Language, Culture and Identity - Coursework Example

Running Head: LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND IDENTITY Language, Culture and Identity Language, culture and identity are characteristics of peoples. They are some of the aspects which make one people different from another. The relationship between language, culture and identity has been the subject of many debates because of implications they bring to language teaching and language policy. This paper takes a look at the relationships of language, culture and identity from a viewpoint of terminology as well as through various theories advanced regarding their relationships with each other. It also takes a look at some studies conducted in support or opposing the theories advanced. Today’s world of cultural pluralism defined by cultural, racial, linguistic, religious and other diversities has contributed to the evolution of studies in intercultural communication. Although the field of study is still in an immature state, its impact on language learning and language policy is already being felt, especially in Western societies. The paper concludes that as the debates on the theories continue, so do the debates on policies and programs for language learning and language laws. It is inevitable that these discussions will have to happen in order to meet the challenges of an increasingly multicultural world. Introduction Language is the communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. The language system includes rules for combining its components, such as words. Language is used by a nation, people, or other distinct community to communicate with one another. Culture is the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought which are considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population. They consist of the predominant attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group. Identity is defined as the collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is definitively recognizable or known. It is the set of behavioral or personal characteristics by which an individual is recognizable as a member of a group, such that national identity is the set of characteristics of a nation (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000). This paper looks into the relationship between language, culture and identity and its implications for language teaching and language policy. The relationship between language culture and identity From the definitions of the terms language, culture and identity, it can be gleaned that language is the expression of a people’s culture. The language system will necessarily include words that denote behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions and other products of human work which are attributable to a certain culture. Take for example the Filipino word “saya” which is the traditional female skirt. No other language system may have such a word with exactly the same meaning as the Filipino word. Or the Japanese word “hara-kiri” which refers to a ritual form of suicide, distinctly part of the Japanese heritage. Or the word “hotdog”, which is a distinctly American sausage, prepared and eaten in a certain American way. Indeed, as cultures are practiced and expressed, language has to support culture with words and specific meanings. The Japanese culture is differentiated from the American culture or the Indian culture. This differentiation results in a people’s identity. Thus, it can be said that language depicts a people’s culture and identity. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity, speakers of different languages necessarily construe the world differently, and are locked into the world view given to them by their language. This hypothesis is probably the most well known and most provocative conjecture between the relationship of language and thought. According to this hypothesis, the “construed” world is unconsciously built along the language of a group (Davies et al, 1998). Since there are different language patterns, the hypothesis postulates that these differences yield different patterns of thought and that the nature of a particular language influences the habitual thought of its speakers. The hypothesis claims that language cannot perfectly represent the world because the mechanisms of a language condition the thoughts of its speakers. The strongest position for the hypothesis is that language determines thought while the most extreme opposing position is that language has absolutely no influence on thought. According to Chandler (1994) there are two linguistic theories concerning the relationship between language and thought. Mold theories depict language as a mould in which thoughts cast. Cloak theories depict language is a cloak conforming to thought. The Sapir-Whorf theory is a mold theory of language. As Sapir (1929) stated, “Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society” Sapir avers that no two languages are ever sufficiently similar, therefore they cannot represent the same social reality. People see, hear and experience because their language predisposes certain choices of interpretation. Whorf (1964) says, thinking is mysterious and the greatest light shed upon it is through the study of language. This study shows that a persons thoughts are controlled by the intricate systems of language. Individuals think in a language like English, Sanskrit or Chinese, through which the individual “communicates, analyzes nature, notices or neglects types of relationship and phenomena, channels reasoning, and builds the house of his consciousness”. There have been many studies related to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis citing examples demonstrating support or rejection. It is commonly believed that the hypothesis has some basis but the extent of its applicability is questioned. Linguists generally support a strong or weak interpretation but nobody has gained significant ground in proving or refuting the hypothesis. The debate will probably never be settled because the hypothesis can be interpreted in many ways. Theories of intercultural communication According to Gudykunst (2005), three major approaches have been used in theorizing about intercultural communication. One is that culture has been integrated with the communication process in theories of communication, linking culture to communication. Another approach is to explain how communication varies across cultures. The third approach describes or explains communication between people from different cultures. The most theorizing exists in the third approach. Gudykunst further states that there are five categories of intergroup and intercultural communication theories: theories focusing on effective outcomes, theories focusing on accommodation and adaptation, theories focusing on identity management, theories focusing on communication networks, and theories focusing on adjustment and adaptation to new cultural environments. Some theories in which culture and communication are integrated are the constructivist theory, the theory on coordinated management of meaning and the speech code theory. The constructivist theory point out that communication occurs when individuals have a mutually recognized interaction to share. The process is goal driven meaning that individuals do what they think will help them accomplish their goals. This theory views complex message behavior as leading to person-centered communication wherein individuals generate communication and goal-relevant beliefs based on their definition of a situation and which guides their strategic behavior. The theory presupposes that culture defines the logic of communication and that different cultures emphasize different goals and ways to achieve goals such that intercultural communication training should focus on developing flexible and integrative strategic means for accomplishing goals. The theory on coordinated management of meaning (CMM) argues that all communication is both idiosyncratic and social, human communication is inherently imperfect, moral orders emerge as aspects of communication, and diversity is essential to elaboration and transformation through communication. Cultures are patterns of structures and actions that evolve together. CMM is a rules theory which analyzes rules that are used in describing social episodes such that CMM training helps participants understand what they need to do to act constructively in the situation similar to the episode. Speech code theory is a theory of culturally distinctive codes of communication conduct. A speech code refers to a historically enacted, socially constructed system of terms, meanings, premises, and rules pertaining to communicative conduct and that each communal conversation has culture-specific aspects. The theory argues that argue that individuals use their cultures and speech codes to make sense of their own and others communication; that cultures and speech codes influence havior; and the rhetorical force of an individual’s use of speech codes depends on how coherently, legitimately, and artfully the codes are used. Also expounded on by Gudykunst (2005) are theories on cultural variability in communications, such as the face-negotiation theory, the conversational constraints theory, and expectancy violations theory. Theories focusing on effective outcomes include the cultural convergence theory, the anxiety/uncertainty management theory, the effective group decision making theory, and the integrated theory of interethnic communication. According to Roth (1990), the overall conceptual domain of intercultural communications consists of three approaches which share a focus on face-to-face communication among members of different cultures and subcultures. These are the positivist approach which emphasizes predictability; the humanist approach which emphasizes understanding; and the systems tradition which stresses the goal of both prediction and understanding. The evolution of intercultural communication theories and strategies has been motivated by the phenomenal cultural pluralism of the late 20th century in Western society. The resulting cultural, racial, linguistic, and religious diversity in countries like Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, and Australia and the challenges to traditional patterns of interpersonal communications has necessitated the development of this object of study and welcomes more contribution to the field. Smolicz’s theory A model which seeks to explain why certain groups maintain their language better than other groups is the “core value” theory whose main proponent is George Smolicz. Smolicz’s theory is built around the idea that each group subscribes to a particular set of cultural values which are vital to its continued existence as a separate entity. In some groups language is identified as a prime core value whereas in others it is seen as less central to continued existence. Consequently language maintenance is assumed to be more important to those groups for which language is a core value. The core value theory continues to exert substantial influence as a theory, especially in the immigrant context (Davies et al, 2004). This theory is Smolicz’s most important contribution to the sociology of language. It has become crucial to research in the maintenance of minority languages all over the world. Smolicz, who was born in Poland then went on exile to Siberia after the rise of Nazism and the German advance into Poland, eventually migrated to Australia. He has shown his commitment to multiculturalism and multilingualism not only with his groundbreaking research but also by raising his children bilingually (Clyne, 2007). Smolicz et al (2001) conducted studies on four minority communities in Australia which confirm the contention of the importance of the home family community as the basic institutions in minority language maintenance. Although the communities studied did not correspond to the ‘little culture’ of the local neighborhood, it stood for a national entity that preserved its cultural cohesiveness in spite of being scattered over many countries and continents. The study concluded that the groups under investigation strove to achieve their cultural goals by relying on their families and other ethnic social structures in ways that were characteristic of their cultural heritage, as encapsulated in their core values, as well as reflective of their particular situation in Australia. The debate about language and power in the context of language policy There are many issues and challenges facing the paradigm of minority language rights. The points of dispute and tension are varied, as well as the challenges facing implementation of rights in today’s complex, multiethnic and multilingual contexts. There are debates about linguistic modernization, linguistic identities and essentialism, language and social mobility, and macro and micro language practices. The articulation of language rights is already well established in the disciplines of sociolinguistics, the sociology of language, and language policy and planning. The language ecology movement charts the links between linguistics and ecology, and fights against the current exponential loss of many of the world’s languages within a wider ecological framework. The linguistic human rights movement argues for the greater institutional protection and support of minority languages. A third domain fights for minority group rights in general but with increasing focus on the specific implementation of minority language rights national and international law. Intellectual criticisms on the other hand work within three themes. The problem of historical inevitability supports non-resistance of the inexorable forces of linguistic modernization. The problem of essentialism resists linking language to ethnic identity. Ant the problem of mobility and use resists the active delimiting of the mobility of minority language speakers by insisting that they continue to speak a language of limited use and, by implication, value (May, 2005). In the study conducted by May (2005), he concludes that the arguments in support of minority language rights has provided impetus for rethinking processes of linguistic modernization. The ascendancy of majority languages is inevitable, apolitical and unproblematic while minority language rights highlight the wider social and political conditions and their historical antecedents. Majority languages have been privileged and normalized within their social and political contexts and often at the specific expense of minority languages. As Jan Blommaert (1999) argues, a sociolinguistic approach that does not take cognizance of the wider socio-political and socio-historical factors does not also take into account human agency, political intervention, power and authority in the formation of particular national language ideologies. It also fails to identify the establishment and maintenance of majority languages as a specific ‘form of practice, historically contingent and socially embedded’. However, advocates of minority language rights at the same time highlight that it is exactly these contingent, socially embedded, and often highly unequal practices, that have so disadvantaged minority languages, and their speakers. Many challenges for minority language rights remain. More questions are raised than answers given particularly in the application of rights in multilingual contexts. However, the paradigm of minority language rights must continue to develop a more nuanced sociolinguistic, and wider socio-political approach to the issues of language, inequality, and social justice with which it is centrally concerned (May, 2005). Implications for language teaching and language policy In her book, Nieto (2002) proposes a transformational understanding of what it means to address multicultural issues within K-12 schools. She asserts that multicultural education is not the solution for all problems in public schools, rather it is a source of hope for substantive change within school cultures when implemented in a context of social justice and critical pedagogy. Nieto defines multicultural education as a process of comprehensive school reform and basic education for all students, characterized by seven basic characteristics: antiracist education; basic education, important for all students, pervasive throughout the curriculum, education for social justice, a process; and critical pedagogy. Nieto states that all children need multicultural education to be prepared to participate in the projected diverse world in which they will eventually become adult citizens (Nieto, 2002). In a study conducted by Caldas et al (1999), insight was gained into how bilingual, bicultural children view themselves within the context of their two, sometimes clashing languages and cultures. Bilingualism is not valued by an American middle school peer culture that actually stifles bilingualism. A foreign language immersion program helped to maintain both the minority language, and linguistic self-esteem, within a strong majority culture. An important conclusion of their research is that the dominant national culture of greatest exposure, in this case, the American culture had the greatest effect on language and identity. There is enormous power in the predominant peer group to negatively influence individual views on bilingualism. However, even though the subjects were reticent to speak a second language around their friends, they still indicated that they valued being bilingual, and in general considered themselves fortunate to be able to speak two languages. Caldas et al aver that the sentiments revealed by the subjects should be very interesting to those who fear that minority languages in the United States threaten the hegemony of English. They surmise that the US is the culture with which the children most closely identify and therefore summarize their study that English tends to dominate American culture in ways that ensure it will continue to linguistically assimilate even the most resistant cultures for a very long time to come. Conclusion With the many and varied theories and studies regarding language, culture and identity, there is practically no doubt that the three are interrelated and inevitably linked with each other. The debate is more on the degree or levels of relationship or interconnection between the three. All the studies and theories have influenced language teaching and language policy. In the same way that support or opposition to the theories are heatedly discussed in academic circles, so are policies debated for or against in political circles. Today’s cultural pluralism necessitates intercultural understanding. Culturally, racially, linguistically, and religiously diverse peoples have to function amongst each other, whether in native or non-native locations as globalization efforts continue to take over the world. It is therefore incumbent upon the world’s educators and lawmakers to seriously consider the impact of the interrelationships between language, culture and identity in the formulation of education policies related to language teaching as well as national, minority and intercultural language policies for the country. References Blommaert, J. (1999). Language ideological debates. Publisher Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from http://books.google.com/books?id=ZDpy45ciwCQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=language+power+debate&lr Caldas, S. & Carron-Caldas, S. (1999). Language immersion and cultural identity: Conflicting influences and values. Language, Culture and Curriculum Vol. 12, No. 1, 1999. Chandler, D. (1994). The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Adapted from The Act of Writing. 1995. Publisher Prifysgol Cymru. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from http://www.geoffbarton.co.uk/files/student-resources/Communication/Technology/The%20Sapir%20Whorf%20Summary.doc Clyne, M. (2007). Migrant became an expert on multiculturalism. The Sydney Morning Herald. January 13, 2007. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituaries/migrant-became-an-expert-on-multiculturalism/2007/01/12/1168105175533.html Culture. (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/culture Davies, A. & Elder, C. (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Blackwell Publishing. Davies, I.R.L., Sowden, P.T., Jerrett, D.T., Jerret, T., Corbett, G. G. (1998). A cross-cultural study of English and Setswana speakers on a colour triads task: A test of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology (1998), 89, 1-15. The British Psychological Society. Gudykunst, W.B. (2005). Theories of intercultural communication. China Media Research, 1(1), 2005. Identity. (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/identity Language. (2000). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved 10 October 2008 http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/language May, S. (2005). Language rights: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9/3, 2005: 319—347. Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. TESL-EJ Vol. 5, No. 4. March 2002. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej20/r9.html Roth, L. (1990). Book reviews. Theories in intercultural communication. Canadian Journal of Communication Vol 15, No 3 (1990). Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. In E. Sapir (1958): Culture, Language and Personality (ed. D. G. Mandelbaum). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Smolicz, J.J., Secombe, M.J. & Hudson, D.M. (2001). Family collectivism and minority languages as core values of culture among ethnic groups in Australia. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development Vol. 22, No. 2, 2001. Whorf, B.L. (1964). Language, mind and reality. From Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. 1964. The MIT Press. Retrieved 10 October 2008, from http://learn-gs.org/library/etc/9-3-whorf.pdf Read More