LANGUAGE CULTURE and THOUGHT

GROUP 4:

11B01096 FITRI FAJAR

11B01095 RAHMANIAR GUSRIANTI

11B01087 ST. SHABRIANI

11B01084 SRI SULISTIAWATY

GRADUATE PROGRAM
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MAKASSAR
2012
3.3. Language, speech and thought

Language is such a big subject that it's difficult to define in a simple, uncluttered way. 

Language is a rule based set of processes.  Those processes are made up of dynamic and

integrated systems.  These systems include, but are by no means limited to, morphology,

semantics, syntax, narrative, phonological awareness, and pragmatics. 

The bottom line is, language represents thoughts and ideas. These thoughts and ideas can

be communicated in spoken, written and signed forms. Way back in 1978, Bloom & Lahey

looked at defining what is language. They ultimately separated language into three major

aspects: form (syntax and morphology), content (semantics), and use (pragmatics). 

Language and speech are not the same thing.  Speech is a broad term simply referring to

patterned verbal behavior.  In contrast, a language is a set of rules for generating speech. And we

use our thought to deliver the speech.  A dialect is a variant of a language.  If it is associated with

a geographically isolated speech community, it is referred to as a regional dialect.  However, if it

is spoken by a speech community that is merely socially isolated, it is called a social dialect. 

These latter dialects are mostly based on class, ethnicity, gender , age, and particular social

situations.  Black English (or Ebonics ) in the United States is an example of a social dialect. 

3.3.1. Language and the rest of culture

Language consists of a function and a form. Common sense tells us that the main

function of language is to help people to communicate. The form consists of sounds, gestures, or

other physical variations in the environment capable of being perceived by other people.

Furthermore, the form of language makes sense in terms of its basic function. Without the
function of communication, language would be no more than random noises or other physical

variations in the environment.

As far back as the classical period, and probably long before, the connection has been

noted between human culture and language. The ancient Greeks, for example, distinguished

between civilized peoples and bárbaros ("those who babble"), i.e., those who speak

unintelligible languages.[19] The fact that different groups speak different, mutually unintelligible

languages is often considered more-tangible evidence for cultural differences than other, less

obvious cultural traits.

Languages, understood as the particular set of speech norms of a particular community,

are also a part of the larger culture of the community that speak them. Humans use language as a

way of signalling identity with one cultural group and difference from others. Even among

speakers of one language several different ways of using the language exist, and each is used to

signal affiliation with particular subgroups within a larger culture. Linguists and anthropologists,

particularly sociolinguists, ethnolinguists and linguistic anthropologists have specialized in

studying how ways of speaking vary between speech communities.

A community's ways of using language is a part of the community's culture, just as other

shared practices are, it is way of displaying group identity. Ways of speaking function not only to

facilitate communication, but also to identify the social position of the speaker. Linguists use the

term varieties, a term that encompasses geographically or socioculturally defined dialects as well

as the jargons or styles of subcultures, to refer to the different ways of speaking a language.

Linguistic anthropologists and sociologists of language define communicative style as the ways

that language is used and understood within a particular culture.

 Language is more than just a means of communication.   It influences our culture and

even our thought processes.   During the first four decades of the 20th century, language was

viewed by American linguists and anthropologists as being more important than it actually is in

shaping our perception of reality.  This was mostly due to Edward Sapir and his student

Benjamin Whorf who said that language predetermines what we see in the world around us.  In

other words, language acts like a polarizing lens on a camera in filtering reality--we see the real

world only in the categories of our language.

Cross cultural comparisons of such things as color terms were used by Sapir and Whorf

as evidence of this hypothesis.  When we perceive color with our eyes, we are sensing that

portion of electromagnetic radiation that is visible light.  In fact, the spectrum of visible light is a

continuum of light waves with frequencies that increase at a continuous rate from one end to the

other.  In other words, there are no distinct colors like red and green in nature.  Our culture,

through language, guides us in seeing the spectrum in terms of the arbitrarily established

categories that we call colors.  Different cultures may divide up the spectrum in different ways. 

Sapir and Whorf interpreted these data as indicating that colors are not objective,

naturally determined segments of reality.  In other words, the colors we see are predetermined by

what our culture prepares us to see.  This example used to support the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

was objectively tested in the 1960's.  That research indicated that they went too far.  All normal

humans share similar sense perceptions of color despite differences in color terminology from

one language to another.  The physiology of our eyes is essentially the same.  People all over the

world can see subtle gradations of color and can comprehend other ways of dividing up the

spectrum of visible light.  However, as a society's economy and technology increase in

complexity, the number of color terms usually also increases.  That is to say, the spectrum of

visible light gets subdivided into more categories.  As the environment changes, culture and

language typically respond by creating new terminology to describe it.

3.3.2 Speech and inference

Humans are equipped with sophisticated machinery for producing and hearing speech.

Speech is a physical activity involving both gestures (in the case of signed languages) and

anatomical components such as the diaphragm, ears, vocal cords and such (in the case of oral

languages). It is also a mental activity, involving the brain in all its complexity, such as the

ability to decode, interpret and perceive. Researchers study all aspects of language and its

perception—from the generation of speech sounds and their acoustical properties to how

language gets processed by the brain.

The physical and mental aspects of speech are closely intertwined. In an environment full

of sounds, the brain manages to discern and make sense of speech. Yet researchers are finding

that our experiences with language can also alter the brain and shape how it functions. In fact,

the first language we learn influences our perception of everything we hear later.

Intuitively, to perform an inference is to extract implicit information from explicit

information. There are many different kinds of inferences. For example, statistical inference uses

a large body of schemes found in a corpus in order to determine probable information about a

small example. Another typical example of inference is logical inference. For example, if our

knowledge base contains explicitly the information that ``all contract killers are violent'' and that
``Vincent is a contract killer'', then it implicitly contains the information that ``Vincent is

violent''.

Logical and statistical inference (and, indeed other forms of inference) are important in

discourse and dialogue. The ``Langue et Dialogue'' team is currently investigating the usage of

logical inference. In the last years, the performance of automated reasoning tools (that is,

software able to handle various kinds of logical inference) has increased considerably. Theorem

provers have achieved performance levels that were unthinkable ten years ago. Moreover, the

performance of model builders, even though this technology is less advanced than that of modern

theorem provers, has achieved a level where they can be used as interesting experimental tools.

Crucially, much of this progress in automated reasoning has been for logics which can be used

for natural language semantic representation and inference, such as first-order logic with

equality, description logics, and hybrid logics.

The most obvious use of logical inference in discourse is disambiguation. Sentences in

natural language are frequently highly ambiguous. Indeed, the interaction between lexical

ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity and scope ambiguity can produce sentences with hundreds of

different interpretations, most of which are absurd given enough background knowledge.

Theorem provers and model builders can examine the different interpretations and eliminate

those which are incompatible with background knowledge and the previous discourse. Moreover,

soemtimes it is also important to check if a sentence provides new information, or if it is

redundant given the previous discourse.

The ``Langue et Dialogue'' team is also concerned with more experimental uses of these

technologies. For example, we try to use model builders to ``guess'' what a given description
stands for (by generating the smallest possible model for the described situation). This is an

interesting approach to analyzing the role of inferences in the treatment of associative anaphora.

Some investigation is also tried to use natural deduction, extend to a non classic logical

logics as default logic in attempt to find gaps and inconsistances which may explain where and

how the speakers revise their argumentations during the dialog.

The relevance of this to sociolinguistics may not be obvious but it becomes clearer when

we remember that one of the main social functions of speech is in the area of problem-solving, to

enable us to ‘talk through a problem’ with other people. Often the solution comes simply from

the act of talking about it, rather from any particular suggestion made by someone else – talking

about a matter helps us see it more clearly.

3.3.3 Speech and socialization

In the history of didactics, the oral/written relationship has particularly evolved since

1992. Until then, except for a brief period when speech found its place in instruction concerning

the class, writing was the business of school, not oral language. Since 1992 it has been different.

Oral language has gradually become an object of teaching and not just an instrument of

communication. Its components have become defined and we now start to see reference in

official texts to speech as allowing access to knowledge, identity and socialisation. (Le Cunff,

Jourdain, 1999)

It is recognized not just as an academic skill but also as a component of class community

functioning which on the whole still remains to be analyzed through research.

 It would seem that we can no longer limit ourselves to the dimension which can be

defined as technical or cognitive process. In addition to these aspects, should we not also take

into account the contributions of socio-constructivism which, on the one hand, considers that

knowledge is built and, on the other, that each person builds their own, at a rhythm and in a way

which is not necessarily the same as that of other people? The social dimension is also present,

particularly in confrontation with the other learners. Social aspects are also important in terms of

the past social and cultural history of each individual when they enter the learning context and

the respective formal teaching institution. Sociology from this point of view is concerned when it

accepts school or the classroom as a social environment to be studied as with any other social

space outside of the school walls. Social interactivity, such as that developed by Bruner, for

example, from work by Vygotski, enables us also to take into account the social dimension of

both language and the construction of thought, the way in which knowledge and culture is

transferred in each society. Language is a social fact and not just situated in the cognitive order.

So, we have to consider the words of experts and the mediation of the teacher and trainer in the

community of learners and as directed at each individual learner.

Another point of relation between speech and thought is its use by an older generation to

transmit its culture to a younger one. In other words, is an instrument of socialization – the

process whereby children are turned into fully competent members of their society. Interestingly,

people appear to differ in the ways in which they use speech in socialization. Complete

differences can be found in the role that speech is allowed to play in socialization between

cultures. For example, the Gonja of West Africa regard questioning as a way of asserting

authority over another person, so it is considered inappropriate for a pupil to ask his teacher
questions. Example like this show how the demands of one aspects of socialization may conflict

with those of other aspects and the same way be said too of social class differences.

3.3.4 Language and socialization

Language socialization refers to the reciprocal process of learning to use a language in a given

society, and becoming a member of that society through the use of language.

1. The process of acquiring language is deeply affected by the process of becoming a

competent member of society.

2. The process of becoming a competent member of society is realized to a large extent

through language, by acquiring knowledge of its functions, social distribution, and

interpretations in and across socially defined situations, i.e., through exchanges of language

in particular social situations.

(Ochs & Schieffelin,1994)

Children become linguistically and culturally competent members of their community

through interactions with caregivers and other more competent members of their community

(Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Through this language socialization,

children learn the behaviors that are culturally appropriate in their community (Schieffelin &

Ochs, 1986).

Therefore it can said that language is more important in learning some concepts than

others, and the general principle may be that language becomes more important as the concepts

concerned get further from one’s immediate sensory experience – in other words, more abstract.
3.3.5 The Sapir – Whorf hypothesis

Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Lee Whorf developed a theory of linguistics

which claims that language shapes thought. This idea lies behind

theLinguisticDeterminism of LeftWing and PostModern philosophers.

Whorf wrote (original emphasis):

We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significances as we do, largely

because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way - an agreement that

holds throughout our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language.

The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely

obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and

classification of data which the agreement decrees.

(Whorf, B. L. (1940): Science and Linguistics, Technology Review 42(6): 229-31, 247-

8.)

The principle of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects the

ways in which its speakers are able to conceptualize their world, i.e. their world view. Popularly

known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined as

having two versions: (i) the strong version that language determines thought and that linguistic

categories limit and determine cognitive categories and (ii) the weak version that linguistic

categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavior.

The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century thinkers, such as Wilhelm von

Humboldt, who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. The early 20th century

school of American Anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward Sapir also embraced the
idea. Sapir's student Benjamin Lee Whorf came to be seen as the primary proponent as a result of

his published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in

human cognition and behavior. Harry Hoijer, one of Sapir's students, introduced the term "Sapir–

Whorf hypothesis", even though the two scholars never actually advanced any such hypothesis.

Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity was reformulated as a testable hypothesis by Roger

Brown and Eric Lenneberg who conducted experiments designed to find out whether color

perception varies between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of

the universal nature of human language and cognition came into focus in the 1960s the idea of

linguistic relativity fell out of favour among linguists. A 1969 study by Brent Berlin and Paul

Kay claimed to demonstrate that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints,

and hence to discredit the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.

From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the

effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak

versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts. Some effects of linguistic relativity have

been shown in several semantic domains, although they are generally weak. Currently, a

balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language

influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways, but that other processes are

better seen as subject to universal factors. Research is focused on exploring the ways and extent

to which language influences thought. The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation

between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields from

philosophy to psychology and anthropology, and it has also inspired and colored works of fiction

and the invention of constructed languages.

 At last, the fact that two linguists as outstandingly competent and experienced as Sapir

and Whorf could believe otherwise offers food for thought, suggesting that any claims about

language and thought should not be accepted lightly.

The idea was once popular in anthropology that language and thought are more closely

intertwined than is commonly believed. It is not just that language use is an outcome of thinking;

but conversely, the way one thinks is influenced by the language one is ‘born into’. Mind,

according to this hypothesis, is in the grip of language. Edward Sapir and – especially –

Benjamin Lee Whorf were led by their studies of American Indian languages in the early

twentieth century to argue that speakers of certain languages may be led to different types of

observations and different evaluations of externally similar phenomena. This claim came to be

known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. According to Whorf (1956: 213), ‘we dissect nature

along lines laid down by our native language’. Using a language forces us into habitual grooves

of thinking: it is almost like putting on a special pair of glasses that heighten some aspects of the

physical and mental world while dimming others. One example provided by Whorf concerns

the distinction between nouns and verbs in Hopi (a language of Arizona) as opposed to English.

But language does not grip communities so strongly as to prevent at least some

individuals from seeing things from different perspectives, from forming new thoughts and ideas.

As Gillian Sankoff (1986: xxi) puts it, ‘in the long term language is more dependent on the social

world than the other way around . . . Language does facilitate social intercourse, but if the social

situation is sufficiently compelling, language will bend.’. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis remains

of considerable relevance to contemporary sociolinguistic debates, notably those about

‘politically correct’ language. These relate to issues like racism, sexism and discrimination

against the aged, minorities and so on.