SOCIOLINGUISTIC

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

ARRANGED BY:

FITMA RAMADHANI (A1M219007)

MEGA PUTRI YANA (A1M219011)

SALINA (A1M219063)

SHERINA TASYA AWALIAH (A1M219065)

HILAL AFRIL PRAYOGA (A1M219091)

SUSILA (A1M219117)

VANY FEBRIANTI (A1M219119)

ENGLISH DEPATRMENT EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

HALU OLEO UNIVERSITY

2021
 A. Language and Culture
1. Definition of Language

Language as one element of culture has a very important role in human life. Language
allows a person communicating with others in meeting their needs. Thus, it can be said is the
main function of language as a communication tool. This does not mean that the language has
only one function. Another function is as a tool to express self-expression, a tool to make
integration and social adaptation, as well as a tool to hold social control (Keraf, 1980: 3)
Keraf (1980: 1) stated that Language is a means of communication between members of
the public symbol of the sound produced by means of said human. Similar opinion was also
expressed by Sitindoan (1984: 17) states “Language is a symbol of the sound produced by means
of said human, and the system has means that are arbitrary; used by men in her life as a means of
communication between each other to form, express, and communicate thoughts and feelings”.
Based on the notions described above, it is clear that the language was intended above is a
communication tool produced by the tool man has said symbol, system, meaning, and social are
arbitrary and culturally. Languages are arbitrary means no direct relationship between the
symbol with the symbolized. Symbolic emergence of an object is based on the convention.
However, even so to be able to understand a language must be studied and used as a
communication tool

2. Definition of Culture

Culture is the whole communication system that binds and allows operation of a set of
people called the public. Nababan (1984: 49) stated that cultureas a system of rules of
communication and interaction that allows a society occurs, preserved, and preserved. Culture
that gives meaning to all business and human movements
In line with definition of language Poerwadarminta (1983: 157) says that culture can also
be interpreted as the activities and the creation of the mind (reason) people like: faith, art, etc.
For example, Chinese Culture, Culture of Indonesia, and Javanese culture. Based on this
understanding, we can say that only humans have culture. This is due to living things is people
who have sense and reason to generate culture.
 Based on the notions above can be concluded is meant by culture is a result of creative
initiative, and the work of humans in an effort to improve the standard of living and adapt to
their environment. These limits are more emphasized on the fact that humans are capable of
producing culture, because humans are living beings who have mind and reason.

3. The relationship between language and culture

Language and culture have a coordinating relationship, namely an equal relationship with
the same high position. Masinambouw in Chaer (1995:217) states that culture and language are a
system inherent in humans. The relationship between language and culture is very close, in fact it
is often difficult to identify the relationship between the two because they influence each other,
complement each other and run side by side. According to Nababan (1993:82) there are two
kinds of relationship between language and culture, namely (1) language is part of culture
(phylogenetic), and (2) a person learns culture through his language (ontogenetic).

Language is a means of maintaining culture. A culture will be able to be understood, and

upheld by cultural recipients if they understand the language of instruction of the culture. In fact,
there is often an opinion that culture is born because of language, without language there will
never be culture. Even so, it turns out that the language of a society is strongly influenced by the
culture of its people. Abdul Chaer said that language is unique and has a very close relationship
with the culture of the people who use it, so the analysis of a language only applies to that
language, cannot be used to analyze other languages for example, in British culture, which does
not recognize rice as a staple food, there is only the word rice to express rice, rice, grain, and
rice. So, said rice in English it refers to rice, rice, grain, and rice in Indonesian. The variation in
Indonesian is due to the closeness of the Indonesian people to rice as their staple food which is a
form of Indonesian culture.

Another example, for example, in English culture is the distinction between the word
brothers (people born from the same womb) based on gender, namely brother and sister.
Whereas Indonesian culture distinguishes based on age, the older one is called brother and the
younger one is called sister. British culture does not look at siblings based on age but based on
gender in contrast to Indonesian culture which is more concerned with age. This is because the
polite culture of Indonesian society is thicker than British society in general.
 A different view emerges from the Sapir-Whorf theory. This theory reveals that language
influences culture. They say so because what is expressed by language users reflects the habits of
the speakers. In the Sapir-Whorf theory, these habits arise from language so that he asserts that
language influences culture (habits). Unfortunately, this theory is considered weak for now,
because the existing facts show that it is culture that influences language.

B. The Whorfian hypothesis

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, also known as the linguistic relativity hypothesis, refers to

the proposal that the particular language one speaks influences the way one thinks about reality.
Linguistic relativity stands in close relation to semiotic-level concerns with the general relation
of language and thought, and to discourse-level concerns with how patterns of language use in
cultural context can affect thought. Linguistic relativity is distinguished both from simple
linguistic diversity and from strict linguistic determinism. The long history of the hypothesis is
sketched with an emphasis on the hierarchical formulations characteristic of most early efforts.
This is followed by a description of the work of Sapir and Whorf which departs markedly from
this earlier tradition and has been influential in the contemporary period, hence the association of
their names with the issue. Whorf's basic argument about analogical influences is outlined in
some detail. Despite widespread interest, quality empirical research has been in short supply.
Recent efforts to remedy this are described. The research is divided into structure-centered,
domain-centered, and behavior-centered types, depending on their manner of approaching the
problem. The contemporary period has seen a rapid improvement in the quality of some of these
efforts. Current trends likely to characterize future research are briefly characterized.

Anti-Whorfian Literature

During the latter half of the 20th century, some of the most memorable writing about the
Whorfian hypothesis was by its opponents. Leading figures in linguistics (Chomsky 1973),
philosophy (Fodor 1985), and psychology (Pinker 1994) appear to have been vying to see who
could denounce the notion of linguistic relativity the most emphatically, or the most humorously
(Pullum 1991). Even as studies accumulated that caused some scholars to reexamine the
Whorfian question in the 21st century, others remained convinced that the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis was flawed in principle (Bloom and Keil 2001), or that the empirical support was
weak (Gleitman and Papafragou 2005, Munnich and Landau 2003) or uninteresting (Pinker
2007).

Pro-Whorfian Literature

Nearly all pro-Whorfian writing begins with an acknowledgment of the controversy

surrounding the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and of the limitations of previous Whorfian research. In
the following books and articles, the authors provide reasons why decades of controversy should
not cause readers to reject the notion of linguistic relativity, marshaling theoretical arguments,
empirical data, and experimental methods that provide new answers to long-debated questions.
Carroll’s introduction to Language, Thought, and Reality (Carroll 1956) provides an overview of
Whorf’s life and work. Lee 1996 provides a thorough exegesis and reanalysis of writing by
Whorf and his critics. Levinson 2003 seeks to sort out some of the sources of real or perceived
disagreement among pro- and anti-Whorfian researchers. Schaff 1973 applies Whorfian
arguments to philosophy and political theory. Lenneberg 1953, Slobin 1996, and Casasanto 2008
each introduce new theoretical perspectives and innovative methods for testing the Whorfian
hypothesis. Boroditsky 2003 briefly reviews some of the experimental studies conducted by
psychologists and linguistic anthropologists around the turn of the 21st century.

Empirical Tests of the Whorfian Hypothesis

For years, the Whorfian controversy was fueled by a dearth of relevant empirical
evidence. Although a large literature documented differences among the grammars and lexicons
of the world’s languages, these data are not sufficient to support Whorfian claims: In order to
establish whether people who talk differently also think differently, it is necessary to show that
linguistic differences correspond to different behavior on some measure of nonlinguistic
cognition or perception.Numerous aspects of cognition and perception appear to depend, in part,
on aspects of people’s linguistic experience. Cross-linguistic differences in grammatical or
lexical patterns have been reported to influence mental representations in a variety of conceptual
domains (e.g., Time, Space, Motion, Color). Debate continues about how to interpret these
empirical data with respect to theories of language and mind.

Time
 Time is one of the conceptual domains Whorf analyzed in a controversial essay, in which
he noted differences between the Hopi language and so-called Standard Average European
languages and suggested that there must be corresponding differences in their speakers’ concepts
(Whorf 1956).

Space

Spatial cognition is a frequent test bed for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Several studies
examine cross-linguistic differences in the use of spatial frames of reference and their effects on
spatial reasoning (see Levinson and Brown 1994; Majid, et al. 2004 for Whorfian claims; see Li
and Gleitman 2002 for counterargument).

Motion

Across languages, syntax requires the same information to be packaged differently. Due
to this syntactic packaging, information that is obligatory in one language may be optional in
another. Slobin 1996 proposed that this should lead to differences in the way speakers of
different languages experience the world and mentally represent their experiences, at least while
they are using language (a proposal known as the “thinking for speaking” hypothesis, elaborated
in Slobin 2003).

Number

The capacity to mentally represent exact numbers of objects larger than three or four
appears to be uniquely human, and appears to depend in part on exposure to a counting system in
language. Carey 2004 sketches a mechanism by which learning to count enables children to
construct the concept of number, augmenting their innate cognitive capacities (see Rips, et al.
2006 for a counterargument).

Color

Some of the earliest attempts to test the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis used the domain of color
as a test bed. Experiments have led to numerous conflicting pro-Whorfian and anti-Whorfian
claims, sometimes by the same researcher analyzing different data sets (see Brown and
Lenneberg 1954 and Brown 1976) or by different researchers analyzing the same data set (see
Heider 1972 and Davidoff, et al. 1999).
 C. Kinship System

Kinship terms are words used in speech communities to identify relationships between
individuals in a family (or kinship unit), the term kinship or kinship according to anthropologist
Robin Fox in his work Kinship and Marriage (1969) is a core concept in anthropology. The
concept of kinship refers to the typology of classification of relatives (kin) according to certain
residents based on descent rules and marriage rules.

It is also called kinship terminology, different societies classify kinship relations

differently and therefore use different systems of kinship terminology; for example, some
languages distinguish between blood uncles and cousins (i.e. the brother of a parent and the
husband of the sister of a parent), while others have only one word to refer to the father and
brother. Usually Kinship terminology includes the terms of address used in different languages
or communities for different relatives and the terms of reference used to identify the relationship
of these relatives to the ego or to each other. While the classification of people who have kinship
in a particular language or culture is called the kinship system, while according to Thomas
Gladwin the Kinship system is a system of social relations that connects their reciprocal
obligations. Kinship systems vary in various forms of social organization.

Example of Kinship Systems

In the system applied by Ervin-Tripp (1971: 19-21) stipulates that in direct conversation if the
person being addressed is a minor (children) then all other differences are negligible, except for a
16 yearold girl can be categorized as an adult if he is already working, so it can be said that the
limit is age. Alternative rules in greeting research by Ervin-Tripp regarding the following social
conditions:

1. Situations marked by status

Situations like this are closely related to one's status. By seeing the greeting used by one
person to another can be known under what circumstances do they have a conversation.
Examples of situations these include: the situation in the courtroom, large gatherings
faculty, congress meetings, and others.
Example:
 Your Honour
  Mr. Chairman
2. Rank
Rank relates to the use of greeting words in a hierarchy work group or on a stratified
status such as the relationship between teacher and student.
Example:
 Ma’am, Sir (Teacher)
 Mr. Director
 Captain
3. Identity
The form of various titles or positions in certain people, whether it's a title in employment
or an honorary title, signifying the status of the person.
Example:
 Doctor
 Professor
4. Generation Level
In a kinship relationship, mistakes often occur in terms of greeting use. The error here
means the status of someone inside family is not used properly.

D. FOLK TAXONOMIES

Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification. The classification of natural

languages can be performed on the basis of different underlying principles (different closeness
notions, respecting different properties and relations between languages); important directions of
present classifications are:

 Paying attention to the historical evolution of languages results in a genetic classification

of languages—which is based on genetic relatedness of languages
 Paying attention to the internal structure of languages (grammar) results in a typological
classification of languages—which is based on similarity of one or more components of
the language’s grammar across languages
 Respecting geographical closeness and contacts between language-speaking communities
result in area groupings of languages.
 The previous discussion of kinship terminology shows how basic are certain system of
classification in language and society. People also use language to classify and categorize
various aspects of the world in which they live, but they don’t always classify things the way
scientist do; they often develop system which we call folk taxonomies rather than scientific
classification. A folk taxonomy is a way of classifying a certain part of reality so that it makes
some kind of senses to those who have to deal with it.

One of the bestknown studies of a folk taxonomy is Fake’s account (1961) in Wardhaugh
(1998) of the terms that Subanun of Minandao in the southern Philiphines uses to describe
disease. There is a considerable amount of disease among the Subanum and they discuss it at
length particularly disease of skins. Effective treatment depends on proper diagnosis, which itself
depends on recognizing the symptoms for what they are.

The Subanum have a variety of categories of skin disease when they discuss a particular
set of symptoms. These categories allow them to discuss those symptoms at various levels of
generality. For example, ‘nuka’ can refer to skin disease in general but it can also mean
‘eruption’. A nuka may be further distinguished as beldut ‘sore’ rather than a menjabag
‘inflammation’ or buni ‘ringworm’ and the particular beldut can be further distinguished as a
telemaw ‘distal ulcer’ or even a telemawglai ‘shallow distal ulcer’. What we have is a hierarchy
of terms with a term nuka at the top and telemawglai at the bottom.

A folk taxonomy of disease is something that develops with little or no conscious

attention. That it can be shown to have a complex hierarchical structure is therefore a rather
surprising finding. Evidently, language and culture are related very closely and much of the
relationship remains hidden from view to most of us.

According to Berlin (1992) in Mifflin Folk taxonomies have hierarchical levels similar to
formal biological classifications of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species
(Berlin, 1992). In folk taxonomy, the common levels are life from, generic, specific and varietal.

a. Life form
A high level category of plants or animals that share some general shape or
characteristic of their morphology. Examples: tree, vine, bush, fish, snake, bird, wug, or
mammal.
b. Generic
The most common, basic level. Examples are dog, oak, grass, rice, ant. Folk generally
often do not correspond to scientific genera but may correspond to Linnaean species or
families. For instance, “dog” is a folk genus, but “grass” is a Linnaean species folk
genus, and a Linnaean family (actually a little less, since people generally do not
recognize maize, etc. as grasses); “rice” is a folk genus, but two Linnaean; species and
“ant” is a folk genus, but a Linnaean family, formicidae.

c. Specific
In some languages such as Spanish, Bahasa (spoken in Indonesia and Malaysia), the
generic name comes first, as in a Linnaean name. In other languages such as English, it
is the other way around. The specific name tends to be a pneumonic device, e.g., color,
shape, utility, etc. that makes the name easy to remember.

d. Varietal
Common in crops such as the potato. Examples are papa imilla, papa imilla negra, and
papa imilla blanca.
 REFERENCES

https://www.thoughtco.com/kinship-3026370

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-kinship-terms-1691092

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/sapir-whorf-hypothesis

https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_898617_15/component/file_1738032/content

https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/83365-ID-sapaan-kekerabatan-dalam-bahasa-
inggris.pdf

Color Terminology for Race. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_terminology_for_race

Kinship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship

Language and Thought Processes. http://anthro.palomar.edu/language/language

Language Taxonomy. http://freelanguage.org/general-language-info/language-taxonomy

Taboo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taboo