Language, thought, and culture - реферат українською

Culture Bound. Edited by Joyce Merrill Valdes.

Cambridge Language Teaching Library. –

Cambridge University Press, 1998. – pp. 3-6.

In 1911 when Franz Boas published his Handbook of American Indian
Languages, he could not possibly have imagined that one day an excerpt
from it would serve as an introductory article in a book that might be
used in a course on teaching culture in foreign- and second-language
classes; in fact, the teaching of foreign languages at that time was far
removed from his sphere. Yet his work inspired a generation of
anthropologists and sociologists before the applied linguists took up
the subject of the effect of culture on languages and vice versa, and
shaped it to their own use. The process of learning more about the
interrelationship between culture and language within the native
environment led the way to consideration of the effect of a second
culture on second language learning.

The extent to which language, culture, and thought have influenced
one another, and which is the dominant aspect of communication, have
been matters of controversy for three quarters of a century; the
influence of the work of Boas, Sapir, Whorf, Hoijer, et al. is seen in
the amount of both speculation and careful research that has ensued.
Stated perhaps simplistically, the current consensus is that the three
aspects are three parts of a whole, and cannot operate independently,
regardless of which one most influences the other two. To see them as
three points in a constantly flowing circular continuum is surely more
accurate than, say, to see them as an isosceles triangle, with one
dominant over the other two. It is conceivable that the lack of
acceptance of artificial languages such as Esperanto may be explained by
their isolation of language from culture. Thought, in any real sense, is
very difficult to express without an underlying value system understood
tacitly by both the sender and the receiver in a communication, whether
both, one, or neither speaks the language natively, no matter how
scientifically successful the language may be. While it is true that an
artificial language may be a politically wise choice for intercultural
communication because it is offensive to none, on the other hand it is a
poor choice for a more basic reason: No one can feel, or therefore think
deeply, in an artificial language.

The research that has been produced in this century has evolved the
theory that a native culture is as much of an interference for second
language learners as is native language. Likewise, just as similarities
and contrasts in the native and target languages have been found to be
useful tools in language study, so cultural similarities and contrasts,
once identified and understood, can be used to advantage. Devotion to a
language other than one's own is quite common among those who venture
into other languages, most often with the connection in mind between the
language and the people who speak it. One says, "I love French – it's so

• А
• Б
• В
• Г
• Д
• Е
• Є
• Ж
• З
• И
• І
• Ї
• Й
• К
• Л
• М
• Н
• О
• П
• Р
• С
• Т
• У
• Ф
• Х
• Ц
• Ч
• Ш
• Щ
• Ю
• Я