Topic 4: Language, Society, and Culture

Activity 11: Reading – Language, Society, and Culture

Please read the following text which introduces you to how language, society and culture interconnect.

^{This activity contains text from 3.4: Language, Society, and Culture which is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform. Minor changes for readability, to add Canadian context, and to add illustrations as cited from other sources.}

Society and culture influence the words that we speak, and the words that we speak influence society and culture. Such a cyclical relationship can be difficult to understand, but many of the examples throughout this unit help illustrate this point. One of the best ways to learn about society, culture, and language is to seek out opportunities to go beyond our typical comfort zones. These opportunities include studying abroad, going on a service trip to needy communities, dining with families from different cultures, or visiting restaurants with unfamiliar cuisine.

Language and Social Context

We arrive at meaning through conversational interaction, which follows many social norms and rules. Rules are explicitly stated conventions (“Look at me when I’m talking to you.”) and norms are implicit (saying you’ve got to leave before you actually do to politely initiate the end to a conversation). To help conversations function meaningfully, we have learned social norms and internalized them to such an extent that we do not often consciously enact them. Instead, we rely on routines and roles (as determined by social forces) to help us proceed with verbal interaction, which also helps determine how a conversation will unfold. Our various social roles influence meaning and how we speak. For example, a person may say, “As a longtime member of this community…” or “As a first-generation college student…” Such statements cue others into the personal and social context from which we are speaking, which helps them better interpret our meaning.

One social norm that structures our communication is turn taking. People need to feel as if they are contributing something to an interaction, so turn taking is a central part of how conversations play out (Crystal, 2005, p. 155). Although we sometimes speak at the same time as others or interrupt them, there are numerous verbal and nonverbal cues, almost like a dance, that are exchanged between speakers that let people know when their turn will begin or end. Conversations do not always neatly progress from beginning to end with shared understanding along the way. There is a back and forth that is often verbally managed through rephrasing (“Let me try that again,”) and clarification (“Does that make sense?”) (Crystal, 2005, p. 155).

We also have units of speech that facilitate turn taking. Adjacency pairs are related communication structures that come one after the other (adjacent to each other) in an interaction (Crystal, 2005, p. 155). For example, questions are followed by answers, greetings are followed by responses, compliments are followed by a thank-you, and informative comments are followed by an acknowledgment. These are the skeletal components that make up our verbal interactions, and they are largely social in that they facilitate our interactions. When these sequences don’t work out, confusion, miscommunication, or frustration may result.

Some conversational elements are highly scripted or ritualized, especially the beginning and end of an exchange and when the topic of conversation changes (Crystal, 2005, p. 155). Conversations often begin with a standard greeting and then proceed to “safe” exchanges about things in the immediate field of experience of the communicators (a comment on the weather or noting something going on in the general area). At this point, once the ice is broken, people can move on to other more content-specific exchanges. Once conversing, before we can initiate a topic change, it is a social norm that we let the current topic being discussed play itself out or continue until the person who introduced the topic seems satisfied. We then usually try to find a relevant tie-in or segue that acknowledges the previous topic, in turn acknowledging the speaker, before moving on. Changing the topic without following such social conventions might indicate to the other person that one is not listening or is simply rude.

Social norms influence how conversations start and end and how speakers take turns to keep the conversation going.

Ending a conversation is similarly complex. We’ve probably all been in a situation where we are “trapped” in a conversation that we need or want to leave. Just walking away or ending a conversation without engaging in socially acceptable “leave-taking behaviours” would be considered a breach of social norms. Topic changes are often places where people can leave a conversation, but it is still routine for us to give a reason for leaving, often in an apologetic tone (whether we mean it or not). Generally though, conversations come to an end through the cooperation of both people, as they offer and recognize typical signals that a topic area has been satisfactorily covered or that one or both people need to leave. It is customary in Canada for people to say they have to leave before they actually do and for that statement to be either dismissed or ignored by the other person until additional leave-taking behaviours are enacted. When such cooperation is lacking, an awkward silence or abrupt ending can result. Silence is not viewed as awkward in some cultures, which leads us to our discussion of cultural context.

Language and Cultural Context

Culture isn’t solely determined by a person’s native language or nationality. It is true that languages vary by country and region and that the language we speak influences our realities, but even people who speak the same language experience cultural differences because of their various intersecting cultural identities and personal experiences. We have a tendency to view our own language as a whole more favourably than other languages. Although people may make persuasive arguments regarding which languages are more pleasing to the ear or difficult or easy to learn than others, no singular language enables speakers to communicate more effectively than another (McCornack, 2007, p. 224–25).

From birth we are socialized into our various cultural identities. As with social context, this acculturation process is a combination of explicit and implicit lessons. A child in Colombia, which is considered a more collectivist country in which people value group membership and cohesion over individualism, may not be explicitly told, “You are a member of a collectivistic culture, so you should care more about the family and community than yourself.” This cultural value would be transmitted through daily actions and through language use. Just as babies acquire knowledge of language practices at an astonishing rate in their first two years of life, so do they acquire cultural knowledge and values that are embedded in those language practices. Even at early stage of infants’ development, when most babies are babbling and just learning to recognize but not wholly reproduce verbal interaction patterns, a Colombian baby would sound different from a Brazilian baby, even though neither would actually be using words from their native languages of Spanish and Portuguese (Crystal, 2005, p. 155).

The language(s) that we speak plays an important role in shaping our reality. When comparing languages, we can see differences in how we are able to talk about the world. In English, we have the words grandfather and grandmother, but no single word that distinguishes between a maternal grandfather and a paternal grandfather. But in Swedish, there’s a specific word for each grandparent: morfar is mother’s father, farfar is father’s father, farmor is father’s mother, and mormor is mother’s mother (Crystal, 2005, p. 155). In this example, we can see that the words available to us, based on the language we speak, influence how we talk about the world due to differences in and limitations of vocabulary. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is the notion that language shapes our view of reality and our cultural patterns. Although some scholars argue that our reality is determined by our language, we will take a more qualified view and presume that language plays a central role in influencing our realities but doesn’t determine them (Martin & Nakayama, 2010, p. 222–24).

Culturally influenced differences in language and meaning can lead to some interesting encounters, ranging from awkward to informative to disastrous. In terms of awkwardness, you have likely heard stories of companies that failed to exhibit communication competence in their naming and/or advertising of products in another language. For example, in Taiwan, Pepsi used the slogan “Come Alive with Pepsi” only to later find out that when translated it meant, “Pepsi brings your ancestors back from the dead” (Mikkelson, 2000). Similarly, American Motors introduced a new car called the Matador to the Puerto Rico market only to learn that Matador means “killer,” which wasn’t very comforting to potential buyers (Time, 1970). One of the most publicized and deadliest cross-cultural business mistakes occurred in India in 1984. Union Carbide, an American company, controlled a plant used to make pesticides. The company underestimated the amount of cross-cultural training that would be needed to allow the local workers, many of whom were not familiar with the technology or language/jargon used in the instructions for plant operations to do their jobs. This lack of competent communication led to a gas leak that immediately killed more than two thousand people and over time led to more than five hundred thousand injuries (Varma, 2012).

Accents and Dialects

Dialects are versions of languages that have distinct words, grammar, and pronunciation. Accents are distinct styles of pronunciation (Lustig & Koester, 2006, p. 199–200). There can be multiple accents within one dialect. For example, people in Newfoundland speak a dialect characterized by remnants of the linguistic styles of southeast Ireland. Similarly, the dialect in Nova Scotia comes from immigrants from Scotland and Ireland.

The accents within each area of these provinces is also distinguishable — someone from Cape Breton may sound different from someone from Halifax. Similarly, words for common objects or practices differ by province in Canada. The 10 and 3 (2017) identified the word for a vacation home, often used in the summer, as either a cottage, cabin, camp, chalet, or bungalow depending upon where someone lives in Canada. Most people in Canada would call a hooded sweatshirt a hoodie, while in Alberta, it is called a bunnyhug (but only in Alberta!).

Research shows that people tend to think more positively about others who speak with a dialect similar to their own and think more negatively about people who speak differently. Of course, many people think they speak normally and perceive others to have an accent or dialect. Although dialects include the use of different words and phrases, it’s the tone of voice that often creates the strongest impression. For example, a person who speaks with an accent from the American south may perceive a New Englander’s accent to be grating, harsh, or rude because the pitch is more nasal and the rate of speech comparatively fast. Conversely, a New Englander may perceive a Southerner’s accent to be syrupy and slow, leading to an impression that the person speaking is uneducated or uninterested.

Activity 12: Personal Reflection Journal – Reflection Question 8

Please save your response in a separate file so you can refer to it later in the course.

^{This activity contains text from 3.4: Language, Society, and Culture which is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform. Minor changes for readability.}

Customs and Norms

Social norms are culturally relative. The words used in politeness rituals in one culture can mean something completely different in another. For example, thank you in American and Canadian English acknowledges receiving something (a gift, a favour, a compliment), in British English it can mean “yes” similar to American English’s yes, please, and in French merci can mean “no” as in “no, thank you.” Additionally, what is considered a powerful language style varies from culture to culture. Confrontational language, such as swearing, can be seen as powerful in Western cultures, even though it violates some language taboos, but would be seen as immature and weak in Japan (Wetzel, 1988).

Communication Accommodation and Code-Switching

Communication Accommodation theory explores why and how people modify their communication to fit situational, social, cultural, and relational contexts (Giles et al., 1973). The theory identifies that conversational partners may use convergence, meaning that a person makes their communication more like another person’s. People who are accommodating in their communication style are seen as more competent, which illustrates the benefits of communicative flexibility. In order to be flexible, of course, people have to be aware of and monitor their own and others’ communication patterns. Conversely, conversational partners may use divergence, meaning that a person uses communication to emphasize the differences between their conversational partner and themselves.

Convergence and divergence can take place within the same conversation and may be used by one or both conversational partners. Convergence functions to make others feel at ease, to increase understanding, and to enhance social bonds. Divergence may be used to intentionally make another person feel unwelcome or perhaps to highlight a personal, group, or cultural identity. For example, sometimes Black people use certain verbal communication patterns when communicating with other Black people. This allows them to create group solidarity and recognize their identity. In situations in which multiple races are interacting, people usually don’t use the same patterns that they would if they were only with their own race. Instead, they accommodate the language patterns of the larger group. While communication accommodation might involve anything from adjusting how fast or slow you talk to how long you speak during each turn, code-switching refers to changes in accent, dialect, or language (Martin & Nakayama, 2010, p. 222–24).

There are many reasons that people might code-switch. Some people hire vocal coaches or speech-language pathologists to help them alter their accent. If someone thinks that their accent is leading others to form unfavourable impressions, they can consciously change their accent with much practice and effort. Once their ability to speak without their accent is honed, they may be able to switch very quickly between their native accent when speaking with friends and family and their modified accent when speaking in professional settings.

Activity 13: Video – Ways to Speak English

Please watch the following video.

Jamila Lyiscott addresses what it means to be “articulate” and describes how she code switches as a “tri-tongued orator.” In the spoken-word essay here, she both celebrates and challenges the three different ways in which she communicates with her friends, at school, and with her family. As you watch this TED talk, think about if and when you code-switch, and why. Do you use specific words around friends that you wouldn’t around your parents or children, for example? Do you have culturally relevant words that you use in specific instances? This video is helpful in identifying dialects and accents that you may use intentionally.

3 Ways to Speak English; Jamilia Lyiscott [duration 7:20]
(TEDSalon NY, 2014) CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International

Activity 14: Interactive – Communication Accommodation Activity

Please complete the following activity. After you complete the activity, please continue to read the text.

^{This activity contains text from 3.4: Language, Society, and Culture which is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform. Minor changes for readability, to add Canadian context, and to add illustrations as cited from other sources.}

People who work or live in multilingual settings may code-switch many times throughout the day, or even within a single conversation. Increasing outsourcing and globalization have produced heightened pressures for code-switching. For example, call center workers in India and the Philippines have faced negative reactions from English-speaking customers who insist on “talking to someone who speaks English.” Although many people learn English in schools — particularly as a result of British colonization — some people who want to get their cable package changed or book an airline ticket immediately are not open to speaking to someone who has a different accent than their own. Some call center workers are going through intense training to be able to code-switch and accommodate the speaking style of their customers. What is being called “Anglo-Americanization” entails “accent-neutralization,” including lessons on American culture (often by watching American television programs), and adopting Anglo-American-sounding names like Sean and Peggy (Pal, 2004). As our interactions continue to occur in more multinational contexts, the expectations for code-switching and accommodation are likely to adjust. It is important for us to consider the intersection of culture and power and think critically about the ways in which expectations for code-switching may be based on cultural biases.

Language and Cultural Bias

In the previous example about code-switching and communication accommodation in call centers, the move toward accent neutralization is a response to the “racist abuse” these workers receive from customers (Nadeem, 2011). Anger in western countries about job losses and economic uncertainty has increased the amount of racially targeted verbal attacks on international call center employees. It has been reported that more call center workers are now quitting their jobs as a result of the verbal abuse and that 25% of workers who have recently quit say such abuse was a major source of stress (Gentleman, 2005). Such verbal attacks are not new; they represent a common but negative way that cultural bias explicitly manifests in our language use.

Cultural bias is a skewed way of viewing or talking about a group that is typically negative. Bias has a way of creeping into our daily language use, often under our awareness. Culturally biased language can make reference to one or more cultural identities, including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and ability. There are other sociocultural identities that can be the subject of biased language, but we will focus our discussion on these five. Much biased language is based on stereotypes and myths that influence the words we use. Bias is both intentional and unintentional, but as ethical communicators, we have to be accountable for what we say even if we didn’t “intend” a particular meaning. Remember, meaning is generated; it doesn’t exist inside our thoughts or words.

Race

People sometimes use euphemisms for race that illustrate bias because the terms are often implicitly compared to the dominant group (American Psychological Association, 2010, p 71–76). For example, referring to a person as “urban” or a neighbourhood as “inner city” can be an accurate descriptor, but when such words are used as a substitute for racial identity, they illustrate cultural biases that equate certain races with cities and poverty. Using adjectives like articulate or well-dressed in statements such as, “My Black coworker is articulate” reinforces negative stereotypes even though these words are typically viewed as positive. Terms like nonwhite set up whiteness as the norm, which implies that white people are the norm against which all other races should be compared. Biased language also reduces the diversity in racial groups—for example, referring to anyone who looks as if they are of Asian descent as Chinese or everyone who “looks” Latino/a as Mexicans. Some people with racial identities other than white, including people who are multiracial, use the label person/people of colour to indicate solidarity among groups. However, many people of colour still prefer a more specific reference when being addressed as an individual or specific racial group.

Gender

Language has a tendency to exaggerate perceived and stereotypical differences between men and women. The use of the term opposite sex presumes that men and women are opposites, like positive and negative poles of a magnet. A term like other gender doesn’t presume opposites and acknowledges that male and female identities and communication are more influenced by gender, which is the social and cultural meanings and norms associated with males and females, than sex, which is the physiology and genetic makeup of a male and female. One key to avoiding gendered bias in language is to avoid the generic use of he when referring to something relevant to males and females. Instead, you can use the gender-neutral pronouns they or their (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 71–76).

The following word pairs show gender-biased terms followed by unbiased terms: waitress / server, chairman / chair or chairperson, mankind / people, cameraman / camera operator, mailman / postal worker, sportsmanship / fair play. Common language practices also tend to infantilize women but not men, when, for example, women are referred to as chicks, girls, or babes. Because there is no linguistic equivalent that indicates the marital status of men before their name, using Ms. instead of Miss. or Mrs. helps reduce bias. It is also helpful to avoid qualifying jobs, such as “female doctor” or “male nurse” because doing so infers that doctors are by default male and nurses are by default female. We are best to state an occupation without prefacing it by a specific gender.

Age

Language that includes age bias can be directed toward older or younger people. Descriptions of younger people often presume recklessness or inexperience, while those of older people presume frailty or disconnection. The term elderly generally refers to people over sixty-five, but it has connotations of weakness, which isn’t accurate because there are plenty of people over sixty-five who are stronger and more athletic than people in their twenties and thirties. Even though it is generic, seniors doesn’t really have negative implications. More specific words that describe groups of older people include grandmothers/grandfathers (even though they can be fairly young, too), retirees, or people over sixty-five (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 71–76). Referring to people over the age of eighteen as boys or girls isn’t typically viewed as appropriate; they are men and women.

Age bias can appear in language directed toward younger or older people.

Sexual Orientation

Discussions of sexual and affectional orientation range from everyday conversations to contentious political and personal debates. Negative stereotypes that have been associated with sexuality, including deviance, mental illness, and criminal behaviour, continue to influence our language use (American Psychological Association, n.d.). Terminology related to gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) people is important, so let’s spend some time raising our awareness about labels. First, sexual orientation is the term preferred to sexual preference. Preference suggests a voluntary choice, as in someone has a preference for cheddar or American cheese, which doesn’t reflect the experience of most LGBTQ2S+ people or research findings indicating that sexuality is more complex. You may also see affectional orientation included with sexual orientation because it acknowledges that LGBTQ2S+ relationships, like heterosexual relationships, are about intimacy and closeness (affection) that is not exclusively sexually based. Most people also prefer the labels gay, lesbian, or bisexual to homosexual, which is clinical and doesn’t so much refer to an identity as a sex act.

Language regarding romantic relationships contains bias when heterosexuality is assumed. Keep in mind that individuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same gender in some states, provinces, or countries. For example, if you ask a gay man who has been in a committed partnership for ten years if he is “married or single,” how should he answer that question? Given that many LGBTQ2S+ people have faced and continue to face discrimination, they may be cautious about disclosing their identities. However, using gender neutral terminology like partner and avoiding other biased language mentioned previously may create a climate in which a LGBTQ2S+ person feels comfortable disclosing their orientation and/or gender identity. Conversely, the casual use of phrases like that’s gay to mean “that’s stupid” may create an environment in which LGBTQ2S+ people do not feel comfortable. Campaigns like “ThinkB4YouSpeak.com” try to educate people about the power that language has and how we should all be more conscious of the words we use.

Ability

People with disabilities make up a diverse group that has increasingly come to be viewed as a cultural/social identity group. People without disabilities are often referred to as able-bodied. Disability is preferred to the word handicap. Just because someone is disabled doesn’t mean they are also handicapped. Ignoring the environment as the source of a handicap and placing it on the person fits into a pattern of reducing people with disabilities to their disability exclusively—for example, calling someone a paraplegic instead of a person with paraplegia. In many cases, as with sexual orientation, race, age, and gender, verbally marking a person as disabled isn’t relevant and doesn’t need spotlighting. Language used in conjunction with disabilities also tends to portray people as victims of their disability and paint pictures of their lives as gloomy, dreadful, or painful. Such descriptors are often generalizations or completely inaccurate.

Activity 15: Personal Reflection Journal – Reflection Question 9

Please save your response in a separate file so you can refer to it later in the course.

^{This activity contains text from 3.4: Language, Society, and Culture which is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Anonymous via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform. Minor changes for readability.}

Media Attributions

Christina@wocintechchat.com. (2019, November 11). Two people in conversation [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/two-women-taking-selfies-9kJ2H8wvVa4

Lino, J. (2018, December 6). Young girl and older an arm-in-arm [Photograph]. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/mens-white-dress-shirt-snDUMdYF7o8

TEDSalon NY. (2014, February). 3 ways to speak English: Jamila Lyiscott [Video]. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/jamila_lyiscott_3_ways_to_speak_english?language=en

References

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Supplemental material: Writing clearly and concisely. https://supp.apa.org/style/pubman-ch03.00.pdf

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.).

Anonymous. (n.d.). Section 3.4: Language, society, and culture. In Introduction to communication. LibreTexts. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Communication/Introduction_to_Communication/Communication_in_the_Real_World_-_An_Introduction_to_Communication_Studies/03%3A_Verbal_Communication/3.04%3A_Language_Society_and_Culture

Autos: American’s moment of truth. (1970, October 26). Time. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/come-alive/

Crystal, D. (2005). How language works: How babies babble, words change meaning, and languages live or die. Overlook Press.

Dindia, K. (1987). The effect of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions. Human Communication Research, 13(3), 345–71.

Dindia, K., Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 106–24.

Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. (n.d.). Regulation of fighting words and hate speech. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/hatespeech.htm.

Gentleman, A. (2005, May 29). Indian call staff quit over abuse on the line. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/may/29/india.ameliagentleman

Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R. (1973). Toward a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language and Society, 2(2), 177–92.

Lustig, M. W., & Koester, J. (2006). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Intercultural communication in contexts (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

McCornack, S. (2007). Reflect and relate: An introduction to interpersonal communication. Bedford/St Martin’s.

Mikkelson, B. (2000, June 12). Pepsi brings back ancestors. Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/come-alive/

Nadeem, S. (2011, February 9). Accent neutralisation and a crisis of identity in India’s call centres. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/feb/09/india-call-centres-accent-neutralisation

Roy, S. B. (2006, June 28). Indian by day, American by night. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/calcutta-times/indian-by-day-american-by-night/articleshow/1686159.cms

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2019, February 19). New hate map helps users explore landscape of hate. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/hate-map.

The ten and three. (2017). https://www.the10and3.com/

Varma, S. (2010, June 20). Arbitrary? 92% of all injuries termed minor. The Times of India. articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2010-06-20/india/28309628_1_injuries-gases-cases

Waltman, M., & Haas, J. (2011). The communication of hate. Peter Lang Publishing.

Wetzel, P. J. (1988). Are ‘powerless’ communication strategies the Japanese norm? Language in Society, 17(4), 555–64.

Wierzbicka, A. (2004). The English expressions good boy and good girl and cultural models of child rearing. Culture and Psychology, 10(3), 251–78.