Read more about the link between language and culture

1. Social behaviour in communication

A level of privileged analysis for observing this relationship is pragmatics. Between languages and cultures there are differences and analogies for social and interaction behaviours that manifest themselves on the linguistic level.

For example, the kind of relationship we have with the person we are speaking to can change the way we speak.

In Italian, we express whether we have a formal or non-formal relationship with the person we are speaking to through the choice of the pronoun: we use tu for example with friends and lei with someone less intimate (a medical doctor for example). However, for people who are not native speakers, this distinction is anything but trivial: if a native Italian speaker can (almost) always confidently choose the most appropriate pronoun for the situation, this is not always easy for a foreign speaker. To make the best choice, a series of parameters that even native speakers would not be able to list with precision, that "they have always known", come into play. Among other things, the relationship between people, age, but also concrete situations have relevance. For example, if two adults who do not know each other bump into each other on the street, they will use lei, but if a person asks another (a total stranger) where the bar is located at a music festival, tu will be used. These choices regarding formal or informal speech also change over time within the same cultural and social context.

Then there are some languages where the social relationships between speakers is even more significant in terms of the communicative exchange. For example, in Javanese, a language spoken in Indonesia and Malaysia, it is always necessary to indicate the social relationship that one has with one's interlocutor. A sentence with the same referential meaning (i.e. concrete meaning) will be different according to the social status, profession, age, nationality and many other characteristics of the person whom I address. For example, the word “house” will be translated as omah, grija or dalem: the three words indicate exactly the same referent (concrete object), but the first is used if you are talking to a person of low social class, the second to someone from the middle-class and the third, to a higher class person.

Regarding greetings, understood the words and gestures that open (and close) an actual conversation, the languages of the world behave in very different ways. Compared to the European languages, Arabic devotes many more words to this ritual. While in English, the conversation can begin after a simple exchange of greetings (-Hello! -Hello!), In Jordan Arabic, after the exchange of greetings, information on the state of the health of the interlocutor and their family is requested, God is thanked and only at this point can the conversation begin. This practice is also present in Wolof, a language spoken in Senegal- since this country has been largely Islamicized, together with the language this communicative practice has also been inherited.

Another example of very different linguistic practices involving the pragmatic dimension is rejection. In Chinese, for example, you avoid refusing with a simple and dry no, but instead use expressions such as wŏ yŏu shì, translatable as "I have something to do". This sentence is not followed by a request for information about future plans, as would be acceptable, for example, in Italian. This answer is to be understood in all respects as a refusal.

2. Time and space

There are therefore different styles of communication that manifest different ways of understanding oneself, one's relationships with others, but also the world in which one lives.

Consider the way of representing time in Aymara, a South American language (see Dodman 2013: 25). In Indo-European languages such as English and Italian, the past is conceived as something that lies behind us while the future awaits us, before us. In Aymara, this representation is reversed: the past, in fact, is before us because, having already passed, we can see it; the future, inversely, is unknown, we cannot know it (and therefore see it) and because of this, it is behind us.

In addition to time, space can also be thought of in different ways based on the language spoken. For example, a speaker of a European language tends to conceive of space and the objects that are placed in it according to their position. So, for example, in English I would say that a certain object is in front or behind, right or left, depending on where I am (or in relation to another object that I consider relevant). So I will have a vision of space that changes in relation to the point that I take as a reference: I will say, for example, there is a market in front of me (I am the reference point) or there is a market in front of the church (the church is the reference point). The speakers of guugu yimithirr, an Australian aboriginal language, on the other hand, have a conception of space that is called "absolute". The words to indicate where the objects are located work in a similar way to the cardinal points: it does not matter where I stand in relation to the object because the east will always remain the place where the sun rises and the west where it sets. So, if I want to explain where a certain object is (big or small, near or far) I will use words like east, west, south and north (Levinson 1997). This different way of representing space has consequences on how the speakers of guugu yimithirr move in space. If they are in an unknown place, they remember where objects are found not based on coordinates bound to their position (such as front, back, right and left), but based on cardinal directions where objects are placed. Thus, space is cognitively conceived of in a very different way than for a speaker of a European language.

3. An intercultural approach to language teaching

Knowing a language means knowing the culturally connoted way of reading the world linked to it. For this to be part of the learning of second and foreign languages, it is necessary that teaching not be limited to grammatical notions (morphological and syntactic rules) and vocabulary, but also includes pragmatic and cultural aspects. In fact, even if we were able to formulate a "grammatically correct" phrase in a certain language, we could still communicate an incorrect message, leading to a misunderstanding.

Below (from Kecskes, 2014) is a case of misunderstanding between a Chinese speaker, Lee, who is learning English, a language in which he does not yet fully master the pragmatic-discursive dimension.

Lee: Could you sign this document for me, please?

Clerk: Come again?

Lee: Why should I come again? I am here now.

The clerk asks Lee to repeat, but using an expression that has developed a metaphorical and conversational meaning. In other words, "Come again?" should be understood as "Excuse me? Can you repeat again? "and no longer with its literal meaning. Unfortunately, Lee does not know this discursive use and the communication is not successful: Lee does not repeat his first statement but rather, probably annoyed, asks for clarification on why he should come back to a place where he already is.

For successful communication, "pragmatic errors" of this type can be more risky than those concerning vocabulary and grammar: if Lee had made a mistake in choosing a word (for example he had said write instead of sign) or the form of the pronoun (and, for example, said to I rather than to me), communication would probably have succeeded anyway.

4. Grammar is not enough!

Knowing how to speak a language effectively, therefore, also involves knowing conversational behaviors and cultural and social norms that regulate the concrete use of language, at least in part. In-depth knowledge only at the grammatical level does not mean one is able to communicate in that particular language. If I am unfamiliar with pragmatic-cultural facts, misunderstandings on the cultural and social level can make my attempts at communication unsuccessful despite the grammatical correctness of my sentences. For this reason, in language teaching, especially using a pluri-intercultural approach, the notion of intercultural communicative competence (i.e. the ability to speak other languages, also including ways of behaving and thinking different from one's own) as a formative objective, to which knowledge of psychology, sociology and anthropology of the language contribute, takes on great importance. The language learner is enriched with new ways of thinking and new ways of seeing things.

In the context of classes with pluri-lingual repertoires, cultural and linguistic comparison helps children develop intercultural sensitivity. Activities that involve the language-culture relationship and the comparison of cultural habits and linguistic uses can stimulate reflection on linguistic and cultural relativism. Children are urged to recognize that their way of looking at the world is just one of many possible ways.

5. Aims

The aims that refer to the theoretical framework outlined above concern:

- The acquisition of awareness that languages do not only consist of grammar but also have a more concrete and social level;

- The awareness that world languages  differentiate themselves also in relation to more or less "suitable" social behaviors;

- Learning to think about one's own way of conceiving social relationships and the world as one among many possible ways, and not as the only one;

- The development of intercultural communicative competence (knowing how to behave in different languages with different pragmatic / social rules).

6. Guideline criteria

The guiding criteria that refer to the theoretical framework outlined above concern:

- Stimulating children to discuss different linguistic uses without prejudice;

- Discussing the pragmatic differences of the different languages of the children, presenting all the options as different and equally valid ways of conceiving of the world around us;

- Valuing the role of parents, who can be important sources of information about the social uses of language;

- Emphasizing the intrinsic cultural value of all languages: they are all (different or similar) ways of conceiving of oneself, others and the world.

7. Glossary

8. References

Bettoni, C., 2006, Usare un’altra lingua. Guida alla pragmatica interculturale, Bari, Laterza.

Cardona, G. R., 2006, Introduzione all’etnolinguistica, Torino, UTET.

Curci, Annamaria, 2012, “Il quadro di riferimento degli approcci plurale alle lingue e alle culture (CARAP), Italiano lingua due n.2 (2012). Disponibile al sito: https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/promoitals/article/view/2824

Deutscher, G., 2010, Through the Language Glass: How words colour your world, New York, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Co.

Dodman, M., 2013, Linguaggio e plurilinguismo: apprendimento, curricolo e competenza. Trento, Erickson.

Keckses I., 2014, intercultural pragmatics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Levinson, S. C., 1997, “Language and cognition: the cognitive consequences of spatial description in Guugu Yimithirr”, in: Journal of Linguistic Antrhopology 7(1), 98-131.

Nettle, D. e S. Romaine, 2000, Vanishing voices, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Zorzi, D., 1996, “Dalla competenza comunicativa alla competenza comunicativa interculturale”, in: Babylonia 2(1996), 46-52. (disponibile on line: https://www.itals.it/alias/dalla-competenza-comunicativa-alla-competenza-comunicativa-interculturale)

https://www.sil.org 

https://www.ethnologue.com/ (this resource is more important as a repertoire of the languages of the World - families, number of speakers, etc.)

http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/ (this project collects data about languages that are currently at risk of disappearing)

https://www.soas.ac.uk/elar/ (this SOAS archive collects data on languages that risk extinction)

https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/home

http://lingvo.info/it

https://en.iyil2019.org/