Language, Culture and Politics

Costanza Cucchi

• Publisher: EDUCatt Università Cattolica
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9788867809035
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: English Language
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Language, Culture and Politic. First chapter illustrates how culture affects language use. Nowadays, English is used all over the world by people whose cultures differ widely. Their culture inevitably affects the way they behave and use other languages. In order to avoid misunderstandings, speakers of English need to be able to appreciate cultural differences. To this end the chapter presents the concept of culture and tools for the analysis of cultural differences. In the second chapter some key aspects of the language of politics are explored and exemplified, with the aim of offering an insight into possible research paths. In fact, as highlighted by Beard in The language of politics (2000: 1), nowadays it is easy to find "good contemporary data". Students, however, "sometimes find [it] difficult [to] know [...] what to do with the data" (ibidem).
After stressing the link between language and politics, the chapter examines the role of cohesive devices and of thematic progression in political speeches. The centrality of orality and of culture in politics and diplomacy is then underlined. The third chapter provides an example of a study focused on the "influence of cultural values on human interaction and communication at a linguistic micro-level", an aspect to which "little attention has been paid so far" (Guillén-Nieto 2009: 36). It is here shown that the extent to which native speakers of British English and of Italian use the informal expressions 'and so on' and 'etcetera' and their Italian equivalents 'e così via' and 'eccetera' may be related to cultural differences, notably to Hofstede's (2003) power distance and uncertainty avoidance.

Chapter 1

Language and Culture[*]

This chapter illustrates how culture affects language use. Nowadays, English is used all over the world by people whose cultures differ widely. Their culture inevitably affects the way they behave and use other languages. In order to avoid misunderstandings, speakers of English need to be able to appreciate cultural differences. To this end the chapter presents the concept of culture and tools for the analysis of cultural differences.

1.1 Culture

It has been stated that “there is very little agreement on what people mean by the idea of culture” (Scollon and Scollon 2001: 138). The very word ‘culture’ is in fact problematic since there are many definitions of it, as shown in 1954 in Kroeber’s and Kluckhohn’s study Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. However, there are two main uses of the word, both derived from the Latin word which refers to the tilling of the soil. Culture with a capital C, or high culture, refers to the refinement of the mind, to intellectual and artistic achievements, such as literature, the arts, music, history. This meaning of culture, “culture in a narrow sense” (Hofstede 2003: 5), is related “to a particular and restricted body of knowledge learned, and to a particular (upper) middle-class upbringing. It tends to be associated with ‘well-educated’, ‘refined’ [...], ‘cultured’” (Katan 2004: 25). On the other hand, culture with a small c, or anthropological culture, is used to refer to habits, ideals, customs, beliefs, prejudices which are shared by the members of the group. This meaning includes “not only those activities supposed to refine the mind [...], but also the ordinary and menial things in life such as greeting, eating, showing or not showing feelings, keeping a certain distance from others [...]” (Hofstede 2003: 5). Culture with a small c is not inherited, but acquired in early childhood through informal observation. Culture with a capital C, on the contrary, is learnt formally.

Since knowledge of a language cannot be complete without knowledge of the culture(s) in which it is spoken, both meanings are important for students of modern languages. While in the past the emphasis in teaching was put on culture with a capital C, nowadays

the word ‘culture’ [is no longer] limited in its meaning to that which is admirable, superior or desirable. More often the term is now employed to indicate the whole range of customary activities of the members of a society (Brown et al. 1953: 1203).

Therefore, it is considered important for language students to acquire an ability to deal with culture with a capital C, namely to be able to recognize/interpret major geographical features, historical events and aesthetic monuments (architecture, literature, art). Culture with a small c, however, is also extremely relevant. Knowing culture with a small c means being able to survive in the foreign environment, understanding everyday cultural patterns such as eating, shopping and greeting people. It also means having knowledge of the cultural practices of the members of a foreign culture, such as marriage customs, education, politics (Lafayette 1978).

In linguistics studies we are generally concerned with culture with a small c, “the glue which binds groups together” (De Mooij 1998: 43), which may be defined as

any of the customs, worldview, language, kinship system, social organization, and other taken-for-granted day-to-day practices of a people which set that group apart as a distinctive group (Scollon and Scollon 2001: 139).

1.2 Culture and thought

Kramsch (1998: 11-13), among other scholars, reports that the link between language and thought has long been debated. The German scholars Wilhelm von Humboldt (1762-1835) and Johann Herder (1744-1803) observed that people from different countries speak differently because they think differently. The reason why this is so is that their languages offer different means of categorizing, and therefore shaping the world. Speakers of different languages are thus believed to have their own ways of seeing the world.

This idea was picked up in the United States by Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and his pupil Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941). Their views are expressed in the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, formulated by Whorf in 1940, according to which the structure of a language one uses influences the way one thinks. For example, as stated by Whorf, English speakers think of time in terms of a system referring to the past, present and future, namely as a linear sequence of events, while Hopi, a native American people, conceive time as duration (“They stayed ten days” is rendered in Hopi as “They stayed until the eleventh day” or “They left after the tenth day”). E.T. Hall comments on the English – and Western – way of thinking of time thus:

Somehow we have managed to objectify or externalize our imagery of the passage of time, which makes it possible for us to feel that we can manage time, control it, spend it, save it, or waste it. We have a feeling that the process of “becoming later” is real and tangible because we can attach a numerical value to it. The Hopi language does not do this. No past, present or future exists as verb tenses, but indicate instead the validity of a statement – the nature of the relationship between the speaker and his knowledge or experience of that about which he is speaking. When a Hopi says, “it rained last night”, the speaker knows how that Hopi speaker knew it rained: whether he was out in the rain and got wet, looked outside and saw it raining, whether someone came through the door and said it was raining, or he woke up in the morning and saw that the ground was wet and assumed that it had rained (Hall 1984: 36).

As Kramsch points out (1998: 12-13), the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, according to which the language people use determines the way they perceive reality, is rejected nowadays, since it would imply that people are unable to conceptualize in categories which do not pertain to their native language. In other words, people would be prisoners of their native language and translation would not be possible. According to the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, instead, speakers tend to sort out their experiences according to the semantic categories provided by their languages. For example, the Navajo, a native American people, speak a language where there are two different verbs to express “picking up a round object” and “picking up a long, thin, flexible object”. When shown a blue rope, a yellow rope and a blue stick and asked to choose which object goes best with the blue rope, most Navajo children indicated the yellow rope, thus making associations on the basis of the form of the object. However, this does not mean that we are prisoners of the cultural categories offered to us by the language we speak: by learning other languages, we learn other categories through which reality may be interpreted.

A further aspect of the link between culture and thought is the fact that language reflects the cultural environment. The categories offered by native languages, therefore, tend to reflect the features which are culturally important in those languages. The English pith, for example, denotes the white under the skin of oranges and may be a reflection of the British “marmalade culture” (De Mooij 1998: 53). The English language also has words which reflect the Anglo-Saxon way of dealing with action and time, such as “down-to-earth”, “feedback”, “deadline” (ibidem).

1.3 The cultural context

Ned Seeley opens his book Teaching Culture Strategies for Intercultural Communication (1993) with a chapter entitled “Cultural context, the key to comprehension”, in which he claims that “the key to understanding what people say is context [...]. Without knowing the context of a statement, we can only guess at its meaning” (Seeley 1993: 1). This meaningful context is often provided by the cultural background, as exemplified by Seeley who points out that in Guatemala the word ‘agua’, which means ‘water’, is commonly used to refer to soft drinks.

The need to have cultural knowledge in order to make sense of messages was first theorized by Bronislaw Malinowsky (1884-1942), a Polish anthropologist who formulated the concept of context of culture. Malinowsky set out to research the inhabitants of the Trobriand islands and planned to translate what the Trobriander said while they were fishing. However, he realized that a literal translation would make no sense to English readers. In order to understand, they would need both a description of what was going on, the “context of situation”, and knowledge of the culture. Malinowski’s solution was to provide a translation accompanied by an extensive cultural commentary, in which he clarified the Trobriander traditions and beliefs – related, for example, to tribal economics, social organization, kinship patterns, fertility rites, seasonal rhythms, concepts of time and space. This made explicit to an English-speaking audience what was implicit for the users of the language.

1.4 Components of culture

Since the concept of culture is so broad, it can be split into various components. Hofstede (2003: 7), for example, claims that “cultural differences manifest themselves in several ways” but the total concept is well covered by symbols, heroes, rituals and values. Culture may be therefore be represented as the skins of an onion.

Symbols, the most superficial layer, are words, gestures, pictures or objects whose meaning is recognizable only by the members of a given culture. Examples of symbols are the words in a language or jargon, dress, hairstyles. The symbols of one cultural group are often copied by other groups (Hofstede 2003: 7). De Mooij (1998: 45), for example, observes that “Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Marlboro and Nike are examples of brands that have become global symbols. Yet they may include different associations for Americans, the country of origins of the brands, than they do for the Chinese”.

Heroes are persons who possess features that are valued in a particular culture. Heroes can be alive or dead, real or imaginary. Examples from Western culture include figures such as Batman, Snoopy and Asterix (Hofstede 2003: 8). Rituals are collective activities. According to De Mooij (1998: 47) “[f]ast food, and particularly the Big Mac or pizzas, have become a global ritual.” Although, strictly speaking, rituals are superfluous for the achievement of desired goals, they are considered socially essential within a culture. Business and political meetings, for example, often serve mainly ritual purposes, in that they allow leaders to assert themselves (Hofstede 2003: 8). As De Mooij (1998: 46) observes, “[b]rands are part of a ritual. Manufacturers use and create rituals around their products to differentiate them from competitive products. [...]. The beer brand Corona Extra distinguishes itself from others by the suggestion that it should be consumed by drinking from the bottle after having pushed a piece of lime into the long neck of the bottle”. Symbols, heroes and rituals are practices that are visible to observers. Their cultural meaning, however, is invisible and lies in the way they are interpreted by insiders (Hofstede 2003: 8).

The inner layer of the onion which represents culture is formed by values, which are “broad tendencies to prefer certain states of affairs over others” (Hofstede 2003: 8). They can be described in terms of opposing pairs:

– Evil vs. good

– Dirty vs. clean

– Ugly vs. beautiful

– Unnatural vs. natural

– Abnormal vs. normal

– Paradoxical vs. logica...

Table of contents

• Table of contents
• Chapter 1 Language and Culture[*]
• Chapter 2 Features of the languageof politics and diplomacy[*]
• Chapter 3 Vague Expressionsin the European Parliament:A Marker of Cultural Identity?[*]