The idea of linguistic influence on culture is included in Whorfian
theory by Whorf. Whorfian theory is categorized into two, the strong and weak
version. The strong version says that a language could determine the way we
think, and in contrast, the weak version says linguistic categories and usage
could influence the way we think and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour.
Among the related theories, there were some theories that opposed the topic.
However, there was a theory of Fishman that agreed on the topic by proposing
that language is a key of culture.
Specifically, the idea could be called as linguistic-cultural
parallelism according to the study of Robert Leon Cooper, named The Influence
of Language on Culture and Thought. This idea is the claim that each language
reflects the culture of its speech community. In addition, it explains that
language and culture have connections between them. For example, Korean has a
lot of honorifics and low talks because Korean culture puts an importance on
vertical human relations.
There is a difference of argument between
linguists and cultural anthropologists. It's because the relations between
language and culture is not that clear. However, despite of the controversy,
many linguists and cultural anthropologists agree on that language and culture
are inseparably related. Also, there is a simple idea related to this that
society and individuals are connected because culture is formed by society and
the society is made of individuals.
Despite the thesis has a difficulty in showing
evidences, however, it could be explained by the natural progress and common
ideas. First of all, language habits lead to formation and transformation of culture.
According to the article that mentions the thesis, culture is defined by the
activities of people, sometimes governed by a geographical boundary. People
formed their society and made their way of life, and this activity is called as
cultural formation. After this process for a time, culture is learned and also
changes as time passes. This alteration is passed from parents to children also
by language.
Like
this, language has had a great role in inheritance because it's hard to inherit
cultural formation or alteration without language. Therefore, language habits
of the era must have influenced these processes such as that we commonly say we
need to have better language habits for better society. It means that language
habits would also become as a part of the culture.
This
argument is exactly same as the reason language habits influence cultural
formation and alteration. The second reason that the human mind and behavior
affects society could be explained by this argument too. People express their
mind by language and behave following their mind all the time in their society,
and usually people in one society resemble this naturally. Language has always been
a weapon to express one's ideas and feelings. In other words, the human mind
and behavior would be expressed by language, which pervades all over the
society, and would show lifestyles of the society, so-called culture. In
addition, because each person cannot be isolated from society, they would
affect each other by their mind and behavior.
Finally, let's see the third reason that
culture usually follows the way of expressing feelings or some things that are
helped by language. As you could refer to the first reason and the second
reason, culture is formed by the way of expressing feelings (namely, mind). It
is easy to know when we just look at ourselves. We always express something by
languages, and usually this reflects which culture we have. It is because
language is a kind of culture. If people use bad words, their culture becomes
to be bad just as the words they say. That's why some argue that people should
always be aware of how they say.
In
conclusion, language has a profound effect on culture. According to the idea of
The Influence of Language on Culture and Thought: Essays in Honor of Joshua A.
Fishman's Sixty-fifth Birthday on page 17, my thesis has a scientific name,
'linguistic-cognitive parallelism' or 'linguistic-cultural parallelism.':
This is the claim that there is a close correspondence between linguistic patterns, on the one hand, and cognitive and cultural ones, on the other. Each language reflects the culture of its speech community. In the following this claim will be called parallelism, for short.
My
thesis already has been a classical argument, and can be easily explained by
either some papers or our common lifestyles, although there are some conflicts
in stating whether language or culture has an influence on another.
Obviously my argument is ambiguous when we
consider the role of culture. Yes, it has already been a hot issue between
linguists and cultural scholar. It is very complicated because both are so
intertwined that there must be an apparent conclusion. Because of this, some of
cultural scholar argued that a culture has an influence on language, not vice
versa. They first stated that all the vocabularies of one culture reflects what
the cultural area values. This idea is well shown in Korean culture too. Korean
has a lot of vocabularies related to honorifics or relatives, which reflect
vertical culture or culture that values blood relationship. However, according
to the supporting idea of behaviorist Watson, some cultures do not even include
certain emotions defined by other cultures in their vocabulary. It means people
express their mind first by language, act following their language, and finally
those actions form particular culture.
They
secondly stated that a language is just a verbal expression of culture. Namely,
language is just a tool for people. It is flawed in considering the role of
language. Culture will not exist if people don't express their mind and
lifestyles by language. As I mentioned, language as a tool has a significant
effect on forming society and its culture. To form culture, people should talk
with each other.
Related to both of those ideas, in addition,
Whorf argued that since grammar is more resistant to change than culture, the
influence from language to culture is predominant. Grammar is a kind of
structure of languages. Considering common argument that we should analyze
language structure to know culture, resistance against change of grammar could
be explained that a language is more consistent than culture is. It's hard to
say changeable thing affects something just as this case.
Language and culture are so inseparably
related to each other that their relationships are easily discussed between
scholars. For example, like my thesis, an influence of one on another. Whof and
other scholars have discussed this idea, and they called this
linguistic-cultural parallelism. Among its categories, I think the argument of
linguistic influence on culture is definitely right. Although cultural
anthropologists criticize that cultural influence on language is much bigger than
vice versa, linguistic influence on culture is more significant. It's because a
language becomes a part of culture. Language contributes to formation and
transformation of culture. In addition, people express their mind by language
or behavior and these things affect everything in society. It means, without
language, people could not even contribute to their own culture. The
significant role of language is in analyzing human, ourselves. Namely,
developed studies on language could even apprehend every thing related to
human. Culture is one of the things they already discover. Because people
desire communication, it is natural that a language plays a significant role in
either forming or affecting culture definitely. I totally agree that language
must have a profound effect on culture.
This version is just for grammar check based on gammarly.com. I just fixed my gramatic errors.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기