Cross Cultural Pragmatics
The main purpose of this essay is to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of emic versus etic analysis in cross-cultural pragmatics. Firstly we must define, what is cross-cultural pragmatics. According to Anna Wierzbicka ‘Pragmatics is the study of human interaction’ (Wierzbicka 1991). The term Cross-Cultural is self-explanatory meaning across different cultures. Human interaction between different cultures is now part of every day life for the large majority. This interaction is divided into two different types: Emic and Etic. According to a study ‘The emic or inside perspective follows in the tradition of psychological studies of folk beliefs (Wundtz: 1888) and in cultural anthropologists’ striving to understand culture from “the natives point of view” (Malinowski, 1992). The etic or outsiders perspective follows in the tradition of behaviorist psychology (Skinner, 1938) and anthropological approaches that link cultural practices to external, antecedent factors, such as economic or ecological conditions, that may not be salient to cultural insiders (Harris, 1979)’ (Morris et al 1999).
Emic and Etic perspectives carry their own advantages and disadvantages, which differ in other cultures. The point of this essay is not to argue which perspective is best but to discuss in detail the advantages and disadvantages of both. To further explore these differences we will compare two languages from contrasting cultures. The two languages we have selected are Hindi, the national language of India and Australian Standard English. In assessing these languages we have taken into consideration various cultural aspects, which include; religion, tradition, history, environment, relationships, customs, social organizations, world-view and discourse practices of groups. The importance of these aspects can differ between languages and cultures. We will discuss in detail the most important aspects to the specific cultures we have selected.
Hindi is an ancient language derived from Sanskrit. Despite British rule in India for sometime in the early 20th, Century , speaking Hindi has remained an important part of India’s Culture. According to Michael C. Shapiro “The vocabulary of Modern Standard Hindi is both rich and diverse. It draws from the vast lexical resources of Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Portuguese, English, and other languages which Hindi has come in contact with” (Shapiro. M 2003). As was mentioned earlier the emic perspective is that of the insider. In this case we are referring to Hindi speaking Indians . Communicating in Hindi does not simply involve speaking the language, as it is attached to a rich culture with various influences . Communications are a complex system as Stephan W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss discuss, “Communication is one of the everyday activities that is intertwined with all of human life so completely that we sometimes overlook its pervasiveness, importance, and complexity” (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008) . The complex system that makes up the language of Hindi is something that native Hindi speaking Indians are able to grasp as it has surrounded them their entire lives. A thorough understanding of Hindi is an obvious advantage to those of the emic perspective, however it has major limitations in relation to cross-cultural pragmatics. While understanding your own culture may be important, it is also vital in modern times to be objective. This can be difficult from an emic perspective as it is easy to become bias to your native culture.
The etic observer is disadvantaged as there are many complex cultural practices in the Hindi language that would be difficult for them to fully understand and participate in. Celebrations such as Deepawali occur annually and are an important celebration in the lives of many Hindi speaking Indians. The history of Deepawali is common knowledge to these people however etic observers would find this difficult to grasp. In this case the etic perspective has obvious disadvantages, but does allow individuals to observe and compare the culture from a non-bias perspective. It is the etic perspective that allows an individual to observe and learn about other cultures without preconceived notions.
Australian Standard English was diverged from British English a mere 200 years ago in the 18th century when British Settles assumed their right to Australia and in doing so assumed English as the dominant language. Because Australia is a land locked country surrounded by non-English speaking countries apart from New Zealand many factors have influenced and attributed to the distinction of Australian English. The Language is constantly changing, with the co-existence of expanding migrant communities and foreign languages, which have established Australia as a nation. The dialect can vary between states, cities, urban and rural communities.
The discussion here is to decide weather you gain a greater perspective of Australian linguistics through an emic approach or an etic approach. There are many cultural aspects that need to be considered before you are able to understand a language successfully. Australian Standard English is predominantly derived from Standard English and can generally be understood by those who speak it. Aspects such as Australia’s unique environment and young history as well as world view, customs and relationships which have followed from an English beginning have heavily influenced the distinctively different Australian dialect from other English speaking cultures.
From an etic perspective of Australian Standard English, outsiders from an English speaking background are able to predominantly understand the language, but for the most part unable to grasp the many terms and phrases that characterise Australia’s distinctive dialect. In a study Robert J. Menner discusses the American vocabulary compared to the Australian Vocabulary to come to an understanding of how different countries can develop “rich an racy vocabulary” (Robert J. Menner 1946, p. 120). He goes on to discuss “A few Australianisms have recently become familiar in this country (America), for instance dinkum, genuine, fair, bonzer, first-rate, and larrikin, the Australian hoodlum with characteristics of his own. Reading these strange terms and unusual locutions I realised for the first time how an Englishman must feel when confronted with Americanisms and American Slang” (Robert J. Menner 1946, p. 120). This study gives us the insight and understanding that from an etic perspective Menner, was unable to comprehend many of the Australian terms and phrases he was confronted with. Even though Menner was from an English speaking culture, that views the world from a very similar basis, as an outsider he was unable to understand the language completely.
From an emic perspective of Australians, growing up within the culture, these terms and phrases make perfect sense. Australians are able to recognize where they are historically derived from and are emotionally linked to these events as they are brought up surrounded by the environment that affects the language. This language that has being deemed by many as poor English slang as Menner discusses; “The Australian dislike of elegance and affectation leads to general ‘low-browism’ of expression and careless enunciation…” (Robert J. Menner 146, p.121). However it is merely a variety of English that has derived from a young history and unique environment.
The Emic and Etic advantages and disadvantages for each of these cultures vary. As was discussed earlier Hindi, which is associated with the rich and ancient culture of India compared to Australian Standard English, is only in its infancy. Australian Standard English associates its culture with Christianity, which is a predominant part of life in the Western world. However today we are part of a multicultural community that for the most part has broken down the religious barriers that the Hindi culture would be faced with. It’s through these two cultures that we are able to grasp how major influences, such as religion; history and environment can hinder or heighten how languages are analyzed from an emic and etic perspective in cross-cultural pragmatics. Through our research we have come to the conclusion that a combination of both emic and an etic analysis achieves the greatest understanding of a language as Kenneth Pike once stated “Combining etic and emic perspectives yields ‘a kind of tridimentsional understanding’ (pike 1945:12) of a human behaviour instead of a flat etic one” (Chapman, S & Routledge, C 2009).
Please refer to the reference list in the References section below
Please note: this interactive is designed to help with essay structure, not referencing. There may be minor errors in referencing. For information on referencing consult the Online Referencing Tool.
References
Chapman, S & Routledge, C 2009, Key ideas in linguistic and philosophy of languages, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Crystal, D 2010, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of language: third edition, Cambridge university press, Cambridge.
Findlay, M 1998, Langauge and Communication: A cross-Cultural encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, California.
Littlejohn. S & Foss. K 2008, Theories of Human Communication, Thomson and Wadsworth, Belmont USA.
Morris, M, Leung, K, Ames, D & Lickel, B. 1999. Views from inside and outside: integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment, Vol. 24, No. 4, Oct.
Romaine, S 1991, Languages in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shapiro, M 2003, A Primer of Modern Standard Hindi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Delhi.
Weirzbicka, A, 1991, Cross-cultural pragmatics: the semantics of human interaction, Walter de Gruyter GmbH & CO, Berlin.
Menner, R 1946, ‘The Australian Language’ American Speech, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 1946), pp. 120-12, Viewed 30 May 2011, via Griffith University database.