applied linguuuu.pdf

University of Kufa
College of Arts
Department of English
M. A. Studies
Language, Thought, and Culture and Applied Linguistics
A presentation by
Sarah Mohammad Saleh
and
Nour Al-Huda Hamid Rasheed
Submitted to
Asst. Prof. Azhar Hussain, Ph.D.
2023

1
1. Introduction
The relations among language, culture, and thought are complex. The empirical
evidence from diverse domains suggests that culture affects language, language affects
thought, and universally shared perception and cognition constrain the structure of
language. Although neither language nor culture determines thought, both seem to
highlight certain aspects of the world, with stronger influence when there are no clear
perceptible categories. Research in applied linguistics must delve into how language,
culture, perception, and cognition interact with one another across different domains.
Within this paper, an account of these concepts and their connections from an applied
linguistic perspective is presented.
2. Language, Thought and Applied Linguistics
The term “language” has been used to denote a broad range of meanings in the language
and thought debate. Any feature of language, such as phonetic, lexical, and grammatical
characteristics, can be a topic of investigation pertaining to the relation between language
and thought. The German philosopher Johann Herder (1744–1803) expressed the idea that
a nation’s language reﬂected the way its people thought according to the equation: one
language = one folk = one nation (Kramsch, 2008:237). Language cannot be separated
from thought.
There is no single answer to the question of what “thought” is. Researchers often use
the term “thought” to refer to conceptual representation, but they also use the term to mean
a wide range of functions, such as perception, reasoning, and learning (Imai et al., 2020:4).
‘The field of applied linguistics, born in the fifties, at a time when the relationship of
language and mind was the primary concern of formal linguistics, had a natural affinity to
the brain sciences as they were developed then’. But the relation between language and
thought or better to say culture and thought has its origin in early nineteenth century.

2
Alternatively, “language” could be treated as a collection of narratives that reflect
culture-specific value systems and epistemologies, and it is often discussed at the level of
discourse (Imai et al.,2020:3).
Language seems to be a crucial component to the problem solving and how we
describe the world to ourselves (Goldman,2020). It is the core of Applied linguistics.
Applied linguistics (abbreviated as AL); the application of linguistic theories,
descriptions and methods to the solution of language problems which have arisen in a
range of human, cultural and social contexts ; needs to be understood as a social science
(Sealey & Carter, 2004,17).
Its core issues are concerned with language itself is one key area of enquiry; the
motivated practice of human agents as they use language is another; and the nature of the
structured social contexts within which people seek to pursue their interests - where
language is usually a medium for doing so, and is sometimes also an objective of those
interests - is a third (Sealey & Carter, 2004: 18).
Kramsch (2011:305) states that although language in AL is seen as a linguistic, social,
cultural, political, an aesthetic, and an educational local practice, which the researcher is
called upon to illuminate, the practice itself is often used by young researchers to
uncritically illustrate a theory born else-where; “in other disciplines”.
3. Culture and Applied Linguistics
Culture, is deﬁned as membership in a discourse community that share a common social
space and history, and common imaginings, entered the ﬁeld of AL through the study of
language in its sociocultural context, i.e. discourse (Imai et a., 2020). It is often seen as
originating through environmental or social means (Mernagh, 2018:2).

3
Holliday (1999:1) classifies culture into a dynamic rather than a static one with a small
‘c’ accounts of how people live their lives, and a big ‘C’ collage of the highest
achievements in artistic and social enterprises. Street (1993:25 as cited in Dubreil, 2020:36)
characterizes this dynamic perspective on culture:
... what culture does is precisely the work of defining words ideas, things and groups … We all live
our lives in terms of definitions, names, and categories that culture creates. The job of studying
culture is not finding and then accepting its definitions but of discovering how and what definitions
are made, under what circumstances, and for what reasons. These definitions are used, change, and
sometimes fall into disuse. Indeed the very term culture itself, like these other ideas and definitions,
changes its meanings and serves different and often competing purposes at different times (Street,
1993: 25).
Cultural beliefs and practices are transmitted through language through a process of
socialization which is used to explain the relationship between language and culture (Ochs
1986: 2 as cited in Dubreil, 2020:36). It is therefore a process where the individual is
socialized and simultaneously socializes others in the environment.
As a result, social interactions are important in transmitting linguistic and cultural
practices and the relationships formed. Hence, language socialization is both culture- and
context-dependent (ibid).This interrelation between culture and language falls under the
investigation and application of applied linguistics and plays a significant role in the field.
i. The notion of culture and language represents the communities and institutions
which house and frame both language learning and language use. Understanding
language use, spoken and written, as performance has always been important in
applied linguistics (Dubreil, 2020:4).
ii. Language and culture are also both highly dependent of each other in terms of how
they both invariably impact, change and construct one another. It is stipulated
that language expresses, embodies and symbolizes culture. This relationship is

4
what helps form the spectrum in which users of a language identify themselves
and others (Mernagh, 2018:1).
iii. Whenever there is a language, there exists a certain culture with it, and having a
negative view towards that culture might cause failure in the learning
(Dahmardeh, 2016:2).
iv. Joseph (2004, as cited in Dubreil, 2016:8) maintains that: Language teaching and
learning ,within applied linguistics, always involve two languages with differing
cultural prestige in the world at large and in the particular situation in which the
teaching and learning are taking place.
To Risager (1998, as cited in Dahmardeh,2016:5) there are four ways of teaching
culture:
a) Intercultural: The intercultural approach emphasizes the idea that culture is better
learned once the comparison of the target and the learners’ own culture is at work.
This has replaced the foreign-culture approach, and is the dominant one today.
b) Multicultural: The multicultural approach is based on the idea that every given culture
consists of some sub-cultures. This has made its appearance since the 1980s, but still is
in marginal position.
c) Trans-cultural: The trans-cultural approach regards the foreign language as an
international language, and thus for this approach it does not stand to reason to add any
specific culture to the foreign or target culture.
d) Foreign-cultural: This approach solely emphasizes the target culture and does not take
into account the comparison of the target and source culture, as it does not care about
source language at all. This has been losing ground since the 1980s.
Overall, there are or better to say used to be at least four types of the presentation of
culture (Dahmardeh,2016).

5
Research Problems in AL
Applied linguistic research has the applied and inter-disciplinary nature of the field, and
the problems this presents for the study of language and culture:
(1) Description vs prescription: The first issue that confronts an applied field like applied
linguistics has to do with the expectation that the findings of researchers will lead to
immediate prescriptions for the practice. Businessmen expect from applied linguists
prescriptions on how to behave when negotiating deals with partners from other cultures,
medical personnel expect to learn how to improve their bedside manners by tailoring their
care to their patients’ ‘culture’, court translators expect to learn how to interpret and
convey the intentions of their clients beyond the words uttered. The reason the US State
Department is currently recruiting anthropologists to join the battlefields in Iraq and
Afghanistan is precisely because the US military needs to ‘know’ the culture of the enemy
and hopes to get from these researchers guidelines on how to behave in order to befriend
(or capture) local nationals. The issue of description vs prescription lies at the core of any
applied field.
(2) Description vs prediction, the second issue, hotly debated in applied linguistics – the
role of culture in language tests. The cultural bias of language tests has long been a serious
concern of applied linguists. While language tests are supposed to predict future verbal
behavior in a variety of social contexts, very often their cultural content seems to want to
predict cultural assimilation, not merely linguistic ability. That is; language tests have been
used to discriminate against ethnic groups in immigration situations.
Language tests raise the thorny issue of the relation of language and thought and how
much cultural knowledge gate-keepers are entitled to require of potential immigrants to

6
industrialized societies. The problem is equally acute in the other real-world problem
which applied linguists are called upon to adjudicate, namely achievement tests in
educational systems.
(3) Linguistic vs educational concerns: Some applied linguists even argue that we should
do away with the notion of intercultural learning altogether. Does not communicative
competence already include the ability to negotiate differences in assumptions, worldviews
and discourse styles that we call ‘culture’? Why should we specifically teach understanding
and tolerance of other cultures when communicative language teaching already entails
expressing, interpreting and negotiating meanings that might be very different from one
culture to the other? The debate that went on in the first years of the twenty-first
century was a confrontation between discourse analysts and educationists in Germany
around the notion of culture: Culture as discourse vs culture as moral universe. The first
can be explained and negotiated rationally, the second requires mature judgment and a
certain dose of humility to not only accept cultural difference but to acknowledge the
power differential among cultures, and, ultimately, the fact that all culture is political.
In courtrooms and classrooms, in hospital wards and health services, in boardrooms
and at press conferences, applied linguists are confronted with political problems in the
real world where the language-culture nexus comes into play.
(4) Structuralist vs post-structuralist approaches to research: Post-structuralist thinkers
see culture as constructed in and through discourse and emerging locally from verbal
interactions in historically contingent contexts. Rather than focus on the multiple, changing
and even conflictual nature of structures in the social world – males vs females, powerful
vs powerless, native vs non-native, it turns its attention away from the structures
themselves and focuses instead on the conditions of possibility of certain structures rather
than others emerging at certain points in time. For example, applied linguists in the
post-structuralist vein ask not: how could the Congolese shoplifter write a better letter to
persuade the Belgian authorities of her innocence, but: what conditions of colonization,
globalization, ethnic prejudice led this woman to move to Belgium in the first place and be
accused of shoplifting? The first question leads directly to social welfare and domestic

7
political activism. The second does not lead to a concrete solution to the problem at hand
but addresses the more complex and no less political issue of language, culture, and
globalization.
The hypothesis that language both expresses and creates categories of thought that are
shared by members of a social group and that language is, in part, responsible for the
attitudes and beliefs that constitute what we call “culture,” is a hypothesis that various
disciplines have focused on in various ways (Kramsch, 2008:236).
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
The relation of language, thought, and culture was first expressed in the
early nineteenth century by the two German philosophers Johann Herder and
Wilhelm von Humboldt, and picked up later by the American anthropologists
Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and Sapir’s student Benjamin Lee Whorf, in what
has come to be called the linguistic relativity or Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (Davies
and Elder, 2004: 235).
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a principle suggesting that the structure of a
language influences its speakers' worldview or cognition, and thus people's
perceptions are relative to their spoken language (Ottenheimer, 2009: pp. 33–
34).
“Language is a guide to “social reality” . . . it powerfully conditions all our
thinking about social problems and processes. Human beings do not live in the
objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily
understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has
become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to
imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and
that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of
communication or reflection. The fact of the matter is that the “real world” is to
a large extent unconsciously built up on the language habits of the group. No
two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the
same social reality. The worlds in which different societies live are distinct
worlds, not merely the same world with different labels attached . . . We see and
hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language
habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation” (Sapir,
1962, pp. 9–68).

8
Whorf’s hypothesis encountered virulent scorn and criticism from
rationalist circles. Pinker’s (as cited in Davies and Elder, 2004: 238) biting
rejection of Whorf’s hypothesis is but one recent example. What led Whorf to
this radical position? He wrote that the idea first occurred to him in his work as
a fire prevention engineer when he was struck by how language led workers to
misconstrue dangerous situations .
For example, one worker caused a serious explosion by tossing a
cigarette into an “empty” drum that in fact was full of gasoline vapor. But the
more you examine Whorf’s arguments, the less sense they make. Take the story
about the worker and the “empty” drum. The seeds of disaster supposedly lay in
the semantics of empty, which, Whorf claimed, means both “without its usual
contents” and “null and void, empty, inert.” The hapless worker, his conception
of reality molded by his linguistic categories, did not distinguish between the
“drained” and “inert” sense, hence, gasoline vapor is invisible. Surely this was
fooled by his eyes, not by the English language. “How do we know that they
think different? Just listen to the way they speak!” (Pinker, 1994, pp. 1–60).
There are two versions of linguistic relativity; The strong and weak
versions. The first one to be tackled is the strong version or what is come to be
known as re-thinking relativity.
Re-Thinking Linguistic Relativity
Linguistic relativity, or linguistic determinism is the concept that
language and its structures limit and determine human knowledge or thought, as
well as thought processes such as categorization, memory, and perception. The
term implies that people's native languages will affect their thought process and
therefore people will have different thought processes based on their mother
tongues. Linguistic determinism argues that individuals experience the world
based on the structure of the language they habitually use (Hickmann, 2000:
410).
The strong version of linguistic relativity has been pretty much discarded,
for a variety of convincing reasons (Bernstein, 1971, as cited in Davies and
Elder, 2004: 235):
i. It is clear that translation is possible among languages, even though some
meaning does get lost in translation.

9
ii. Bi- or multilingual individuals are able to use their various languages in
ways that are not dictated by the habits of any one speech community. And,
with the increasing diversity of speakers within speech communities around
the globe, it is increasingly difficult to maintain that all speakers of a
language think the same way. But the idea that the grammar we use
influences in some way the thoughts that we communicate to others did not
affect the field of applied linguistics.
iii. The role of social context in language acquisition and use was a strong
component of linguistic research, but western linguists were careful not to
suggest in any way that the social context might influence the way people
speak and think.
A case in point is the debate between Basil Bernstein and William
Labov. Bernstein had linked speakers’ different ways with words (i.e.,
elaborated vs. restricted codes) with the social class of these speakers. He
suggested that middle-class speakers use more elaborated codes, i.e., assume
less prior knowledge of their listeners, than working-class speakers, who
assume greater shared knowledge on the part of their listeners, and thus use
more restricted codes. Labov (1972, as cited in Davies and Elder, 2004: 235)
violently rejected Bernstein’s views, showing that poor black adolescents in
New York’s inner city used as “elaborated” codes as Bernstein’s middle-class
whites, thus dispelling the idea that social context conditions language use.
The resurgence of the concept in applied linguistics is due to a variety of
developments in several related fields in the last 30 years. Vygotsky’s work,
translated in the west in 1962 and 1978, became particularly influential in
applied linguistics through the neo-Vygotskyian research (p. 236).
Semiotic Relativity
Semiotics is the theory of signs, and semiotic is the analysis of systems
using signs or signals for the purpose of communication (semiotic systems). The
most important semiotic system is human language, but there are other systems,
e.g. morse code, sign language, traffic signals (Richards and Schmidt, 2010:
521).
From a phylogenetic perspective (the development of the human species),
the acquisition of symbolic reference, by contrast with iconic or indexical
reference, represents a quantum leap in the development of humankind that has
led to the development of uniquely human thought (David and Elder, 2004:
241).

10
From an ontogenetic perspective (the development of the individual
human organism), Vygotsky (1981: 163) has shown how language as a social
activity influences thought. Vygotsky’s theory claims that human language as a
semiotic system links what we say and what we think, for it is both linguistic
sign and psychological tool. It is Vygotsky’s semiotic theory that gives a clue as
to how this transformation might take place. Words are both tools and signs
(David and Elder, 2004: 242).
The tension between semiotic determinism and semiotic relativity
underlies much of the work done by researchers in cognitive semantics like
George Lakoff (1987) and Mark Johnson (1987). Johnson (1987 as cited in
David and Elder, 2004: 243) goes one step further to show that symbols have a
way of changing not only our ability for abstraction and reason, but also our
imagination and emotions.
This is nowhere more apparent than in the linguistic “metaphors we live
by,” i.e., those expressions that we take as representing reality “as it is,” but that
are, in fact, mental representations or conceptual spaces (Fauconnier, 1985;
Turner, 1996) that are constructed by language (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff &
Johnson, 1980).
Metaphors are so tied up with our bodily presence in the world that they
can arouse emotions and passions, and lead people to action (Lakoff and
Johnson 1980: 106- 108).
Applied linguists like Norman Fairclough (1992), who advocates critical
language awareness , and Pennycook (2001), who calls for a critical applied
linguistics, argue that it is the role of applied linguists to demystify these
“naturalized” metaphors (Fairclough, 1992; Pennycook, 2001, as cited in David
and Elder, 2004: 244).
Linguistic Relativity
The linguistic relativity hypothesis has recently been revisited in a
different form on the typological/grammatical and on the lexical/semantic levels.
The grammatical level has been investigated by Dan Slobin and his associates in
a large-scale cross-cultural project in cognitive linguistics (Berman & Slobin,
1994; Slobin, 1996, 2000 as cited in David and Elder, 2004: 244).
Slobin builds on Boas’ insight that “in each language, only a part of the
complete concept that we have in mind is expressed,” and that “each language
has a special tendency to select this or that aspect of the mental image which is
conveyed by the expression of the thought” (Boas, 1966: pp. 9–38).

11
He replaces Sapir/Whorf’s static nominal phrase “thought-and-language,”
with the more dynamic phrase “thinking-for speaking” (Slobin, 1996: 71). The
semantic level of linguistic relativity has been explored more systematically by
Anna Wierzbicka (1992: 25) who searches for a natural semantic metalanguage
that could explain conceptual differences among languages, since “it is
impossible for a human being to study anything – be it cultures, language,
animals, or stones – from a totally extra-cultural point of view” .
Discursive Relativity
Discursive relativity is a term that refers to how speakers of different
discourses (across languages or in the same language) have different cultural
worldviews. The idea that “verbal discursive practices affect some aspects of
thinking either by modulating structural influences or by directly influencing the
interpretation of the interactional context” underlies much recent research in
linguistic anthropology, language socialization studies, and cultural psychology
(Lucy, 2000, p. x), and this is brought to applied linguistics as well.
This kind of research draws not on rationalist theories of mind, but on
theories that account for the interaction of mind, language, and social/cultural
action in communicative practices of everyday life (ix).
In language teaching, the provision of examples of how a new learning
item is used in a meaningful or real context in order to reinforce the
communicative use of the new item and to help students better understand and
remember it, is called Contextualization (Richards and Schmidt, 2010: 128).
Contextualization cues are those features of speech that “relate what is said
at any one time and in any one place to knowledge acquired through past
experience, in order to retrieve the presuppositions must rely on to maintain
conversational involvement and assess what is intended” (Gumperz, 1992: 230).
Such cues may be phonological (choice of intonation, stress, and pitch),
paralinguistic (gestures, facial expressions), or linguistic. They link what is said
to what is thought and to how the world is perceived by the participants (p.
231).
Thus, language as communicative practice is tied to a person’s position in
time, space, social and historical relations, and his/her social and emotional
identity. Language relativity will require taking into account phenomena that
have remained too long under the radar of applied linguistic research, i.e.,
cultural knowledge and its reproduction (Hill & Mannheim, 1992, p. 398).

12
Language Relativity in Educational Practice
The critical test of applied linguistics as a research field is, of course,
education, in the broadest sense of the bringing about of social and cultural
change, Widdowson (1980: 86) pointed to this problem when he wrote: “It is
the responsibility of applied linguists to consider the criteria for an
educationally relevant approach to language” .
The needs of the culture, as perceived and formulated by teachers, school
administrators, and textbook writers and publishers may not be the same as
those formulated by researchers, nor is the discourse of all practitioners or of all
researchers homogeneous. Culture, in an individual, as in society at large, is
plural, changing, and often conflictual. The conflict is expressed in three
questions that can be raised by the principle of language relativity in educational
linguistics (David and Elder, 2004: 252):
a. Is not applied linguistic theory itself subjected to the principle of language
relativity? . Such a view is only partially true, for applied linguistic theory is
multiple, even though not all theories are equal before the laws of demand
and supply on the economic textbook market. Moreover if applied linguistic
theory is both universally valid and contingent upon the cultural conditions
of its enunciation, so is educational theory
b. Is not educational culture inherently inhospitable to the principle of
language relativity, since its ultimate goal is to discriminate between
educated and non-educated segments of the population through the
imposition of the same formal norms to everyone? The reason why
(non-relativistic) grammar is taught as a formal system, is precisely because
of a positivistic, information-processing educational culture that imposes its
own rationalistic frames on what is acceptable teaching at what level for
what age group, and what is not.
c. Can language relativity be taught directly or can it only be modelled? This is
the key question. Suggestions have been made to make teachers and
students aware of the relevance of the linguistic relativity principle in its
diachronic form, both with regard to their L1 and the L2. Teachers can show
their students, for example, how the English grammar encourages its
speakers to attend to reality in a certain way when they speak.

13
Language Relativity in Applied Linguistic Research
Research on all forms of language relativity has been carried out pretty
much independently of research on second language acquisition (SLA), which
forms a large area of the field called “applied linguistics” (David and Elder,
2004: 251).
Prior to the emergence of applied linguistics in the late fifties/early sixties,
the combination of structural linguistics and behavioral psychology led to
contrastive analysis approaches in language acquisition study and to
behavioristic methods of language teaching (repetition, habit formation,
translation) (p. 251).
Through the eighties, second language acquisition (SLA) research was not
interested in linguistic relativity. Although SLA research was concerned with
the social context of language learning, it viewed the social as a stable,
preexisting fixture, existing outside the individual, not constructed by an
individual’s psychological and linguistic processes. The most focus of SLA
research on the (standard) linguistic aspects of communicative competence and
the (universal) cognitive aspects of learning, as well as its inability to deal
satisfactorily with social and cultural variation, excluded any possibility of
taking into consideration semiotic, linguistic, and discursive relativity in
language development. The social and cultural turn in SLA within the last ten
years has made the language relativity principle more relevant in applied
linguistics (p. 252).
From a methodological perspective, the principle of language relativity
suggests adopting an ecological/phenomenological approach to research in
applied linguistics As such it is both inspirational and risky. Because it enables
applied linguists to recapture the early holistic view of imagine by Boas and
Sapir, it feels more valid than positivistically oriented research approaches that
have to reduce the evidence to what is rationally researchable (p. 252).
Language relativity will require taking into account phenomena that have
remained too long under the radar of applied linguistic research, i.e., cultural
knowledge and its reproduction, and “the more chaotic and inchoate sides of
language and social life” (Hill & Mannheim, 1992: 399).
Current Attempts to Capture the Language/Culture Relation in
Applied Linguistics

14
If applied linguistics is ‘the study of language with relevance to
real-world problems’, then we need to explore the nature of this relevance once
the real world has become a global world of multilingual and multicultural
interconnections. Several strands of this research take culture to be a stable
category, attached to an individual’s identity and place of belonging. They hold
on to the equation: one language (or way of speaking) equal one culture (or
social background). These are (David and Elder, 2004: 251):
i. Cross-cultural Communication Studies: Cross-cultural communication
focuses on the way native speakers and nonnative speakers manage
conversations in everyday life. It examines the different expectations of
speakers regarding the pragmatics of speech acts, the management of turns at
talk, and so on. This strand of research focuses on problematic talk and
instances of miscommunication in social life.
ii. Sociocultural Theories of Second Language Development: Sociocultural
theory, despite its name, is not a theory of the social, but a theory of mind . . .
that recognizes the central role that social relationships and culturally
constructed artifacts play in organizing uniquely human forms of thinking’.
Sociocultural theory clearly sees culture as a stable category, an objective force,
structured both by historical processes of socialization and by people’s
engagement in cultural activities.
iii. Intercultural Learning: Is an interdisciplinary effort in the sciences of
education to link language education to the teaching of cross-cultural awareness.
Language learners develop an intercultural perspective where they get to
understand both their own culture and language contexts, the target culture and
language contexts. Using this knowledge, they move to a position in which their
developing intercultural competence informs their language choices in
communication.

15
References
Boas, F. (1966) Introduction: Handbook of American Indian languages. vol. 1:
Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin. pp. 9–38.
Gumperz, J. J. (1992) Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti &
Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon.
p.230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, J. & Mannheim, B. (1992) Language and worldview. Annual Review of
Anthropology. Pp. 398-399.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: how the mind creates language.pp.
1-60. New York: Harper & Row press.
Sapir, E. (1962) Culture, language and personality: selected essays. Ed. David
Mandelbaum. Pp. 9-68. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.”
In J. J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity. p. 71.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Pp. 106-108. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hickmann, Maya (2000). Linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism: some
new directions. p. 410.
Ottenheimer, Harriet (2009). The anthropology of language : an introduction to
linguistic anthropology (2nd ed.). pp. 33–34. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Vygotsky, L. (1981) The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch
(ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. P. 163. Armonk, Newyork :
Sharpe.
Widdowson, H. (1980) Applied linguistics: the pursuit of relevance. In Robert B.
Kaplan (ed.), On the scope of applied linguistics. P. 86.
Wierzbicka, A. (1992) Semantics, culture, and cognition: universal human
concepts in culture-specific configurations. P. 25. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

16
Lucy, J. (2000). Introductory comments. In Niemeier. S& Dirven. R (eds.),
Evidence for linguistic relativity. pp. x-ix. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kramsch, C. (2002a). Language, thought, and culture. In Davies. A and
Catherine. E (ed.), The handbook of applied linguistics. Pp. 235- 256.
Dahmardeh, M. (2016). Culture, Language and Applied Linguistics: Language Teaching
and Cultural Awareness [Paper presentation]. The European Conference on Cultural
Studies .
Dubreil, S. (2009, September). Shifting perspectives and (re)positioning subjects: language
learning and transcultural dialogue in electronic learning environments [Paper
presentation]. Language, Learning, and Context , Newcastle University.
Imai, M., Kanero, J., & Masuda, T. (2020). Culture, language, and thought. Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.579
Goldman, D. (2020, March 26). The importance of language in human cognition and
artificial general intelligence. Medium. Retrieved March 9, 2023,
from https://towardsdatascience.com/the-importance-of-language-in-human-cognition-and-
artificial-general-intelligence-6d33af481684
References
Galantomos, I. (2019). Applied cognitive linguistics: What every language practitioner
should know. JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES, CULTURES &
CIVILIZATIONS, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.15640/jflcc.v7n1a1
Kramsch, C. (2008). Language, Thought, and Culture. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The
handbook of applied linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 236-238). John Wiley & Sons.

17
Kramsch, C. (2011). Language, culture and identity. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge
handbook of applied linguistics (1st ed., pp. 303-317). Routledge.
Mernagh, L. (2018). Identity, Agency and Contextual Language Teaching.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25901.13285
Sealey, A., & Carter, B. (2004). Applied linguistics as social science (1st ed.). Continuum.

applied linguuuu.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to applied linguuuu.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

applied linguuuu.pdf