Today, many followers of universalist schools of thought continue to oppose the idea of linguistic relativity, seeing it as unsound or even ridiculous. For example, Steven Pinker argues in his book The Language Instinct that thought exists prior to language and independently of it, a view also espoused by philosophers of language such as Jerry Fodor, John Locke and Plato. In this interpretation, language is inconsequential to human thought because humans do not think in "natural" language, i.e. any language used for communication. Rather, we think in a meta-language that precedes natural language, which Pinker following Fodor calls "mentalese." Pinker attacks what he calls "Whorf's radical position", declaring, "the more you examine Whorf's arguments, the less sense they make." Scholars of a more "relativist" bent such as John A. Lucy and Stephen C. Levinson have criticized Pinker for misrepresenting Whorf's views and arguing against strawmen.; ;; ;; See also Nick Yee's evaluation of Pinker's criticism, What Whorf Really Said, and Dan "Moonhawk" Alford's rebuttal of Chomsky's critique at Chomsky's Rebuttal of Whorf: The Annotated Version by Moonhawk, 8/95 and The Great Whorf Hypothesis Hoax by Dan Moonhawk Alford .
today many followers of universalist schools of thought continue to oppose the idea of linguistic relativity seeing it as unsound or even ridiculous for example steven pinker argues in his book the language instinct that thought exists prior to language and independently of it a view also espoused by philosophers of language such as jerry fodor john locke and plato in this interpretation language is inconsequential to human thought because humans do not think in "natural" language ie any language used for communication rather we think in a meta-language that precedes natural language which pinker following fodor calls "mentalese" pinker attacks what he calls "whorf's radical position" declaring "the more you examine whorf's arguments the less sense they make" scholars of a more "relativist" bent such as john a lucy and stephen c levinson have criticized pinker for misrepresenting whorf's views and arguing against strawmen; ;; ;; see also nick yee's evaluation of pinker's criticism what whorf really said and dan "moonhawk" alford's rebuttal of chomsky's critique at chomsky's rebuttal of whorf the annotated version by moonhawk 8/95 and the great whorf hypothesis hoax by dan moonhawk alford 