Language – A Window into Culture
The Linguistic Creed (Elson, 1987) states, “Any language is capable of being a vehicle for complicated human interaction and complex thought, and can be the basis of a complex culture and civilization. Therefore, all languages deserve respect and careful study.” This statement makes a challenging assumption. Even though it uses the verb “can be,” it suggests that language is the basis for culture and civilization. I always thought it was the other way around: language is based on the culture in which it develops.
In fact, my first reaction to the Linguistic Creed was, “so which came first, the chicken or the egg?” In other words, which came first, language or culture? I immediately conjured up example after example in my mind of how language adjusted and changed due to various changes and evolutions in cultures. Adaptations to outside influences such as technology, Western practices, media and materialism have contributed to most of the changes in the Khmer language in Cambodia over the last 10 years. Additionally socioeconomic situations and trends have changed traditions and ultimately the language as people adjust the ways they describe their world and the way they live. This affects both spoken and written language. In the US and around the English-speaking world, for that matter, technology has encouraged the invention of new written languages: texting, instant messaging, emailing/internet, formatting of letters, etc. All these examples, contrary to the premise stated in the Linguistic Creed, seem to support the idea that culture forms language and that the essence of a person is really his culture, not his language.
However, as I started to consider the interconnectedness of language and culture, I decided to re-analyze my experiences and ask the question, “in what ways is language the basis for culture?” I reflected back on when I first started to learn the Khmer language. I remember one of my first Cambodian teachers encouraged me to start learning to read and write right from the start rather than just learning conversation as many do. He said that my pronunciation will always be limited in accuracy if I don’t learn how to spell the words. He was right. When I could see how words were spelled, I found out that the endings of words were not an ambiguous silent sound, as my ears perceived, but words really had specific consonant endings which made the difference between meanings. Suddenly it was like a window was opened up to me and I could see how sounds, previously hidden to me, were very clear and important to Cambodians understanding what I was saying.
I connected this idea to my study of Cambodian culture. In the same way reading and writing opened a window to my ability to speak better, learning the language opened up a significant window to my understanding the culture. As I began to speak and think more like a native speaker I learned my place in the pecking order of relationships. I realized how I should respond to situations. I was better able to predict how other listeners and speakers would respond to what I said. Basically, I learned the culture by tuning into the language cues. This helped me understand how language can be the basis of culture.
After I thought through all this, I remembered what God did at the Tower of Babel. I understand that He divided the people by language, after which they formed cultures. So as I reflect on the “chicken and egg” question, I realize that language most likely arrived first and also is what has helped people groups develop their ways of living, traditions and cultures.
But setting that question aside, what is more important to remember, I think, is that culture study will never fully be effective apart from language learning. For language is the window through which we can see the connectedness of what happens in culture and how people relate. The deeper one understands the language, the wider the window opens and the bigger the picture of a culture grows.
In fact, my first reaction to the Linguistic Creed was, “so which came first, the chicken or the egg?” In other words, which came first, language or culture? I immediately conjured up example after example in my mind of how language adjusted and changed due to various changes and evolutions in cultures. Adaptations to outside influences such as technology, Western practices, media and materialism have contributed to most of the changes in the Khmer language in Cambodia over the last 10 years. Additionally socioeconomic situations and trends have changed traditions and ultimately the language as people adjust the ways they describe their world and the way they live. This affects both spoken and written language. In the US and around the English-speaking world, for that matter, technology has encouraged the invention of new written languages: texting, instant messaging, emailing/internet, formatting of letters, etc. All these examples, contrary to the premise stated in the Linguistic Creed, seem to support the idea that culture forms language and that the essence of a person is really his culture, not his language.
However, as I started to consider the interconnectedness of language and culture, I decided to re-analyze my experiences and ask the question, “in what ways is language the basis for culture?” I reflected back on when I first started to learn the Khmer language. I remember one of my first Cambodian teachers encouraged me to start learning to read and write right from the start rather than just learning conversation as many do. He said that my pronunciation will always be limited in accuracy if I don’t learn how to spell the words. He was right. When I could see how words were spelled, I found out that the endings of words were not an ambiguous silent sound, as my ears perceived, but words really had specific consonant endings which made the difference between meanings. Suddenly it was like a window was opened up to me and I could see how sounds, previously hidden to me, were very clear and important to Cambodians understanding what I was saying.
I connected this idea to my study of Cambodian culture. In the same way reading and writing opened a window to my ability to speak better, learning the language opened up a significant window to my understanding the culture. As I began to speak and think more like a native speaker I learned my place in the pecking order of relationships. I realized how I should respond to situations. I was better able to predict how other listeners and speakers would respond to what I said. Basically, I learned the culture by tuning into the language cues. This helped me understand how language can be the basis of culture.
After I thought through all this, I remembered what God did at the Tower of Babel. I understand that He divided the people by language, after which they formed cultures. So as I reflect on the “chicken and egg” question, I realize that language most likely arrived first and also is what has helped people groups develop their ways of living, traditions and cultures.
But setting that question aside, what is more important to remember, I think, is that culture study will never fully be effective apart from language learning. For language is the window through which we can see the connectedness of what happens in culture and how people relate. The deeper one understands the language, the wider the window opens and the bigger the picture of a culture grows.
posted by Gecko Girl at
9:57 PM
2 Comments:
The end of your essay begins to consider the importance of language in transmitting culture. Without language, how can any group of creatures accumulate a body of knowledge or life wisdom and pass that down to descendents? Without language, culture would be quite impoverished, if we could call those patterns of relationships and behavior "culture."
Another point to consider is that "culture" is constantly being constructed and reconstructed as we relate to other humans, other creatures, and our whole environment. What impact does the existence of language make on this process of cultural construction? Again, we are left to ponder what kind of an "entity" culture would be if we could not use the highly complex system of symbolic communication that we inherit as part of our human endowment.
I am reminded of what Mary Clark says about the importance of story in her book In Search of Human Nature. Taking a sociobiological look at human societies, Clark points out that cooperation among humans is what has made our survival as a species possible. One of the mechanisms that we use to strengthen our bonds to each other is storytelling. Storytelling is not possible without language. Stories are also the containers of the treasures of knowledge and wisdom that largely make up our culture. They explain who we are, where we have come from, and where we are headed.
If the development of language did not precede culture, it certainly is a condition without which culture as we know it cannot exist.
By
Anonymous, at 8:52 AM, January 30, 2006
Thank you for your comments, especially about stories. I have recently begun to consider the deep importance of storytelling. I used to view it merely as something fun and interesting that sometimes occurs within families. But, now I do see more and more how it actually is an essential part human culture and survival. I found it fascinating how stories were used in Cambodia, a culture based primarily on an oral language and tradition. And right now, our Sunday School class is also exploring how telling our personal stories can become a tool for healing. Thanks for the reference to Mary Clark's book. I may try to find a copy.
By
Gecko Girl, at 9:33 AM, January 30, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home