Culture could not exist without language, for language itself is part of culture. Over millions of years, human beings have evolved the anatomy necessary to produce and receive sounds; in a much shorter span of time, we have created a cultural system in which those sounds have taken on meaning by representing things, feelings, and ideas. This combination of evolution and culture has led to the development that enables us to share our internal states with other human beings (Samovar 1998: 120). Culture, on the other hand, influences our oral expressions, while in reverse, language will also format our cultural directions, as summed up a hypothesis by Whorf (1958). The background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual's mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade. Formulation of ideas is not an independent process and strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar and differs, to varying degrees, between different grammars. We dissect nature along the lines laid down by our native language. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena are not found out because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds, and this means largely by the linguistic system in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significance as we do so, largely because we are
parties of an agreement to organize it in this way, an agreement that holds through our speech community and is codified in the one, patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, implicit and unstated, but its terms are obligatory: we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.
It is apparent that culture, as an ingrained set of behaviours and modes of perception, becomes highly important in the learning of a second language. In an era in which globalisation ties people together more and more closely, explicit understanding of different cultures reveals its importance to us. The author cannot help remembering an excerpt from an issue on “Chinese literature” in the "New Standard Encyclopaedia" published in 1940, which is an incredible example of a cultural misunderstanding by western people as a result of a stereotype:
The Chinese language is monosyllabic and uninflectional. …With a language so incapable of variation, a literature cannot be produced which possesses the qualities we look for and admire in literary works. Elegance, variety, beauty of imagery, these must all be lacking. A monotonous and wearisome language must give rise to a forced and formal literature lacking in originality and interesting in its subject matter only. Moreover, a conservative people…profoundly reverencing all that is old and formal, and hating
innovation, must leave the impressions of its own character upon its literature (Volume VI)
The study of culture has been a traditional part of school curricula in western countries. Sometimes it has taken the form of special courses, such as Civilisation in France, Landeskunde in Germany, and Civilta in Italy (Tomalin et Stempleski, 1993). These courses emphasize the big “C” elements of British and American culture, history, geography, institutions, literature, art, music, and the way of life.
Language, a small Culture component, awakened the interest of linguists in the research of culture in the micro paradigm. It gave rise to the famous Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:
‘Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of
social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression in their society…We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation’ (Sapir, 1958:69)
‘…the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds – and this means largely by the linguistic system in our minds.’ (Whorf 1940:213)
If the hypothesis reflects a true phenomenon for human society, one conclusion we may reach is that language is playing an important role in cultural communication, and that this fact should be put into consideration in culture-related study.
Grice (1989) placed his cultural interests in the context of pragmatics, from which he argued that human conversations should follow the cooperative principle with four essential maxims in order to approach successful verbal communication. These maxims are the maxim of quantity, i.e. the individual shall make the contribution to the conversation as informative as necessary and not make the contribution more informative than necessary; the maxim of quality, i.e. people shall not say what they believe to be false, shall tell the truth and not say that for which they lack adequate evidence; the maxim of relevance, i.e. one should say things related to their conversation; and the maxim of manner, i.e. in conversation people shall avoid obscurity of expression and ambiguity.
Critics have argued that Grice’s four maxims do not fall within high context culture, but low context culture. There is even some doubt as to whether the four maxims cover all purposes for human conversation.
Leech (1983) developed Grice’s cooperative principle (CP), and pointed out that:
The CP in itself cannot explain a) why people are often so indirect in conveying what they mean, and b) what is the relation between sense and force when non-declarative types of sentences are being considered. (1983:80)
Thus, he suggested a Politeness Principle for human conversation, as follows: Minimize (other things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs.
Maximize (other things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs.
To meet the above principle, Leech (1983) gave six maxims to support his theory, namely the tact maxim, the generosity maxim, the approbation maxim, the modesty maxim, the agreement maxim and the sympathy maxim.
Sociolinguists like Grice and Leech presented a new paradigm in terms of language and culture. The cooperative principle illustrates a universal internal construct in human communication, such as the maxim of manner and certain social restraints. Leech’s theory emphasised the social function of language, saying that human speakers use language according to rules of politeness. Since then, other linguists (Brown & Levinson, 1978) have been trying to set up their theories in respect of his politeness study. One controversial point is that even human politeness is confined within corresponding social patterns; Leech and Brown seemed to ignore the cultural impact when one language, e.g. English, is used in different cultural circumstances. Thus the politeness principle may not be applied to all situations, for which some scholars (Hill et al, 1986) have argued and presented their empirical evidence. For example, one researcher into Japanese politeness suggested that Leech’s Tact and Generosity Maxims did not meet the Japanese politeness criteria.