Language and culture pdf

So, the theory of linguistic relativity does not claim that linguistic structure constrains what people can think or perceive, only that it tends to influence what they routinely dot think. In this regard, the work of Sapir and Whorf has led to two important insights: 1. There is nowadays a recognition that language, as code, reflects cultural preoccupations and constraints the way people think. The first insight relates to culture as semantically encoded in the language itself; the second concerns culture as expressed through the actual use of the language.

Chapter 2 Meaning as sign Language can mean in two fundamental way, both of which are intimately linked to culture: through what it says or what it refers to as an encoded sign semantics , and through what it does as an action in context pragmatics.

We consider the semantic aspect of language in this chapter. Every meaning—making practices makes use of two elements: a signifier and a signified. For example, the signifier sound or word in itself is not a sign unless someone recognizes it as such and relates it to a signified concept.

So, a sign is therefore neither the word itself nor the object it refers to but the relation between the two. For that reason, the linguistic sign have been called arbitrary. The meaning of signs For example, when we talk about word like rose, garden, these words are referents of object that are present in a definable reality.

Their meaning, that can be looked up in dictionary, is denotative. Both words draw their meaning from the connotations. The third level of meaning for words can be called icon or images of them. Their meaning is therefore iconic. Cultural encodings All three type of signs correspond to ways in which members of a given discourse community encode their experience. In that regard, the code is not something that can be separated from its meanings.

Different signs denote reality by cutting it up in different ways, as Whorf would say. The encoding of experience differs also in the nature of the cultural associations evoked by different linguistic signs. Studies of the semantic networks of bilingual speakers makes these associations particularly visible.

For example, bilingual speakers of English and Spanish have been shown to activate different associations within one of their languages and across their two languages. But even within the same speech community, signs might have a different semantic values for people from different discourse communities. It is important to mention that the differences noted above among the different languages are not only differences in the code itself, but in semantic meanings attributed to these different encodings by language—using communities.

It is these meanings that make the linguistic sign into a cultural sign. These devices capitalize on the associative meanings or shared connotations of a particular community or discourse community. Some of these metaphors are inscribed in the very structure of the English code, for example, the metaphor of visual field as container.

Each language has its own metaphors, that provide semantic cohesion within its boundaries. In all these examples, the semantic meanings of the code reflect the way in which the speech community views itself and the world and the own culture. The non—arbitrary nature of signs Native speakers do not feel in their body that words are arbitrary sign.

For them, words are part of the natural, physical fabric of their lives. As we have seen before, the sign are created, not given, and combine with other signs to form cultural patterns of meaning, for native speakers linguistic signs are the non arbitrary, but natural reality.

The major reason for this naturalization of culturally created signs is their motivated nature. Linguistic signs do not signify in a social vacuum. Sign—making and sign—interpreting practices are motivated by the need and desire of language users to influence people, act upon them or even only to make sense of the world around them.

With the desire to communicate a certain meaning to others comes also the desire to be listened to, to be taken seriously, to be believed, and to influence in turn other people beliefs and actions.

The linguistic sign is therefore a motivated sign. Symbols With the passing of time, signs easily become not only naturalized, but conventionalized as well. Taken out of their original social and historical context, linguistic signs can be emptied of the fullness of their meaning and used as symbolic shorthand.

The recurrence of these symbols overtime creates an accumulation of meaning that not only shapes the memory of sign but confers to these symbol mythical weight and validity. For example, much of what we call ideology is symbolic language. The way in which language intersects with social power makes some uses of cultural signs seem legitimate, natural, others illegitimate, unnatural or taboo.

This example illustrate the problem encountered through out this chapter of keeping semantics and pragmatics strictly separate from one another. Where does semantics end and pragmatics begin? Summary Signs create with words and things a range of semantic relations of denotation, connotation, or iconicity that offer a general meaning to the world.

In adding, signs establish semantic associations with others signs in the direct setting of verbal exchanges, or in the historical context of a discourse community. The creation of meaning through signs is not arbitrary, but is, rather, guided by human desire for appreciation, influence, power, and the general motivation for social and cultural survival. Given that meaning is encoded in language with a purpose, meaning as sign is contingent upon the context in which signs are used to regulate human action.

In consequence, it is frequently difficult to draw a clear line between the generic semantic meanings of the code and the pragmatic meanings of code in various contexts of use.

Chapter 4 Spoken language, oral culture The question is: how participants in verbal interactions build for themselves and for each other a cultural space of reference in which they take up various social roles? The spoken medium is directly linked to the time of its enunciation and to the perception by those present of the transient dimensions of the verbal event.

Some scholar have defined seven characteristic of conversational speech from the expository writing. Speech is transient, rather permanent. Because of physical constraints, interlocutors may not speak at the same time, or else they cannot hear what the others say. They are bound by non reversible distribution of turns at talk. Written language, by contrast, can be stored, retrieved and responses can be delayed. Because it cannot be immediately challenged as in oral communication, written language carries more weight and hence more prestige.

Moreover, the permanence of writing as a medium can easily lead people to suppose that what is express is permanent too, hence the important link between written document and the law. Because of the dialogic nature of oral interaction, speaker stitch together element from previous turns at talk, they add language as they go along and… and….

By contrast, the information conveyed in writing is hierarchically ordered within the clause structure, and is linearly arranged on the page. Since it is likely to be read by distant, it has developed an information structure characterized by a high level of cohesion. In addition, one had to link their words, beliefs, and mindsets to a larger context of culture such as: economical and social organizational, kinship patterns, fertility rites, seasonal rhythms, concepts of time and space.

Thus the semantic meanings of verbal signs had to be supplemented by the pragmatic meanings of verbal actions in context. How is pragmatic meaning culturally realized in verbal exchange? Meaning is created not only through what speakers say to one another, but through what they do with words in order to respond to the demands of their environment. In this chapter, we consider what these responses entail. Structures of expectation Language users have not only learned to interpret signs and act upon them; they have also learned to expect certain behaviour of others as well.

In the same manner as they expect cars to stop at a stop sign and pedestrian to be able cross the street at a walk sign, so too they expect to be greeted upon a first encounter, to be listened to when they speak, to have their questions answered. There are cultural differences in these expectations. French speakers from France may expect to be greeted with a handshake. American may expect to a smile instead; a professor may expect to be greeted differently from the student.

On the basis of their experience in their culture, people organize knowledge about the world and use this knowledge to predict interpretations and relationships regarding any new information, events or experiences. Contextualization cues, situated inferences The words people exchange in verbal encounters are linked in a myriad of ways to the situational and cultural context in which they occur.

Can you open the door? In other words, B has to understand how these words relate to the pragmatic context of their utterances. These cues help listeners make the relevant situated inferences, evoking the cultural background and social expectations necessary to interpreted speech.

Through the use of contextualisation cues, speakers and hearers can convey to each other what their expectations are with respect to the communication they are engaged in. Pragmatic coherence Efforts to make the words uttered meaningful within the situational and cultural context of the exchange are efforts to establish pragmatic coherence. Coherence is not given in speakers utterances, it is created in the minds of speakers and hearers by the inferences they make based on the words they hear.

If semantic cohesion relates word to word, pragmatic coherence relates speaker to speaker within the largest cultural context of communication. For example, the toine of voice is usually interpreted as a direct cue to attitude, and therefore, a piece of intended behaviour.

So, the study o contextualization cues not only brings to light the way in which speakers give pragmatic coherence to their respective utterances; it is also gives us a hint at the way participants in verbal interactions co construct cultural roles for themselves all the they co—operatively construct the topic of the conversation. The co—operative principle The misunderstandings illustrated in the last example can cause particular frustration because people make the general assumption that verbal exchanges will conform to what the philosopher Paul Grice has referred to as the co—operative principle.

They generally expect that what their interlocutor says is relevant to the topic at hand, that the message will be clear and understandable.

The expectations of speakers and hearers in informational exchanges are in part shaped by these four maxims of the co—operative principle of conversation. Speakers from different cultural background may have different interpretations of what it means to be true, relevant, brief or clear with the regard to conversations. They may have different definitions of the speech activity itself. The importance of cultural competency is then considered for its importance to language education and the implications it holds for language learning and policy.

For language teachers and learners in connection between the two through the three plausible general, an appreciation for the differences in opinion relationships forwarded by Wardhaugh: language regarding the relationship between language and structure determines language usage, cultural values culture can help to illuminate the diversity of views determine the way we use language, and the claim held toward the use of language.

Moreover, insight that a relationship between the two does not exist. In into the various views can assist not only second the latter part of the paper, the implications of such a language learners but also first language users, as the relationship are discussed as they pertain to language way we choose to use language is not just important education and policy.

Below, Wardhaugh and affects others can greatly impact the direction and Thanasoulas each define language in a somewhat motivation for both language study and interpersonal different way, with the former explaining it for what it relationships, and it can also add great insight and does, and the latter viewing it as it relates to culture.

Consequently, a knowledge of rules and principles and of the in composing a definition for culture, we can see ways of saying and doing things with sounds, that the concept is often better understood in the words, and sentences rather than just knowledge context of how the members of a culture operate, of specific sounds, words, and sentences. It is therefore clear While Wardhaugh does not mention culture per se, the how important it is for members of any society to speech acts we perform are inevitably connected with understand the actual power of their words and actions the environment they are performed in, and therefore when they interact.

However, Wardhaugh , pp. Goodenough reported that there appear to be three claims to , p. This that have not done so have not yet experienced the claim is the basis for much research on the relationship need. Wardhaugh also notes that people who speak between language and culture and therefore languages with different structures e. Hungarians The neutral claim that a relationship does not and Finns. Examples like these indicate that the exist between language and culture, when considering second relationship between language and culture is language for its communicative powers and its role in quite viable.

The idea that language, to seem highly suspect. Strong linguistic conclude that culture would in no way have an impact determinism and the idea that difference in language on the interaction even on the smallest of scale.

This claim b, p. When needs for lexical items Philippines, has four terms that seem to refer to what arise, Wardhaugh , p. Alternatively, Wardhaugh , p. Nevertheless, Lucy Kinship systems have similarly been studied to , taken from Wardhaugh, , p. Hudson the cross-cultural pinwheel of color study by Brown, , pp.

While one culture may If a language is set to respond to perceptions in a distinguish between father and uncle, another may not. Kasper into the relationship between language and culture. Though linguistic norms differ between language. Although language structure provides cultures, demonstrating respect towards others is an us with phrasings for our understanding and can important function of language. To help clarify this manipulate our thoughts in this respect, if preexisting point, politically correct and sexist language has been knowledge does not supply a foundation for general studied in order to understand whether this language understanding, the ways in which we define and determines the perceptions of the users.

And, in evaluate each individual encounter would be left solely spite of claims to the affirmative, it is not conclusive to linguistic knowledge. Nishida explains The ultimate goals of language education for both that when a person enters a familiar situation, they learners and instructors revolve around the acquisition retrieve a stock of knowledge of appropriate behavior of competency. Hudson , pp.

Understanding that languages and typically may use it and in what kind of occasion it is their cultures do possess relationships central to the appears to be typically used. Our interpretations of acquisition of linguistic and cultural competency is our observations in life are guided by how we are able a good starting point for any approach to language to classify those experiences both linguistically and education.

The creation and enforcement of an culturally. If we were In Japan, current methods of language education to verbalize this actual process, it would obviously appear to often assume a rather passive stance in be our language that would restrict how we would the incorporation of cultural knowledge into the express ourselves, but the fact that we are not able to classroom, taking a more FYI approach in the express every thought and feeling involved in every inclusion of cultural notes and tidbits in language situation does not imply that we lack those thoughts lessons.

Many teachers and students seem to lose sight and feelings. Since this type of process is encountered of the fact that knowledge of a grammatical system repeatedly in daily life, it might be oversimplistic [grammatical competence] has to be complemented by to assume that it is only language that restricts us culture-specific meanings [communicative or cultural from thinking a particular way.

We must assume competence] Byram, Morgan et al. Kramsch, , p. Their relationship would teachers, and possess the ability to experience and also serve best clarified and understood from the onset. Frequently, Japanese foreign touch, smell, and see the foreign peoples and not just language instructors know little more of the actual hear their language. Even beginning language learners culture of the language they are teaching than the brief are aware that there is more to language than grammar, facts that they so sparingly include in their lessons.

This such as ethnographers would. If testing practices learners gain the ability to see beyond apparent case- are changed to reflect the need for linguistic and specific knowledge.

They then realize the underlying cultural competency, public school language education processes which speakers of a language utilize to will be capable of the change needed to teach language produce and interpret communicative experiences, learners what it is to be socially competent language including unstated assumptions which are shared users.

Concluding thoughts For language programs, a language policy While there is no definitive conclusion to would best be implemented in the form of required exactly how language and culture are related, it is curriculum emphasizing the integrated study of evident through the linguistic choices that people language and culture. While the incorporation employ that a relationship exists. There is a need for of cultural learning would be an ideal constant in language learners to understand why people think and language policy, languages with restricted use such as speak the way they do, and to understand possible Esperanto would be realistically very difficult to attach agreements that may be in place between a culture to a culture.

While the focus of foreign language and its language. Integrated studies of language and learning is clearly on the foreign language and culture, culture are needed if language learners are to become language policy should also include a study concerning competent language users. Culture in second language teaching.