In Russian it is exactly the same: Дамы и господа corresponds socioculturally and stylistically to Ladies and gentlemen, while мужчины и женщины is equivalent to men and women. The phrase: мальчики и девочки (boys and girls) is realized as a cliché if you try to reverse the order: девочки и мальчики (girls and boys) does not "sound smooth" at all.
The English phrase "my wife and I" is used in this particular order. In Russian both variants can be used: Моя жена и я (my wife and I), я моя жена (I and my wife) but the most common phrase is мы с женой (word-for-word translation: we with).
The most vivid and obvious examples illustrating the active function of language as a tool of culture naturally come from lexis - words, word-combinations, phrases, set expressions. The role of the latter which are, by definition, closely bound, regularly reproduced in speech is of special importance as they represent the common core of the language. Indeed, they are so often used that they become pan and parcel of human mind, consciousness, mentality which are. to a great extent, formed by them, though it is hardly ever realized.
The specific - national - vision of the world is reflected by them, on the one hand, and imposed by them on the language-user, on the other.
For instance, let us discuss the English set phrase “poor but honest”, "But" implies that the poor are expected to be dishonest. The corresponding Russian expression is бедный, но гордый (poor but proud). It, on the contrary, presupposes that the poor cannot be proud, they occupy the lowest place in the social hierarchy and therefore there is nothing to be proud of.
The Russian language, reflecting the Russian national character, abounds in words and word-combinations with the words denoting the country where you were born and grew up or with which you are historically connected: родина, отечество, отчизна. All of them as well as collocations (word-combinations) with them are quite lofty in style and add a certain solemnity to speech. The Russian language has a tendency to overstatement, while English has quite a reputation for its orientation on understatement. Consequently, it is no wonder that the English equivalent of the old Russian motto: за Бога, царя и отечество Is for God, my country and the tsar, where отечество is translated as country though the word fatherland/motherland does exist in English. The translation of Russian человек без родины is a man without a country. Russians feel more personal about their country and they call it наша страна (our country). Russian students of English are invariably surprised when they discover that English-speaking people generally use this country instead of our country. In Russian эта страна, в этой стране (this country) implies either that you are a foreigner or that you are very displeased with your country and show it openly.
In many ways the English language is more polite, more concerned about the feelings of the individual member of society than the Russian language. It is historically and socially determined, because the ideology of the Soviet Union was based on a concern for the collective, on the one hand, and an open neglect of the individual, on the other.
The English language is busy finding such new forms of linguistic expression which do not hurt the individual's feelings about race, age, sex, health, social status, etc.
Here are some examples of changes within the last 20 years in British and American English illustrating this point.
Old age pensioners > senior citizens;
Red Indian > Native American;
Negro > coloured > Black > African American / Afro American;
Invalid > handicapped > disabled > physically challenged.
Some of the changes are caused by political and or ideological reasons, by the wish to embellish the unpleasant facts of social life with euphemisms. For instance, poor people -> the disadvantaged; unemployed > unwaged: slums > substandard housing; bombing > air support; collateral damage > civilians killed accidentally by military action ;killing the enemy > servicing the target.
The development of the women's liberation movement is causing noticeable changes at different levels of language studies.
Indeed, words with "sexist" morphemes are ousted by neutral ones: chairman > chairperson; cameraman > camera operator; foreman > supervisor.
This last aspect - the commercial concern - is very important in a commercially oriented society. The cases described above illustrate the point: the attention to the feelings of passengers is based on the wish to attract. In the world of shopping the same trend is evident: that of taking every step (including linguistic steps) to attend to customers' needs, to spare their feelings, to attract the customer by a very careful choice of words.
For example, shop assistants never fail to mention the positive qualities of the goods they sell: real, genuine, natural, leather, uppers,(about shoes). At the same time, they skillfully avoid unpleasant opposites: if uppers are real genuine, natural then soles must be artificial, synthetic, not natural. But these words have negative connotations for the customer. Therefore none of these words is ever used in this kind of context. Instead, the pleasant-sounding word man-made is the habitual choice.
The Russian language in the USSR never cared about customer's feelings. In a situation of shortages of food and consumer goods there was no need for advertisements or language tricks. So the opposite of натуральный (natural) is just искусственный (artificial) or even синтетический (synthetic). Even now, the sudden avalanche of western goods of all kinds and the flood of western or western-type advertisements with their clumsy un-Russian translations have not changed the linguistic situation in the direction under discussion.
Russian food products are still stamped "годен до (дата) " which means eatable till, and then comes the date. It makes the product look uneatable the next day after the given date. The carefully chosen English Best before (date) does not prevent the customer from or buying – or eating! – the product as it implies that it is still good after the date – just not the very best.
Thus, to sum up, the difference between Russian and English comes from the difference in ideologies. Soviet Russia was oriented on the neglect of the individual and the support and development of the collective, therefore the Russian language shows no concern for the individual. The English language, on the contrary, concentrates its concern on the individual - sometimes naturally, sometimes commercially. However, the result is the same regardless of the cause - whether it comes from the heart or from the mind: under the influence of their language English-speaking people are more polite - at least publicly, socially - with one another, show good will and concern openly, verbally, with decent manners and a smile. It may have very little to do with their actual feelings but that is quite a different subject.
It is obvious that the difference between the sociocultural background of both societies (their vision of the world, mentality, ideology, national character) is quite significant. In some respect the American sociocultural ways reflected and formed by American English are closer to the Russian than to the British ones. This, by the way, when thoroughly investigated, may be used as objective proof of the popular idea (or, myth?) (at least, with Russians) that Americans and Russians have a lot in common.
Indeed, American ideology looks suspiciously similar to (surprise, surprise...) Soviet Russian ideology. The direct, loud, overstated propaganda of the advantages of the system, regime and ideology of the respective countries - the USA and USSR- the open, emphasized patriotism, the sacred cults of state emblems, the flag (here Americans surpass Soviet Russians), slogans -all these features are demonstrated by language facts. Being no politician or politologist one can see all this reflected by both languages. At the same time all these trends are very un-British, so in this respect the sociocultural differences between British and American English are greater than between American English and Russian.
Here are some examples illustrating the above statements. The persistent American set expression "Proud to be American" is close to the Soviet Russian; Советское – значит лучшее (Soviet means excellent).
The good old term, so famous or sometimes notorious all over the world: made in USA seems to sound too simple, ordinary, understated, so now more and more American goods have the somewhat overstated label: crafted with pride in USA. I found one on a pair of socks, and the contrast between the object and the wording reminded me very vividly the good old days in the Soviet Russia. It is next to impossible, however, to imagine a label like this in British English. This kind of blowing their own trumpets would be quite pro-Soviet Russian but quite un-British.
Slogans, in which the Soviet Russian used to abound, are popular in American English as a tool of mass culture: security is everybody's business, quality is everybody's job, etc.
Such a conventional, common American greeting as Have a nice day! aroused ironic remarks from British colleagues. The remarks concerned the too categorical character of "the American imperative", as the British put it. I must admit that it sounds pleasant to the Russian ear which is accustomed to public language imperatives but for the British ear it must be toned down
However, in spite of all these differences, it seems possible in this paper to discuss sociocultural aspects of ELT using a kind of universal English as the material for discussion without specifying the variety.
This aspect of the general problem of language as a tool of culture is also very important in the sphere of foreign language teaching because together with a foreign language or, rather, through a foreign language one penetrates into the world and culture of peoples using the language. So the learner of a foreign language, shaped already by the mother tongue, is being reshaped in the process of learning.
In this respect teachers of foreign languages who learn and teach these languages for many years are quite a vivid proof of this theoretical statement. Having worked in this field for more than 30 years I witness - in the same way as anybody working in this field - the difference between English, German and French departments of Russian educational institutions reflect very obviously the sociocultural influence of the languages they are associated with.
In the same way emigrants, even if they speak the language of their new country perfectly, are easily recognized by their old compatriots because they were once formed socioculturally by their mother tongue. Again I know this from my own experience of recognizing Russian emigrants all over the western world by their sociocultural mentality, reactions to situations, attitude to things and people and many similar features formed largely by the Russian language.
Talking about the dependence of the use of language on the knowledge of the world of its users it is important to dwell upon one more important aspect of the general problem of interaction of language and culture.
As has been mentioned above, the idea of the world picture reflected by language has been discussed by linguists and teachers for quite a number of years. And it always meant the primary world picture that is reflected by the language of native speakers. However, it is possible to introduce the concept of the secondary picture of the world that foreign speakers of a language create in the process of foreign language learning which, in its turn, determines their speech-production and communication. The secondary picture of the world is often based on the people who use it as their mother-tongue. This image is created by various social and cultural factors: mass media, songs, stories by travelers, jokes, etc.
2. Cultural Aspects in Foreign Language Teaching
Frederika Klippel
The question of culture learning within or in connection with foreign language is being widely discussed at the present time. I would like to look at this question in the context of FLT at schools. As a teacher trainer involved in preparing teachers of English for their work in language classrooms, at all types of schools at all levels, I would like to tie theory to practice. And for me, theoretical considerations of the place of cultural studies within foreign language learning have to apply to teaching-learning situations which involve pupils, of all ages, being taught general English language courses by non-native teachers of English. It is vital to keep this in mind if we want our theories to have an impact, to change and to improve English language learning.
One might look at the cultural side of foreign language teaching from two perspectives. The first is the outward view. In this we try and place English language teaching in our school system within a global framework of English language teaching worldwide. On the one hand, this perspective needs to take into account the role of English as the international language. Critical voices refer to 'linguistic imperialism' and 'linguicism'. On the other hand, English language teaching as foreign language teaching is part of teaching about the world, of global education, and should also reflect global issues. More and more foreign language educators urge the language teaching profession to take up the challenges of peace education, of education for human rights, of education for the environment and of education for language rights, most recently in a report prepared for UNESCO.
The second perspective is the inward view. It focuses on the relationship between language learning and culture learning. Foreign 'language learning implies and embraces culture learning. As foreign language educators and teacher trainers, we have to be aware of this relationship and suggest ways in which it may be reflected in English language teaching curricula and methods.
It seems to be generally accepted that language learning" and culture learning are linked. Learning a language therefore implies learning something about culture as well. One might even say that learning about another culture in depth is only possible by learning the language as well.
Cultural learning in the foreign language classroom touches three spheres: empathy and understanding, knowledge and communicative skill. A foreign language course which incorporates all three aspects trains its learners for intellectual competence and is likely to be an enriching experience.
Understanding the other
A great deal of thought has been given to analyzing the other, or the foreigner, in a range of academic disciplines: sociology, ethnology, philosophy, psychoanalysis and psychology, to name but a few. It is difficult to see in which way these theories may be applicable to foreign language learning in schools. School learning differs in significant ways from personal encounters with other cultures and with foreigners which form the foundation of philosophical and other studies. Further and more essentially, foreign language learning in schools is for children and adolescents, whose perceptions and reactions are not necessarily the same as those of adults. This important caveat should be kept in mind when we consider what it means to strive for an understanding of the other in our teaching.
The way in which we come into contact with the 'other' may play an important role. So far, I have tacitly assumed that meeting the 'other', the foreigner, happens as a personal encounter between individual people. But meeting the foreigner in the English Language classroom occurs mostly — and for a majority of pupils exclusively — through the medium of texts and pictures and the work of the teacher with these materials. Learning theory has taught us that experimental learning is superior to book learning in terms of retention and involvement, but we know little of the effects of these types of learning in terms of retention and involvement, the development of perception and understanding in children. It is important for teachers to know how children see cultural differences when they occur in factual or in fictional texts, in films or in role plays, or in real-life situations and personal encounters. It is even more important for teachers to know how they can help children in their learning and understanding. Especially with younger pupils, the teacher's personality and attitude towards the 'other' will certainly colour her pupils' perceptions and reactions.