POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

Glaiza G. Dagala, LPT

Master of Arts in English Language Teaching
Linguistic Foundations for Second Language Learning 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM
Prof. : Dr. Eugene Pacelli  

FOUR DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE

1. HIGH CULTURE
High culture is a term, now used in a number of different ways in academic discourse, whose
most common meaning is the set of cultural products, mainly in the arts, held in the highest
esteem by a culture. In more popular terms, it is the culture of an elite such as
the aristocracy or intelligentsia. It is contrasted with the low culture or popular culture of,
variously, the less well-educated, barbarians, Philistines, or the masses.
When used without a qualifying adjective, the term culture usually refers to high culture.
Opera, for example, is considered high culture.

2. LOW CULTURE
Low culture is a derogatory term for popular culture and working class culture. The term is
often encountered in discourses on the nature of culture. Its opposite is high culture. Strictly
speaking, both high culture and low culture are minority cultures. The combined influences of
both strains constitute mainstream culture.
Kitsch, slapstick, camp, escapist fiction, popular music, comic books, tattoo art
and exploitation films are examples of low culture. It has often been stated that
in postmodern times, the boundary between high culture and low culture has blurred. See the
1990s artwork of Jeff Koons for example of appropriation of low art tropes.
Romanticism was one of the first artistic movements to reappraise "low culture", when
previously maligned chivalric romances started to influence literature. Susan Sontag was one of
the first essayists to write about the intersection of high and low art in her 1964 "no brow" essay
"Notes On "Camp"".
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

3. YOUTH CULTURE

 Youth subculture is youth-based subculture with distinct styles, behaviors and interests. According to

subculture theorists such as Dick Hebdige, members of a subculture often signal their membership by making
distinctive and symbolic tangible choices in, for example, clothing styles, hairstyles and footwear. However,
intangible elements, such as common interests, dialects and slang, music genres and gathering places can
also be an important factor. Youth subcultures offer participants an identity outside of that ascribed by  social
institutions such as family, work, home and school.

Social class, gender and ethnicity can be important in relation to youth subcultures. Youth subcultures can be

defined as meaning systems, modes of expression or lifestyles developed by groups in subordinate structural
positions in response to dominant systems — and which reflect their attempt to solve structural contradictions
rising from the wider societal context. The study of subcultures often consists of the study of
the symbolism attached to clothing, music, other visible affections by members of the subculture and also the
ways in which these same symbols are interpreted by members of the dominant culture.

The term scene can refer to an exclusive subculture or faction. Scenes are distinguished from the broad culture
through fashion; identification with specific (sometimes obscure or experimental) musical genres or political
perspectives; and a strong in-group or tribal mentality. The term can also be used to depict specific subsets of
a subculture, habitually geographical, such as the American drum and bass scene or the London Goth scene.
A quantity of scenes tend to be volatile, imprudent to trends and changes, with some participants
acting elitist towards those considered to be less fashionable, or oppositional to the general culture although
others do endow with mutual support in marginalized groups. In-group behavior can sometimes elicit external
opposition.

4. RELATION BETWEEN CULTURE AND NATURE

In the twentieth century, the relationship between the concepts of nature and culture has
undergone significant changes, or even questionings or reversals in value, which are fairly
representative of the general state of contemporary thinking.
I.1. In fact, traditionally (‘traditionally’ referring to the period preceding the thought
transformations that occurred from the first years of the twentieth century in the realm of physics
and also in anthropology), relations between nature and culture have been characterized by
differences, or even opposition, between the two concepts.
At one level, what has traditionally characterized culture and distinguished it from nature has
been artifice, custom and convention. Culture is a human institution, and as such it reflects the
exercise of will, or at least, a set of intended meanings: culture is a world where rules and values
operate. These, however, relate to human action, and are, so to speak, victims of its inconstancy:
culture is also the domain of diversity of beliefs, of inconsistency of passions, even of
contradiction in human decisions. Nature, on the other hand, presents itself as a reality
characterized by permanence, stability, regularity. The recurrence of seasons and blooming, the
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

constancy of living forms, but also of the material world, cause nature to be a kind of guarantee
of the substantiality of being: the fact that things have a nature gives them a sort of solidity on
which humanity can rely in its actions and its enterprises. Nature conceals a sort of truth that
should be discovered. Generally speaking, this underlying substance is the subject of science.
Geography, which considers itself a science, also poses the question of the reality of the
divisions of space on the Earth’s surface, and distinguishes (at least did so until the nineteenth
century) between natural divisions of space and divisions based on languages, forms of
government, customs and beliefs. If for a long time geography relied on nature, this was not-
contrary to what a certain historiography would have us believe-because of an immoderate love
of determinism, but because this nature bestowed upon it a sort of scientific legitimacy.
At a different level, nature and culture have been distinguished from the standpoint of freedom of
action. Naturalness is, first of all, spontaneous, instinctive, unreasoned, that is, it makes no use of
deliberative thinking, judgment or reflection, which to the contrary, characterize the use of
freedom, i.e., of voluntary action. To be free is to act according to a preliminary deliberation and
representation, while the animal or the child, for example (beings that have not been cultivated),
merely reacts to solicitations from its environment. Therefore, in line with what we have just
said, naturalness is also that which is constrained, determined: the natural being behaves in
relation to and is dependent upon, causes from the outside that apply to him in such a way as to
permit no escape from them, or, at best, leave him little room to react. Nature is then considered
to be the operation of a strict mechanism. On the other hand, as Rousseau emphasized, freedom
as well as culture are characterized by the power of the human being to escape from rules he has
defined for himself, to reject them or to invent new ones. This is still artifice, but in the positive
sense of the invention of new forms of existence, which cannot be derived from nature and its
defined order. From this we can conclude that, like the other human sciences, this aspect of
geography that denies all natural determinism is a science of freedom, or at least, in principle, a
science of culture.
I.2. In fact, the theoretical framework that has just been sketched out is less rigid than it may
seem. Several transitional formulas or situations that are also related to geography might be
mentioned in this connection.
On the one hand indeed, according to Rousseau as well as to others, nature or, more exactly,
naturalness, may have been considered to involve ethical standards or ideals. In this moral
perspective, naturalness is everything that is true, genuine, or even healthy, and whatever departs
from it, in attitudes or ways of thinking, is seen as degradation or decadence. The recycling of
domestic waste, mountain hiking and ‘bio’ products carry ideals for human behavior. Nature is,
in this sense, a cultural standard.
On the other hand, culture may have been conceived as the finality and future of nature. In this
case, nature is viewed as a bundle of material resources and stocks of energy, which are chiefly
characterized by their non-determination. Culture must then be understood as an activity that
consists in using these resources and energies, and in so doing, gives them determination, or, in
other words, meaning. Nature is cultivated, which means that it is both developed and shaped,
within man as well as around him. Education, agriculture, technique in general, are different
examples of this ‘modelling’ of nature by culture. But it is possible that it is within the human
being himself that the relationship between nature and culture is marked by a constitutive
ambiguity. As Merleau-Ponty writes, it is impossible ‘‘to superimpose on man a lower layer of
behavior that one chooses to call ’natural’, followed by a manufactured cultural or spiritual
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

world. Everything in man is both manufactured and natural [...], in the sense that there is not a
word, not a form of behaviour that does not owe something to purely biological being-while at
the same time it moves beyond the basic nature, the constraints, of animal life, and causes forms
of vital behaviour to deviate from their pre-ordained direction, through a sort of release, and
through a genius for ambiguity that could serve to define man’’ . In the specific domain of
geography, the very notion of a geographical environment, whatever the changes this notion may
have undergone (from Vidal de la Blache to Berque), but also the notion of landscape, make it
possible to handle this ambiguity, which is constitutive of the human.
II. Until now, however, whatever the form of the relationship between nature and culture, nature
has been considered, chronologically and ontologically, to be in the front position. Culture
followed nature, which was, so to speak, its frame. Today this intellectual configuration, this
precedence, is on the verge of changing. Following are three examples of this:
II.1. Until the first half of the twentieth century the idea persisted that physical nature
represented an objective reality to be described and explained, a reality located outside of man,
which man faced in some way, attempting to adopt a scientific and objective view of it.
Discoveries and theories of quantum physics have seriously challenged this belief. In a famous
text, Heisenberg came to the general conclusion that can be drawn from one of the main aspects
of quantum mechanics, which has led to a questioning of the habitual realism of classical
physics: when we apply a measuring device to a quantum system, when, more precisely, we aim
to measure the behaviour of a particle by means of a device, an interaction takes place, i.e., a
transfer of energy between the measuring device and the measured quantum system, and hence
an irreversible and unpredictable modification of the behaviour of the particle. For example, it is
impossible to determine at the same time the location of a particle in space-time and its energy
quantum. This perturbation of the measured object by the measuring device is generally
neglected in the description of macroscopic phenomena (those related to everyday life). But it
cannot be neglected at the microscopic level: this means that the definition of the natural
phenomenon depends strictly on the initial conditions as well as on the measurement theory in
use. The consequence that Heisenberg deducts from this is firm: what physicists apprehend.
When they work at the microscopic level, the knowledge they obtain, is not the natural
phenomenon in itself as independent from the observer, but an effect of the interaction between
man’s technical and cognitive act and a reality that cannot be reached directly. At the
microscopic level, the physical, or natural object cannot be concretely described. It is just a
mental scheme. In 1927, at the Como conference, Niels Bohr stated: ‘‘There is no quantum
world: There is only an abstract quantum physical description.’’ He added: ‘‘It is wrong to think
that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about
nature.’’ As for Heisenberg, he concluded that science ‘‘is but a link in the infinite chain of
man’s argument with nature, and [...] cannot simply speak of ‘nature in itself’. Science always
presupposes the existence of man [...]’’ In conclusion: nature always pre-supposes culture, which
is the framework for its analysis and interpretation.
II.2. A second example: the notion of natural environment. Ecology is the sign of a fundamental
reversal in the practical relationship of man and nature. There is new ethical meaning to this
relationship. This new ethical meaning is made of the planetary, global and irreversible, and
hence radical dimension of the risks incurred by nature. This break in the scale of risk (from
local to global) makes it possible to formulate the problem in a direct and perhaps stark way. We
are seeing a radical modification of the conditions of human action in the world: for the first time
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

in the history of mankind, as Paul Ricœur says, ‘‘celle-ci [humankind] est capable d’actions
don’t les effects dangereux sont de nature cosmique.’’ . Hence the ethical and ontological
meaning of the relationship between man and nature is significantly modified, even reversed:
nature, which until this time, could be thought to provide a set of stable conditions for the
unfolding of human history, a sort of shelter, as it were, under which the human drama could be
played out, is from now on, to the contrary, ‘‘left in the custody of man’’, on whom a new
responsibility is conferred. 
To emphasize the point: nature, or better, the natural condition (the conditions necessary for bare
existence), which until the present time could be conceived of in terms of necessity, of
substantiality, is globally vulnerable, as an eminently fragile condition, to be preserved as is, to
be maintained for itself. What prevails now is the feeling that the natural conditions of existence
are perishable, and a recognition of the problem that the human as a living being is endangered.
But beyond this, the feeling of precariousness leads to a new ethical questioning, about the future
possibilities for a world inhabitable by mankind, i.e., the future of culture.
II.3. Anthropology (a third example) has as it were sanctioned at the scientific level this reversal
of direction in the man/nature relationship. Today it is possible to speak without paradox of an
anthropology of nature. This anthropology intends to be non-dualistic: it rejects the alternative of
naturalism and culturalism, the break into nature and culture, which it attributes to a Western
cultural bias. Philippe Descola writes: ‘‘Bien des sociétés dites primitives nous invitent à un tel
dépassement, elles qui n’ont jamais songé que les frontières de l’humanité s’arrêtaient aux portes
de l’espèce humaine, elles qui n’hésitent pas à inviter dans le concert de leur vie sociale les plus
modestes plantes, les plus insignifiants des animaux.’’ Henceforth, we should think of nature and
the beings that make it up as functions of culture, and integrate into the subjects of anthropology,
alongside the human being, ‘‘toute cette collectivité des existants liée à lui et longtemps reléguée
dans une fonction d’entourage.’’ 
These three examples show us that the question of the relationship between nature and culture
seems no longer to be one of a harmony or disharmony between two fundamentally distinct
worlds, but rather of the delineation and articulation, within culture itself, of what can be
designated, thought and experienced as ‘nature’.

II. RELATIONSHIP OF LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

Language and culture are intertwined. A particular language usually points out to a specific
group of people. When you interact with another language, it means that you are also interacting
with the culture that speaks the language. You cannot understand one's culture without accessing
its language directly.

When you learn a new language, it not only involves learning its alphabet, the word arrangement
and the rules of grammar, but also learning about the specific society's customs and behavior.
When learning or teaching a language, it is important that the culture where the language belongs
be referenced, because language is very much ingrained in the culture.
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

Using paralanguage

Complex is one term that you can use to describe human communication since paralanguage is
used to transmit messages. Paralanguage is specific to a culture, therefore the communication
with other ethnic groups can lead to misunderstandings.

When you grow up in a specific society, it is inevitable to learn the glances, gestures and little
changes in voice or tone and other communication tools to emphasize or alter what you want to
do or say. These specific communication techniques of one culture are learned mostly by
imitating and observing people, initially from parents and immediate relatives and later from
friends and people outside the close family circle.

Body language, which is also known as kinesics, is the most obvious type of paralanguage. These
are the postures, expressions and gestures used as non-verbal language. However, it is likewise
possible to alter the meaning of various words by changing the character or tone of the voice.

Homologous relationship of culture and language

The phrase, language is culture and culture is language is often mentioned when language and
culture are discussed. It's because the two have a homologous although complex
relationship. Language and culture developed together and influenced each other as they
evolved. Using this context, Alfred L. Krober, a cultural anthropologist from the United States
said that culture started when speech was available, and from that beginning, the enrichment of
either one led the other to develop further.
If culture is a consequence of the interactions of humans, the acts of communication are their
cultural manifestations within a specific community. Ferruccio Rossi-Landi, a philosopher from
Italy whose work focused on philosophy, semiotics and linguistics said that a speech community
is made up of all the messages that were exchanged with one another using a given language,
which is understood by the entire society. Rossi-Landi further added that young children learn
their language and culture from the society they were born in. In the process of learning, they
develop their cognitive abilities as well.

According to Professor Michael Silverstein, who teaches psychology, linguistics and

anthropology at the University of Chicago, culture's communicative pressure represents aspects
of reality as well as connects different contexts. It means that the use of symbols that represent
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

events, identities, feelings and beliefs is also the method of bringing these things into the current
context.

IV. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL FILIPINO CULTURAL PATTERNS

A. Language

There are 175 estimated languages spoken in the Philippines. Almost all are classified as
Malayo-Polynesian languages. Among those languages, there are 13 indigenous languages with
nearly 1 million speakers.

For more than three centuries Spanish was the official language under Spain’s colonial rule. It
was spoken by 60% of the population as either a first, second or third language in the early 20th
century. However, the use of Spanish began to decline after the United States occupation in the
early 1900’s. In 1935 the Constitution of the Philippines named English and Spanish the official
languages. In 1939 the Tagalog language was named the national language. The language was
renamed “Pilipino” in 1959 and finally “Filipino” in 1973. The present Constitution names
Filipino and English as joint official languages.

B. Culture

The Philippines is a country that has varied cultural influences. Most of these influences are
results of previous colonization, deriving mainly from the culture of Spain and the United States.
Despite all of these influences, the old Asian culture of Filipinos has been retained and are
clearly seen in their way of life, beliefs and customs. Wherever you go, Filipino culture is very
evident and has largely been appreciated and even applauded in many parts of the world.

C. Music, Arts and Literature

Filipinos are very fond of music. They use various materials to create sound. They love
performing dances (Tiniking and Carinosa) and group singing during festive celebrations.
Settlers from Spain introduced to them a variety of musical instruments like the ukulele, trumpet,
drums and violin. Most of their music is contemporary and they have also learned to write their
own songs based on real life events. People are also fond of folklore, which was influenced by
the early church and Spanish literature. Jose Rizal, the country’s national hero, is famous for his
literature and novels inspired from the independence story of the country
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

D. Religion
The majority of Filipino people practice the Christian religion. Spain highly influenced the
people to the extent that the Philippines became one of the two predominantly Christian nations
in the Asia Pacific, the other being East Timor. According to Wikipedia, Christianity is the
religion of about 80% of the Philippine population (mostly Catholics) while Islam is the religion
of 11%, and other religions and beliefs comprise the 9% of the rest of the population.

E. Celebrations
Christmas is one of the most loved celebration by Filipinos. Families and relatives gather on the
24th of December, to celebrate food prepared for “Noche Buena,” a Spanish term which means
“midnight meal” to greet Christmas Day. New Year is another celebration that gathers the
Filipino families. Wearing dotted clothes and preparing round fruits on the table, which
symbolize prosperity, is one of the many customs of the Filipinos.

F. Sports
Filipinos are not only skilled when it comes to industry but also in sports. The national sport of
the Philippines is called arnis, a form of martial arts. Filipinos love watching American games
like basketball, football and recently boxing which made the Philippines more famous all over
the world. Filipino sport star, Manny Pacquiao, has been put on a pedestal due to his skill in
boxing and more Filipinos have risen to stardom in the sports arena.

G. Family Structure

The basic social unit of the country is the family, which also includes the intermediate family
members (aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins) and other outside relations (godparents and close
friends). As such, many children have several godparents and when parents are out of the
country to work, children are mostly left to the grandparents to watch over them. It is common
for members of the same family to work for the same company, a practice which was influenced
by the first Chinese settlers in the Philippines. Filipino families live in different kinds of house
structures depending on their status or area. For families in rural areas, they live in a nipa hut
which is made of bamboo and roofed with leaves from palm trees or corrugated metal. Filipinos
that are ranked as “middle class” live in houses made of bricks and stones.

H. Meals
Filipinos are big eaters, even though it is not obviously seen in their petite bodies. The
Philippines is known as Asia’s melting pot because of the uniqueness and variety of their food.
Filipinos can’t go a day without including rice in their meals. They love plain rice matched with
salted fish, chicken and meat. They serve rice first followed by the various viands they have
grown to eat and cook. Filipinos have a very regular eating schedule: morning, mid-morning,
lunch, afternoon (merienda) and dinner.
 POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES

They enjoy a variety of sweet foods adopted from other countries which encouraged them to
make their own desserts like “mahablanca” a dessert made of coconut milk, corn, sugar, or
“puto” and “palitaw” which are also made of coconut milk. They also enjoy eating “halo-halo”
for their afternoon snack which means “mixture,” a popular dessert that consists of layers of
cornflakes, ice cream, small pieces of gelatin, milk and shaved ice.

During special occasions like a town’s big event in celebration of their saint’s feast, a favorite
food called “lechon,” a suckling pig that has been roasted until the skin turns crusty is served.
Some street foods are also common in the country like the famous “balut,” a boiled duck egg
with an embryo, and fish and squid balls on a stick that are dipped on spicy and sweet sauces.

V. IMPLICATION OF TEACHING THE CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF A LANGUAGE

BEING THOUGHT AS A SECOND LANGUAGE

References:

https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/feb/20/pop-culture-teaching-
learning-engaging-students

http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Low_culture

http://www.hypergeo.eu/spip.php?article354

https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/2018/05/the-relationship-between-language-and-culture-
defined-11480/

https://www.globalizationpartners.com/2015/02/20/the-philippines-culture-and-tradition/
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
GRADUATE STUDIES