The Relationship Between Language & Culture and the Implications for Language Teaching | nickchinlund.info
Culture and language shape one's identity and personality. This the importance of culture and language to one's individual identity. As Leveridge explains, each . why I believe that to be the case and also to very briefly introduce N. T. . explanation of cultural structuring, Kraft repeats the phrase “culture, including To consider the relationship between culture and worldview, we need to return to the. The relationship between language and culture is complex yet one is a part of the other. You learn the culture once you start learning a.
It does not expose itself on the surface, but it controls thought, life style, and social system. In the same way, world view influences religion. I would like to assert this opinion with this quotation: To this we might answer God, or the gods or the material cosmos.
And within various basic world views other issues often arise. For Instance, what is the nature of the external world? Who is in charge of this world? People really want to know the high being who holds this cosmos and controls human life. These concepts encourage people to seek supernatural beings and supernatural powers that would help human beings.
Symbols, rituals, and even myths may be involved. Specific practices of religious activities represent human beliefs. Behind these reflections, there might be particular world views. For instance, let me compare evolution theory and Christianity.
As I have quoted Tylor's opinion, religion evolved from animism to religion. The word animism from the Greek word anima", which means souls, implies a view about the soul that creates animism. But in Christianity, the Christian has a unique belief. This absolute belief is from revelation. God revealed Himself to Israelites as the creator, the savior, and almighty King.
It means there are plenty of religious practitioners. Because of these people, sometimes missionaries or Christian ministers encounter spiritual crisis.
Spiritual encounters may arise. The mission field is like a battle field. Whether we recognize it or not, the dangers are hidden in the context. Ma, in the book When the Spirit meets the Spirits, there are three phases of encounters: Not only must we talk about spiritual warfare, but we also need strategies to spread the kingdom's message, the good news about Jesus.
Proclaiming the gospel is the ultimate task for the Christian workers. One set of statistics tells about the percentage of the world religions: There may be changes. Some religions have more numbers, and some religions have few members. But I just want to cite a point that there are large numbers of mission fields in the world. Many people are waiting to hear the voice, spreading the good news.
We must reach those who are spiritually hungry. World view is the core of all areas of the human life. From this specific view, people or communities create particular beliefs, cultures, and life systems. That also affects religion. The effect of human needs is to set up a variety of religions and folk religions. Knowing the world view helps us to understand certain folk religion.
Relationship Between World View and Religion
Here are the values with some of the things Jandt mentions. Are humans essentially evil, not to be trusted, or are they good? Or are they a combination of both, perhaps born good but turned bad by circumstances, or a continual mixture of contradictions?
How you see human nature will likely determine your cultural choice of management style and level of supervision!
Do humans see themselves as controlled by the forces of nature and, inclusively by the deity or deities? If we live in harmony, we use only as much of nature as we need, but we, in turn, contribute to nature when we die. If we try to master nature, we try to control the future. Probably the first and second cultures tend to be more spiritual in nature, and the latter more secular. Where would you put the U. Some cultures focus predominantly on the past e.
What would the following behaviors tell you about time orientation: Clark tells us that these worldviews are tacitly communicated by "origin myths, narrative stories, linguistic metaphors, and cautionary tales", and that they "set the ground rules for shared cultural meaning. Here are some of the reasons they are important: If we make fundamentally different meaning of the world, then all of our attempts to improve communication or expand the pie of our material resources will fail because we may not be addressing our deeper differences that continue to fuel conflicts.
When worldviews are not in our awareness nor acknowledged, stronger parties in conflict may advertently or inadvertently try to impose their worldviews on others. Far more profound than trying to impose a particular solution to a conflict or a way of communicating, the imposition of a worldview can be destructive to a whole way of life. For example, when Europeans first came to North Americathey labeled First Nations and Native American ways of life as 'backward' and 'primitive'.
With this evaluative ranking, they justified imposing new ways of life on the indigenous peoples in North America. The painful and destructive legacy of this perspective continues today. Since worldviews contain and shape cultures shared starting points and currencies or valuesworking effectively across cultures requires some understanding of the soil from which cultures come -- the seedbed called worldviews.
Worldviews can be resources for understanding and analyzing conflicts when fundamental differences divide groups of people. By looking at the stories, rituals, myths, and metaphors used by a group, we can learn efficiently and deeply about group members' identities who they see themselves to be and meanings what matters to them and how they make meaning. When we do this with each side to a conflict, places of connection and divergence may become clearer, leading to a better understanding of the conflict in context.
Worldviews, with their embedded meanings, can be the seedbed from which new shared meanings emerge. If we make fundamentally different meaning of the world, then all of our attempts to improve communication or expand the pie of our material resources will fail because we may not be addressing our deeper differences that continue to fuel conflicts: In intractable conflicts, the usual problem-solving approaches do not work. Intractable conflicts tend to have complex issues, histories of problematic communication, and worldview differences that are largely unacknowledged.
Here is an example from a problem-solving process to create a set of understandings about a sensitive wilderness area. The process brought representatives of local business, local communities, government, scientists, recreation outfitters and guides, and conservation groups together with a facilitator.Culture for b. Ed students
They worked to develop over a hundred consensus recommendations about the area. On the surface, the process was a success. Yet, significant levels of disagreement still existed in the community.
Cultural and Worldview Frames
While this was to be expected, there was no way to surface or discuss some of these differences because they related not only to different views about what should or should not be done in the valley, but to different worldviews -- different ways of seeing the valley and people's relationships to it. Analysis of the problem-solving process showed that participants had worked according to a dominant understanding of the valley, reflected in the metaphors that were frequently used.
Scientists, government representatives, recreation outfitters and guides, and local business leaders all referred to the valley as a precious resource to be shared, preserved and used. Sometimes the metaphors of farming or ranching were implied, as representatives spoke of managing, returning areas to wilderness, and protecting wildlife corridors.
At other times, the metaphor of banking and trusts was invoked as participants spoke of investing in the future of the valley, discharging a trust as stewards of capital that should not be spent, but grown and protected.
As diverse as these metaphors are, they have some things in common. To some extent, they contemplate use and active management. Resources are to be exploited and preserved for future profit. Implicit in this metaphor is the assumption of human status, wisdom and entitlement to regulate the natural ecosystem.
Farms or ranches exist to produce products to market, and require careful attention and cultivation. If the product in this case is tourism, it has to be marketed just as soybeans or rice are sold on world markets. Banks and trusts manage investments, seek high yields, and divide balance sheets into various accounts and commodities.
So, the economic effects of any decisions on local business and residents were important considerations at the table. What was missing from these metaphors? The metaphor of the conservationist of the trees in the valley as the 'hair of mother earth' was unspoken.
It was unspoken because the discussions during the problem-solving process fit a particular, dominant worldview, and excluded the one favored by a member of the group who had a minority perspective. In this process, attempts to expand the pie of options or improve communication through getting people to paraphrase, restate, or listen actively did not reach the deeper level of difference -- the worldview level. Far more profound than trying to impose a particular solution to a conflict or a way of communicating, the imposition of a worldview can be destructive to a whole way of life: In the example given above, the dominant worldview related to the "normality" of developing and using the wilderness area.
With this assumption widely shared in the group, an alternative assumption that would lead to either limited access or no use did not find credence. It was not just a question of the person holding the divergent worldview needing to be more assertive in the problem-solving process. Rather, it was a question of what was considered 'reasonable' and 'rational' within the process. The process as it was constructed did not make room for radically different perspectives.
From this, we can see that conflict resolution processes themselves are influenced by worldviews. When these worldviews are not articulated or recognized, they can act to implicitly screen out differing worldviews to the detriment of those who want to arrive at durable outcomes that reflect a wide range of views.
To test this example, consider your response to someone who puts forward an idea that seems outrageous or outside the bounds of what is reasonable or possible.