Journal Review Assignment

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.