Language And Society Research Paper

These issues have been of pressing concern to language study from at least the time of Johann Herder and Wilhelm von Humboldt. They were carried into American linguistics and anthropology in the early twentieth century by Franz Boas and then Edward Sapir. Similar concerns continued to occupy anthropology, especially cognitive and symbolic anthropology, in the second half of the twentieth century, but in linguistics these concerns became marginalized with the ascendency of Chomskyan generative grammar; though to some extent the flame was kept alight by the ethnographic wing of sociolinguistics in the work of Dell Hymes and associates (cf. Bauman and Sherzer 1974; Gumperz and Hymes 1986). In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the dominance of generative grammar began to wane, leading to what one commentator dubbed ‘the greening of linguistics,’ with renewed interest in pragmatics, functionalism, anthropological linguistics, and cross-cultural semantics (cf. Foley 1997; Goddard 1998). In a parallel development, mainstream psychology became more interested in ethnopsychology and in the new field of cultural psychology (Shweder 1990, Schweder and Sullivan 1993). These developments set the stage for a revitalization of studies into the interconnections between language, culture, and society.

A complex of methodological problems connected with cross-cultural semantic analysis confronts this emergent interdisciplinary field. How can one ensure that any set of semantic descriptors is not biased by the language from which it is drawn? How to achieve the maximum resolution of complex meanings? How can the process of semantic analysis be freed from subjectivity and vagueness? According to the most well-developed model of cross-cultural semantic analysis, the ‘natural semantic metalanguage’ (NSM) approach, the most promising solution to these problems depends on identifying a viable set of universal semantic primes (or primitives), i.e., simple concepts which have linguistic exponents (as words or word-like elements) in all languages (cf. Wierzbicka 1996; Goddard and Wierzbicka 1994, in press). Cross-linguistic research indicates the existence of at least 60 semantic primes, including (using English exponents): _I, _YOU, _SOMEONE, _SOMETHING, _PEOPLE, _DO, _HAPPEN, _SAY, _THINK, _KNOW, _WANT, _GOOD, _BAD, _BIG, _SMALL, _THIS, _ONE, _TWO, _OTHER, _{THE SAME}, _WHEN/_TIME, _WHERE/_PLACE, _BECAUSE, _IF, _CAN, _NOT, _LIKE. This restricted and universal vocabulary of simple meanings can be used as a kind of ‘semantic bridge’ in terms of which to articulate complex language-specific and culture-specific meanings in maximum detail. Because it is grounded in simple words of ordinary language, this approach makes hypotheses about subtleties of meaning accessible to the intuitions and judgments of native speakers, thus improving the verifiability of the analyses. The NSM approach is not universally accepted, however, and much valuable work in cross-cultural semantics is still conducted in essentially informal terms.

2. Words And Phraseology

Even between genetically related languages spoken by people of relatively similar cultures (such as the languages of Europe), there are sizable semantic differences in all aspects of the lexicon. Sapir (1949) was thus right when he said that ‘vocabulary is a very sensitive index of the culture of a people.’ Most people have no difficulty in accepting the culture-specific nature of words for items of material culture and for social institutions, but many find it hard to accept the extent of cross-linguistic differences in terms for value concepts, emotions, speech acts, and social categories, to mention only a few examples.

Often it is possible to nominate certain highly salient and deeply culture-laden words in a language as ‘key words’ of that culture, i.e., words whose meanings can provide a key to understanding whole domains of cultural attitudes, values, and behaviors (Williams 1976; Wierzbicka 1997). For example, it can be argued that among terms for value concepts, English freedom, Japanese wa ‘harmony,’ and Malay kesetiaan ‘loyalty,’ ‘faithfulness’ have key word status. Among ethnopsychological concepts the same can be argued for English mind, Malay hati ‘heart,’ and Russian dusa ‘soul.’ Single-word glosses are never adequate, however, and a reasonable understanding of the key words of any culture requires dedicated and disciplined semantic investigation. Cultures vary across time, as well as across space, so a close analysis of meaning shifts can be revealing of sociohistorical change. For example, it can be shown that the English word friend has weakened considerably in meaning since Shakespeare’s time, when it designated an exceptional, intimate, and life-long bond of trust, affection, and mutual assistance. This shift can be seen as linked with a shift towards more flexible and broadly-based (if ‘shallower’) mode of social relationships.

Languages differ not only in their inventories of culture-specific words, but also in the number of words they have for speaking about a particular domain of meaning. A relatively high number of words in a single domain (lexical elaboration) is often reflective of sociocultural facts. For example, compared with most indigenous cultures, European languages have a very large stock of expressions to do with measuring and reckoning time (words such as clock, calendar, date, second, minute, hour, week, Monday, Tuesday, etc. January, February, etc.). At the same time, there are linguistic universals of time, such as _WHEN, _AFTER, and _BEFORE (cf. Keesing 1994).

Two further ways in which vocabulary and phraseology can reflect sociocultural facts concern the innovation of new words and the borrowing of words from other languages. In general, new words and phrases are indexes of social change, for example, the expressions housemate and online reflect social and technological developments of mainstream Englishspeaking culture of the late-twentieth century. Linguistic borrowings index the extent and mode of cultural influence, as witness, for example, the massive borrowing of Chinese words into Japanese, of Latin and Greek words into English, or Sanskrit and Arabic loans into Malay. Some scholars argue that permeability to loans is itself an index of the social openness of a community.

3. Grammar

Proponents of linguistic relativity argue that inasmuch as speaking a language obliges individuals to continually attend to particular semantic and conceptual distinctions, this must to some extent ‘shape’ the habitual thinking of its speakers. Approaching the issue this way means focusing on obligatory grammatical rules and processes. On the other hand, it can be argued that optional choices in grammar, i.e., aspects over which speakers may exercise some choice and control, are more likely to reflect subtle sociocultural meanings. A familiar example is the contrast between so-called ‘intimate’ and ‘formal’ secondperson pronouns in European languages, such as French tu vs. ous. Much more extensive is the honorific system of Japanese, whereby verbs carry suffixes which indicate degrees of respect felt by the speaker in relation to the individuals being spoken about. In Slavic languages, systems of expressive derivation reflect the central place of warmth and affection in Slavic cultures; in Polish, for example, a personal name like Maria can have as many as 10 different derivatives (Marysia, Marysienka, Maryska, Marysiuchna, and so on), each reflecting a slightly different emotional attitude and mood. It will be useful to look in some detail at two more examples, from Russian and from English.

3.1 ‘Fatalism’ In Russian Grammar

The Russian language has a large family of impersonal dative-infinitive constructions which refer to inexplicable things that happen to people against their will or irrespective of their will (Wierzbicka 1992). For example, the sentence Ne budet tebe pasporta ‘There’ll be no passport for you’ involves a dative pronoun, a negated existential verb, and a noun in the genitive case. The sentence conveys a subtle message, not fully evident in the English translation. Essentially, a construction of this kind rules out the possibility of someone being able to obtain something beneficial and desired, implying at the same time that this is due to the fact that someone in a superior position does not want it to happen.

Another construction combines negation, an infinitive verb, and a human noun in the dative case, for example, Ne idat’ tebe etix podarko ‘You’ll never see those presents.’ This construction is not so common in everyday speech, but is highly characteristic of Russian folk literature and folk speech: byliny (folk epic), plac (lamentation), in folksong, in proverbs and sayings. It conveys the impression that a desired outcome can never eventuate due to some elusive and mysterious force or power that is, so to speak, ‘above’ humanity.

A third construction combines a human noun in dative case with a mental verb in the 3sg reflexive form, for example, Segodnja mne spomnilas’ Praga-sady ‘Today I was reminded of Prague, of its gardens.’ This depicts a mental event simply happening inside a person inexplicably, and, in a sense, irresistibly. The most important Russian expression of this sort is the ubiquitous xocetsja lit. ‘it wants itself to me,’ which suggests a spontaneous and involuntary desire. In some ways this parallels English constructions like It occurred to me … or It seemed to me …, but whereas the pattern has a limited scope in English, in Russian it is both fully productive and extremely common.

In these and other constructions, Russian furnishes an excellent example of the grammatical realisation of a semantic theme; in this case, the theme of sud ’ba ‘fate,’ of not being in control, of living in a world which is unknowable and which cannot be rationally controlled.

3.2 Personal Autonomy And The English Wh- Imperative

Compared with many languages and cultures, English makes only scant use of its imperative construction, e.g., a simple Do this!, whose core meaning is ‘I want you to do this.’ Much more frequent is the use of one of a brace of more elaborate locutions (so-called whimperatives), such as Will you do this? Would you do this? Could you do this? Would you mind doing this? and so on. These constructions can be seen as hybrids: in form they are questions, but since they convey the speaker’s wish that the addressee do something, they have a similar function to imperatives.

It can be argued that the English wh-imperatives represent a linguistic reflection of the importance, in Anglo culture, of a cultural principle that can be labeled ‘personal autonomy.’ Roughly speaking, this calls upon people to respect the right of other people to make their own decisions about what they will and will not do. To use a bare on-the-record imperative could be seen to infringe this principle, hence the potentially confronting message that ‘I want you to do something’ is embedded into a more complex configuration which acknowledges the addressee’s autonomy by inviting them to say whether or not they will comply. In form at least the addressee is presented with the option of refusing.

Similar examples of grammatical elaboration being driven or motivated by culture-specific pragmatics or cultural values could be given from many languages and cultures (cf. Enfield in press). Often such phenomena arise from the routinization of particular culturespecific patterns of usage.

4. Language In Use

4.1 Discourse Particles And Interjections

These elements exist in the border zone between grammar and discourse. While they are usually not obligatory from a strictly grammatical point of view, they are often an essential part of native-like fluency. Interjections stand as independent utterances, whereas discourse particles are integrated into the syntax of a larger utterance; but both express a speaker’s hereand-now feelings, thoughts, wants, and reactions to what is happening or to what is being said. When their semantics are examined in close detail, both types of element tend to be highly indicative of sociocultural priorities, values, and attitudes.

The very common Japanese particle -ne, for example, conveys the message ‘I think you would say the same,’ consistent with the Japanese cultural value placed on harmony and consensus-seeking. English interjections and interjectional phrases such as Well and on the other hand reflect the Anglo emphasis on balance and tolerance of opposing views. A multiplicity of Polish discourse particles (such as alez, skadze and przeciez) and related interjectional phrases express disagreement, exasperation, and impatience, consistent with the Polish preference for spontaneous expression of emotion and lack of any inhibition on expressions of conflict or disagreement.

4.2 Linguistic Routines

These are fixed, formulaic utterances or sequences of utterances used in standardized communicative situations, for example, greetings, partings, thanks, excuses, condolences, compliments, jokes, curses, small-talk, and so on. They can range in size from a single word to lengthy interchanges, and usually occur very frequently. The overall meaning of a routine cannot be ‘read off ’ from the literal meaning of the individual words involved, e.g., How do you do? is not a question about health.

In general, routines are highly culture-specific both in form and in the way they relate to the sociocultural context. To illustrate, one can compare some fixed expressions in English and Ewe (Ghana and Togo, West Africa). In many societies, when one realises that something good has happened to another person, it is usual to say something expressing one’s own good feelings at the news. For example, in English one might say Congratulations! or Well done!; both expressions imply that the addressee is responsible to some extent for the happy event. In Ewe, on the other hand, appropriate things to say refer to Mawu ‘God,’ tegbewo ‘ancestors,’ or u-wo nuwo ‘beings,’ expressing messages such as ‘God is strong,’ ‘Ancestors are strong,’ or ‘Beings around you have worked.’ Although one function is to register and display one’s happiness at the good event, the Ewe formulae are not focused on the individuals concerned. This reflects the religious belief system which holds that everything that happens is ultimately the work of Mawu who may work in diverse ways through the ancestors or other spirits and divinities.

4.3 Speech Genres

Bakhtin (1986) defined speech genres as ‘relatively stable and normative forms of the utterance’ into which we ‘pour’ our everyday speech. The concept is a very broad one, subsuming examples which differ in size and complexity as widely as (to illustrate from English) joke, toast, speech, letter, eulogy, submission, and lecture. Bakhtin stressed that the repertoire of genres available to a speech community changes according to historical and sociocultural conditions.

This conveniently can be illustrated with the (now passe) Polish ‘micro genre’ of the kawa (plural kawa y) which, roughly speaking, was a kind of conspiratorial joke. Most kawa y were political, expressing national solidarity vis-a-vis foreign powers which have been so much a part of the Polish historical experience: the foreign partitioning powers in the nineteenth century, the Nazi occupation during World War II, the Soviet-imposed communist regime in postwar Poland. Kawa y circulated widely, the anonymous creations of an oral culture. Like English jokes, they were intended to promote pleasant togetherness, i.e., to make the speaker and the addressee feel good together, but one did not value a kawa for its ingenuity, novelty, or sophistication (as one did, and does, dowcipy ‘witty jokes’). More important was the feeling it gave of belonging to an ingroup, the implication being ‘I can say this you, but there are some people I couldn’t say this to.’ For example, in 1981 after martial law had been imposed in an effort to suppress the Solidarity movement, every new demonstration, strike, or protest was ascribed to ‘Solidarity extremists.’ A kawa from that time gave examples from a ‘TV Dictionary’ as follows: ‘two Poles—an illegal gathering; three Poles—an illegal demonstration: 10 million Poles—a handful of extremists.’ Clearly, though the Polish genre kawa may overlap in some respects with the English genre of a joke, it is not identical with its nearest English counterpart. Equally clearly, the precise nature of the Polish genre was a response to (and an index of) social conditions of Poland.

4.4 Speech Styles

Speech styles represent specialized ‘ways of speaking,’ that are recognized (and, usually, named) by the speech community as appropriate for use with certain categories of interlocutors or in certain situations. When examined in detail, both the stylistic conventions and social parameters of the speech styles can show much about sociocultural conditions. One common pattern can be illustrated from Yankunytjatjara (Central Australia), which has a special indirect speech style tjalpawangkanyi (wangkanyi ‘talk’) for use with people whose kin relationships call for constrained behavior, and a boisterous joking or teasing style (inkatjingani) for use with people whose kin relation- ships imply mutual acceptance and a lack of any power relationships (Goddard and Wierzbicka 1997). Tjalpawangkanyi has a distinctive vocal delivery (softer, slower, higher pitch) and an exaggerated rising intonation, as if to give the impression that the speaker is merely musing aloud. Direct references to the addressee, including imperatives and vocatives, are carefully avoided. Overt expressions of denial, refusal, or disagreement are also scrupulously avoided. There is liberal use of discourse particles and interjections that express uncertainty, hesitation, and minimization. Another striking feature, reported also of respectful speech styles in many other places, is generality of reference. Speakers avoid using any expression which unambiguously indicates a person, place, or thing, preferring vague locutions like ‘that one (person)’ and ‘around here.’

The social meaning of tjalpawangkanyi refers to the Yankunytjatjara social emotion kunta. Usually glossed as ‘shame,’ ‘embarrassment,’ or ‘respect,’ this involves a sense of social difference and discomfort in the other person’s presence, and the desire to avoid doing anything which might cause the other person to think anything bad about one. The strongest kunta is evoked by the respectful umari (‘avoidance’) relation- ship between a man and his parents-in-law, which absolutely prohibits personal contact of any kind. Less severe kunta is felt in the presence of the siblings or cousins of umari, and in other relationships where propriety is important, the very relationships for which tjalpawangkanyi is appropriate. In this culture, then, the indirect speech style can be seen both as a kind of partial avoidance and a way of giving voice to kunta. In other societies, indirect speech styles can serve quite different purposes.

Yankunytjatjara joking styles are at the other end of the spectrum to tjalpawangkanyi. They bend, flaunt, or even parody the normal conventions of interaction. All the linguistic forms excluded from tjalpawangkanyi, including imperatives, vocatives, contradiction, exclamations, and sensitive vocabulary items, flourish in this style. Participants delight in banter, mock insult, and make the most of any chance to defy, challenge, or demean each other. Sometimes there will be sexual innuendo and risque comments that consciously play on kin-role expectations. In extreme versions such banter becomes blatantly obscene. Joking, uninhibited speech styles are reported from many societies around the world. Although at a general level one can say that they express ‘solidarity,’ ‘intimacy,’ or the like, the rich social meanings involved cannot really be summed up in a few words, and detailed study reveals subtle but important differences.

4.5 Discourse Styles

At an even broader level, entire speech communities can be characterized as having certain tacitly-shared understandings about how it is appropriate to speak in particular, culturally-construed situations. In some societies it is normal for conversations to be loud, animated, and bristling with disagreement, while in others people prefer to avoid contention, to speak in well-considered phrases, and guard against exposure of their inner selves. In some societies, silence is felt to be awkward, while in others it is welcomed. In some societies it is considered very bad to speak when another person is talking, while in others this is an expected part of a co-conversationalist’s work (Tannen 1981). Researchers in the ethnography of communication and in cross-cultural pragmatics are concerned to spell out the differing norms, values and attitudes (sometimes called cultural scripts) which underlie and explain these behavioral differences (Saville-Troike 1989).

Cultural norms about expressing emotions (what one feels) vary widely. For example, in mainstream Anglo societies the expression of negative feelings is relatively constrained (cf. ‘cheerful’ English routines such as How are you? I am fine). In Russian and Polish societies, by contrast, a greater value is placed on the immediate and spontaneous expression of emotions, ‘bad feelings’ as well as good ones. In yet other societies (for example, in Malay society and in Japanese society) the cultural ideal is to maintain a calm equanimity of expression, moderating the expression of good feelings as well as bad ones. These differences are reflected also in facial expressions and other aspects of nonverbal communication. Needless to say, these characterisations are only approximate. Many modulations and variations are found across cultures.

Even within a single language group there can be significant differences. For example, it can be argued that contemporary Anglo–American culture has developed some distinctive routines and expressions for expressing enthusiasm, optimism, and a ‘positive attitude’: Wow! Great! How nice! That’s fantastic! I had a terrific time! It was wonderful! Ha e a nice day! Sociological studies of cultural attitudes toward emotions have also shown that Americans place an exceptional emphasis on enthusiasm.

Along with differences in emotional expression, other broad parameters of social variation in discourse style concern the expression of conflict or opposition between interlocutors’ views (what one thinks) or wishes (what one wants). Japanese society, for example, is a society in which overt expression of differences and disagreements is discouraged, on account of the prevailing cultural value of wa (roughly, ‘harmony’). For example, a well-known article by a Japanese author (Ueda 1974) is titled Sixteen Ways to A oid Saying ‘No’ in Japanese. In Jewish culture (Schiffrin 1984, Blum-Kulka 1982), on the other hand, an overt and intense clash of views and evaluations is not only considered nonthreatening but is often actively welcomed.

Differences like these not only contribute powerfully to the texture of everyday social interaction and to the character of interpersonal relationships, but, arguably, exert an influence, through socialization, on the formation of personality types.

Bibliography:

1. Bakhtin M 1986 [trans. McGee V W] Emerson C, Holquist M (eds.) Speech Genres and other Late Essays. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX
2. Bauman R, Sherzer J (eds.) 1974 Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge University Press, London
3. Blum-Kulka S 1982 Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performanace of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3: 29–58
4. Enfield N J (ed.) in press Ethnosyntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
5. Foley W A 1997 Anthropological Linguistics. An Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
6. Goddard C 1998 Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
7. Goddard C, Wierzbicka A (eds.) 1994 Semantic and Lexical Universals. Theory and Empirical Findings. Benjamins, Amsterdam
8. Goddard C, Wierzbicka A 1997 Discourse and culture. In: van Dijk T A (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction (Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2). Sage, London Goddard C, Wierzbicka A (eds.) in press Meaning and Universal Grammar. Benjamins, Amsterdam
9. Gumperz J J, Hymes D (eds.) 1986/1972 Directions in Sociolinguistics. The Ethnography of Communication. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
10. Keesing R M 1994 Radical cultural difference: Anthropology’s myth? In: Putz M (ed.) Language Contact and Language Conflict. Benjamins, Amsterdam
11. Sapir E 1949 Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality. Mandelbaum D (ed.) University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
12. Saville-Troike M 1989 The Ethnography of Communication, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
13. Schiffrin D 1984 Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society 13: 311–35
14. Shweder R A 1990 Cultural psychology: What is it? In: Stigler J W, Shweder R A, Herdt G (eds.) Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
15. Shweder R A, Sullivan M A 1993 Cultural psychology: Who needs it? Annual Review of Psychology 4: 487–523
16. Tannen D 1981 New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 30: 133–49
17. Ueda K 1974 Sixteen ways to avoid saying ‘No’ in Japanese. In: Condon J C, Saito M (eds.) Intercultural Encounters With Japan: Communication, Contact and Conflict, 1st edn. Simul Press, Tokyo
18. Wierzbicka A 1992 Semantics, Culture and Cognition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
19. Wierzbicka A 1996 Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
20. Wierzbicka A 1997 Understanding Cultures through their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. Oxford University Press, New York
21. Williams R 1976 Keywords. Oxford University Press, New York