Language and Culture

Frage	Antworten
Individualist Societies	prevalent in Europe, US emphasise personal achievement regardless of the expense of group goals rules promote individual goals, initiative,
Collectivist Societies	prevalent in Korea, Japan emphasise family and work group goals above individual needs/desires rules promote unity, selflessness, brotherhood
Low Context Cultures	e.g. GB low amount of shared background linguistic reflection: information needs to be spelled out directly/extensively
High Context Cultures	e.g. India high amount of shared background/expectations few needs to be spelled out; what is made explicit has much “weight” (shared background reflected in what is not said explicitly)
Linguistic Relativity	principle which holds that languages are laid out relative to their natural and socio-cultural environment languages/cultures differ in their linguistic representation of the worl typical stances: language reflects culture; language concepts/classifications influence thought
Face	negotiated public image, mutually granted to each other by participants in a communicated Event Positive face = desire to be appreciated Negative face = desire to be free from imposition interacting dimensions: e.g. involvement/closeness (signalled by use of given first names) vs. independence/distance (use of family names) face conventions vary across cultures, e.g. regarding use of given/family names or titles, physical contact/space
Direct Rule	often repressive e.g. French rule in West-African countries view of colonisers as teachers, Africans as pupils Assimilation politics (turning colonial subjects into French “citizens”) followed by association politics (binding colonial subjects to French language/culture)
Indirect Rule	laissez-faire appproach e.g. British rule in India view of society as growing/involving organism change through evolution; little determination to make educational efforts in order to spread English among the masses
Conceptual Metaphor	type of figurative expression used for cognitive processes that conceptualises one (source) domain in terms of another (target) domain e.g. SD “War”, TD “Emotion”, metaphor: “fighting one’s feelings”
Conceptual Metonymy	type of figurative expression used for cognitive processes that conceptualise a domain in terms of the same domain (single mapping rather than a set of mapping) e.g. D “Physiological responses to emotion”: “hot-headed” (body heat for anger)
Cultural Models of Time	all languages seem to make use of the conceptualisation of time in terms of space English, German, French betray general TIME-LINE model with a certain design (horizontal; left-to-right orientation; future ahead/ front and past behind) MOVING-TIME MOVING-EGO TEMPORAL-SEQUENCING
MOVING-TIME-MODEL	Ego is stationary, facing future (future in front/ past behind ego) events → located on the temporal matrix moving towards ego example: “The deadline is approaching”
MOVING-EGO-MODEL	ego moves through immobile temporal landscape, facing future (future in front/ past behind ego) events → locations in the temporal landscape example: “We are approaching the deadline”
TEMPORAL-SEQUENCING-MODEL	events → moving “in tandem”; located relative to each other rather than relative to the ego example: “Tuesday comes after Monday”
Spatial Frames of Reference (Deixis)	conceptualisations we use in order to locate us and objects in space: inherent/intrinsic orientation relative orientation absolute/landmark model
Inherent/Intrinsic Motivation	certain objects have a fixed/conventional front and back (e.g. cars, ships) possible perspective when localising an object: speaker as the centre of orientation
Relative Orientation	reference point is not necessarily the Speaker possible perspectives when localising an object: hearer as the centre of orientation; object as the centre of orientation (only if objects have an inherent/intrinsic orientation, e.g. not for trees)
Absolute/Landmark Model	e.g. north;south;east;west / e.g. uphill;downhill fairly restricted application in Western European languages (Jon is north of Jaime?)
H-Dropping	occurs in many non-standard accents (Cockney, SW-dialects) often comes with complementary hypercorrect h-Insertion affects “native” words (hunger, have) as well as historical loans (hospital, hotel) prominent target of “proper English” discourse since 19th century historically speaking, French loans with initial h had h-less pronunciation; modern h-full pronunciation is a product of hypercorrection
T-Glottaling	every t = glottal stop except in onset/syllable-initial positions hallmark feature of Cockney today: still highly stigmatised in intervocalic positionas, but spreading in syllable-final positions → may be employed as a protest against being associated w. elitist, conservative society (study among London school-girls)
Rhoticity	Rhotic accents: GenAmE, Scottish Eng /r/ is pronounced in all Environments GenAmE rhoticity = “colonial lag feature” (preserves r-realisation of 18th century English) actual renderings of /r/ (its allophones) vary widely + are socially/regionally diagnostic, e.g. alveoloar trill → Scotland, retroflex approximant → Hallmark GenAmE and CanE today: high social prestige in US
Non-Rhoticity	Non-rhotic accents: RP, African English, Australian English /r/ only in prevocalic position (i.e. not in syllable codas) Gradual development to non-rhoticity: Southern BE turned truly non-rhotic during 18/19th century non-rhotic RP [r] realisation: central-vowel-like rendering in coda position (r-vocalisation) today: associated with RP, high social prestige in UK

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Lisa Di Rosa vor fast 7 Jahre