Journal Review (3)
Title : Language and Culture
Authors : Dr. Tengku Sepora Tengku Mahadi and Sepideh
Moghaddas Jafari, PhD Student
Journal : International Journal of Humanities and Social
Science
Publication : Vol. 2 No. 17; September 2012
Abstract : Language, the most commonplace of all human
possessions, is possibly the most complex and the most interesting. Since it is
an instrument for humans' communications with each other, the growth and
development of their talents, causing creativity, innovation, and novelty,
exchanging and transferring their experiences, and on the whole, for formation
of society(s). Concern with language is not new. From the earliest recorded
history, there is evidence that people investigated language. Many of the
assumptions, theories and goals of modern linguistics find their origin in past
centuries. However, this study aims to investigate whether there is any
relationship between language and culture, and if so, what the relationship
between language and culture is. To achieve the aims of this study, some of the
main theories which can be related to the goal of the paper are introduced and
explained. Then, it is followed by a precise discussion. The results of the
article indicate that there is a very close relationship between language and
culture. That is, culture has a direct effect on language. Language and culture
are closely correlated.
Goals : To investigate whether there is any relationship
between language and culture, and if so, what the relationship between language
and culture is
Problems : Is there any relationship between language and
culture?
Theories : Language To open discussion about language, first of
all, it seems necessary to mention that as far as language is concerned,
Saussure‟s theory of the sign is one of the main theories which had an
effective and significant role in this domain. Saussure‟s theory of the sign
has a thoughtful and reflective manipulate on both linguistic and the rise of
semiotic approach. In this respect, Saussure (1974) believes that language is a
system of signs. For him, a sign consists of a signifier (the sound- image or
the written shape) and a signified (a concept), in the manner that, they both
are inseparably linked with each other (ibid).
In other words, the sound-image cannot be separated from the concept,
that is to say, these two never part with each other (ibid). He further likens
language and thought to a sheet of paper; He believes that thought is the front
part of paper and sound the back part. It is impossible to cut any of the two
parts without cutting the other. In the sense that, in language the sounds and
thought are inseparable. On the other hand, the indivisibility and
undividability of the signifier and the signified, for instance, for a speaker
of English the sound-image dog belongs with the concept and perception dog and
not with the concept cow, generates the misapprehension and false impression of
the lucidity and clearness of language. In other words, as Hjelmslev (1969)
maintains, “It is the nature of language to be overlooked” (p. 5). Generally speaking, language is introduced by
Crystal (1971, 1992) as “the systematic, conventional use of sounds, signs or
written symbols in a human society for communication and self expression”.
Similarly, Emmitt and Pollock (1997) believe that language is a system of
arbitrary signs which is accepted by a group and society of users. It is taken
delivery of a specific purpose in relation to the communal world of clients.
Chase (1969) declares that the purpose of language use is to communicate with
others, to think, and to shape one‟s standpoint and outlook on life. Indeed,
language figures human thoughts (ibid). Saussure (1956, 1972, 1974, 1983)
defines language as the system of differences. In this sense, he believes in the
difference of meaning of a sound-image or written shape in different languages.
“If words stood for pre-existing concepts, they would all have exact
equivalents in meaning from one language to the next; but this is not true”
(Saussure, 1974, p. 116). That is to
say, the concept of a sound-image or symbol in different languages is
different.
Culture
According to Roohul-Amini (1989) "Culture has
multifarious meanings. Culture meant farming" (p. 15). It is used
everywhere as rural culture, urban culture, American culture and so on. Today,
in every field, in humanities, every research requires a general view of culture.
It is used in archaeology, linguistics, history, psychology, sociology and etc.
It is even said that man is an animal with culture. That is to say, the factor
which differentiates the human being's behaviour from the behaviour of animal
is culture (Mesbahe Yazdi, 2005). In general, from the sociological
perspective, culture is the total of the inherited and innate ideas, attitudes,
beliefs, values, and knowledge, comprising or forming the shared foundations of
social action. Likewise, from the anthropological and ethnological senses,
culture encompasses the total range of activities and ideas of a specific group
of people with common and shared traditions, which are conveyed, distributed,
and highlighted by members of the group (Collins English Dictionary 1991, 1994,
1998, 2000, 2003). There are about two
or three hundred and even more definitions for culture. With respect to the
definition of culture, Edward Sapir (1956) says that culture is a system of
behaviours and modes that depend on unconsciousness. Rocher (1972, 2004), an
anthropologist, believes that “Culture is a connection of ideas and feelings
accepted by the majority of people in a society” (p. 142). Undeniably, culture
is learned and shared within social groups and is conveyed by nongenetic ways
(The American Heritage, Science Dictionary 2005). Taylor (1974), an
anthropologist, says in his Primitive Culture
that culture in a complex definition includes beliefs, arts, skills,
moralities, laws, traditions and behaviours that an individual, as a member of
a society, gets from his own society. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), consider
civilization and culture the same and they believe the two terms have been used
synonymously. For them, they both indicate different levels of the same
subject. Civilization indicates the great development of a civilized society;
culture indicates the same subject too (ibid). Each society has its own special
culture either simple or complex. If culture is taken seriously, it seems that
people require not only sufficient food but also well-cooked food. Goodenough
(1996) claims that culture is a systematic association of people that have a
certain way of life. Therefore, culture is the only distinction between human
and animals. Of course, animals live in association but it is a special kind.
There are, indeed, a lot of sharing characteristics between human beings and
animals such as associative life, responsibility toward children and so on. But
culture is for men, only. T. S. Eliot (1961) considers culture as a capital and
means for developing all cultures and knowledge in order to terminate all human
sharing problems, for helping economical stabilization and political security.
Spencer (1986) calls culture the milieu of super organic and highlights the
separation of culture from physical and natural factors. He believes that the
super organic factor is only for man, whereas; the other two factors are the
same for man and animal.
Elements of Culture
Each individual belongs to a special group. He/She reflects
his/her own special thought and culture. It is easy to put him/her in his/her
group and distinguish him/her from the others. For instance, language of a
child is different from the language of an adult or the people in the North
speak differently from the people in the South or the language of the poor is
different from the language of the rich, even their clothes are different. Elements
such as language, rituals, clothes, science, beliefs and values connect people
together (Roohul-Amini, 1989). Culture is learnt through relation with other
people. Therefore, culture is not natural, inborn and will-less; it is a social
product. Some factors are considerable and momentous in this transmission such
as information and knowledge in a society, social changes, social relations and
mass media. Thus, culture transmits generation by generation, the elements are
carried from one place to another place, it is divided into some sub-cultures
and it is finally the victim of crises.
Words are the most significant tools of cultural symbols. That is to
say, poems, stories, fictions, epics and myths are the main ingredients and
components of a culture in a society. Myth, Levis Strauss (1976) believes, in a
language expresses universal realities in symbols. On the whole, the elements
of culture are the entirety of socially transmitted and common behavior
patterns, prototypes, samples, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other
products of human work and thought.
Sapir and Whorf Hypothesis
Sapir and Whorf Hypothesis is a Hypothesis built up and
expanded by B. L. Whorf (1897 – 1941) and derived from linguistic approach of
his teacher, E. Sapir (1884 – 1939). This hypothesis, in fact, suggests that a
language determines and resolves the thought and perception of its speakers. In
the sense that, no language can subsist except it is in the context of culture
and reciprocally, the culture which does not have at its centre the structure
of a standard and ordinary language cannot survive (Sapir, 1921; Berlin and
Kay, 1969). Whorf himself called this view the „linguistic relativity
principle‟ (Whorf, 1952; Lucy, 1992a, 1992b; Levinson, 2000; Gilbert, et al.
2008). Consequently, Sapir – Whorf
hypothesis is, indeed, a theory of the relationship between language and
thought expounded in its most explicit form by the American anthropological
linguists Edward Sapir (1884 – 1939) and Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897 – 1941). This
hypothesis is also known as the theory of the linguistic relativity. The main
idea in this hypothesis, as Whorf (Whorf, 1952, 1956; Levinson, 2000; Gilbert,
et al. 2008) puts it, is that every human being views the world by his own
native language. In other words, just as time, space, and mass (according to
Einstein) can be defined only in terms of a system of relationships, human
knowledge similarly arises only in relation to the semantic and structural
possibilities of natural languages. In
fact, Sapir and Whorf hypothesis (Sapir, 1921; Whorf, 1952, 1956; Berlin and
Kay, 1969; Lucy, 1992a, Lucy 1992b; Levinson, 2000; Gilbert, et al. 2008) comprises two consistent and unified
ingredients as follows: Linguistic Relativity: In accordance with linguistic relativity the
languages which are completely different in their vocabulary and structure, put
across and convey different cultural significances and meanings. This
belief, indeed, maintains that the way people view the world is determined
wholly or partly by the structure of their native language. Linguistic Determinism: In proportion to linguistic determinism in
its strong version, models and samples of thought and observation and
comprehending of reality are settle on, agreed on and found out by one‟s native
language.
The first part which is linguistic relativity, indeed, has a
more important role in forming Sapir and Whorf hypothesis. The main idea in
this hypothesis, as Whorf (ibids) puts it, is that every human being views the
world by his own native language.
Methods : This study seeks to investigate whether there is
any relationship between language and culture, and if so, what the connection
between language and culture is. In other words, if there is relationship
between language and culture, how they can have this association. To achieve
the answer of the above question, some of the main relevant points are
introduced and discussed as follows.
Findings : 1. We are, in all our thinking and forever, at
the understanding of the particular language which has become the means of
expression for our society, we experience and practice our expression by means
of the characteristics, peculiarities, and sometimes literary words encoded in
our language. 2. The characteristics, peculiarities, and literary words encoded
in one language system are distinctive, typical, and unique to that system and
they are dissimilar as well as incomparable with those of other systems. 3.
Since the culture of a particular place or nation is different from others,
sometimes the misunderstanding and misconception occurs when one from another
nation uses the language of that nation. 4. In order to understand the specific
words, literary terms, and even sometimes the simple words in one language, we
must be familiar with the culture of that nation.
Conclusion : From the mentioned points and discussion, it
can be concluded that there is a very close relationship between language and
culture in general, and a specific language and its culture in particular. That
is, culture has a direct effect on language. In fact, the two issues are
closely correlated and interrelated. Language is the symbolic presentation of a
nation or a specific community. In other words, language is the symbolic
presentation of a culture.
References :
Berlin, B. and P. Kay (1969), Basic Color Terms: Their
Universality and Evolution, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd ed).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Chase, S. (1969), “How language shapes our thoughts”. In Language: An
Introduction Reader. (J. Burl H., and
Roberts, E. Y., eds.), p. 97-108. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, (1991), HarperCollins
Publishers.
---------------, (1994), HarperCollins Publishers.
---------------, (1998), HarperCollins Publishers.
---------------, (2000), HarperCollins Publishers.
---------------, (2003), HarperCollins Publishers.
Crystal, D. (1971). Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
-------------- (1992). Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Eliot, T.S. (1961),
Notes toward the Definition of Culture, London: Faber and Faber.
Emmitt, M. and Pollock, J. (1997). Language and Learning: An Introduction for
Teaching 2nd Language. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, Aubrey L., et al. (2008), “Support for lateralization of the Whorf
effect beyond the realm of color
discrimination”, Brain and Language 105(2), pp. 91-98
Goodenough, W.H. (1996). Culture. In Levinson 8 Ember (Eds.) Encyclopedia of
cultural anthropology vol. 1. New York: Henry Holt and co.
Hjelmslev, L. (1969). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. (tr. Francis J.
Whitfield Madison), Wisc.: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Jary, D. and J. Jary. (1991). The HarperCollins Dictionary of Sociology. New
York: Harper Collins.
Kroeber, A. L. and Kluckhohn, (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts
and Definitions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody
Museum
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000), “Yeli Dnye and the Theory of Basic Color Terms”,
Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10
(1), pp. 3-55.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1976). “Structure and Form: Reflections on the Work of
Vladimir Propp”. In Structural Anthropology, Vol. 2 Trans.
Monique LAYTON. New York: Basic Books.
LUCY, JOHN A. (1992a), Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of
the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
--------------, (1992b), Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the
Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Mesbahe Yazdi, Mohammad T. (2005).
Cultural Offense. Tehran: Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute Press.
Rocher, G. (1972). A General
Introduction to Sociology: A theoretical perspective. Translated from French by Peta Sheriff. New York: St.
Martin's Press.
------------, (1972). A General Introduction to Sociology: A theoretical perspective.
Macmillan Co. Of Canada
------------, (2004). A General Introduction to Sociology: A theoretical
perspective. India, Calcutta: B.K. Dhur,
Academic Publishers.
Roohul-Amini, M. (1989). Outline of Culture. Tehran: Atar Press.
Sapir, E. (1921). Language. New York: Harcourt Brace.
------------, (1956). Selected Writings in Language, Culture and Personality.
Berkeley: University of California Press
Saussure, F. de. (1956). Course in General Linguistics. (R. Harris, trans.).
London: Gerald Duckworth. Saussure, F. de. (1966). Course in General
Linguistics. (W. Baskin, trans.). London: Gerald Duckworth. Saussure, F. de.
(1972). Course in General Linguistics. (R. Harris, trans.). London: Gerald
Duckworth Saussure, F. de. (1974). Course in General Linguistics. tr. Wade
Baskin, London: Fontana.
Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in General Linguistics. (Ch. Bally,
trans.).London: Gerald Duckworth. Taylor, E.B. (1974). Primitive Culture:
researches into the development of mythology,
philosophy, religion, art, and custom. New York: Gordon Press The
American Heritage, Science Dictionary, (2005), Houghton Mifflin Company.
Whorf, B. L. (1956), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of
Benjamin Lee Whorf, John B. Carroll
(ed.), ed., MIT Press.
Williams, R. (1976). Key words: A vocabulary of Culture and Society. United
Kingdom: Croom Hel
----------- (1981). Culture. United Kingdom: Fontana.
------------ (1983). Key words: A vocabulary of Culture and Society. United
Kingdom: Flamingo.
