Different And Interpretations Of Language -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Different And Interpretations Of Language? Answer: Introducation Englishes is a term that is used in describing different local varieties of English that people speak across the globe. Different Englishes are often referred to as world or global English and is commonly used as lingua franca among people who do not necessarily speak similar first English. According to Kachrus model, Englishes are used in three different ways which include inner, outer and expanding Englishes (Kachru, 1986). The countries that are categorized and use inner circle English are those which English is their first language such as the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The countries in the outer ring are those that use English as their official language for purposes of education such as Kenya and South Africa. The countries that are categorized in the expanding circle use English as a lingua franca such as China (Bolton, 2002). The states with most people speaking in English are not from the first two categories but the expanding circle category such as Slovenia. This is because these countries have a policy for compulsory English lessons right from childhood. The people who speak different Englishes do not have the same capacity of reasoning and therefore the likelihood of having a fruitful conversation is always a challenge (Bruthiaux, 2003). This problem can also be experienced among speakers from the same circle as a result of verbal and non-verbal elements of communication. Verbal aspects in English is dependent on hearing, vision, word choice and jargon while non-verbal factors include eye contact, facial expression, gestures and distance from where an individual is speaking (Byram, 1997). Another aspect of different Englishes is the accent used in communication. An accent plays a significant role in determining if a speaker form inner, outer or expanding language can be understood. Accent has the potential to result to miscommunication even amongst speakers of similar English. Accents are not universal and people from a given country can have more than one. In Australia, the English spoken has four unique accents while there are numerous different accents in America (Bolton, Graddol Meierkord, 2011). More so, the British English has a huge variety of accents such as cockney which is spoken in London, Scouse is spoken among those in Liverpool, Geordie in Newcastle and scots in Scottish. For those whose first language is not English, their mother tongue accent influences the way they speak world Englishes (Canagarajah, 2013). The most common difference among these non-native speakers of English is reproducing certain sounds as they should. There are also different dialects in different Englishes which play a role in influencing mutual intelligence among different speakers across the world. Dialects are of different nature just as accents have a wide range. Different dialects are often found in the same locality such as modern cities across the world (Boyle, 2012). The size of a country does not determine the numbers of dialects as there are big countries such as Australia which has a small number of dialects as compared to America and Britain. Common dialects in Englishes include the use of distinct terms such as Outback and fair dinkum. Also, they use words that are derived from the aboriginal language such as Kangaroo and Billabong. Other dialects include the use of words such as Bazza, Shazza, and Septic tank (Eades, 2004). Another aspect in different Englishes includes the miscommunication where people it occurs quite frequently among those learning English as their second language. The miscommunication influences not only the learners but also native speakers. The miscommunication occurs as a result of mixing verbal, non-verbal and Para-verbal components of communication (Byram, Gribkova Starkey, 2002). However, these elements can be significant in overcoming miscommunication. The issues of standard, non-standard and substandard arise in different Englishes where speakers who have had a long tradition of both written and literature speak of a codified standard (Jenkins, Baker Dewey, 2018). Further, this can be used in explaining other varieties of Englishes. English speaking language that falls under inner, outer and expanding have a term that is standard in a particular country. Such terms are often used by people in different circumstances and although they might not necessarily be aware of the correct meaning, they have the ability to recognize certain words on communication. There is also the case of vernacular that found in English and determines the language that is spoken naturally amongst individual of a specific geographical area (Chin-Chuan Cheng, 1992). The Polylectal grammars suggest that speakers of various dialects can understand each other. This is because the nature of their communication does not differ which essentially implies that for one to understand different dialects, they must have a general understanding of the language. The underlying forms that equate to a general understanding of a language imply that they are not necessarily present among speakers of different Englishes (Crystal, 2015). Categorically, it is eluded that speakers can understand more than one dialect but use a different one when speaking. An individual with different dialects can communicate as a result of receptive competence that is found in native speakers. Various places across the world are faced with the challenge of a geographical dialect continuum. This gives rise to linguistic differences as there is more than one dialect in a specific locality (Byram Feng, 2004). However, all the dialects that are spoken in a particular setting determine the chain of mutual intelligibility. In such a scenario, the speakers of different dialect can understand each other as a result of living adjacent to them within a locality. This implies that dialect of different circles may not have the aspect of mutual intelligibility. The social dialect continua develop as a result of geographical setting such as in Jamaica. In Jamaica, the social dialect continua resulted because the top social class spoke English while the bottom social level spoke Jamaican Creole. These two languages are not mutually intelligible although the Jamaican Creole is similar to English. The Jamaican Creole has recognized an inferior language as a result of the social status of the African slaves. The social situation in Jamaica led to authentic creole becoming closer to spoken English and the gap between English and Creole was reduced by the social dialect continuum. However, there is no cle ar boundary between these two languages and the Jamaicans are said to speak in English although there are different varieties of English spoken in Jamaica (Canagarajah Silberstein, 2012). Different Englishes are connected with culture, language and identity and continues to draw mixed reactions among researchers (Agar, 2006). A persons identity can be determined through investigating their interaction and contribution in a particular language or culture. These aspects can be examined by globalization and diplomatic relationship. This process gives one a complete understanding of how language, culture and identity work hand in hand with people as well as communities. The interaction social linguistic is the basis used in studying the use of language and identity. According to John Gumperz, verbal signs that are processed in a series of symbolic communication serve as a basis for which interpretation can be deduced and influences the way a message is understood (Gumperz, 1982). These aspects of communication often comprise of forms of spoken language that included syntactic, lexical and paralinguistic. It also involves the patters that people take turns during communication and the nature of the language being spoken. This aspect of communication contains signals that can be interpreted and become significant in adjusting the context of views during a conversation. The relationship between language and identity is strengthened by the fact that when an individual is peaking is because they are in contract with another cooperative agent (Morita, 2004). The signals can be identified by examining the cues that individuals use to relate to the context of a particular conversation. The challenges that are bound to occur and result in miscommunication is as a result of lack of a common cue that gives meaning to the two people in a conversation. Participants in a conversation are often interested in the success of their communication where the success of the communication is directly related to sharing information that creates meaning when conversing (Ellis Shintani, 2014). As a result, the miscommunication that arises in any conversation is pegged on the difference of information among the participants. However, Kandiah argues that there is something other than shared information that might have influence miscommunication. Kandiah bases his arguments from an interview for purposes of explaining the challenges in cross-cultural communication (Phillipson, 1992). In the interview conversation between an immigrant from India and the English interviewer, the use of prosodic cues provides the basis for Kandiahs argument. In his arguments, he suggests that the lack of information between the two participants disregards vital elements such as the length taken to communicate as well as the experience of the interviewee. Kandiah suggests that there are other explanations which provide the basis for misunderstanding such as where one of the participants knowingly use different cues and disregards those by other parties to create lack of shared information that th en creates a boundary between the two participants (Byram Grundy, 2003). Language and social identity can be traced from the history of people as a result of different social groups such as gender, religion and race. This analogy can be borrowed from the fact that human beings are born as male or female but the social status groups them in poor or rich (Mirhosseini, 2008). Language and culture is a contentious issue as a result of the challenge brought about when participants are communicating (Kachru, 1982). According to Wardhaugh, language is a framework that provides rules and manner in which people say and produce different sounds as opposed to distinct words or sounds in a sentence. On the other hand, Thanasoulas defines language basis for practices and believes which determines the nature of our lives (Byram Grundy, 2003). Further, to understand how language and culture are intertwined, one has to consider the interpretation of culture which refers to the way of life of people that forms the basis of shared responsibilities. Culture is said to be an interactive design that is centered on different needs such as basic needs, instrumental needs as well as symbolic needs of individuals and the community (Pennycook, 2004). This assumption states that culture has to be kept in a balance of all the three needs. Since culture is the basis of how member s within a given locality relate. It is significant that members belonging to a particular community understand the power of their own words during an interaction. More so, Thanasoulous is of the view that language is a key to the cultural past and present since it influences the thoughts, beliefs and brings understanding to members of a given society. There is a close relationship between language and culture and it is easier to understand and interpret one without information about the other (Thanasoulas, 2001). However, according to Wardhaugh, there are three different bases of defining the relationship between language and culture. The first perspective suggests that the characteristics of a particular language play a significant role in which speakers perceive the world. Another perspective implies that the culture of a particular community is reflected through their language as a result of valuing and doing things in a specific manner. The third perspective suggests that there is no relationship between language and culture (Wardhaugh, 2002). The first perspective forms the basis for many researchers studying the relationship between language and culture. The claim that suggests there is no relationship between culture and language suggests that is possible to examine language or culture without necessarily factoring them together. In this scenario, it is evident that language is used to convey and facilitate understanding of different concepts which imply that the participants in a conversation assume more than one role. In the second perspective, it is insinuated that language facilitates culture which provides a basis for certain values in a community. The Whorfian hypothesis is borrowed from the first claim that suggests a relationship between culture and language that determines the way people view the world. Further, linguistic determinism arises and comprises of strong determinism which suggests that language determines thought while weak determinism suggests that thoughts are predicted by our language. Here, strong determinism along with the idea difference in language gives rise to what is referred to as linguistic relativity. Various researchers are of the view that language predisposes people into the way they view the world (Elyas Picard, 2010). The understanding of the relationship between language and culture forms the basis of learning another language. Researchers argue that it is not the language that forms the basis of communication but the language in the context of a culture that provides meaning. The very groups to which we belong along with values and attitudes are important in the development of our social identities. Therefore it implies that our social identities are not just gaps that we fill out a collection of our histories that have been redefined over some period (Gee, 2014). The social identity is often related to a particular set of linguistic rules that determine certain activities, beliefs an attitude. The relationship between social and cultural roles influences the opportunities that a person is likely to have in a situation where two individuals come from different geographical area and families are involved with different activities. This implies that the identity of a middle-class group of ladies i n America is different from that of a similar group in Africa. Therefore, the historical background, social setting, beliefs, skills and attitudes play a significant role in determining our overall social identity. This knowledge suggests that we approach our day to day activities by associating the knowledge of our background and those of our surroundings to bring an understanding of the situations we encounter (Phillipson, Rannut Skutnabb-Kangas, 2010). This analogy implies that participants in a conversation perceive each other from based on the way they have been brought up within their social settings. Concerning this analogy, it is safe to conclude that develop an expectation about what others are capable of doing and not capable as a result of earlier interaction with them in a specific society and surroundings. The linguistic tools are available for us to communicate and interpret communication are held with the shared knowledge and perception we have about others. The relationship between culture and social perspective that determines our identity and language is based on various aspects. These aspects are important and alter the conventional understanding of language as well as motivate individuals through the day to day experiences (Nunan, 2013). By being associated with sociocultural aspects, many individuals take a specific social identity which forms the basis of examining the context of communication and bring meaning to certain practices. Sociocultural identities are not constant among different groups but arise in a specific locality that shares a common history. Therefore, when people are conversing, the use of language is not isolated to an individual motive but rather it takes the position of a neutral social arena where all the position are said to be constantly changing and relative to every participant. The social role becomes the basis for communication and understanding where individuals can manipulate various linguistic with c ertain motives. This implies that language is indeed part and parcel of our culture and does not exist outside the circles of culture. As a result, there is no language or user of a particular language that can be considered not to be associated with a particular culture (Canagarajah, 2006). References Agar, M. (2006). Culture: Can you take it anywhere? International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Vol.5, No.2, pp.1-12. Bolton, K. (2002), Chinese Englishes: from Canton Jargon to Global English. World Englishes, 21:181199. Bolton, K., Graddol, D. Meierkord, C. (2011). Towards Developmental World Englishes, World Englishes, Vol.30, N0.4, pp.459-480. Boyle, R. (2012), Language Contact in the United Arab Emirates. World Englishes, 31:312330. Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Squaring the Circles: Issues in Modeling English Worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. Vol.13, 2, pp159-177. Byram, M. Feng, A. (2004). Culture and Language Learning: Teaching, Research and Scholarship. Language Teaching, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.149-168. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444804002289, Published online: 05 April 2005 Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon [u.a.: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Grundy, P. (2003). Context and Culture in Language Teaching and Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Byram, M., Gribkova, B. Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching. www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Guide_dimintercult_En.pdf Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan relations. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Canagarajah, S. Silberstein, S. (2012). Diaspora Identities and Language, Journal of Language, Identity Education, Vol.11, No.2, pp.81-84, Canagarajah, S. (2006). Interview. R.Rubdy M. Saraceni (Eds). English in the World: Global Rules, Global Roles. London: Continuum. 200-212. Chin-Chuan Cheng, (1992). Chinese Varieties of English. In B.Kachru. (Ed.). The other tongue: English across cultures. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Crystal, D. (2015). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. Eades, D. (2004). Understanding Aboriginal English in the Legal System: A critical sociolinguistics approach. Applied Linguistics, 25/4, pp.491-512. Ellis, R. Shintani, N. (2014). Exploring language pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research. Oxford: Routledge. Elyas, T. Picard, M. (2010). Saudi Arabian Educational History: Impacts on English language teaching. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, Vol.3, No 2, 136-145. DOI: 10.1108/17537981011047961 Gee, J. P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London ; New York : Routledge, 2014 Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Interactional Sociolinguistics 1.Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Jenkins, J., Baker, W., Dewey, M. (2018). The Routledge handbook of English as a lingua franca. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor Francis Group. Kachru, B. B. (1982). The Other Tongue: English Across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Kachru, Braj B. (1986). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Oxford: Pergamon, Mirhosseini, S. (2008). English and a World of Diversities: Confrontation, Appropriatyiopn, Awareness. Applied Linguistics. 29/2: 312-317, DOI: 10.1093/applin/amn013 Morita, N. (2004). Negotiating Participation and Identity in Second Language Academic Communities. TESOL Quarterly, Vol.38, No.4, pp.573-603. Nunan, D. (2013). What is this thing called language? China: Palgrave MacMillan. Pennycook, A. (2004). Performativity and Language Studies. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, Vol.1, No.1, pp.1-19, DOI: 10.1207/s15427595cils0101_1 Pennycook, A. (2008). English as a Language always in Translation. European Journal of English Studies, Vol.12, No.1, pp.33-47. DOI:10.1080/13825570801900521 Pennycook, A. (2017). The Cultural Politics of English as an International language. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge Phillipson, R. (1992). ELT: The native speakers burden? ELT Journal Volume 46/1 pp.12-18. Phillipson, R. (1998). Globalizing English: Are linguistic Human Rights an Alternative to linguistic imperialism? Language Sciences, Vol.20, No.1, pp.101-112. Phillipson, R., Rannut, M., Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2010). Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Thanasoulas, D. (2001). Radical Pedagogy: The importance of teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. Retrieved October 3, 2005 from the International Consortium for the Advancement of Academic Publication Web site: https://radicalpedagogy.icaap.org/content/ issue3_3/7-thanasoulas.html Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Fourth Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.