http://www.education.

com/reference/article/culture-language/
By B. Otto Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall Updated on Jul 19, 2013

Culture and Language

The power of language to reflect culture and influence thinking was first proposed by an American linguist and anthropologist, dward !apir "#$$%&#'('), and his student, Ben*amin +horf "#$',&#'%#). The SapirWhorf hypothesis stated that the way we think and -iew the world is determined by our language "Anderson . /ightfoot, 01102 3rystal, #'$,2 Hayes, Ornstein, . 4age, #'$,). 5nstances of cultural language differences are e-idenced in that some languages ha-e specific words for concepts whereas other languages use se-eral words to represent a specific concept. 6or e7ample, the Arabic language includes many specific words for designating a certain type of horse or camel "3rystal, #'$,). To make such distinctions in nglish, where specific words do not e7ist, ad*ecti-es would be used preceding the concept label, such as 8uarter horse or dray horse. 3ultural differences ha-e also been noted in the ways in which language is used pragmatically. 5n our American culture, new skills are typically taught and learned through -erbal instruction "!lobin, #','). 5n some cultures, new skills are learned through non-erbal obser-ation. A distinction has also been made between cultures that encourage independent learning and those that encourage cooperati-e learning "9c/eod, #''%). :ifferences in the social roles of adults and children also influence how language is used. Home and school conte7ts may represent different cultures, subcultures, or both and may influence language ac8uisition in noticeable ways. ;on-erbal cues "e.g., facial e7pression) and conte7tual cues "e.g., shared e7perience) ha-e different communicati-e roles in different cultures "<aiser . =asminsky, 011(). 5n some cultures, prelinguistic children "who are not yet -erbali>ing) are spoken about rather than spoken to "Heath, #'$(). 3hildren may be e7pected, and thus taught, to speak only when an adult addresses them. They are not encouraged to initiate con-ersations with adults or to *oin spontaneously in ongoing adult con-ersations. Additionally, in some cultures, children who enthusiastically -olunteer answers at school are considered show?offs "Peregoy . Boyle, #''(). 5n some cultural settings, children are not asked recitational 8uestions. 5nstead, they are asked only 8uestions of clarification or for new information. Thus, when these children e7perience recitational 8uestions in a school

setting, they may be confused as to the purpose of the 8uestioning and the e7pected response. 6urther cultural differences in how language is used in educational settings ha-e been documented by Tharp "#''%). These differences include -ariations in how stories are told, the wait time gi-en by teachers to students during 8uestioning se8uences, the rhythmic patterns of the -erbal interactions, and the patterns of con-ersational turn?taking. :uring the #',1s and #'$1s, educators and linguists researched and debated the verbal-deficit perspective. This perspecti-e contended that anyone who did not use standard nglish did not ha-e a -alid language and thus was -erbally deficient. Although the -erbal?deficit perspecti-e has now been pro-en in-alid, it is important to understand the research that was conducted to either support or discredit that perspecti-e. Bernstein "#',#), Bereiter and nglemann "#'@@), and /abo- "#',') were among the researchers who studied language differences between different social groups, including middle? and lower?income groups and ethnic groups. This body of research identified specific differences in the way children from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds used language in school and out?of?school settings. 5mplications of this research ha-e been widely discussed and interpreted in a -ariety of ways. Basil Bernstein "#',#) documented the different linguistic codes used by children from lower? and middle?income families in ngland. /ower? income children were described as using a Arestricted codeB or highly conte7tuali>ed language, while children from middle?income families used an Aelaborated code,B or deconte7tuali>ed language. His research also documented differences in school achie-ement for these two groups of children. 5nterpretations of BernsteinCs work concluded a cause&effect relation between language use and school success, supporting a A-erbal deficitB perspecti-eD the working?class en-ironment of the low?income children created a -erbal deficiency responsible for subse8uent low educational achie-ement "+inch, #''1). Here in the United !tates, Bereiter and nglemann "#'@@) conducted further research from the -erbal?deficit perspecti-e. They focused on the language of preschool African American children in Urbana, 5llinois. Bereiter and ngleman concluded that the language used by African American children was not a -alid language and thus recommended that these children needed to be taught nglish in the school setting

"+inch, #''1). Academically oriented preschool curricula were de-eloped "e.g., Blank, =ose, . Berlin, #',$) to pro-ide the needed nglish language training for -erbally deficient children. +illiam /abo- "#','2 +inch, #''1) e7plored social dialects of lower income African American children in urban settings. He studied the differences in childrenCs in?school and out?of?school "e.g., playground) language competencies. His data directly challenged the -erbal?deficit theory because it documented the elaborated and systematic linguistic properties of Black nglish. His research supported the idea that Black nglish was a separate language system with its own grammar and rules. /abo- described dialects as ha-ing Aslightly different -ersions of the same rules, e7tending and modifying the grammatical processes which are common to all dialects of nglishB "/abo-, #''E, p. E%). /abo-Cs research supported the idea that -erbal differences are not -erbal deficits. Because /abo-Cs research focused on language used in academic and nonschool settings, he also created a greater awareness of the role of conte7t and dialect in communication. Tough "#',,) conducted a longitudinal study of children from ad-antaged "college?educated, professional parents) and disad-antaged "parents who were in unskilled or semiskilled occupations) homes. The study began when the children were ( years old, with follow?up at E #F0 and , #F0 years. At age (, the disad-antaged children and the ad-antaged children showed significant differences in the ways they used language. !pecifically, the disad-antaged children did not use language to recall and gi-e details of prior e7periences, anticipate upcoming e-ents and possible outcomes, reason about current and remembered e-ents, problem sol-e using language for planning and considering alternati-es, reach solutions, create and sustain dramatic play e-ents, and understand othersC e7periences and feelings. +hen these children were studied again at E #F0 and , #F0 years, the disad-antaged children produced shorter, less comple7 responses. This research contributed to our understanding that children from different cultural en-ironments may be learning to use language differently and may e7perience difficulty in participating in the language en-ironment in classrooms. 6urther awareness of the role of cultural en-ironments in the ac8uisition of language was influenced in the #'$1s by ethnographic research techni8ues that were used by language researchers. thnographic studies ha-e contributed significantly to our understanding of linguistic di-ersity. thnography uses participant

obser-ation in real?life settings and focuses on indi-iduals within their social and cultural conte7ts. 5n her ethnographic study, Heath "#'$() e7plored childrenCs ac8uisition of language at home and school in two communities in the southeastern United !tates. !he found differences in communication in working?class black and white families as well as among middle?class townspeople of both ethnic groups. Heath also described differences in story structures, language, and sense of AtruthB "fiction -s. nonfiction) that children learned at home that were different from those e7pected at school. To be successful at school, these children had to be able Ato recogni>e when a story is e7pected to be true, when to stick to the facts, and when to use their imaginationsB "Heath, #'$(, p. 0'%). HeathCs research also documented -alid and authentic differences in the ways language is used and in the ways in which children in those respecti-e communities become competent language users. Heath concluded that the contrasts she found in language were not based on race, but on comple7 cultural influences in each community. The importance of family conte7t in language ac8uisition was more recently described by Hart and =isley "#''E, #'''). 6indings from their longitudinal study document the significance of Atalkati-enessB in families in influencing language ac8uisition rather than the familyCs socioeconomic status or ethnic group identity. :ifferences in language use were attributed to the comple7 family cultureGnot simply due to socioeconomic status or ethnic group identity. Among the families that were studied, the most important difference was in the amount of talking. 3hildren in families where there was more talking de-eloped higher le-els of language in the areas of -ocabulary growth and -ocabulary use. These differences were strongly linked to school performance at age '. Among these families, Hart and =isley "#''E) identified fi-e 8uality features in parentsC language interactions with their childrenD 1. 2. 3. Language diver it!: the variation and amount of noun and modifier u ed "! the parent #eed"ac$ tone: the po itive feed"ac$ given to children% participation in the interaction &!m"olic empha i : the empha i placed on focu ing on name and a ociated relation of the concept and the recall of tho e !m"ol

'. ).

(uidance t!le: parental interaction that u ed a $ing rather than demanding in eliciting pecific "ehavior from the child *e pon ivene : parental re pon ivene children to re+ue t or +ue tion initiated "!

Hart and =isley "#''E) speculated that these categories may be Aimportant for the language?based analytic and symbolic competencies upon which ad-anced education and a global economy dependB "p. #'(). A current hypothesis on why children from di-erse linguistic backgrounds e7perience difficulty in school is the socialization mismatch hypothesis. This hypothesis Apredicts that children are more likely to succeed in school when the home language and literacy sociali>ation patterns are similar to those that are used and -alued in schoolB "6altis, #''$, p. 0(). This hypothesis has been applied to children who speak a nonstandard nglish dialect as well as to children who are learning a second language. Home language sociali>ation patterns may differ from those fa-ored in the school classroom in the following ways "6altis, #''$)D 1. ,he amount of tal$ directed to pre chool children 2. 3. '. ). ,he participation of !oung children a conver ation partner with adult -pportunitie children have to e.plain or give a per onal interpretation of event ,he t!pe of +ue tion a $ed of children during tor!"oo$ haring ,he form of narrative that are u ed /e.g., fiction, nonfiction, or ongoing narrative 0

5n addition, the social interaction patterns used in the classroom may -ary from the home cultureCs with respect to e7pectations for competiti-e -ersus collaborati-e or cooperati-e acti-ities as well as the Acourtesies and con-entions of con-ersationsB "Tharp, #''%, p. #%1).

Chapter7 Language, Culture, and Society It has long been recognized that language is an essential and important

part of a given culture and that the impact of culture upon a given language is something intrinsic and indispensable. As we' 11 show below, though the endeavor in the pursuit of this inter-relationship has never been dormant in the development of linguistic science, "this very embedding of language in society and culture has been the focus of intense and sustained research efforts since the 1 !"s" #Apte 1 $% &"""'. In order to provide the student an

opportunity to (now more about the situation, we introduce this chapter and focus our discussion on the relationship between LANGUAGE, CULTURE, and SOCIETY. )his attempt can be alternatively understood as an effort to provide a different perspective to the study of language science in terms of some new tendencies and developments in the field of SOCIOLINGUISTICS, which has been proven to be an additional momentum to the study of language use in a sociocultural setting over the past decades. *earing this point in mind, we organize our discussion in two parts, #1' language and culture, #&' language and society. 7 ! Language and culture 7 ! ! "o# doe$ language relate to culture% It has become a+iomatic to state that there e+ists a close relationship between language and culture. ,ore evidence can be gathered to substantiate this claim if we have a brief survey of what has happened in the field of linguistics over the past century. Admittedly, ever since the beginning of the eighteenth century, the linguistic in-uiry of language has been either comparative and historical or structural and formalized in nature, some change, however, was observed at the start of the &"th century% AN ANT"RO&OLOGICAL ORIENTATION in the study of language was developed both in .ngland and in /orth America. 0hat characterized this new tradition was its study of language in a sociocultural conte+t. 0hile *ronislaw ,alinows(i and 1ohn 2. 3irth can be regarded as the pioneers of this movement in .ngland. 3ranz *oas, .dward 4apir, and *en5amin 6ee 0horl

are naturally seen as the representatives of a parallel but independent tradition from /orth America. 0ith their innovation, commitment, and perseverance, a lot of important and creative wor( has been done in the research of the relationship between language and culture. ,ore importantly, a paradigm was thus set up, which has led to a diversity of research of the issue in the following years. As early as in the 1 &"s, a school of ANT"RO&OLOTICAL STU'Y O( LINGUISTICS came into being in .ngland. 3or instance, when ,alinows(i, an anthropologist, did his field wor( on the )robriand Islands off eastern /ew 7uinea, he observed that in this primitive culture the meaning of a word greatly depended upon its occurrence in a given conte+t, or rather, upon a real language situation in life. )a(e the word wood for e+ample. In this culture, the word might be used either to refer to the solid substance of a tree as its .nglish e-uivalent suggests, or more specifically, to designate a canoe, which served as a useful means of transportation to these islanders and therefore played an important role in the daily life of this S&EEC" CO))UNITY. )he second interpretation of this word was, however, turned out to be heavily situationally or culturally specified and might not be easily captured by an outsider from a different cultural bac(ground. *ased on phenomena li(e this, ,alinows(i claimed that "In its primitive uses, language functions as a lin( in concerted human activity .... It is a mode of action and not an instrument of reflection." # 1 &8% 81& 9 4ampson 1 :"% &&$ ; ' /eedless to say, the wor( by ,alinows(i paved the way for a cultural, rather, a conte+tual study of language use in *ritain. 4trongly influenced by this anthropological view of language and being fully aware of the importance of the conte+t in the study of language use, 3irth, a leading figure in a linguistic tradition later (nown as the 6ondon 4chool, tried to set up a model for illustrating the close relationship between language use and its co-occurrent factors. In the end, he developed his own theory of CONTE*T O( SITUATION, which can be

summarized as follows. A. )he relevant features of the participants% persons, personalities% #i' )he verbal action of the participants. #ii' )he non-verbal action of the participants *. )he relevant ob5ects. <. )he effects of the verbal action #3irth 1 ="% $8 - $$ 9 2almar 1 :1%=8 =$; '. In relation to the focus of our discussion here, two points can be made to show the strong culture-oriented implication of this theory. 6i(e 4apir, though far less directly, 3irth here seemed to suggest the creativity and diversity of linguistic idiosyncrasy in language use #cf. >arnell 1 $%8!=='. ?n the other

hand, what 3irth emphasized in this theory is -uite similar to a more updating sociological a+iom in language use, namely, "who spea(s #or writes' what language #or what language variety' to whom and when and to what end" #3ishman 1 @&%$!'. And the 3irthian tradition in this respect was further developed by the founder of systemic-functional linguistics, ,.A.A. Balliday, whose contributions to sociolinguistics could be better seen from his understanding of language from a socially semiotic or interactional perspective, his functional interpretation of grammar as a resource for meaning potential, and his linguistic model in the study of literature#>ownes 1 :'. ,eanwhile, we also notice that linguists from the /orth American side began to ma(e some substantial contributions to the study of the relationship between language and culture around the early 1 &"s. In fact, when we tal( about a cultural study of language in America, we'll soon realize the fact that the American Indian culture formed an e+tremely fruitful source for early American anthropologists to loo( at this sub5ect matter. 3rom the 1 &"s to the 1 $"s, when engaged in a demanding but significant tas(--the reconstruction of American /ative languages, those anthropologists such as *oas, 4apir,

and 0horl came to (now the significance of culture in the study of language use. 3or instance, from their field wor(, a lot of language data had been documented, providing much first-hand evidence to show how the interpersonal relationship is related to linguistic forms chosen by these American Indians in their daily communication. If things li(e this were not to be appropriately described and correctly understood, it would be very difficult to interpret some variations in the structure of these languages. )his anthropological approach to the study of language and culture laid a firm foundation in the history of linguistic development. )he potential impact of this tradition can still be felt when we tal( about the ET"NOGRA&"Y O( CO))UNICATION, an authoritative research framewor( of our time in a linguistic study of social and cultural factors #Bymes 1 !&'. Baving tal(ed so much on the heritage concerning the study of language and culture, now let us move on and introduce a very influential but also e+tremely controversial theory that has ever been made in the study of the relationship between language and culture. And this attempt will inevitably lead us to an important figure in American AN T"RO&OLOGICAL LINGUISTICS --*en5amin 6ee 0horl and his famous hypothesis concerning language, thought, and culture. 3rom the early 1 &"s, as an amateur linguist, 0horl began to show an interest in language, anthropology, and archaeology. 6ater on, he attended some linguistic courses given by 4apir at Cale Dniversity and "found particular resonance between his own ideas and those of 4apir" #4ram 1 $% $ :8'. )his e+perience and his study of Bopi, an

American Indian language, helped him develop his uni-ue understanding of linguistic relativity, which is widely (nown as the SA&IR+,"OR(

"Y&OT"ESES 0hat this hypothesis suggests is li(e this% our language helps mould our way of thin(ing and, conse-uently, different languages may probably e+press our uni-ue ways of understanding the world' 3ollowing this argument, two important points could be captured in this theory. #?n the one

hand, language may determine our thin(ing patternsE on the other, similarity between languages is relative, the greater their structural differentiation is, the more diverse their conceptualization of the world will be.'3or this reason, this hypothesis has alternatively been referred to as LINGUISTIC 'ETER)INIS) and LINGUISTIC RELATI-ITY--a view which "was first e+pounded by the 7erman ethnologist, 0ilhelm von Bumboldt" #<rystal 1 :=%&!&'. *efore we end this historical survey and move on to a more detailed illustration of the 4apir-0horf hypothesis, we should not miss some brilliant points made by .ugene /ida, a well-(nown linguist and translation theorist, concerning the relationship between language and culture. 0hat ma(es his discussion of language and culture more meaningful to the issue we are tal(ing about here is the fact that for many years he has been involved in the *ible translation wor( across different languages. Bis rich e+perience in this respect leads him to claim that, as translators, if we want to do a good 5ob in CROSSCULTURAL CO))UNICATION, there are five types of sub-culture we should be fully aware of% 1 ' ecological cultureE &' linguistic cultureE 8' religious cultureE $' material culture, and =' social culture #/ida 1 !$' 7 ! . )ore a/out the Sapir+,hor0 hypothe$i$ As has been shown above, what this hypothesis primarily suggests is that our language will mould our view of the world. ?ne thing we would li(e to point out here is that nowadays few people would possibly tend to accept the original form of this theory completely. <onse-uently, two versions of the 4apir-0horf hypothesis have been developed, a strong version and a wea( version. )he strong version of the theory refers to the claim the original hypothesis suggests, emphasizing the decisive role of language as the shaper of our thin(ing patterns. )he wea( version of this hypothesis, however, is a modified type of its original theory, suggesting that there is a correlation between language, culture, and thought, but the cross-cultural differences thus produced in our ways of thin(ing are relative, rather than categorical.

As we go over the literature concerning the hypothesis, we' 11 soon discover that it has aroused a lively controversy. 0hile some researchers claim to have found reliable evidence to 5ustify its validity, others suggest to have obtained enough counter-evidence to 5eopardize its feasibility. 3acing a situation li(e this, we must be careful and do not rush to any hasty conclusion before we really obtain some reliable evidence to support or re5ect the hypothesis. Bere are two e+amples ta(en to show the comple+ity and controversy of the theory . ?ne is -uoted from Bopi, an American /ative language spo(en in ArizonaE central highlands of Irian 1aya. As far as the former is concerned, it serves as a good e+ample to show how languages may differ from each other, possibly providing some positive evidence to support the hypothesis. ?n the other hand, by loo(ing at the basic color word system in >ani language from an evolutionary perspective, we'll have an opportunity to get to (now that linguistic relativity may e-ually meet some cross-cultural countere+amples, formed. In Bopi, there is something very special about its grammar #cf. 3asold 1 91 "; %=1 -=&'. ?ne of these features that separate it from other a challenge to the theory hence

languages is that it does not use the same means to e+press time, and hence is metaphorically dubbed as a "timeless language". As 4ampson #1 :"%:!' puts it, the language does not recognize time as a linear dimension, which can be measured and divided into units like spatial dimensions ....

Furthermore, Hopi verbs do not have tenses comparable to those of European languages. And since there is no concept of time, there can be no concept of speed, which is the ratio of distance to time: Hopi has no word for fast , and their nearest e!uivalent for He runs fast literall" as something like He ver" runs. 0ith an understanding of Bopi language li(e this, here is a big -uestion would translate more

for us to consider. If we have from the Bopi culture a physicist, as innovative as Albert .instein is, could we e+pect this physicist to tell us the same thing as .instein will in discussing the relativity theoryF Admittedly, we may say that if this happened, this Bopi physicist would definitely find hisGher way to e+press the principles suggested by the theory, but a more crucial -uestion involved here is how his linguistic representation could be compared in relation to those linguistic patterns of which we are either native spea(ers or fully aware. <onsiderations li(e this suggest that when dealing with a crosscultural -uestion li(e this, we have to ta(e a caution and do not always evaluate a language system against the criteria in our mother tongue. In fact, one of the criticisms to the 4apir-0horf hypothesis is that the theory is based on establishing .uropean languages as a model against which all comparisons are made. )he undertone behind this criticism is that when we e+amine linguistic issues from a universal perspective, what we are actually doing is to loo( at linguistic properties by a criterion of similarity and differenceE hence, it is a process of recategorization, but not by a criterion of an already established model language. 3urthermore, due to the convenience of observation and comparison, it is suggested that when we search for LINGUISTIC UNI-ERSALITY, we'd better begin with the similarities possessed by most languages, instead of their assumed differences #7reenberg et al. 1 @:'. /ow let us move on and introduce our second e+ample from >ani language. In the later 1 !"s, two American scholars, *rent *erlin and 2aul Aay conducted a large cross-linguistic investigation of basic color vocabulary, which involved : languages in the world. )he most stri(ing finding in this

research is that color' word systems in different languages are not li(e what has been assumed by the 4apir and 0horl hypothesis, being culturally determined and hence absolutely different from one another. <ontrary to this assumption, *erlin and Aay showed that different languages might well
purple pin$ orange gra!

undergo a uni1er$al e1olutionary proce$$ of development which, in turn, made the basic color system in one language different from that in another only in terms of the stages of their evolution. )his evolutionary process can be specified as follows.

1hite "lac$

9red; !ellow

green

9blue; 9brown;

4tage%

(ig ! E1olutionary Stage$ o0 2a$ic Color ,ord$ 32erlin 4 5ay !66! 7!6869: ;< 0hat 3igure 1 above suggests is li(e this% if a language has two basic color terms, it is identified as staying in the first stage of evolution, possessing two basic color words "white" and "blac("E if a language has three basic color words, it is assumed to be in the second stage of evolution, possessing three basic color words "white", 'blac(", and "red". According to this evolutionary theory, .nglish has all the eleven basic color words so it reaches the last stage of evolution. )he good thing about this theory is that it correctly captures a (ind of generalization in color words cross-culturally. *ecause it was found that for the whole of : languages e+amined, there were only

about 8" combinations of basic color words, varying from two to eleven in number. If there is not a linguistic universality in the basic color word system of languages, as this theory suggests, a free combination of these eleven basic color words will produce over two thousand random combinations. )his evolutionary theory finds a good e+planation in our second e+ample from >ani, a language which has become well (nown for its very restricted

system of basic color words. 3or instance, there are only two basic color words in this language% modla for light, bright, hence, white, and mili for dar(, dull, hence, blac( #*erlin H Aay 1 1%$!'. In relation to this specific language,

an interesting -uestion can be raised% 0hat will a native >ani spea(er do if heGshe wants to designate colors other than blac( and whiteF ?r, alternatively, do white and black always mean white and blac( cross-linguisticallyF A further investigation of the basic color word system in >ani revealed that the native spea(ers of this culture use this 0hite versus *lac( contrast to convey more messages about their color perception. And it turns out that they use modla as a general color term to include all warm colors such as red and yellow and use mili as another umbrella color word to cover all the cold colors such as blue and green. )herefore, the contrast between modla and mili in fact is a contrast between "whitewarmness" versus "blac(coldness", instead of a simple achromatic contrast li(e white and blac(. 3urthermore, these results indicate that the color word system in >ani is still in its first stage of evolution and by means of using this whitewarmness and blac(coldness contrast and other types of color words, say, color words derived from ob5ect names, animals, plants, and so on, the spea(ers from this culture can successfully e+press any colors labeled by distinct color words in another culture. )he force of linguistic relativity is hence greatly reduced if we also ta(e into our consideration the issue of language use. 7 ! = Ca$e $tudie$ A constellation of e+amples could be pic(ed up from different levels of language analysis to illustrate the interplay of language and culture and this selection may range from te+tual structure to phonological variation. 3or instance, Aaplan #1 !!' claims that the structural organization of a te+t tends to be culturally specific. 4ome interesting e+perimental studies have also been conducted to testify the sensitivity of the spea(ers to conditional clauses in a cross-linguistic conte+t, though no consensus results have been observed

yet #*loom 1 :1 '. A crosscultural study of the meaning of some idioms or metaphorical uses in a cultural conte+t, however, will definitely provide an optimal opportunity to e+amine the issue. )his choice of observation may partially e+plain why /ida, when summarizing some intrinsic features of vocabulary in relation to semantic, translating and cultural studies, states that words are sometimes "idiomatically-governed" and Iculturally-specificJ # 1 :%

8& - $='. Additionally, this observation also implies that there comes an important new force #i. e., the study of metaphor' in the pursuit of. the relationship between language and culture #6a(off H 1ohnson 1 :"'. 0hat is presented below forms only a small part of the collections obtained through our personal e+posure to the American culture #Cang 1 serve the purpose of our discussion here. 1' 0hen you get "our hands dirt", it does not necessarily mean in the American culture that you've done some manual wor( and need to wash your hand. Interaction ,ilieu% 2rofessor )ulai, an American linguist, and 2rofessor Cang, a visiting scholar from <hina, were tal(ing about the relationship between teaching and doing research in the office. 2rof. )ulai% )o do research means to get "our hands dirt". 2rof. Cang% 4o you thin( teaching is worthier than doing researchF >oes the phrase "to get your hands dirty" have some pe5orative connotationsF 2rof. )ulai% ?h, noK I didn't mean that. 0hen I was saying that, I simply meant "you are practicing something", or Iyou are engaged in doing something." &' 0hen you have enough dumbbells, it does not necessarily mean that you (eep pairs of this instrument for regular physical practices.. Interaction ,ilieu% ,r. 7oodell, ,r. Cang's American landlord, and ,r. Cang were cleaning up the apartment. ,r. Cang pointed to the dumbbells on the floors and as(ed ,r. 7oodell if he would have any use of them for the time 8', but it suffices to

being. ,r. 7oodell% I guess I'd better put them in the garage. #$ve had enough dumbbells in my office. ,r. Cang% LeallyF <an you do dumbbell practice in your officeF ,r. 7oodell% >efinitely notK I was 5o(ing. 0hat I really meant is that there have been a lot of stupid guys in my office. 7 ! ; To #hich e>tent do #e need culture in our lingui$tic $tudy% ?ur Bopi, >ani, and case e+amples above partially provide a good answer to this -uestion. In what follows, we are going to ta(e up a more structure-related e+ample from .nglish to indicate that a study of linguistic issues in a cultural setting can greatly promote our understanding of )OTI-ATION and 'IRECTIONALITY in language change. ,oreover, by introducing a study li(e this, we will have an opportunity to show how to "do linguistics" in a cultural conte+t. .ver since the early 1 @"s, along with the disclosure of the notorious political scandal dubbed as the 0atergate event, a bunch of derived words have been rushing into the .nglish language. 0ord li(e "*illygate", ">ebategate,J I<attlegate," "Licegate" are some of these compounding forms. In this situation, it is felt that a sociolinguistic study of the combining form -gate and its derivations is necessary for us to e+amine the semantic, structural, and functional development concerning these nonce-words and (now more about the correlation of these related factors in the study of wordformation #Cang 1 @'. After a careful study of this phenomenon, we found

that 1' this suffi+ en5oys a rich productivity in American .nglishE &' words derived from this source inevitably ta(e on a culturally pe5orative implication to refer to "the disclosures of misconduct in highplaces" #*arnhart H *arnhart 1 :1%&8!$', hence, a synonym to scandals of different types, political or economical, and 8' a variety of derivational processes #i. e., antonomasia, conversion, H affi+ation' can be e+plained in the study of the productivity of

this compounding form. *ased on these findings, we can draw some tentative conclusions% a' %atergate as a word ta(ing on a pe5orative implicature to refer to any political scandal at the high ran(, will stay in .nglish for -uite a long time. b' Its structural status in the language becomes rather stable through the rich derivational processes it has undergone in word-formation. c' )he semantic implicature it has will stay with the word for -uite a long time. )his combining form has become so generalized in its meaning that some &gate words have even gone out of the society and been used to refer to political scandals in other cultures as well. 7 ! ? Culture in language teaching cla$$roo@ )o (now another culture is a rather difficult 5ob. )o act or behave appropriately in another culture is a more demanding tas(. It is even claimed that a satisfactory fulfilment of this tas( will ta(e about &" years of time #/ida H 136 correspondent 1 : '. Aeeping this in mind and also realizing the

facilitating role of cultural (nowledge in language learning, we will briefly discuss the relationship between culture and language teaching here. )he interested reader can find more e+amples in 7ao #&"""'. 2rincipally, there are at least three ob5ectives for us to teach culture in our language class% 1' )o get the students familiar with cultural differencesE &' )o help the students transcend their own culture and see things as the members of the target culture willE 8' )o emphasize the inseparability of understanding language and understanding culture through various classroom practices All this leads to a belief that a good understanding of structural things in some cases has much to do with a conscious understanding of the cultural bac(ground of the target language from language learners. In other words, a successful master of a given language has much to do with an understanding

of that culture. *ecause, as we have shown so far, language and culture are correlated with each other at different levels of linguistic structure. 7 . Language and $ociety 7 . ! "o# doe$ language relate to $ociety% )he relationship between language and society has long been recognized and e+amined. .vidence for this claim, discrete as it might be, can be conveniently gathered from the wor(s by those great philosophers and grammarians either in the 7raeco-Loman tradition or in the Indian history #Barris H )aylor 1 @ 9 1 : ;E Apte 1 $'.

>uring the whole &"th century, a great deal of efforts has been ta(en to treat the in-uiry of linguistics as a )ONISTIC or AUTONO)OUS &URSUIT of an independent science. 4trongly influenced by this dominant view of linguistic science, a separation of the structural study of language from its social conte+t of usage was claimed, 5ustified, and reinforced. )he resurrection of a 'UALISTIC -IE, of linguistic in-uiry, however, came into being in the 1 !"s, along with the development of sociolinguistics as an opposition to the dominant theory of <homs(yan linguistics. 7 . . A $ituationally and $ocially 1ariationi$t per$pecti1e As far as the situational variation in language use is concerned, 7eertz #1 !"' provides a good e+ample to illustrate the diversity and richness of some stylistic variants available for a 1avanese spea(er to choose when engaged in different types of communicative events. 3or instance, even a simple interrogative sentence li(e "Are you going to eat rice and cassava nowF" will situationally admit several 1avanese translations, starting from a rather lower level of style and moving to a comparatively higher level of style% Are you going to eat rice apa ' napa ' menapa kow( ' samp()an ' pand)enengan arep'ad)eng'dad( mangan ' neda ' dahar( sega ' sekul

and cassava now

lan ' kali)an lasp(

saiki ' saniki ' samenika

)he copiously potential selection of linguistic forms in this 1avanese community indicates that an appropriate language use in any social interaction not only has something to do with structural rules, but also involves some socially institutionalized norms in usage. In this sense, the choice of one form over another is both stylistically and socially governed. )his conceptualization of linguistic variation, in relation to what will be discussed below, is li(ely to provide an innovative and more comprehensive understanding of the issue in general. )here has been a ma+im in sociolinguistics which claims that "Cou are what you say" #6a(off 1 1'. 3ollowing this claim, we may e+pand the scope

of our observation by introducing some social factors that are believed to influence our language behavior in a social conte+t. Among these factors, some ma5or ones include 1' classE &' genderE 8' ageE $' ethnic identityE =' education bac(ground, !' occupation, and @' religious belief. In our discussion below, we are going to focus on the first two factors and show their impact upon one's language use. In the middle of 1 !"s, 0illiam 6abov, a famous sociolinguist, conducted a rather meticulous survey at several departments in the <ity of /ew Cor(. )he ob5ective for having this sociolinguistic investigation was to e+amine the relationship between spea(ers' social status and their phonological

-ARIATIONS )he results of this investigation were reported in *he +ocial +tratification of English in ,ew -ork .it" #1 !!', which has now become a classical wor( in sociolinguistics. And it turned out that class and style were two ma5or factors influencing the spea(ers' choice of one phonological variant over another. *ased on these findings, 6abor e+plicitly delineated the patterns of stratification by class and style and, more importantly, successfully

introduced class as an indispensable sociolinguistic variable. .ver since its publication in the middle of the 1 !"s, this research paradigm has become the mainstream in sociolinguistics and alternatively termed as "the -uantitative paradigm, sociolinguistics proper, variationist studies, urban dialectology and secular linguistics" #,esthrie 1 3asold 1 91 ";'. $% $ ""E*olton 1 &%1$E ,ilroy 1 $%$:= E

?ver the past decades, in addition to the study of linguistic variation produced by class, the investigation of gender effects upon one's linguistic behavior has also been proven to be a rich resource for e+amining the correlation of language and society, though the awareness of this issue seems to be an older story which can be traced bac( at least to over two millenniums ago. 3or instance, many precious e+amples reflecting gender differences in speech have been documented in some Ancient 7ree( dramas #7regersen 1 @ '. /onetheless, it is generally believed that the real sociolinguistic in-uiry of this issue began with Lobin 6a(offMs #1 @8' retrospective study of gender differences in American .nglish in the early 1 @"s #cf. 1esperson 1 &&'. Inspired by this very seminal article, the following years have seen a lot of publications either to support or challenge the hypotheses 6a(off put forward concerning the linguistic behavior of females in the American society. 0hat these hypotheses suggest is that there e+ists a ,O)EN REGISTER in the language that ta(es on the following features% 1' women use more "fancy" color terms such as mauve and beigeE &' women use less powerful curse wordsE 8' women use more intensifiers such as terrible and awfulE $' women use more tag -uestionsE =' women use more statement -uestions li(e I>inner will be ready at seven oMcloc(FJ#with a rising intonation at the end'E !' women's linguistic behavior is more indirect and, hence, more polite than men's. ,ore importantly, it is argued that these differences in language use are

brought about by nothing less than women's place in society. )he underlying point for this argument is rather meaningful. 4uppose that we are not satisfied with some practices in language use, say, LINGUISTIC SE*IS), and want to reform the language. )hen, the first thing we need do is to try to change the society. *ecause, as 6a(off correctly suggests, it is not language itself but women' s place in society that ma(es people linguistically behave in that way. Bence, the relationship between language and society can be further illustrated by studying -uestions li(e this% Is a certain linguistic form more li(ely to be used by females than by their male peersF If so, why should it be soF )he natural connection of this type also e+plains why the study of gender differences has become an ever-lasting focus in sociolinguistics ever since the 1 @"s. 7 . = ,hat $hould #e Ano# @ore a/out $ociolingui$tic$% 4ociolinguistics, as an interdisciplinary study of language use, attempts to show the relationship between language and society. ,ore specifically, in this discipline we have two important things to thin( about% structural things and their uses in a sociocultural conte+t. 4imilarly, when we are conducting a sociolinguistic study of language use, we have two big issues to deal with. 3irst, we want to show how these two factors are related to each other, and second, we attempt to (now why it should be so. 2ut another way, we want to loo( at structural things by paying attention to language use in a social conte+tE on the other hand, we try to understand sociological things of society by e+amining linguistic phenomena of a spea(ing community. )hese dual ob5ectives ma(e this new type of linguistic study as an interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary enterprise in nature #*olton H Awo( 1 &'. )he pluralism and diversity of the field, on the other hand, ma(es it

difficult to delineate the scope of this enterprise. ?ver lapping with other types of scientific research is another stri(ing property we can observe in a sociolinguistic study. Aeeping this fact in mind, if we are prepared to e+amine

the structure of the whole sociolinguistic edifice,

we can either classify

sociolinguistic studies by means of a hierarchical division, or alternatively, by means of an orientational categorization. 3or convenience of discussion, we choose the latter approach to continue our survey of the relationship between language and society, which could be further specified as two related but not identical perspectives of observation identified as a SOCIOLINGUISITIC STU'Y O( SOCIETY and a SOCIOLINGUISTIC STU'Y O( LANGUAGE, respectively. If we want to (now more about a given society or community by e+amining the linguistic behavior of its members, we are doing a sociolinguistic study of society. )hat is, we are doing sociolinguistics at a macro level of investigation. If we turn to 3asold #1 :$' again, we may say that at this level of discussion things that we are interested in include bilingualism or multilingualism, language attitudes, language choice, language maintenance and shift, language planning and

standardization, vernacular language education, to name some important ones ?n the other hand, if we want to (now more about some linguistic variations in language use by turning to potential sociocultural factors for a description and e+planation, we are doing a sociolinguistic study of language. <onse-uently, we are more interested in e+amining micro linguistic phenomena such as structural variants, address forms, gender differences, discourse analysis, 2idgin and <reole languages, and other more language related issues. )he interested reader can find more detailed discussions concerning some of these heated sociolinguistic issues in Cang #1 ::, 1 1 1, 1 !, &"""' ",

7 . ; ,hat i@plication$ can #e get 0ro@ $ociolingui$tic$% )he past decades have witnessed a rapid development in sociolinguistics and the findings in this field have greatly enriched our understanding of the

relationship between language and society. Along with the gradual maturity and acceptance of this school of linguistics, there has been an ever growing possibility for us to have a new daughter discipline called "applied sociolinguistics" #)rudgill 1 :$'. 4ome more successful practices of this attempt have been found in language classrooms, law courts, and clinical settings, respectively. 3irst, we' 11 have a loo( at sociolinguistics in language classrooms. *ut before we ta(e up this issue, we'd better raise a -uestion li(e this% 0hat is wrong with the traditional perspective in language teachingF *y as(ing a -uestion li(e this, we are in fact ma(ing a choice between training our students as GRA))ARIANS and training them as ACTI-E LANGUAGE USERS )his contrast reflects two different views of philosophy in language teaching. 3or the traditional school, "language learning is treated as a process of ac-uiring (nowledge, li(e studying history or mathematics. )he end result is that learners will (now something about the language in the same way a linguist does, but will (now little about the language used by others" #*erns, 1 "% 8$&'. 0e witnessed, however, a change in language teaching in the CO))UNICATI-E

middle of the 1 @"s when Byme' s theory of

CO)&ETENCE was introduced into the field as an antagonism to the traditional philosophy in language teaching. <onse-uently, as the name of this theory suggested, language teachers began to pay more attention to the -uestion of how to train their students as active and successful language users in a real language conte+t. As far as language teaching is concerned, sociolinguistics is believed to have provided some important contributions which can further be summarized as follows #*erns 1 "%88 '%

a' 4ociolinguistics has contributed to a change of emphasis in the content of language teachingE b' it has also contributed to innovations in materials and activities for the classroomE

c' it has contributed to a fresh loo( at the nature of language development and useE d' it has contributed to a more fruitful research in this field. 4econd, let us have a loo( at sociolinguistics in law courts. )he in-uiry of the relationship between language and law has opened another avenue for the application of sociolinguistic findings to some more practical issues in society. 4ome fruitful practices of this attempt have been observed in this respect. 3or instance, the important role of linguists in the analysis of language data gathered as evidence in law courts has been recognized by more and more people. ,eanwhile, the 5oint wor( by sociolinguists and legislators in the preparation of some legal documents is proven to be helpful to increase the readability of this te+t and therefore appreciated #cf. 3asold 1 91 " ; '. ?n the other hand, investigations of language use in a law

court bac(ground also have revealed some interesting results which, in turn, greatly enrich our understanding of the relationship between the concept of power and language in use #?'*arr H At(ins 1 :"'. 6astly, we turn to sociolinguistics in clinic settings. )he analysis of dialogues between doctors and patients in a hospital conte+t has also attracted the interest of some researchers in sociolinguistics. 4imilar to our last case in the law court, the study of this type is also employed to illustrate things such as how the concept of power is encoded and decoded through language use in a hierarchical society and what pragmatically related patterns and forces in reference and implication are involved in a speech event li(e this. 3or this reason, a lot of efforts have been ta(en in a sociolinguistic analysis of discourse patterns in a clinic setting. *ecause it is believed that in a highly hierarchically ordered communicative situation li(e this, through the study of language use by doctor and patient# more implications can be obtained in terms of the impact of some sociological factors upon the linguistic behavior of the members of a speech community.

7 = Su@@ary In our discussion above, we have introduced some important theories and practices in a sociocultural in-uiry of linguistic issues. As we have indicated, a more systematic pursuit of this (ind did not start until the 1 !"s, with the occurrence of sociolinguistics as a new force in the study of language. After almost $" years' development, this innovative movement has gained much momentum and vitality by incorporating the insights from other relevant sciences and has gradually secured its position as a legitimate pursuit in linguistics #cf. <homs(y 1 ='. ?n the other hand, as has been shown above,

the study of the relationship between language, culture, and society is a rather intriguing tas(. ?ne of the difficulties observed in this attempt is the diversity in sub5ect matters. )he interdisciplinary nature of this pursuit re-uires a satisfactory mastery of (nowledge in relevant fields such as anthropology, social psychology, sociology, ethnology, and cognitive sciences #cf. Losch 1 @= H 1 @@' on the part of its researchers and practitioners. )herefore, we fully understand that what is presented above is only a small part of the whole edifice. ,uch of its beauty and fascination is still there waiting for the conscious and courageous e+plorer to search and discover. )hat said, we suggest that the interested students go to the bibliographic part of this chapter for more information concerning their further study in this respect. (urther Reading *erlin, *rent and 2aul Aay 1 191 ! ;. /asic .olor *erms% *heir

0niversalit" and Evolution. *er(eley% Dniversity of <alifornia 2ress. *olton, Aingsley H Belen Awo( #eds.' 1 #nternational 1erspectives 6ondon: Loutledge >ownes, 0illiam 1 :. 2anguage and +ociet". &nd .dition. <ambridge% &. +ociolinguistics *oda"%

<ambridge Dniversity 2ress. 3aslod, Lalph 1 *lac(well. 91 ";. *he +ociolinguistics of 2anguage. ?+ford%

Leadings in the +ociolog" of 2anguage Barris, Loy H )albot 1. )aylor 1 @ 91 : ;. 6andmar(s in 3ishman, 1oshua 1 !:. Leading in the 4ociology of 6anguage. )he Bague% ,outon. 3irth, 1ohn 2. 1 =". 2ersonality and 6anguage in 4ociety . *he +ociological 3eview, $&%8@-=&. Leprinted in 1. 2. 3irth 1 =@, 1apers in 2inguistics 1 8$ - 1 =1, 1 " - &1=. 6ondon% ?+ford Dniversity 2ress. 7iglioli, 2. 2#ed' 1 @&.2anguage and +ocial .onte4t% +elected 3eadings. Barmondsworth, .nglish% 2enguin. Barris, Loy H )albot 1. )aylor 1 @ 91 :;. 2andmarks in 2inguistic

*hought #% *he %estern *radition from +ocrates to +aussure . 6ondon Loutledge. Bymes, >ell 1 !&. )he .thnography of 4pea(ing. In ). 7ladwin H 0illiam 4turtevant # eds. ', Anthropolog" and Human /ehavior, 18 - =8. 0ashington, ><% Anthropological 4ociety of 0ashington. Bymes, >ell #ed.' 1 !$. 2anguage in .ulture and +ociet" % A reader in 2inguistics and Anthropolog". /ew Cor(% Barper H Low. 1espersen, ?tto 1 &&. 6anguage% #ts ,ature, 5evelopment and 6rigin . 6ondon% 7eorge Allen H Dnwin. 6abov, 0illiam 1 !!. *he +ocial +tratification of English in -ork .it". 0ashington, ><% <enter for Applied 6inguistics. 6a(off, 7eorge H ,. 1. 1ohnson 1 :". 7etaphors %e 2ive /". <hicago% Dniversity of <hicago 2ress. Losch, .leanor. 1 @@. Buman <ategorization. In /. 0arren #ed', +tudies in .ross&cultural 1s"cholog", Nol I, 1-$ 6ondon% Academic 2ress. 4ampson, 7eoffrey 1 :". +chools of 2inguistics: .ompetition and Evolution. 6ondon% Butchinson.