blog # 6

While reading Baker’s article I found the idea of languacultures to be really interesting. Languacultures refers to the different cultures that language can represent, depending on the context that it is being used. I think that this idea is true in many different ways. Many people speak the English language, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are from the U.S. or share U.S. culture. Language is an important part of a culture, but according to this idea, the way the language is being used is more related to the culture it is representing. I speak Spanish, yet I have never been to a Spanish speaking country. Just because I can speak Spanish, that doesn’t mean that I am demonstrating, for example, Mexican culture. I speak a Spanish in a different context than someone who lives in Mexico and therefore our language use is part of two different languacultures. I can definitely see how English can be part of many different languacultures. There are so many people that speak English as a second or foreign language and many different dialects of English spoken. There are even different dialects of English spoken amongst native English speakers themselves. English speakers from Southern United States may use different words and expressions that English speakers from Northern United States don’t use and wouldn’t understand the meaning of. The fact that so many people, from different countries, cultures and backgrounds, use the English language, it’s clear that the different contexts that English can be found in shows that the English language take part in different languacultures. It’s kind of weird how language and culture can be separated in this sense. I’ve always thought that language was the one of, if not the most, important aspect of culture. However, I don’t think that Barker’s article is trying to say that language is not an important aspect of culture, maybe just that a language can be overlapping in different cultures. This article maybe is showing a more non-essentialist view of languages. I like the quote on page 573 that “a wider understanding of language and culture is needed because individuals do not stay within such neatly defined boundaries as scientist or business person”. I thought this was interesting because it kind of shows the non-essentialist view of language and culture as well. This quote is expressing how people aren’t just part of one large culture which would be the only culture that they would represent. Rather, people are part of many different small cultures in which they will use language differently in each one. This reminds me of the idea of different “registers” in a language. For example, I use a different register of speech when I am in class, speaking with a professor, than I use when I am at the mall with a friend. I am speaking the same language in both instances, but I am using the language with different people in different contexts and therefore am using different words, expressions and tones while speaking in the different registers. I think the whole idea of “lingua franca” makes it obvious that languages can be found in many different cultural contexts. The whole idea of lingua franca is that the people speaking a certain language do not share the same native tongue. If the people do not share the same native tongue, then it is likely that they come from different cultural backgrounds. However, they are still speaking the same language to one another, therefore showing that languages can be found in a variety of cultural contexts.