's use of quotes around the word "time" and the qualifier "what we call", takes Whorf to be arguing that the Hopi have no concept of time at all.{{sfn|Lucy|1992b|p=286}}{{sfn|Leavitt|2011|p=180}}{{sfn|Levinson|2012|p=xii}}

=== Steven Pinker ===
Currently many believers of the universalist school of thought still oppose linguistic relativity. For example, Pinker argues in ''[[The Language Instinct]]'' that thought is independent of language, that language is itself meaningless in any fundamental way to human thought, and that human beings do not even think in "natural" language, i.e. any language that we actually communicate in; rather, we think in a meta-language, preceding any natural language, termed "mentalese". Pinker attacks what he terms "Whorf's radical position", declaring, "the more you examine Whorf's arguments, the less sense they make".{{sfn|Pinker|1994|p=60}}

Pinker and other universalists have been accused by relativists of misrepresenting Whorf's ideas and committing the [[Strawman fallacy]].{{sfn|Casasanto|2008|p=}}{{sfn|Lucy|1992a|p=}}{{sfn|Lakoff|1987|p=}}