An Understanding of the Extent of being Independent of Language to Culture - Report Example

INTRODUCTION Language and culture are known to have certain degrees of influence on each other. What is uncertain is whether any element of language can be independent of culture and to what extent this may occur. The term “culture” is one that is very complex at the same time has long eluded a specific description. Many have attempted to conceptualise it and set restrictions on its definition; however, the conceptualisation of culture is still currently a topic of debate for many researchers. Basic Definition of Culture and Language Webster provides the following definitions of culture: “(1) the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behaviour that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations”, (2) “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group” and (3) “the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organisation” (Merriam-Webster, 2009). Language, on the other hand, is a collective term generally used for the mode of communication utilised by human beings. According to the ‘The American Heritage Dictionary’ (2009), language is defined as such: “communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols... such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words... such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community”. INFLUNCE OF CULTURE TO LANGUAGE It was Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf who first suggested that culture affects language and that language greatly mirrors culture. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis says that an individual’s worldview is very much dependent on the language he or she use (Crystal, 1987). Discrepancies in cultural language can be explained by proof of the existence of languages that have specific words for specific ideas and languages that have several words pertaining to one specific idea. For instance, the Arabic language provides various words for pertaining to a specific kind of horse or camel (Crystal, 1987; Otto, 2006). To account for the same differences in relation to the English language where particular words are not used, one must make proper consider with adjectives in order to supplement the word, for example, dray horse or quarter horse (Crystal, 1987; Otto, 2006). Effects of Cultural Differences to Language Differences in culture have also been examined in the convenient application of language. In America, novel skills are commonly taught and learned verbally. In some other cultures, this is accomplished nonverbally. There has also been a marked distinction between cultures that promote independent learning and ones that promote cooperative learning (McLeod, 1994; Otto, 2006). The use of language is also affected by the variations in the social roles of adults and children. Differences in the framework of home and school are also factors in the learning of language. Different cultures have different nonverbal and contextual clues which have different roles in communication (Otto, 2006). When discussing the term culture, existing literature often allude to the 164 different definitions provided by Kroeber and Kluckhohn, and Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970) who further stated that the term is one of those that “defy a single all purpose definition and there are approximately as many meanings of culture as compared to people’s usage of the term”. According to Tayeb (1994), “culture is too fundamental to be solved through tighter definition” while Hofstede (1983) suggests that “there is no commonly accepted language to describe a complex thing such as a culture... In the case of culture such a scientific language does not exist”. Fundamentals of Culture Culture is a widely-used term and, as such, it holds many different meanings in different fields (Groeschl & Doherty, 2001). Nevertheless, after careful and critical consideration, Groeschl and Doherty (2001) found that, for the most part, definitions of the term “culture” fell under either of two basic early descriptions, namely that of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s value of orientations and Inkeles and Levison’s predictions of common human problems. Another common factor was made certain. Most authors have the same opinion regarding on the notion that culture is made up of elements, some of which are implicit and some explicit. These elements were identified such as basic assumptions, values, norms, and behaviour (Groeschl & Doherty, 2001). The idea that thought is moulded by means of language is usually associated with the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf, having due consideration to the concept of linguistic diversity, clearly proposed that categories and distinctions of each language preserve a way of seeing, analyzing as well as being in the world. Insofar since languages vary, their speakers also ought to change in the manner of perceiving and acting in the same and objective situations (Whorf, 1956; Boroditsky, Schmidt & Phillips, 2003). This strong Whorfian outlook – that thought and action are wholly determined by language – has long been cast off in cognitive science. Nevertheless, coming up with answers for less deterministic versions of the “Does language shape thought?” question has proven to be very much complicated (Boroditsky, Schmidt & Phillips, 2003). Other Cultural Variations in Language Discourse Additional cultural variations in how language is utilised in educational settings have been documented. These variations include those in how stories are conveyed, the wait period given by instructors to students during questioning series, the rhythmic patterns of the verbal exchanges, and the models of conversational turn-taking. During the 70s and 80s, teachers and scholars studied the verbal-deficit perspective. This point of view argued that any person who did not exercise English in the standard means did not also have a legitimate language and therefore was verbally incompetent. Even though verbal-deficit standpoint is currently refuted, it is still vital to the comprehension of the research being performed to either promote or bring into disrepute a particular theory. ‘Labov, Bernstein, Bereiter and Englemann are some of the familiar people in the field of language discourse specifically in relation to the variations in an assortment of social groups with due consideration to other groups’ middle and low income level as well as cultural groups. This collection of works identified specific variations in the way children from varying socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds utilised language in school and out-of-school settings. Inferences of this research have been widely investigated as well as interpreted in many approaches. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS IN ANGUAGE STUDIES Variations of Linguistic Codes A study documented the different linguistic codes used by children from lower- and middle-income families in England (Otto, 2006). Those individuals from low-income families were found as using a “restricted code” or highly contextualised language, while other people from middle-income families utilised an “elaborated code,” or decontextualised language (Otto, 2006). The study also documented variations in school achievement for these two sets of children. Analyses of this work found a cause–effect relationship between language usage and school success, supporting a “verbal deficit” outlook: the working-class surroundings of the low-income children created a verbal deficiency accountable for consequent low educational achievement. Verbal-Deficit Perspective In the United States, Bereiter and Englemann (1966; Otto, 2006) performed further research from the verbal-deficit perspective. They concentrated on the language of preschool African-American students in Urbana, Illinois. The researchers concluded that the language used by African-American children was not a valid language and thus suggested that these children have to be taught English in the school setting (Otto, 2006). Academically-oriented preschool programmes were formulated to provide the needed English language training for verbally-deficient students. Social Dialects William Labov (1979; Otto, 2006) studied the social dialects of lower-income African-American children in urban environments. He studied the variations in children’s in-school and out-of-school language capabilities. His study directly disputed the verbal-deficit perspective because it recognized the complex and systematic linguistic properties of African-American English. Furthermore, his data supported the concept that African-American English was a distinct language system at the same time having the characteristic of a separate grammar and rules. Labov described dialects as having “slightly different versions of the same rules, extending and modifying the grammatical processes which are common to all dialects of English” (Labov, 1995; Otto, 2006). His study supported the concept that verbal variations are not verbal deficits. Because his research concentrated on language used in academic and nonschool settings, he also promoted a greater consciousness of the role of context and dialect in communication (Otto, 2006). Tough (1997; Otto, 2006) performed a longitudinal study of children from advantaged (college graduate, professional parents) and disadvantaged (parents engaged in unskilled or semiskilled occupations) homes. The study started immediately after the children reached three years of age, with follow-ups at after two and a half years. At three years old, the disadvantaged children and the advantaged children significantly showed major differences in the ways they utilised language. Particularly, the disadvantaged children were not able to utilise language to recall and give details of previous experiences, foresee upcoming events and possible result, rationalize about current and remembered events, problem solve using language for planning and considering substitutes, arrive at solutions, create and carry on dramatic play events, and comprehend others’ experiences and feelings. When these children were observed again at five and a half and seven and a half years, the disadvantaged children produced much shorter and less complex responses (Otto, 2006). This study contributed to our awareness that children from varying cultural environments may be learning to use language differently and may experience difficulty in relation to their participation in the language environment in classrooms (Otto, 2006). Ethnographic Study Furthermore, the understanding of the function of cultural environments upon relating to the attainment of language was affected during the 80s by means of ethnographic study methods which were utilized by language scholarly. Ethnographic studies have also added significantly to our comprehension and understanding of linguistic variety. Ethnography makes use of observation among participants having a real-life situation at the same time having great emphasis on individuals’ social as well as cultural contexts (Otto, 2006). In relation to her ethnographic research, Heath (1983; Otto, 2006)) explored children’s acquisition of language in their home and in their school from the two communities in the Southeastern United States. She basically discovered variations in regards to the communication among working-class African-American and Caucasian families as well as middle-class townspeople from both cultural groups. In furtherance, her study also recognized suitable at the same time reliable distinctions in relation to the techniques of language utilization and in the manners in which children from respective communities become skilled in the usage of language. Consequently, Heath established that the differences she recognized in relation to language are not supported by race, but by the complicated cultural involvement in every community (Otto, 2006). Significance of Family Talk The significance of family tall in the framework of language promotional has been newly studied by Hart and Risley (1999; Otto, 2006). The consequences in their longitudinal research state that there is immense significance influence to, with regards to “talk” within families, language acquirement relatively than the socioeconomic position of the family or even ethnic group personality. Variations in language usage were accredited to the multifaceted family culture - not only because of socioeconomic position or ethnic group personality. Among those that were studied, the most significant difference was in the amount of talking done. Children in families where there were more talking observed developed higher levels of language, accelerated vocabulary growth and more complex vocabulary use. These variations were strongly related to school success at the age of nine. CONCLUSION Evidently enough, language and culture has a strong influence to each other; however, the extent of language being independent to language is very much less significant. It is indeed undoubtedly that language could not possibly be separated to the culture of a particular individual. In the ultimate sense, influence of culture surmounted the existence of language as an independent to culture. REFERENCES Ajiferuke, M. And Boddewyn, J. (1970) ‘Socioeconomic Indicators in Comparative Managem”nt". Administrative Sciences Quarterly, December, pp. 453-458. Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L.A. & Philips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 61-79). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Culture. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved 15 June 2009 from . Groeschl, S. & L. Doherty (2000). Conceptualising culture. Cross Cultural Management – An International Journal, 7 (4), 12-17. Hofstede, G. (1983). “The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories”. Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, pp. 75-92. Language. (2009). In American Heritage Dictionary. Retrieved 15 June 2009 from < http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/language>. Liddicoat, A.J. (2009). Communication as a culturally contexted practice: A view from intercultural communication. Australian Journal of Linguistics 29, 1:115 – 133. Otto, B. (2006). Language Development in Early Childhood, 64-68. Merrill. Retrieved 15 June 2009 from < http://www.education.com/reference/article/culture-language/>. Tayeb, M. (1994). Organizations and National Culture: Methodology Considered. Organisation Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 429-446. Read More

Effects of Cultural Differences to Language Differences in culture have also been examined in the convenient application of language. In America, novel skills are commonly taught and learned verbally. In some other cultures, this is accomplished nonverbally. There has also been a marked distinction between cultures that promote independent learning and ones that promote cooperative learning (McLeod, 1994; Otto, 2006). The use of language is also affected by the variations in the social roles of adults and children.

Differences in the framework of home and school are also factors in the learning of language. Different cultures have different nonverbal and contextual clues which have different roles in communication (Otto, 2006). When discussing the term culture, existing literature often allude to the 164 different definitions provided by Kroeber and Kluckhohn, and Ajiferuke and Boddewyn (1970) who further stated that the term is one of those that “defy a single all purpose definition and there are approximately as many meanings of culture as compared to people’s usage of the term”.

According to Tayeb (1994), “culture is too fundamental to be solved through tighter definition” while Hofstede (1983) suggests that “there is no commonly accepted language to describe a complex thing such as a culture. In the case of culture such a scientific language does not exist”. Fundamentals of Culture Culture is a widely-used term and, as such, it holds many different meanings in different fields (Groeschl & Doherty, 2001). Nevertheless, after careful and critical consideration, Groeschl and Doherty (2001) found that, for the most part, definitions of the term “culture” fell under either of two basic early descriptions, namely that of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck’s value of orientations and Inkeles and Levison’s predictions of common human problems.

Another common factor was made certain. Most authors have the same opinion regarding on the notion that culture is made up of elements, some of which are implicit and some explicit. These elements were identified such as basic assumptions, values, norms, and behaviour (Groeschl & Doherty, 2001). The idea that thought is moulded by means of language is usually associated with the work of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf, having due consideration to the concept of linguistic diversity, clearly proposed that categories and distinctions of each language preserve a way of seeing, analyzing as well as being in the world.

Insofar since languages vary, their speakers also ought to change in the manner of perceiving and acting in the same and objective situations (Whorf, 1956; Boroditsky, Schmidt & Phillips, 2003). This strong Whorfian outlook – that thought and action are wholly determined by language – has long been cast off in cognitive science. Nevertheless, coming up with answers for less deterministic versions of the “Does language shape thought?” question has proven to be very much complicated (Boroditsky, Schmidt & Phillips, 2003).

Other Cultural Variations in Language Discourse Additional cultural variations in how language is utilised in educational settings have been documented. These variations include those in how stories are conveyed, the wait period given by instructors to students during questioning series, the rhythmic patterns of the verbal exchanges, and the models of conversational turn-taking. During the 70s and 80s, teachers and scholars studied the verbal-deficit perspective. This point of view argued that any person who did not exercise English in the standard means did not also have a legitimate language and therefore was verbally incompetent.

Even though verbal-deficit standpoint is currently refuted, it is still vital to the comprehension of the research being performed to either promote or bring into disrepute a particular theory. ‘Labov, Bernstein, Bereiter and Englemann are some of the familiar people in the field of language discourse specifically in relation to the variations in an assortment of social groups with due consideration to other groups’ middle and low income level as well as cultural groups.

Read More