論文

The relationship between language, culture and

identity and the implications for language teaching
and language policy
Brett Cumming
Department of British and American Studies

Culture as a term, encompasses so much that its role in Second Language Acquisition needs to
consider a number of factors. In fact, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
(culture, n.d.) defines culture as “The totality of socially transmitted behaviour patterns, arts,
beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought (and) these patterns,
traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or
population.”

From a language teaching perspective though, culture can be defined pragmatically “as a/the
culture associated with a language being learnt” (Byram, M. & Grundy, P., 2003, p. 1). Different
conceptions of culture though exist in the language teaching field, but it is generally
acknowledged according to Byram and Grundy (2003, p. 95) that the view of culture being
“distinguishable, homogeneous and objectively describable” has dominated the discussion of
intercultural learning for a long time.

As to what culture covers in language teaching, further other factors can also be seen as: i) the
length of silence between speakers and ii) how explicit speakers are in interactions and the
recognition of others’ ages and statuses through language, something particular well known in
Korean and Japanese for instance with the use of honorific language (Mangubhai, 1997). Such
cultural conditioning is unconsciously inherent in other languages.

Culture differs to other ‘individual differences’ that can either hamper or help facilitate success
in language learning in the fact that such aspects of affective factors like personality, attitude
and self-esteem are categorised as internal factors whilst culture (in addition to other social
conditions) is, in contrast, seen as external factors (Zhang, 2006).

An important point to note is also the correlation between language and identity, with language
used in a large way to maintain identity, with the reasoning behind this being, in Zhang’s (2006,
p. 43) view, “because human’s thought or ideology is an important component of culture and
because language is a medium to convey thought” and consequently language being unable to

43
be isolated from culture. Culture is also closely related to the field of semantics, especially in
idiomatic phrases, which second language learners can struggle with. This struggle is often in
spite of ‘knowing’ the words, providing evidence to the concept of the close correlation between
language and culture, impacting L2 learners in a great way. Conceptual metaphors are yet
another example of how culture affects language, with idioms being overtly metaphorical.

The concept of culture is important from the perspective of the teacher. This is because students
from different backgrounds approach education in different ways as a result of the expectations
(right or wrong) about the format teachers should go about educating them in a classroom
setting. Cook (2001, p. 151) for instance states that those from post figurative societies learn
from elders, “hence they naturally favour teaching methods that transfer knowledge explicitly
from the teacher to the student, such as academic teaching methods”, whereas those from
co-figurative societies, where students learn from each other, “prefer teaching methods that
encourage group work, pair work and task based learning.” Although more modern
technological societies naturally also exist, which are seen to be pre-figurative, presently no
such teaching method exists. Students from different countries are also often assigned identities
based sometimes on stereotypes (once again, correctly or incorrectly based), and as Lightbown
and Spada (2006, p. 66) point out: “because identities impact on what they can do and how they
can participate in classrooms, this naturally affects how much they can learn.”

It is my assertion that these differing aspects of culture and the impacts they play in SLA are
essential for teachers to have a sound understanding, especially with regards to methodologies
and curricula development. Zhang (2006) uses Chinese students as an example and the
relationship of traditional Confucianism in their hesitance in being too active in class for want
of not showing off, whereas in a country such as Korea which is predominately seen as being
male-dominant, female language students may also lose opportunities to participate in class
because of conditioning to be quiet in comparison. In addition, culture impacts students’ view of
western teaching approaches in being less authoritarian seen as perhaps less professional.
Making this statement begs the question as to whose job it is to ‘socialise’ the students and
ensure they have basic cultural understanding of the target language.

Other interesting research conducted by Gatbonton and her colleagues in 2005 (as cited in
Lightbown and Spada, 2006, p. 66), shows a relationship between ethnic affiliation and SLA
success in pronunciation, summarised as “learners who had achieved a high degree of accuracy
in pronouncing the second language were sometimes perceived as being less loyal to their
ethnic group”.

More specifically, cultural differences as well as similarities to the host culture of the language
in question can explain, to an extent, overall success in SLA. Research by Tse in 2001 (as cited
in Zhang, 2006, p. 44) showed that “if the source culture and the target one are similar, it will be

44
comparatively easier for a learner to acquire the second or foreign language, for he/she may feel
at ease with the target culture”. Although some may jump to the conclusion that language
similarities are the basis for such a conclusion, once again Tse (2001) believes that “culture
distance should also largely account for the difference in the length of time because East Asian
students may encounter cultural shock in their learning processes to a certain degree”,
considered a hindrances in SLA.

Idiosyncratic differences, akin with identity and culture, also permeate in expression. This is
because it is generally acknowledged that while western cultures are more to the point in direct
expression, Asian students for instance, may need to be more forthright in expression, contrary
to cultural norms where may be used to, yet another challenge in SLA with respect to the
learning of English.

As mentioned, it is generally undisputed that the distinctive relationship between language,

culture and identity is complex and highly interrelated, with profound implications for both
teaching and language policy. Culture and its related factors play a complex yet pivotal role in
language and indeed second language (L2) acquisition. This deeply rooted relationship is one
where language plays a role of maintaining and expressing culture. By examining and
understanding its role in shaping identity as well as its intimate relationship with language,
teachers are placed in a more sound position, not only to use this knowledge in class but also to
enable them to implement strategies and activities in order to achieve higher levels of success
and increase motivation.

Language does not exist in a vacuum and consequently culture is a particularly important and
relevant issue in the field of linguistics. Culture is highly intertwined with language, to the
extent that Kim (2003, p. 1) states “without culture, language cannot exist”. As for the
parameters of both culture and language and which impacts which, others such as Trueba and
Zou (1994, as cited in Kim, 2003) see culture as a broader concept encapsulating language. As
something which is considered non-static, culture though can be adapted and expressed by
language. However, to clarify this relationship, it is language that is used to maintain culture
(Kim, 2003, p. 1). Moreover, Whorf (1956, as cited in Cooper and Spolsky, 1991, p. 17) argued
that “grammar is more resistant to change than culture, the influence from language to culture is
predominant”, and prior to this, in 1940 (Whorf, 1940 as cited in Smolicz, 1980, p. 9) in stating
language as “the most most fundamental and stable element of culture, a matrix which shapes
our particular ways of feeling, thinking and acting.”

As for the integral role of culture in language, Holmes (2001, p. 337) argues the “cultural
environment in which it develops influences the vocabulary and grammar of a language” and
also influences our “perceptions, values, beliefs and attitudes". Regardless of the source, it
seems highly important in the majority of definitions that the concepts of values, beliefs and

45
principles are central. This is in addition to culture being seen as knowledge that “is socially
acquired” (Wardhaugh, 2006, p. 219).

With regards to cross-cultural communication, examples abound of experiences and instances in

which miscommunication surfaces as a consequence of cultural differences, often relating to
what Holmes (2001, p. 275) views as “different assumptions deriving from different ‘normal’
environments.” Sociolinguistic assumptions are often made unconsciously that dictate social
norms, topic appropriateness, linguistic expressions and politeness to name just a few. It is the
concept of thought actually which is seen as highly relevant in the discussion of “cultural
variables” (Brown, 2000, p. 196). This is especially the case with regards to one’s mother
tongue where cognitive and linguistic development is inextricably connected. As Brown (2000,
p. 198) states, “culture is really an integral part of the interaction between language and
thought.”

As for the role language plays with identity, scholars agree that language is integral to identity.
As Zhang (2006, p. 43) maintains, “human thought or ideology is an important component of
culture and because language is a medium to convey thought”. This phenomenon seems prudent
to acknowledge relating to the very notion of language conveying and affirming identity. Crystal
(2000, p. 39) too states that language is the primary index or symbol or register of identity, in
that it expresses cultural distinctiveness. Warschauer (2001, p. 1) also acknowledges this
stating:

Language has always played an important role in the formation and expression of identity. The
role of language and dialect in identity construction is becoming even more central in the
postmodern era, as other traditional markers of identity, including race, are being destabilized.

As for a definition of identity, Kim (2003, p. 3) sees it as “the individual’s concept of the self, as
well as the individual’s interpretation of the social definition of the self, within his/her inner
group and larger society” with its formation more of an unconscious process rather than a
conscious one (DeVos, 1992, as cited in Kim 2003). To more closely examine language and
identity is to acknowledge the important role language plays in the expression of our identity as
humans and also allowing creativity. Researchers such as Cummins (1986,) see language as so
important that by incorporating the language of a student in class (regardless of the dominant
language in the community), the result is one of improved student self esteem, self concept and
the reinforcement and inculcation of the cultural identity.

Moreover, it is generally acknowledged (Smolicz, 1981; 1988a; Conversi, 1990; Moore, 1984)
that language is at the core of culture and a “source of creativity, as well as economic initiative”.
This is true with smaller linguistic groups genuinely fearing the loss of their language, severing
ties with fellow speakers throughout the world and hindering any chance of maintaining their

46
unique cultural and literary heritage. In contrast to some minority communities that succumb to
the majority language over time, one example of a high level of maintenance of their native
language is the Greeks who reside in Australia. This is believed to be a result of what Smolicz
(1991, p. 77) concludes as a history of survival from outside encroachment of foreign countries,
i.e. the acquisition of “experience of the ways of defending their identifying cores”, a reflection
on what Smolicz (1991, p. 77) again sees as language playing an important role in ‘carrying’ a
“group’s culture”. In addition, other cultural values such as a “closely knit and extended family
structure”, present in Greece and Italy have also assisted in reinforcing the language amongst
these minority groups (Smolicz, 1991).

It is to everyone’s benefit when the majority language can co-exist with minority languages by
providing groups with the opportunity to keep their heritage such as the present situation in
Australia. This is in contrast to what Smolicz (1991, p. 79) who sees minority groups overseas
having to suffer being “under a cloud of suspicion that their linguistic and cultural demands
shroud political motives of separation and secession.”

Comments such as the French language playing a “role in sustaining that nation’s identity and
vital powers of creativity, as well as its economic well-being” by well-known French Nobel
prize winner Allais (1989, as cited in Smolicz, 1991, p. 78) further highlight the importance to
some of a language being a symbol and core value in connecting people and enabling them to
form a bond and maintain a sense of belonging.

In contrast to cultural homogenisation for instance is the use of dialects that also represent
identity. Fromkin et al. (2007, p. 438) argue “the way you use language may also indicate an
inclination on your part to belong to a group”, similar to how a regional dialect indicates the
geographical identity of an individual. In this sense, language is empowering by allowing a
person to gain a sense of identification and affiliation with a particular group, their traditions
and culture. This influence of dialects playing a pivotal role in shaping culture and identity is
seen as so acute, demonstrated by language policies in existence by certain governments such as
France to ensure the encroachment of English does not dominate and overtake the native
language and culture.

One important hypothesis to note is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (or alternatively Whorfian
hypothesis), which first brought to attention the notion of the interconnectedness between
culture, language and thought, i.e. that the language we speak is responsible for how people
perceive the world we inhabit. Whorf in particular argued the very notion that the thoughts we
have are our own, i.e. “that the patterns of the language we speak largely determine the patterns
of our thought processes and, ultimately, of our culture” (Cooper and Spolsky, 1991, p. 7). With
its inception in the 1920s and 30s by Edward Sapir and his student and anthropological linguist
Benjamin Lee Whorf, it was not supported by any empirical or formal evidence. It did however

47
follow on to encourage research in a number of fields as well as what Cooper and Spolsky
(1991, p. 7) saw as changing attitudes determined by “general philosophical conceptions”.
Specifically, in his own words, Sapir (1929, p. 209, and 1929b, p. 207 as cited in Wardhaugh,
2006, p. 220) states:

No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social
reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same
world with different labels attached...Even comparatively simple acts of perception are very
much more at the mercy of the social patterns called words than we might suppose...We see
and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our
community predispose certain choices of interpretation.

Importantly, the theories which were borne out of this initial hypothesis include linguistic
determinism and what is seen as a weaker claim of linguistic relativism, again promulgated by
Whorf. These hypotheses refer respectively to one’s interpretation of the world being
fundamentally determined by one’s language and the latter the notion of language influencing
an individual’s thoughts on the world (and possibly behaviour) (Holmes, 2001). As an example,
Fromkin, Rodman and Hyams (2007, p. 26) speak of the Hopi Indians who “do not perceive
time the same way others do because of the absence of different tenses to describe past, present
and future”, whereas Lyons (1981, p. 308) states these Indians, as a result of the lack of tense
have a different perception to others and “operate with a radically different concept of time from
that with which speakers of European languages operate.” Carroll (1956, p. 57 as cited in
Brown, 2000, p. 199) and Whorf (1956 as cited in Brown, 2000, p. 199) also argue that due the
lack of grammar to express tense, the Hopi had “no general notion or intuition of time.”

While not without controversy, those who dispute the hypothesis seem to favour universalism
over relativism. Brown (2000, p. 199) claims Whorf’s hypothesis has been “overstated and
misinterpreted”, but in reflection the hypothesis is presently acknowledged in a more liberal
fashion whereby evidence is more clearly defined with respect to the integral role language and
culture play. Others such as Cooper and Spolsky (1991, p. 25) venture to the extent of critically
stating Whorf’s ideas “are often vague and lacking in rigor, and at times he even contradicts
himself.”

On a personal level, language brings an element of power with a strong link in its usage to the
dimension of status. Numerous languages possess many lexis to represent the rather simple
concept of what is referred to in English as ‘you’, indicating in a reciprocal fashion to express
what Holmes (2001, p. 377) refers to as “solidarity” or alternatively in a way to express
“superior status or power”. Pullum (n.d., http://people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/MLA2004.pdf) sees
power, whether it be political or economic, associated with the prestige dialect, especially the
case in complex societies.

48
Power, as well as the term ‘solidarity’ coined by psychologist Brown, can also be demonstrated
and expressed through the use of certain words and honorifics which exist in languages such as
Japanese and Chinese. In clarifying solidarity, Hudson (1990, p. 122) defines this as “the social
distance between people, that incorporates how many social characteristics they share”. Another
example is the use of different pronouns such as ‘tu’ and ‘vous’, both of which mean ‘you’ in
French. Even in English, through what Hudson (1990, p. 122) again sees as “the clearest
linguistic markers”, the example of addressing people can allow different dimensions to be seen,
i.e. whether a person is addressed by ‘Mr.’, ‘sir’, his/her first name, ‘mate’ and so on (Hudson,
1990).

As for language and its role as a core value in the realm of culture, Smolicz (1999, p. 71)
defines this relationship as language being “regarded as of such crucial importance to the
perpetuation of a group’s life that any encroachment upon it by another language is perceived as
threatening to the group’s survival or dominance”. In the event of subtractive bilingualism for
example, this can result in dire consequences such as being “destructive to the cultural creativity
of all cultural and linguistic groups” (Smolicz, ibid.). The relevant paradox in follow up to this
argument is ironically how language can be either a bridge or a barrier, with a common
language enabling feelings of “commitment, of togetherness, or belonging, and to extend
friendship” (Clyne, 1982; 1991; Giles, 1977; Giles & Saint-Jacques, 1979 as cited in Smolicz,
1999, p. 72).

To expand on the importance of culture as a core value, Smolicz (1980, p. 1) believes strongly
that it forms one of the most essential parts of a group culture, representing in fact “its very
heartland and act as identifying values which are symbolic of the group and its membership.”
Naturally, it is these core values which provide a pivotal link that connects the individual to the
group and through rejection of values brings also the fear of being ostracised. These core values
also extend to a social system and the phenomenon of identification.

Finally, the implications of the relationship between language, culture and identity for language
teaching and language policy are extensive. Students should be imparted with the knowledge of
appropriateness of language in varying situations and expect to be presented with material and
resources which are culturally relevant as well as encourage better awareness whilst reducing
stereotypes. Furthermore, with respect to language teaching, teachers need to be culturally
aware of teaching styles. Pedagogical-based curriculums and policies also need to reflect this.

Teaching styles of a western origin that are student focussed may for instance be either
unconducive or ineffective in an eastern setting. Englebert (2004, as cited in Leveridge, 2008)
accurately states “to teach a foreign language is also to teach a foreign culture, and it is
important to be sensitive to the fact that our students, our colleges, our administrators and, if we
live abroad, our neighbours, do not share all of our cultural paradigms.”

49
Moreover, as Kim (2004) succinctly states that it is ultimately the responsibility of language
teachers to have an understanding and appreciation of pedagogically suitable teaching styles and
methodologies and ensure they are conducive and effective in the education context language is
taught. This is in order to best utilise interaction between students and assist them in achieving
their specific language goals. Lastly, it is important also to recognise not solely the cultural
differences inherent in teaching language but also have an appreciation for what Leveridge
(2008) sees as differences in “ideologies, and cultural boundaries which limit expression.”

As for the implications for language policy, it is worthwhile to mention the importance of not
neglecting minority languages, in addition to not solely concentrating on the expansion of
English, considered by many to be the global language. To avoid subtractive bilingualism,
policies need to incorporate the first language of children, to assist children in achieving what
Lightbown and Spada (2006, p. 26) believe results in higher levels of self esteem and cognitive
development. Others too (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Swain & Lapkin, 1981; Barik & Swain,
1976a as cited in Cummins & Swain, 1986, and Barik & Swain, 1978, as cited in Hamers &
Blanc, 1983, p. 201) see many other benefits such as increased metalinguistic awareness,
advanced L1 skills, higher IQ and again increased cognitive flexibility and development.

Only when policies are devised with a) culture and the ideologies of teachers, b) students and c)
the environment in which the language is spoken, can an increased appropriateness of usage
occur. To elucidate the importance of such consideration, one example is where such a policy
has been enacted is the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, having
incorporated culture into its curriculum so as to improve the “understanding and acceptance of
differences between people, cultures and ideologies” (Leveridge, 2008). For educators and
policy makers, this simply means to ensure materials are culturally appropriate.

To recapitulate, this essay has clearly examined the intimate and inseparable relationship
between culture, language and identity and evinced how complex this relationship is. The
impact of culture in language and SLA has also been closely examined as well as how learning
a language conclusively requires an understanding (and even better) an appreciation for the
culture where it is used. Intercultural communication, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and how
language is interrelated as a core value and identity were also examined to support the ongoing
implications for the teaching and policy of language and language acquisition. Language cannot
survive without culture and vice-versa and to teach language is to incorporate the teaching of
culture. Implications for language teaching and policy are wide-ranging and an understanding of
these is necessary to foster appropriate use of language and an increased cultural awareness.

50
 List of References

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York, U.S.:
Pearson Education.

Byram, M. & Grundy, P. (2003). Context and culture in language teaching and learning.
Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters.

Cooper, R. L. & Spolsky, B. (Eds.). (1991). The influence of language on culture and thought.
New York, U.S.: Mouton de Gruyter.

Crystal, D. (2000). Language death. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Cummins, J. & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education. New York, U.S.: Longman Group
Limited.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. & Hyams, N. (2007). An introduction to language (8th ed.). Boston,
Mass., U.S.: Thomson Wadsworth

Hamers, J. F. & Blanc. M. H. A. (1983). Bilinguality & Bilingualism. Cambridge, U.K.:

Cambridge University Press.

Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). Essex, U.K.: Longman Group.

Hudson, R. A. (1990). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, L. S. (2003). Exploring the relationship between language, culture and identity. GEMA
Online Journal of Language Studies, Volume 3 No. 2 ISSN1675-8021 Retrieved
September 10, 2011 from http://pkukmweb.ukm.my/~ppbl/Gema/GemaVol3.2.2003No4.
pdf

Kim, J. (2004). Coping with Cultural Obstacles to Speaking English in the Korean Secondary
School Context. Asian EFL Journal, Volume 6 Issue 3 Retrieved August 22, 2011 from
http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/september_04_ksj.php

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford, U.K.:
Oxford University Press.

51
Leveridge, A. N. (2008). The relationship between language & culture and the implications for
language teaching. Retrieved June 17 2011 from http://edition.tefl.net/articles/
teacher-technique /language-culture/

Lyons, J. (1981). In language and linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge

University Press.

Pullum, G. K. (n.d.). Ideology, power, and linguistic theory. Retrieved September 25, 2011
from http://people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/MLA2004.pdf

Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language 5:209.

Smolicz, J. J. (1980). Language as a core value of culture. RELC Journal, Volume 11 No. 1,
DOI: 10.1177/003368828001100101, Retrieved May 28, 2011, from http://rel.sagepub.
com

Smolicz, J. J. (1999). Language: a bridge or a barrier? Languages and education in Australia

from an intercultural perspective. Chapter 3 in M. Secombe & J. Zajda (Eds.), J.J.
Smolicz on education and culture (pp. 71-102). Australia: James Nikolas Publishers.

The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). Retrieved April 15, 2011,
from: http://dictionary1.classic.reference.com/browse/culture

Wardhaugh, R. (2006). An introduction to sociolinguistics (5th ed.). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell

Publishers.

Warschauer, M. (2001). Retrieved 12 July 2011, from http://www.arts.uwa.edu.au/

MotsPluriels/MP1901mw.html

Zhang, J. (2006, May). Socio-cultural factors in second language acquisition. Sino-U.S.

English Teaching Journal Volume 3 No. 5 (Serial No. 29) ISSN1539-8072, USA, p. 42.

52
 The relationship between language, culture and identity and
the implications for language teaching and language policy

Brett Cumming
Department of British and American Studies

Abstract: The complex notion of culture and its related factors in the acquisition of second
language acquisition (SLA) are indeed important and play a role in understanding differences in
improvement and success, but also from the perspective of the role culture plays in deciding
what activities are most suitable to motivate students. As no language operates in a vacuum,
culture, an ever changing phenomenon, is a particularly relevant issue in the area of language
and the correlation between language and culture is strong with culture an issue students of a
second language (L2) inevitably come across and thus need to confront. This essay will discuss
the need to look at the concept of culture and the role it plays in SLA in a separate light to
individual differences, by drawing on various research as well as my own experience in this
field. A critical examination of the relationship between language and culture will be undertaken
and the basis of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis will be explored. The concept of language as a core
value in determining identity will also be addressed. Lastly, the implications of the relationship
between language and culture for language teaching and policy will be examined, as will the
debate on language and power.

言語、文化、自己確立と言語教授、言語方策における関係性

英米学科 ブレット カミング

要約： 第二言語習得において文化の複雑な概念とその要素は、確かに改善と成功の違いを
認識する上で大切なものである。しかし、どんな活動が学生の動機付けに一番適切かを決定
する上でも文化は大切な役割を持っている。何もないところでは言語が作用できないように、
絶えず変化し続ける「文化」という事象は、「言語」の分野において特に関連性を持っている。
その相互関係は強く、第二言語習得中の学生が必然的に遭遇し、それゆえに立ち向かわな
ければならない問題点でもある。この論文は、様々な研究やこの分野での自分自身の経験に
焦点をあて、文化の概念に目を向ける必要性についてと、それが個人の違いという隔てられた
見方では、第二言語習得上どのような役割を果たすかについて議論する。言語と文化の関係
について批判的な調査が行われるとともに、サピア＝ウォーフ仮説の基本も検証される。また、
自己を確立する元となる基準が言語であるという概念についても調べられる。最後に、言語と
文化の関係性が言語教授とその方策にどのような影響をもたらすかについて、言語と力の議
論の検証ともに調査する。

53