Refutation and concession of my first draft

1. What is my thesis?
Language has a profound influence on culture even though we have not realized well.
2. What is the opposite position?
Culture has an influence on language, not vice versa.
3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) All the vocabularies of one culture reflects what the cultural area values.
b) Language is just a verbal expression of culture.

4. How will I counter those arguments?

a) According to the idea of Watson, some cultures do not even include certain emotions defined by other cultures in their vocabulary.
b) There would not be culture if people don't express their lifestyles by language.

My Refutation and Concession
  Obviously my argument is ambiguous when we consider the role of culture. Yes, it has already been a hot issue between linguists and cultural scholar. It is very complicated because both are so intertwined that there must be an apparent conclusion. Because of this, some of cultural scholar argued that culture has an influence on language, not vice versa. They first stated that all the vocabularies of one culture reflects what the cultural area values. This is well shown in Korean culture too. Korean has a lot of vocabularies related to honorifics or relatives, which reflect vertical culture or culture that values blood relationship. However, according to the supporting idea of behaviorist Watson, some cultures do not even include certain emotions defined by other cultures in their vocabulary. It means people express their mind first by language, act following their language, and finally those actions form particular culture.
  They secondly stated that language is just a verbal expression of culture. Namely, language is just a tool for people. It is flawed in considering a role of language. Culture would not exist if people don't express their mind and lifestyles by language. As I mentioned, language as a tool has a significant effect on forming society and its culture. To form culture, people should talk with each other.
  Related to both of those ideas, in addition, Whorf argued that since grammar is more resistant to change than culture, the influence from language to culture is predominant. Grammar is a kind of structure of language. Considering common argument that we should analyze language structure to know culture, resistance against change of grammar could be explained that language is more consistent than culture is. It's hard to say changeable thing affects something just as this case.