Language Learning Forum: Culture and Learning

Print Page | Close Window

Culture and Learning

Printed From: How-to-learn-any-language.com
Forum Name: Cultural Experiences in Foreign Languages
Forum Discription: The place to share your personal cultural experiences in foreign languages: books you read, trips, Zeitgeist abroad and other memorable things you did in a foreign language.
URL: http://how-to-learn-any-language.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=34148
Printed Date: 13 June 2021 at 5:31am

Posted By: mandalore
Subject: Culture and Learning
Date Posted: 30 October 2012 at 7:50am

I had an argument with a classmate earlier over the necessity of immersing culture to fully learn a language. Basically want I want to ask is "is it necessary to learn EVERYTHING about a culture (food, art, music, etc) in order to be able to be fluent in the language"?

Replies:

mandalore wrote:

Basically want I want to ask is "is it necessary to learn EVERYTHING about a culture (food, art, music, etc) in order to be able to be fluent in the language"?

You're new here, so you probably haven't caught on to the fluency rule yet. The rule is: If you're gonna use the word "fluent", please define what you mean by it, or the word is meaningless. This word has tons of different meanings depending on who uses it, and it usually makes discussions terrible if it's used without a solid definition.
Ari on 30 October 2012

mandalore wrote:

Even if you move to another country tomorrow, you stay there for the next 10 years, and you speak the language very well, you're still going to lose at games like Trivial Pursuit. Come to think of it, if you're born in that country today, and you spend 10 years growing up as a native, you're going to lose at Trivial Pursuit.

Culture is huge. It takes a lifetime. My favorite example is this French rap song:

MC Solaar wrote:

http://musique.ados.fr/Mc-Solaar/Carpe-Diem-t162556.html - Carpe Diem ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pczQtOCI7B4 - video )

Avant avec des francs je partais acheter des http://lescopainsd-abord.over-blog.com/article-les-picorette s-par-nath-didile-82713675.html - Picorettes
Maintenant avec des euros c'que j'demande ce sont des http://www.stopsmoking.net/nicorette.html - Nicorettes
Les rues d'Paris sont pleines de scouts, y'a plus de mobilettes
Darwinisme industriel, du http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel - minitel à l'internet
Le 118 618 a remplacé le 12

Et puis la carte de Moreno veut effacer le flouze
Le temps passe, et il efface ton http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocom_2000 - Radiocom 2000
Ton http://choualbox.com/1268261038 - Tam-Tam , ton Bi-bop ton Tatoo, ton thermolactyl
A la télé, y'avait la 5 et puis TV6…

Des http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/marchand_de_couleurs - marchands de couleurs et dans la rue des http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9mouleur - rémouleurs
Le temps passe depuis la gaine 24 heures
Le rétro était en option sur les voitures
Et l'hiver les gens jetaient des seaux d'eau sur les serrures

Des noms me reviennent : Pierre Juquin, Anicet Le Pors
Desmond Toutou, Françoise Claustre et l'agence Tass
Henry Kissinger Benito Crâxi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dulcie_September - Dulcie September en quête de démocratie
Anne Marie Pesson pour une minute pour les femmes
Jacquou le Croquant, Cheri Bibi, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4-89PqmsOU - Capitaine Flam
Le temps passe, des pyramides aux http://vivonzeureux.blogspot.com/2008/02/alb-mange-disq ue.html - mange-disques
http://fr.wikizic.org/Revox-A77/ - Bande Revox , cassettes et vinyls, Compact Discs…

My wife is French, and she gets at least 75% of the references in this song. A French speaker from Quebec would get a lot less, as would a 9-year-old who's growing up in Paris.

As Ari points out, it all depends on how you define "fluent". If you choose to define "fluent" to include this kind of knowledge, then extremely few people will ever become fluent, including a large number of monolingual French speakers who grew up in the wrong place or time.
emk on 30 October 2012

What's the difference between culture and wrong anyway? Female circumcision is
"culture" in many African countries but it has nothing to do with culture.

To know what culture is (and fluency for that matter) you need to first define why you
should want to learn elements of a certain culture, and how it aids in the fluency of
your speech. Does it mean you use certain badly translatable words well? does it mean
you can recognise specific pop culture references in that language? I speak English
very well but if somebody quotes me a lyric from some popular singer nowadays I won't
know it at all - I have never listened to f.e. Justin Bieber.

And as emk points out, there are many people who just don't care for cultural
references and will not understand them regardless, even if they are native speakers of
the language.
tarvos on 30 October 2012

emk wrote:

As Ari points out, it all depends on how you define "fluent". If you choose to define "fluent" to include this kind of knowledge, then extremely few people will ever become fluent, including a large number of monolingual French speakers who grew up in the wrong place or time.

Good points. Without a doubt cultural knowledge is unequally disseminated among natives. Social group, place of residence, gender, age, personal interests and individual habits all heavily influence learning process and compass varied results.

Not a soul can heap an excessive enlightenment of all cultural references. It is simply impossible.

petteri on 30 October 2012

Isn't it the case that once you get into learning a language, you inevitably get exposed to some of the culture in which the language developed, and it either turns you on or it doesn't. If it does, this will probably encourage you to carry on with the language, and in turn you will be exposed to and learn, and want to learn more about the culture and so on, in a hopefully virtuous circle.

And if it doesn't turn you on, you eventually lose interest in the language, because, well, what's the point? I suppose there are exceptions if you absolutely must do for work reasons, but even there it is not inevitable. I can't imagine successfully learning a language with gritted teeth, somehow.

I can think of one famous polyglot who gave up one or two languages simply because something about the language or culture didn't really fire him up, so he moved on. I imagine this is not uncommon (in the rarified world of true polyglots).

montmorency on 30 October 2012

mandalore wrote:

In a word, no.
Chung on 30 October 2012

What is culture? Maybe a basic, wide definition by http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/c ulture - Oxford Dictionaries suffices for our purposes: although it is not an unproblematic definition, we could call culture "the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society". I'll take from this definition that everything a group of people share and communicate amongst each other is culture. That means language - which is communication - is inseparable from culture. You could even go so far and say that language is simply one part of culture, but I think in our discussion it is useful to make a distinction between the two concepts. Language must at least be a result of culture (a result of the ideas, customs and social behaviour of a particular group of people). It is one of the tool which are necessary for making and communicating complex cultural transactions. Because language has its origin in culture, it must therefore be informed by culture down to its very core.

I'll argue that some of this culture is shared by all humans, some "ideas, customs, and social behaviour" are part of human nature. This makes language a universal phenomenon and it probably also makes certain properties of languages a universal phenomenon. But there are certainly distinct differences in "ideas, customs, and social behaviour" between regions, nations, transnational areas and also between age groups, social groups, etc. As emk, petteri and tarvos have pointed out, there are certainly parts of what we usually call a language that not every native speaker knows or uses. There are dialects, sociolects, genderlects, what have you.

But regarding your question, I think it is best to look at the influence of culture on language on the national and transnational level. After all, when we learn a foreign language, we usually think of one or several nations whose inhabitants speak it. And there are definitely cultural phenomena with a national and transnational scope.

First of all, let's look at the nation. Nations are basically territories that share a government and have done so for a longer or shorter period of time. What is national culture? I don't want to get too deeply into this argument, so I'll just say that today education and the media are often nationally regulated and/or distributed nation-wide. Those two factors influence the norm that all speakers of a language (from one country) are expected to have in common. The official, "correct" language is usually a national construct and this is what the foreign language student will be taught. As school and the media not only teach grammar, but also things that concern national identity like history, philosphy/religion etc., these cultural facts are also part of foreign language education and a competent language student will be expected to have some knowledge of them. This gets tricky with languages which are not restricted to one country or even one continent. You could argue that they are different, albeit similar and/or mutually understandable languages - there is a reason why concepts such as "World Englishes" exist and why there are several standard forms of English, Portuguese, etc.

What I personally find the most interesting is the transnational level of culture. We make broad distinctions between Eastern, Western, Middle-Eastern, African, Polynesian etc. cultures. I'll speak from my Western/European viewpoint, otherwise it gets to complicated. I notice pronounced cultural differences when I look at, for example, Asian cultures. This extends to Asian languages. While learning a Southern or Central European language, I'm confronted with many basic cultural concepts and assumptions which I'm familiar with. I'm familiar with the argumentative structure that is the norm, I'm familiar with the Latin- and Greek-based educated vocabulary. With Korean this is very different. Everything about this language, except for the English loan words, is unfamiliar to me. If I don't learn some basic cultural assumptions and values of Korean society - some of which are also applicable to other Asian countries - I'm not going to be able speak Korean in a manner that native speakers are going to deem correct. To give you an example, if I don't understand hierarchies based on Confucianism, I'm not going to be able to use honorific speech correctly. There are also fairly basic words which have no real equivalents in any of the languages I know.

This entry has gotten far too long, but it's a topic I'm very interested in. I chose to learn Korean, because I'm of the opinion that learning such a different language will give me more possibilities to understand and express myself, because learning a different language means learning a different culture. However I don't think it's feasible or even possible to learn "everything" about a culture, because there is no one culture of any given country. You could go as far as to say that your friend's definition of fluency means that it is a theoretical concept that can never be achieved by any human being.
druckfehler on 30 October 2012

What is there to talk about if you don't know anything about my culture? Language
learning would be pointless if you neglect cultural knowledge.

tarvos wrote:

I speak English
very well but if somebody quotes me a lyric from some popular singer nowadays I won't
know it at all - I have never listened to f.e. Justin Bieber.

And as emk points out, there are many people who just don't care for cultural
references and will not understand them regardless, even if they are native speakers of
the language.

That is why a native-like level is not the holy grail (cultural reference) of language
learning. You should also have a certain amount of knowledge besides perfect grammar
and pronunciation. That knowledge doesn't have to be deep knowledge. No one in Anglo-
Saxon culture will expect you to know every song of Justin Bieber, but they might
expect you to know who Justin Bieber is and what kind of music he makes. We need this
kind of shared background knowledge in order to communicate quickly and efficiently
with each other. Anyone who doesn't know what the 'second world war' was is not a
member of the Dutch linguistic community to me.
nimchimpsky on 30 October 2012

The original question dealt with the need to learn everything about the culture to be fluent in the associated language. Needing to know something (or even a lot) about the culture is different from needing to know everything about it.
Chung on 30 October 2012

Chung wrote:

And your short answer was absolutely sufficient for the superficial question. But I think the answers about gradations of cultural knowledge are worthwhile and more thought-provoking than the initial question.
druckfehler on 30 October 2012

tarvos wrote:

I have never listened to f.e. Justin Bieber.

But you know who she is.
Bao on 30 October 2012

Language is a system -- generally speaking, there is no problem learning how to put parts together to impart meaning, and understanding when others do so, without any knowledge of the culture. I certainly view language as a system of meaning management much more than as a receptacle for culture, so to speak.

As you become more sophisticated in your use of the language, then a better knowledge of culture is important (in some cultures more so than in others), but one could certainly learn a language to conversational level without knowing much about the culture of its speakers.
Arekkusu on 30 October 2012

druckfehler wrote:

Chung wrote:

Indeed. I was merely reacting to nimchimpsky who assigns a stronger link between cultural knowledge and fluency, and makes what I feel are strong statements on the matter (esp. the association of WWII as part of the Dutch speech community's collective memory/experience with their native language). For the record I knew nothing of Bieber until Psy came into my consciousness in the summer and the subsequent link of the two singers thanks to Scooter Braun.

nimchimpsky wrote:

What is there to talk about if you don't know anything about my culture? Language
learning would be pointless if you neglect cultural knowledge.

tarvos wrote:

Chung on 30 October 2012

Bao wrote:

tarvos wrote:

I have never listened to f.e. Justin Bieber.

But you know who she is.

Youtube and co. They damage your view on society.
tarvos on 30 October 2012

I think the 'social behavior' mentioned by druckfehler has a far greater relationship
to language than the outside markings of culture such as music, food, art, et al. I'd
even say that this is important at the beginning levels of language learning,
and not just at the advanced / fluent level.

Spoken language is only one element of the way we communicate. There's also body
language, facial expression, eye contact, tone and volume, touch, gesture, and so on.
When we are immersed in a culture we start to see how these are all integrated.

I also firmly believe that language is related to the way we think, though this is
still a somewhat controversial assertion.

So, for example ...

I can learn to manipulate all the roots in Arabic, and memorize the 1001 ways to say
'how are you?' but it's not until I sit down at someone's home and have to exchange all
these beautiful phrases with my host that I realize just how Arabic works.

I studied French for years and never realized that, in Paris, people seem to half-sing
the language and that there's a flirty subtext to so many interactions. In Rome I
realized that the rhythms of Italian mimicked the rhythms of people's interactions with
each other. In Mexico I saw how the formality of spoken Spanish imposed a formality on
our initial meetings with people.

You can memorize all the rules, and not quite understand these parts of how a language
works.

kanewai on 30 October 2012

I think if you're attracted to the culture associated with the language you are learning, then of course, that's a bonus. But it doesn't have to be the primary motivation. I learn in order to communicate with people first and foremost. There are aspects of the culture which attract me (Polish literature) and others that don't (some of the cuisine).
I may be able to have a satisfying intellectual or emotional connection with culture, but I prefer to have personal connections with actual people. I can see that the exploration and sharing of culture makes these relationships richer. Indeed it is through these relationships that my eyes are opened to a culture I might have initially passed by.

Mooby on 30 October 2012

Chung wrote:

druckfehler wrote:

Chung wrote:

The original question dealt with the
need to learn everything about the culture to be fluent in the associated language.
Needing to know something (or even a lot) about the culture is different from needing
to know everything about it.

And your short answer was absolutely sufficient for the superficial question. But I
think the answers about gradations of cultural knowledge are worthwhile and more
thought-provoking than the initial question.

Indeed. I was merely reacting to nimchimpsky who assigns a stronger link between
cultural knowledge and fluency, and makes what I feel are strong statements on the
matter (esp. the association of WWII as part of the Dutch speech community's collective
memory/experience with their native language). For the record I knew nothing of Bieber
until Psy came into my consciousness in the summer and the subsequent link of the two
singers thanks to Scooter Braun.

How can you claim to be fluent in Dutch if you can't talk about what most Dutch people
talk about? I can also assure you that not knowing anything about WWII is much worse
than any grammar mistake you might make.

nimchimpsky on 30 October 2012

nimchimpsky wrote:

Chung wrote:

druckfehler wrote:

Chung wrote:

The original question dealt with the
need to learn everything about the culture to be fluent in the associated language.
Needing to know something (or even a lot) about the culture is different from needing
to know everything about it.

And your short answer was absolutely sufficient for the superficial question. But I
think the answers about gradations of cultural knowledge are worthwhile and more
thought-provoking than the initial question.

Indeed. I was merely reacting to nimchimpsky who assigns a stronger link between
cultural knowledge and fluency, and makes what I feel are strong statements on the
matter (esp. the association of WWII as part of the Dutch speech community's collective
memory/experience with their native language). For the record I knew nothing of Bieber
until Psy came into my consciousness in the summer and the subsequent link of the two
singers thanks to Scooter Braun.

Very odd to me because it makes it out that WWII has an enormous effect on Dutch national consciousness/culture, and so knowing about WWII as the Dutch (or perhaps you, nimchimpsky?) see it is a prerequisite to fluency in Dutch. Funny, because WWII is only one of many topics a Dutch person may talk about.

May I remind you that it's called WORLD War II for a reason. The Chinese, Russians, Japanese, Koreans, Americans, British, Germans and Israelis of today among many others still bear evidence in their collective memories of that war. However you'd be hard-pressed to think that fluency in their respective native languages would also require knowing about it beyond a few dates or names of a couple big battles relevant to their native speech community rather than the events relevant to the collective memory of those who are native speakers of the target language (e.g. the battle of Stalingrad or siege of Leningrad mean squat to the average Japanese, but they mean a ton to the average Russian. The Battle of Nanking means next to nothing to the average German, but it means a ton to the average Chinese, the failure of Market Garden means nothing to the average Israeli, but a ton to the average Dutchman/woman etc.).
Chung on 30 October 2012

Mooby wrote:

I think if you're attracted to the culture associated with the language
you are learning, then of course, that's a bonus. But it doesn't have to be the primary
motivation. I learn in order to communicate with people first and foremost. There are
aspects of the culture which attract me (Polish literature) and others that don't (some
of the cuisine).
I may be able to have a satisfying intellectual or emotional connection with culture,
but I prefer to have personal connections with actual people. I can see that the
exploration and sharing of culture makes these relationships richer. Indeed it is
through these relationships that my eyes are opened to a culture I might have initially
passed by.

People don't exist in a vacuum. Being Dutch is a part of me. Being able to buy a drink
or chat about the weather is not enough to establish a lasting relationship. There is
simply not enough to talk about.
nimchimpsky on 30 October 2012

Chung wrote:

nimchimpsky wrote:

Chung wrote:

druckfehler wrote:

Chung wrote:

The original question dealt with the
need to learn everything about the culture to be fluent in the associated language.
Needing to know something (or even a lot) about the culture is different from needing
to know everything about it.

And your short answer was absolutely sufficient for the superficial question. But I
think the answers about gradations of cultural knowledge are worthwhile and more
thought-provoking than the initial question.

Indeed. I was merely reacting to nimchimpsky who assigns a stronger link between
cultural knowledge and fluency, and makes what I feel are strong statements on the
matter (esp. the association of WWII as part of the Dutch speech community's collective
memory/experience with their native language). For the record I knew nothing of Bieber
until Psy came into my consciousness in the summer and the subsequent link of the two
singers thanks to Scooter Braun.

Very odd to me because it makes it out that WWII has an enormous effect on Dutch
national consciousness/culture, and so knowing about WWII as the Dutch (or perhaps you,
nimchimpsky?) see it is a prerequisite to fluency in Dutch. Funny, because WWII is only
one of many topics a Dutch person may talk about.

May I remind you that it's called WORLD War II for a reason. The Chinese,
Russians, Japanese, Koreans, Americans, British, Germans and Israelis of today among
many others still bear evidence in their collective memories of that war. However you'd
be hard-pressed to think that fluency in their respective native languages would also
require knowing about it beyond a few dates or names of a couple big battles relevant
to their native speech community rather than the events relevant to the collective
memory of those who are native speakers of the target language (e.g. the battle of
Stalingrad or siege of Leningrad mean squat to the average Japanese, but they mean a
ton to the average Russian. The Battle of Nanking means next to nothing to the average
German, but it means a ton to the average Chinese, etc.).

I never said you need detailed knowledge of WWII neither did I say anything about what
it means to other cultures. Cultural knowledge also doesn't have to be restricted to
stories about the Netherlands. Most Dutch people will also assume you know something
about the wider world.
nimchimpsky on 30 October 2012

You don't need to know absolutely everything about a culture. However, it is awfully helpful if not necessary to know something about the culture to be able to have any truly meaningful conversation.

What good is it to be able to speak seven languages if you have nothing worth saying in any of them?
SamD on 30 October 2012

nimchimpsky wrote:

Mooby wrote:

I think if you're attracted to the culture associated with the language
you are learning, then of course, that's a bonus. But it doesn't have to be the primary
motivation. I learn in order to communicate with people first and foremost. There are
aspects of the culture which attract me (Polish literature) and others that don't (some
of the cuisine).
I may be able to have a satisfying intellectual or emotional connection with culture,
but I prefer to have personal connections with actual people. I can see that the
exploration and sharing of culture makes these relationships richer. Indeed it is
through these relationships that my eyes are opened to a culture I might have initially
passed by.

There are tons of universal things we can talk about, like science, religion, work, fishing... IN ADDITION to sharing our cultures.
What might attract me to you or anyone else, as a friend, might have nothing to do with nationality.
Surely my appreciation / understanding of a person's culture could grow later, as I implied in my earlier post.
But I'll agree; if it does grow then there's a good chance that a lasting relationship could form.
Mooby on 30 October 2012

Jacques Barzun wrote:

"Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball."

Barzun was a cultural historian. He was born in France and moved to the US at 12 years old. He passed away just last week at 104 years old. His obituary in the New York times merited four pages. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/arts/jacques-barzun-histor ian-and-scholar-dies-at-104.html?_r=0 - Jacques Barzun Obituary NYT There was a time in the US when baseball truly was the "national pastime". It was a huge part of the culture. The vocabulary of the game seeped into everyday American English- http://dictionary.reference.com/features/wordtraveler11 .html - Baseball's influence on American English .

I'd be willing to bet that few of the non-native, highly proficient, English-speakers here on the forum know much about baseball. They don't have to in order to speak English, as even the English, Australians, Kiwis and South Africans have proven. I remember watching "Field of Dreams" in England and none of the English quite "got" it. Would my lack of passion for hockey prevent me from communicating in Toronto or Vancouver? It never has. I lived in England for a long time without knowing why a Cliff Richard reference should elicit guffaws from a television audience. (I did manage to learn the necessary quote references from "Dad's Army" and "Allo, Allo") That's with being a native English-speaker. I've got little hope in either Spanish or Portuguese!

No, you don't have to learn everything in order to be proficient in a language but you should have some awareness of the culture. You don't need to be a "renaissance man" or know all aspects of a culture. I don't even know all aspects of my own culture. That's not going to stop me from learning as much as I can, as well as I can, in the limited time I've been granted. As Yogi Berra (baseball) said "Ninety percent of this game is half mental."
iguanamon on 31 October 2012

kanewai wrote:

The way social behaviour and relationships are expected to work is culture. Of course, it's more fundamental and at the same time more difficult to learn than trivia.
Common experiences are culture. They differ in different generations and subcultures, but usually one generation does have at least an inkling of the common experiences shared by another generation, because they were told stories, or watched and observed.

nimchimpsky wrote:

People don't exist in a vacuum. Being Dutch is a part of me. Being able to buy a drink or chat about the weather is not enough to establish a lasting relationship. There is simply not enough to talk about.

Yet, inter-cultural competence doesn't mean that I understand what being Dutch means to you, it means that I can ask you the right questions so that you feel at ease with sharing some of your experience with me, and exchanging how our experiences were similar, and how they were different. Other topics to talk about tend to evolve from getting to know another individual better, not from stereotyping them better.
Bao on 31 October 2012

nimchimpsky wrote:

No one in Anglo-Saxon culture will expect you to know every song of Justin Bieber, but they might expect you to know who Justin Bieber is and what kind of music he makes.

I'm a native English speaker who lives in the US. Until I read this thread, I knew that (1) somebody named "Justin Bieber" or something like that existed, and (2) that he might be popular musician or something like that—but he might also be an actor or some inexplicably famous person like Paris Hilton.

I also have no idea who the Kardashians are, though I doubt they're an alien race on Star Trek, which was my first guess.

I have finally discovered that Lady Gaga exists, but only because Weird Al made a parody of her, and her agent was a jerk about it. I've heard maybe two of her songs, both of which were fairly catchy. And every few years, I discover a popular film that everybody saw 20 years ago, and finally get around to enjoying it. For example, I think I first watched Dirty Dancing in 2002.

If you asked my friends about me, they might say something like, "Yeah, he can be pretty ignorant about pop culture." But none of my them would say that I'm not a fluent speaker of English.

emk on 31 October 2012

Bao wrote:

nimchimpsky wrote:

People don't exist in a vacuum. Being Dutch is a part
of me. Being able to buy a drink or chat about the weather is not enough to establish a
lasting relationship. There is simply not enough to talk about.

Yet, inter-cultural competence doesn't mean that I understand what being Dutch means to
you, it means that I can ask you the right questions so that you feel at ease with
sharing some of your experience with me, and exchanging how our experiences were
similar, and how they were different. Other topics to talk about tend to evolve from
getting to know another individual better, not from stereotyping them better.

Stereotyping? What a narrow view of culture. Knowing your culture doesn't mean that you
accept its values uncritically but you have to know it in order to change it. Over time
the fringes can become mainstream.

I also think you still underestimate the need for general topics to talk about. My
Sister-In-Law is Hungarian and she likes to learn everything about Dutch politics so
that she can join in conversations at parties. Knowing a culture enables you to speak
not just to a few but to the entire country. However, it is of course a legitimate goal
to be able to speak fluently about a specific subject but cultural knowledge can be
truly enriching for learners.

By the way, I am using a very broad definition of culture. To me it is any unit of
information native speakers assume you know which enables you to understand messages
intended for a general audience.

nimchimpsky on 31 October 2012

SamD wrote:

What good is it to be able to speak seven languages if you have nothing worth saying in
any of them?

I think this says more about the person than the culture really. If you've got nowt worth
mentioning, methinks that's a different problem to solve (the only question remains why
you would speak seven languages in that case - my only hypothesis is to pick up foreign
chicks).
tarvos on 31 October 2012

Even without pinning down an agreed upon meaning of culture my responce to the origional question would
be no, you don't need to know the culture to be "fluent" in the language. I say this primarily becuase there
isn't just one univeral culture per language, especially in languages that are spoken in any different countries
or along vast swaths of areas.

I am fluent in English (it's my first language) and yet I know next to nothing about Australian culture despite
the fact that English is the default language of Australia (to the demise of Maori language).
aokoye on 31 October 2012

aokoye wrote:

I am fluent in English (it's my first language) and yet I know next to nothing about Australian culture despite the fact that English is the default language of Australia (to the demise of Maori language).

Maori is a language of the native Maori peoples in New Zealand, not Australia. Case in point.

iguanamon on 31 October 2012

aokoye wrote:

Even without pinning down an agreed upon meaning of culture my responce
to the origional question would
be no, you don't need to know the culture to be "fluent" in the language. I say this
primarily becuase there
isn't just one univeral culture per language, especially in languages that are spoken
in any different countries
or along vast swaths of areas.

I am fluent in English (it's my first language) and yet I know next to nothing about
Australian culture despite
the fact that English is the default language of Australia (to the demise of Maori
language).

In that case you are not fluent in Australian English. My Grandmother is not fluent
anymore in modern Dutch due to cultural changes. That's because she doesn't share the
same cultural assumptions most natives take for granted. When I say to her: 'I'm a
postman' she thinks I have a high status and well paid job, which it used to be when
she was young, but nowadays it's a low status and poorly paid job. So she gets a
totally wrong impression of me when I say that I'm postman. I can of course explain all
this but when I have to give lengthy explanations and adapt my speech I am no longer
speaking to a native but to a learner.

nimchimpsky on 31 October 2012

That has nothing to do with fluency but with the Zeitgeist changing.
tarvos on 31 October 2012

Firstly, I think it is impossible to know "everything" about a culture. I am fluent in Norwegian, but I certainly do not know everything about Norwegian culture today. This is partly because I have been living outside Norway for almost 20 years, but it also has to do with differences between generations, and a general fragmentation of culture. When I was young, we had one (yes, one!) television channel in Norway, so everyone watched the same programmes. Today there are hundreds of channels to choose from, not to mention internet.

That being said, it is clear that in any country, there are certain common references from popular culture, both current and past, which a foreigner will not understand unless they have become truly familiarised with the culture. For example, in Norway we have the word "supperåd" (soup council) to describe an organisation or "quango" that is totally useless. The term comes from a TV sketch made by two Norwegian comedians in the 60s.

I have also noticed with interest that in the UK a lot of quotes from Monty Python are frequently used, even by politicians when speaking in Parliament: These come to mind: "Dead as a parrot", "What have the Romans ever done for us?" and ""What is the average wind speed velocity of an unladen swallow? African or European?"

Ogrim on 31 October 2012

tarvos wrote:

That has nothing to with fluency but the Zeitgeist changing.

Whatever. All I am saying is that having cultural knowledge helps you to communicate
clearly and efficiently and that is the goal of language learning, isn't it? That you
can't be considered fluent if you are constantly stammering is kind of obvious.
nimchimpsky on 31 October 2012

nimchimpsky wrote:

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear; I was using the term 'stereotype' as a psychological term. I did not use it as a replacement for prejudice or as a judgment on certain cultural trends, but to refer to the way one person perceives another person primarily as a member of a different group, rather than an inidvidual. In this instance, the group is perceived as more homogenous than it actually is. Typically, this mindset can be induced by statements like "the Dutch like cheese". If I interact with you using such a mindset, it means that I delude myself into thinking I know something about you as an individual, even though I only know something about the entire group of 'Dutch people'. More than that, many of those assumptions are plain wrong, outdated for decades, or fueled by prejudice.
Now, learning trivia about another culture usually happens exactly in that mindset that treats members of a different group as stereotypes. If you look at language textbooks, at 'learn to behave like a genuine Englishman' type guidebooks; listen to how people talk about their experiences in a foreign culture. These instances use stereotypes. Even my friends, who tend to be quite open to different cultures, say things like "in Paris, everyone walks across the street when the traffic light for pedestrians is red", they don't say "many people" or "more people than here".
However, when you treat another person primarily as an individual, and only then as a member of a certain group, you can avoid this stereotyping mindset.
Stereotyping is helpful because it saves mental effort when dealing with routine interactions in set roles, for example with a cashier or a waiter. It is not helpful when trying to learn more about another culture.

My reasoning is that because I already have some stereotyped views about the Dutch people, made up from my own cultural knowledge and prejudice, from trivia and from exposure to single Dutch individuals, because that concoction is bound to give me a rather skewed view of who the Dutch are, and because the differences between individual members of one group of people are often greater than the differences between different groups, it is not only more respectful of me to treat you as an individual, but it also helps me improve my cultural competence more, because with such a mindset, I process and remember information differently: With a 'stereotype' mindset, information is primarily judged as whether it makes you fit the stereotype or not; with the 'individual' mindset, information is processed and remembered as pertaining to you, and only possibly as also being relevant to other members of your group/s.

nimchimpsky wrote:

I also think you still underestimate the need for general topics to talk about. My Sister-In-Law is Hungarian and she likes to learn everything about Dutch politics so that she can join in conversations at parties. Knowing a culture enables you to speak not just to a few but to the entire country. However, it is of course a legitimate goal to be able to speak fluently about a specific subject but cultural knowledge can be truly enriching for learners.

I personally make good experiences with listening to other people. It tends to make people feel I'm interested in them, their experience and opinions.

nimchimpsky wrote:

By the way, I am using a very broad definition of culture. To me it is any unit of information native speakers assume you know which enables you to understand messages intended for a general audience.

I use a correct definition of culture. :P For a given definition of correctness, of course.
What you are talking about is described in the theory of common ground. As a non-native speaker of a language, you aren't necessarily expected to have access to said common ground. As a woman talking to a group of men in my culture, I am not expected to be able to talk about football, even though men in general are expected to, unless they openly identify as members of anti-popular subcultures.
The real common ground that all members of one of the bigger cultures* actually have access to is relatively easy to learn. However, the common ground shared within all different groups that are part of a society is impossible to learn even as a member of that society. A twenty-something will have different knowledge about a topic like WW2 than an octogenarian. Even though some twenty-somethings might talk to their own grandparents, and get a better idea of what might be known to their grandparents' generation, this is not true for all, not even for most twenty-somethings in my own culture.
So, the only way I see to deal with the common ground of a group is by learning from that particular group. It's what people do all the time.

*meaning more than a few hundred members, most of which know each other directly
Bao on 31 October 2012

iguanamon wrote:

Maori is a language of the native Maori peoples in New Zealand, not
Australia. Case in point.

And you proved both my point and my lack of sleep (which is a bad excuse).
aokoye on 31 October 2012

Depends on the circumstance. My background is Chinese. We recognize people in the community as speaking
"different dialects" and are still essentially Chinese. In the West Cantonese & Mandarin tend to be classified as
separate languages. Someone can be Cantonese-speaking from Hong Kong for instance and travel to China or
Taiwan without being fluent in Mandarin. People use chopsticks to eat and they bargain a lot when they go
shopping. On the other hand, there are a lot of Westerners and Chinese in America who knows how to eat with
chopsticks but are not fluent in Chinese.

Sometime ago I was in Taiwan for a tour and met a man who is as fluent in Chinese as I am. Coming from N.
America he did not have a habit of bargaining on the street. If an item cost $10 he would pay exactly the posted
amount. I would usually ask for a lower price. I don't think not bargaining when shopping makes him any less
Chinese. We exchange letters a few times a year. On his last letter he wrote about some disputed islands in the S.
China Sea claimed by Japan but "technically" belonged to China before the end of WWII. There has always been
some anti-Japanese sentiment since the occupation of China in the 1930s into the 40s. Some in the community
would not drive a Toyota or Nissan for this reason.

Part of learning a language involve watching movies, listening to the radio and other media. You naturally pick up
details in cultures. For instances if you are watching a movie from Singapore in Mandarin, you would notice they
don't address older people who are strangers by the usual 先生/太太 (Mr./Mrs.) but instead they prefer to use the
English Uncle/Auntie. I haven't been to Singapore or Malaysia but I picked this up watching local movies (not from
a Chinese phrase book). The Chinese culture is family oriented. Many people tend to be living close to their
families after they get marry like the Italians. You pick this up watching Chinese movies and dramas as well.
shk00design on 04 November 2013