Culture and Language

Culture and language are integrally related. Language represents one system of culture, and culture is transmitted via language. Investigations into the relationship between these two concepts involve exploring how individuals and societies construct, maintain and transmit identities. Frequently, this investigation involves examining the texts that are created within a society in order to establish the underlying assumptions and ideologies by which individuals are operating. Researchers are also interested in how multilingual individuals negotiate their identity by making language choices and how socialization processes impact the maintenance or evolution of language within a culture. This article provides a brief overview of issues related to the relationship between language and culture.

Keywords Code-Switch; Cultural Models; Discourse Analysis; Ethnography of Communication; Identity Formation; Ideology; Language Maintenance; Social Identity Theory; Social Networks; Stereotypes; Speech Community

Culture & Language

Culture > Culture & Language

Overview

Imagine this order of events: thousands of years ago, cultures began to form as humans learned to use tools and formed family units. Then, language evolved? Or perhaps the order goes like this, "One day humans began to speak; and with this new tool, they were soon able to form relationships, build civilizations and create culture."

The questions of which came first - language or culture - and which has a greater impact on the other - are classic “chicken and egg” questions that can propel late-night philosophers into many a wee-hour in the morning discussions. The fact is that language and culture are so integrally related that it is nearly impossible to separate one from the other. Yet this is the task that researchers in sociology, anthropology, linguistics and other human-oriented fields undertake as they attempt to understand who we are as individuals and as societies. This article will provide a very brief overview of some of the questions that researchers explore when considering the relationships between culture and language. Readers are cautioned that because this topic is somewhat broad, this article cannot be considered an all-inclusive review of the subject.

Ethnography of Communication

The study of the relationship between language and culture occurs in many fields, but in the field of Ethnography of Communication, it is of particular interest. Ethnographers focus on patterns of communicative behavior and how those patterns depend on and influence social processes. Language, as a rule-governed system used to communicate, invites ethnographers to explore how individuals use language and how they come to share linguistic behaviors. What ethnographers have discovered is that patterns of communicative behavior occur at the individual, group and societal levels of a society. At the societal levels, patterns relate to the functions of the language, categories of talk, attitudes and conceptions about language and speakers. At the group level, individuals who share membership in groups defined by characteristics such as age, educational level, sex, occupation, geographic region, etc. may mark their membership by using language similarly. At the individual level, personal characteristics may influence language use. For instance, an individual's language use may reflect various emotional states such as nervousness or fear (Saville-Troike, 2003).

Speech Communities

In order to explore language use within a particular level of society or cultural unit, ethnographers must first define parameters for the group to be studied. A speech community is the most common unit of analysis and consists of individuals who share both a language and the rules for interpreting and using that language. Members of a speech community typically share values, attitudes and beliefs about the language itself and its role in the society. Saville-Troike (2003) notes that a speech community cannot be defined only by its use of the same language. This is because language and language use are shaped by the context in which they exist. For instance, although English is a language used around the world, there are many varieties and dialects of English that have developed in different countries. These varieties may contain different vocabulary items, different syntactical constructions or different uses of grammar. Just because speakers in England, the United States, South Africa and India speak English does not mean that the speakers can be said to belong to the same speech community.

Identity Formation

In exploring language and culture within a speech community, a key area of study is identity formation. An individual's identity encompasses one's sense of who one is in relation to groups and networks in society as well as within societal structures and practices. For instance, one might define oneself as being male or female, as belonging to a specific religion or as a member of a certain social class. Within any society, there are many categories with which individuals can identify, and individuals generally see themselves as members of more than one category. Social Identity Theory proposes that individuals define themselves along two axes: social and personal. Social relates to memberships in various groups, and personal relates to the personal attributes one has that make one unique from others. For instance, on a college campus, students might identity themselves as being friendly, outgoing, shy, nervous or smart (personal axis) or according to their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, regional background or participation in academic or extracurricular activities (social axis) (Howard, 2000).

For any category that exists within a society, there is generally a set of rules or identifiers that mark individuals as members of the group. These rules develop over time through the interaction of group members. Because interaction most frequently occurs through language, language plays an important role in the establishment and maintenance of individual and group identity. For instance, language provides the means by which members can name their group/category. Language allows members of a group to talk about and evaluate themselves. Through this talk, members form self-perceptions and negotiate how they see themselves in relation to each other and people outside the group. Members may also mark their membership by adopting particular languages or language uses (e.g., using vocabulary specific to a particular field such as medicine or creating terminology only members know, such as slang in youth culture). Finally, through language, individuals are able to pass on the rules of group behavior to each other and from generation to generation (Howard, 2000; Saville-Troike, 2003)

Some of the questions researchers ask when exploring language, culture and identity are related to the relationship between language and cognitive processes. To what extent does language use change one's thinking about one's identity, roles and relationships to others? If someone begins to call oneself by a new name such as student or adult, to what extent does language cause one to see oneself as fitting into the category defined by that name? Also, researchers explore how interactions serve to shift or maintain identity. They examine how individuals produce their identity in their talk and investigate how the context of the situation affects identity formation during interactions.

Applications

The construction of identity through talk is of particular interest to linguists working in a discourse analysis framework. Discourse analysis involves the study of linguistic choices that individuals make as they interact. The purpose of the analysis is to uncover the underlying assumptions and ideologies of the conversation's participants. Speakers have many ways to identify themselves and their societal status as well as their attitudes, values and beliefs when they talk (Gee, 1999). For instance, some languages encode status right in the grammar of the language. In French, speakers can choose from an informal form of you (i.e., tu) for close friends and younger acquaintances and a formal form (i.e., vous) for use with people who are not as well known or of higher status. In Japanese, speakers can choose from a diverse range of address forms that show the speaker's relation to the hearer. Harumi Williams (as cited in Saville-Troike, 2003) provides an example of the choices a Japanese woman offering tea in her home might make, moving from lower to higher status:

• Ocha? (to own children) [tea]

• 2 Ocha do? (to own children, friends who are younger than self, own younger brothers and sisters) [tea how-about]

• Ocha ikaga? (to friends who are the same age, own older brothers and sisters) [tea how-about (polite)]

• Ocha ikaga desu ka? (to husband, own parents, own aunts and uncles, husband's younger brothers and sisters) [tea how-about (polite) is Q]

• Ocha wa ikaga desu ka? (to own grandparents) [tea topic how-about (polite) is Q]

• Ocha ikaga desho ka? (to husband's elder brothers and sisters) [tea how-about (polite) is (polite) Q]

• Ocha wa ikaga desho ka? ( to teachers, husband's parents, husband's boss, husband's grandparents) [tea topic how-about (polite) is (polite) Q] (Saville-Troike, 2003, p. 44).

In languages that encode status in the grammar, the choices the speaker makes directly and explicitly mark his or her position in the interaction. When speakers choose to use one language over another, or speak with a specific dialect, accent, or special vocabulary, they also mark themselves as members of the group able to engage in such linguistic behavior. Thus, they present themselves as having a particular identity and invite others to see them that way.

Cultural Models

The language used during an interaction can also indicate one's cultural identity and worldview. This is because different cultures tend to produce specific ways of viewing and explaining the world. For instance, ancient cultures often explained world phenomena such as volcanic explosions as being the result of the wrath of Gods. With the advent of science, new ways of explaining these phenomena arose. Religious and scientific perspectives represent two different culturally-defined ways to view and explain the world. Gee (1999) calls these world constructions cultural models.

When speakers engage in talk, they frequently rely on cultural models to create their own identities. One way this happens is through the use of metaphors. Zubair (2007) illustrates this phenomenon in a discussion of how Pakistani women who were invited to discuss their access to literacy and education, as well as their perceptions of self-hood and identity, employed metaphors to explain themselves while speaking. Older women who were from rural backgrounds tended to discuss themselves and the restrictions they faced in society in terms of domesticated animals, confined to cages. Reflecting their more modern environment, younger urban women expressed their restraints in terms of buildings. For these two groups, metaphors of constraints included: cages, houses, homes, a way out, walls, retreat and path. On the other hand, metaphors of freedom employed included viewing education and literacy as brightness. One woman described a sense of agency in her life by describing herself as a singing bird rather than a silent one.

Stereotypes

While language can position individuals as having a particular identity or group membership, it can also be used to position groups in relation to one another. Often, this positioning results in the creation of stereotypes. Stereotypes are simplified images or attitudes that a group of people hold in common. They are created because as individuals identify with one group, they distance themselves from other groups. In other words, in defining who one is one also defines who one is not. Many times, stereotypes present a negative image about another group. This is because individuals tend to identify with groups they believe will create a positive self-image. Thus, they may attribute positive values, beliefs and attitudes to the group with which they identify (i.e., in-group) and negative views to those who do not belong (i.e., out-group). The set of beliefs, values, and attitudes that define in-group members constitute the ideology of the group. At a societal level, ideologies of the in-group ("us") and the out-group ("them") may reflect cultural attitudes about members of other ethnic, racial, religious, gender, or other backgrounds (Hausendorf & Kesselheim, 2002).

As with other kinds of worldviews, stereotypes and the underlying ideologies that produce them can be identified through discourse analysis. One method is to study the vocabulary that is used to label social groups. Vocabulary items frequently hold positive or negative connotations within a society. Thus, the choice of one vocabulary term over another can indicate the position of the speaker and the speaker's attitude toward another group or group member. For example, when describing individuals who are fighting to overturn a government, calling the fighters "freedom-fighters" has more positive connotations in American society, which tends to value freedom, than calling them "guerillas," which positions the fighters in the category of animal.

Labeling

The media, as a social institution which engages regularly in labeling groups, exerts a great deal of influence in shaping cultural perceptions and stereotypes. For instance, in all countries, the media frequently reports on conflicts between ethnic groups or between ethnic groups and government. In choosing descriptors for these groups, the media may consciously or unconsciously encourage the larger society to perceive that group from a specific ideological framework. In one study of mainstream Thai media, for example, Hongladarom (2002) found that the media regularly portrayed ethnic minority members of Thailand's hill tribes negatively. Although the hill tribes have a long history in Thailand, the language used to describe these people served to separate them from mainstream Thais and to position them as the cause of social problems. They were labeled as forest destroyers, drug traffickers and threats to the nation. Additionally, the language created an image of hill tribe members as "ungrateful" (p. 325) a value that is especially negative since mainstream Thai culture puts a high value on gratitude.

Because of the connection between language and the transmission of values, attitudes and beliefs among members of society, many minority and marginalized groups have actively sought to change the labels by which they are described. In the last few decades, Native American groups in North America have rejected depictions of their members as "Redskins" and have fought to keep non-Native American groups from using their names (Slagle, 2002). African-Americans have made similar arguments, and women have made the point that male-based generics such as "he" cannot adequately represent them (Kleinman, 2002).

Multilingualism

While language allows individuals to mark their identity in any group, one kind of group membership involves people who speak more than one language. Multilingual individuals are of interest because if language encodes cultural worldviews and is used to mark boundaries between groups, researchers want to understand how multilingual individuals create, negotiate and communicate their identities in particular contexts. Because one's mother language is frequently tied to an individual's cultural and ethnic heritage, it is often assumed to be an integral part of one's cultural identity. Yet speaking any language fluently requires some cultural knowledge about when, where and how to use the language. As individuals move between different languages, do they assume different culturally-appropriate behaviors, values or attitudes? In what circumstances do multilingual individuals choose one language over another? And what is the reason that multilinguals code-switch, or move back-and-forth between languages while engaged in conversation?

Language Maintenance

As with any form of interaction, research has shown that the choices multilingual speakers make in conversation are dependent upon the context of the situation. Speakers generally weigh the appropriateness of the use of one code or another in a given situation, and may sometimes choose an unexpected code to make a point (McCormick, 2002). Sometimes language choices are related to the topic. Individuals who receive specialized training (e.g., law or engineering) in one language, for instance, may not have the specialized vocabulary in their second language. Therefore, they may be more comfortable using the language in which they studied when discussing the topic (Saville-Troike, 2003). In situations where political and cultural tensions exist between two or more segments of society, choosing to use one language over another may indicate a refusal to adopt a dominant culture or to show solidarity with a minority one. For instance, when the Soviet Union disintegrated, many people eschewed Russian in favor of a local ethnic language in order to demonstrate their ethnic identity or support an emerging state nationalism (Haarmann, 2002).

Another aspect of research related to multilingual speakers and communities relates to the impact of cultural attitudes, values and beliefs on language maintenance, shift and loss. In bilingual communities, researchers have found that close-knit social networks that maintain a mother tongue language encourage the use of and subsequent maintenance of the language within the community. In contrast, communities that have low-ethnic vitality and low identification with an in-group tend to see faster rates of assimilation into the dominant culture and acquisition of a majority language (Lanza & Svendson, 2007). The relationship between expressed parental/community beliefs and the uptake of those beliefs by younger generations may not always be direct. Families have been found to unconsciously and implicitly socialize children to prefer one language over another. For instance, take the case of children in the Gapun community of Papua New Guinea where the local language Taiap co-exists with the lingua franca Tok Pisin. In this community, parents state that they feel their children should learn Taiap as an important part of their culture. However, researchers have found that the parents' code-switching has influenced the children's perceptions of the two languages. Children have learned to associate Tok Pisin with modernity, Christianity and education while Taiap was perceived to be backward and related to paganism. Thus, children are rejecting the local language, leading the community toward a monolingual future in which Tok Pisin is the only language (Kulick, 1992, as cited in Ochs & Schieffelin, 2006).

In conclusion, the relationship between language and culture is close and complex. While this article has explored some of the research areas of interest related to this topic, the subject is a multidisciplinary one and provides the foundation for many investigations into human-oriented questions. Readers are encouraged to explore this topic in the fields of sociology, linguistics, anthropology, cognitive science, history, and business.

Terms & Concepts

Code-Switch: To code-switch means to shift from using one language to another within an interaction.

Cultural Models: Cultural models are culturally-specific constructions of the world that are meant to explain how something in the world operates.

Discourse Analysis: Discourse analysis is the linguistic method of examining a text in order to uncover the underlying assumptions and ideologies that are demonstrated in the text.

Ethnography of Communication: The field of ethnography of communication is a field that concerns itself with the study of communicative patterns and behaviors, speech communities, the components of communicative competence, the relationship of language to world view and social organization and linguistic and social universals and inequalities.

Ideology: An ideology is defined in this context as the set of values, beliefs, and attitudes that a group has about the rules governing membership within a specific social group.

Language Maintenance: Language maintenance refers to the preservation of a language within a speech community.

Social Identity Theory: Social Identity Theory is a theory that states that all individuals define an identity along two axes: social and personal. Social identity relates to membership with various social groups in a society, and personal identity relates to the unique characteristics that make an individual different from others.

Social Networks: Social networks are comprised on the individuals with whom one interacts at various levels of involvement over time.

Stereotypes: Stereotypes are simplified images or opinions that one group of people holds in common.

Speech Community: A speech community is defined as a group of individuals who share the same language and the same attitudes, values and beliefs about that language and its role in the community.

Bibliography

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2013). Small languages and small language communities 74. International Journal Of The Sociology Of Language, 2013, 195-216. doi:10.1515/ijsl-2013-0039 Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90037829&site=ehost-live

Enfield, N. J. (2013). Language, culture, and mind: trends and standards in the latest pendulum swing. Journal Of The Royal Anthropological Institute, 19, 155-169. doi:10.1111/1467-9655.12008 Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85140004&site=ehost-live

Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method . London: Routledge.

Haarmann, H. (2002). Identity in transition: cultural memory, language and symbolic russianness. In P. Gubbins & M. Holt (Eds.), Beyond boundaries: Language and identity in contemporary Europe (pp. 59-72) Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Hausendorf, H., & Kesselheim, W. (2002). The communicative construction of group identities: A basic mechanism of social categorization. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures (pp. 265-289). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Hongladarom, K. (2002). Discourse about them: Construction of ethnic identities in Thai print media. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures (pp. 321-339). Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Howard, J. (2000). Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, , 367-393. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3780377&site=ehost-live

Kleinman, S. (2002). Why sexist language matters. Qualitative Sociology, 25 , 299-304. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11302771&site=ehost-live

Lanza, E., & Svendsen, B.A. (2007). Tell me who your friends are and I might be able to tell you what language(s) you speak: Social network analysis, multilingualism, and identity. International Journal of Bilingualism, 11 , 275-300. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27223582&site=ehost-live

Lillis, T., & McKinney, C. (2013). The sociolinguistics of writing in a global context: Objects, lenses, consequences. Journal Of Sociolinguistics, 17, 415-439. doi:10.1111/josl.12046 Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90133342&site=ehost-live

McCormick, K. (2002). Code-switching, mixing and convergence in Cape Town. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), Language in South Africa (pp. 216-234). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (2006). The impact of language socialization on grammatical development. In C. Jourdan & K. Tuite (Eds.), Language, culture and society (pp. 168-189). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Slagle, A. (2002). Racial mascot bill off and running. News from Native California, 15 , 33-35. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7104981&site=ehost-live

STRASZER, B. (2012). Hungarians in Finland and Sweden: Comparison of Some Sociocultural and Demographic Factors on Language Choice, Culture and Identity. Finnish Yearbook Of Population Research, , 5-30. Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=84970177&site=ehost-live

Zubair, S. (2007). Silent birds: Metaphorical constructions of literacy and gender identity in women's talk. Discourse Studies, 9 , 766-783.

Suggested Reading

Blommaert, J. (2013). Writing as a sociolinguistic object. Journal Of Sociolinguistics, 17, 440-459. doi:10.1111/josl.12042 Retrieved October 24, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text:http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90133343&site=ehost-live

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach . Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Saville-Troike, M. (2003). The ethnography of communication . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

van Dijk (1998). Ideology . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.