Language and Culture

“Culture is not static; It evolves as people conduct their daily lives” (Hinkel 77). Language is not directly dynamic to culture, not is culture directly dynamic to language. However this is not to say that the two are not related at all. English lexicon across cultures may be similar, though the rhetoric that English language is used for may differ across cultures. For example, the persuasive essay does not exist as a common standard in India . (Hinkel 76). Instead of aiming to convince the reader of a point the writer exposes many examples to the reader and lets them decide in the end what to believe. Also according to Silva’s research,

NES subjects preferred explaining how something happened, using specific detail and organizing information in a text to form a theme-rheme pattern (recalling Kaplan'snotion of a linear pattern) and that they strongly preferred to reintroduce information from earlier in the text to develop another aspect of it. The native Japanese-speaking subjects preferred to explain why something happened, immediately repeating facts or ideas for emphasis, and to include only logically related information. (Silva)

“…successful communication may depend on socio-cultural factors…” (Hinkel 77). Cultural rhetoric is interpreted in the context of the speaker and may not always be understood by the reader or listener. In this section Hinkel concentrates on Indian CR verses Anglo-American CR. There are differing genres, such as short poems called geet and wedding invitations that differ across these cultures even though both may use the same vernacular of English. I find this interesting that culture is not directly related to the language that is used. Also, I find myself wondering how these differences in CR come about. Silva also states that, “They (Native Japanese speakers) strongly preferred ending texts or segments of texts with generalizations, ordering information to form causal chains, as in Kaplan'snotion of an indirect or circular pattern, and using adversative relations in clauses-creating a reason-counter reason pattern” (Silva). It would be interesting to find out how different ways of CR developed.