In the first paper we established the influence that culture has on language and the subsequent influence that dominant cultures have on lesser cultures through intimate interaction. We used two historical examples of France and its cultural influence on both Russia (an invited influence from the Russian monarchy) and England (an uninvited influence as a result of the Norman invasion). Now we examine the consequences of language as a social institution utilizing the same subjects (France, Russia, and England). We begin with the definitions of key terms: Social Institution - “a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organizing relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment.” (Turner 1997: 6) Consequences - something that happens as a result of a particular action or set of conditions. Of the two aforementioned definitions, it is justifiable to say that one is very broad (Social Institution) and one is much more precise (Consequences). As we examine language from the lens of a social institution we can infer that all languages establish positions, roles, norms, and values with respect to social structures and human activity. It is fair to say that through the French’s influence on Russian and English culture and language, the French had a profound influence on those communities’ social structure (aristocracy, nobility, and commoners) as well as their human activity. Consequences of Language as a Social Institution in Russia Ultimately, language as a social institution caused the Russian revolutio... ... middle of paper ... ...ns 5. A free market system There is a direct correlation between the influence of French culture and language on English culture and language and the advent of capitalism in during the 17th and 18th century. The Industrial Revolution is directly related to the social institution of language which has direct influence from the French culture. Conclusion The French’s influence on Russian and English culture and language had a profound influence on those communities’ social structure (aristocracy, nobility, and commoners), as well as their human activity. This social institution/human activity played a large role in ultimately producing two of the most profound social systems known to man – Capitalism and Communism. French Culture and language is inextricably linked to the social institutions that currently govern most of the world’s developed countries populations.
The ideas of change in the French Revolution came from Jean- Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau, from his book, Discourse on the Moral Effect of the Arts and Sciences, had the idea that civilization corrupted people and had once said “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. His ideas were the beginning of socialism. He believed in the common good. More extremely, there was Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) who fueled ideas for the Russian Revolution. He was the Father of Communism, a more radical form of socialism. Those who followed Rousseau’s and Marx’s ideas felt that the...
There are many cumulative events that have influenced Western Civilization reflective in today’s modern world, but the most impactful was the French Revolution. Western Civilization has many historic milestones building to the world as we know it, but none set such broad themes that are felt in our everyday life. Many of these themes have become so ingrained into the way we live that we can’t understand a world without them. For this reason, the effects of the French Revolution molded the westernized world more so than any other event. I consider the French Revolution the catalyst to how our world is shaped today. It’s ideas and events continue to echo through our lives century after century.
Ryon effectively analyses the various texts by identifying that local knowledge shows evidence of a fight against language loss meanwhile, academic writings reveal the opposite. Ryon’s use of local knowledge in her article puts the ideas of her argument into practice by including unofficial forms of knowledge as evidence to support her argument. To make this statement even more clear and bold, Ryon should have included testimonies from local knowledge as evidence in the earlier three sections of her argument. It would have been beneficial to hear anecdotes from the French in Louisiana regarding their reaction to the ideas put forward by expert knowledge. In the first part of her essay, Ryon makes an assumption that the ideas put forward by expert discourse, primarily those that question the promotion of the language, is the reason why the “Louisinification” movement has not progressed very much since its introduction (p. 283). Ryon does not include anecdotes from the group involved in the creation of this movement to support this assumption; perhaps there is a lack of resources and not a lack of legitimization. There are also assumptions made on the reasons why the Cajun have chosen to assimilate to the dominant language stating that learning English for the Cajuns is a way for them,
Post World War Two political sociology theory assumed that the election, legislation, and social and foreign policy outcomes of states were shaped by social cleavages and interest groups. A large focus was put on power structure research and pluralism as well as value consensus and functionalist equilibrium. Then, later in the 1970s and 1980s, much of critical theory shifted toward culture and things like advertising, gender, and the media. These new approaches to political culture were met with severe criticism for their static nature and stereotyping of groups of people. However, Michel Foucalt was able to change critics’ viewpoint to see that cultural processes cause material outcomes. The authors explain that, “Foucault removed the critical aspect of determinism from his theories by talking about ‘what was possible’ in various social contexts between groups and people with varying levels of power/knowledge.” (CITE) The problem they see with this new cultural turn is that it leads from positivistic universalism into institutional and historical specification of theoretical domains and then into somewhere that theory serves only to regulate interpretation of certain events. The authors believe that the middle-range theory provides an appropriate middle point in this slippery slope. They also believe sociologists need to avoid cultural theorizing into particularism. Three different approaches are provided for new cultural sociology. The first of these is provided by Robert Wuthnow’s Communities of Discourse (CITE). He looks to environmental conditions, institutional contexts, and action sequences to show the way ideologies of change are produced. He then examines how subgroups of these ideologies are chosen for institutionalization into roles of world historic importance. Wuthnow’s main focus is on ideologies as change promoting
Whereas, the historical case refers to a contemporary society in which culture plays an unparalleled role in social relations and identities, it is therefore based on observations of changes in social life (Nash, 2001). The outcome of a loss in faith in modern narratives of progress through reason and science and the overall collapse of predominant norms and values is due to a strong emphasis which is placed on fragmentation and individualism (Nash, 2001). Hence, for the longest period structuralist-f...
There is no human language without socio-cultural context; meanwhile language resides inside each individual’s mind and as a result, linguistic interaction did not occur without the use of the language. Individuals do not create languages; they just use that one given to them by society. For Saeed (2009), language is the mirror of culture and it is determined by the categories available in speakers’ own language. Studies about relationship between language and culture and between language and thought have a long history and have placed a much conferred proposal to modern linguistic: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This hypothesis points out that influence of language on thought is only a component about such a complex web among language, culture and cognition. However, in essence, it leaves out the cultural pattern. Without language, a sort level of cultural development and cultural knowledge cannot exist, and, on the other hand, a high level of linguistic development could only exist through socio-cultural interaction.
Barker, C and Galasiński, D. (2001). Culture and Language. In: Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis. A Dialogue on Language and Identity, London: SAGE Publications Inc. p3-4.
Before reading the above essay, I assumed that languages were developed strictly in a Tower of Babel fashion - adaptation for survival. (To be sure, this was an aspect of developing language.) To ignore the role of politics in the development of language would be negligent, however.
Culture is constantly changing: the prevailing beliefs and trends of one period can vary substantially from those of another. A significant consequence of this cultural flux is gradual evolution in the meanings of some words. Since language is naturally tied to culture, it is not surprising that these changes occur. Words have meaning only in the context of the current social climate; therefore their definitions change synchronously with cultural progression. The meaning of the word gossip, for example, changed several times over, from its original definition of kindred relation to its present definition of empty talk. How did this progression take shape? As society adopted new trends and beliefs, the meaning of the word gossip changed from having religious connotations to having more social connotations.
We see people battling over the flight of a nation's social character, the dread of westernization, and the manage of social imperialism. Through subjects, for instance, these we explore the potential results or the nearness of hybridization of social orders and values, and what some vibe is the abuse of their legacy. One basic point of view that is not examined is that such effects can in like manner be more than just a weight and a surpassing of cutoff points. These components can make an enlightening circumstance and what's more one's own special reaffirmation
In order for society to meet the basic social needs of its members, social institutions, which are not buildings, or an organization or even people, but a system whose of social norms, mores and folkways that help make people feel important. Social institutions, according to our textbook, is defined as a fundamental component of this organization in which individuals, occupying defined statues, are “regulated by social norms, public opinion, law and religion” (Amato 2004, p.961). Social institutions are meant to meet people’s basic needs and enable the society to survive. Because social institutions prescribe socially accepted beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors, they exert considerable social control over individuals.
In a view of sociology, human society is inseparable from culture. In Gerrig (2010), he academically defined culture as “The share ways of life that facilitate the interaction and communication among social members, and yet at the same time classify and position them into different and unequal social categories”. That means culture is being communicated by thought, feeling and action. More significantly, the wordings of share, communication and social members are essential factors towards culture. It shows that culture is unique
To commence this discussion, it is first essential to establish an understanding surrounding the role of language in relation to national identity. Theoretically, the more power language has in this relation, the more powerful language planning may be when creating a national identity. However, the role language plays in this respect is somewhat problematic to define and has proven to be a debatable topic among nationalists, sociologists and sociolinguists. For instance, May demonstrates that ‘sociological commentators, unlike sociolinguists, have generally been loath to apportion a prominent role to language in the explanation of minority ethnic and national identity claims’ (2001: 8). Consequently emulating distaste from sociologists to credit language with significant power in a national identity. In a similar sense, de Vries notes that, in relation to a language community, ‘social scientists have generally ignored the systemic properties of language’ (1991: 39), thus, concurrently suggesting with May, a disagreement from the social sciences over the role of language in terms of identity and national identity. Similarly, circa the French revolution, the concept
Before 19th century, taste and class determined culture; it can be argued that they still do. Hierarchical rule was common, giving power to the monarch whose customs were superior to the poor and middle class and emphasized the outcome of a superior culture. Suggesting there ...
‘Language death’ does not always entail ‘language murder’. ‘Language death ' is when a community no longer speaks a language that they used to speak regularly. This may occur for many reasons such as social, economic, political and demographic factors. Along with the attitudes of the individuals within a community. ‘Language murder’ is when a community has happily left their language to die out and this can also be referred to as a shift in a language, which has the linguistic term, language shift. This is when a country will shift from using one language to another. This essay will look further into the reasons as to why some languages die.