The cultures of Australia, the US, the UK, and Canada are pretty dissimilar, despite sharing a largely common language. Even within, say, the US, there are marked differences between say, Wyoming and California. In the UK of yore, the upper and lower classes did not share a common culture at all, so I'm not sure if language is that critical. On the other hand, University professors in, say, Germany and the UK seem to be rather close culturally, in my experience at least ...

I think you need to know also the principal figures in the cultural and political history, because they will surely have influenced this culture a lot. I also think that you need to have breathed the same air, that is, spent quite some time within this culture - not as a tourist, but living and being an active participant in this society. Perhaps then, and after a number of years, you may understand a fair degree of the culture you are interested in.

The cultures of Australia, the US, the UK, and Canada are pretty dissimilar, despite sharing a largely common language. Even within, say, the US, there are marked differences between say, Wyoming and California. In the UK of yore, the upper and lower classes did not share a common culture at all, so I'm not sure if language is that critical. On the other hand, University professors in, say, Germany and the UK seem to be rather close culturally, in my experience at least ...

i think if you delve deep enough into a language you can absorb its culture as well(kinda automatically), i'm assuming by mastering a language you mean comprehending the context surrounding the language's evolution and everything happening where it's being used.  i mean i think a language and her culture are intertwined. so in my opinion the answer to you question in general would be a yes, btw most of the people that i know who learnt a second language quite well also had a passion for the culture of that particular language(also were trying to mimic the behaviours of a person from that culture) and i'm aware it may just be a coincident.

The people of Orissa come from a diverse cultural and social background. The tribals that inhabit the hinterland of the state and form the bulk of the population coming from districts like Koraput, Rayagada, Sambalpur and Malkangiri among others. Endemic poverty, tribal populations confined to the remote interior districts and extremely poor infrastructure have hampered the development of the Oriyas. The tribal belt is rich in mineral resources but the benefits rarely reach them; illiteracy, unemployment and exploitation by local landlords and merchants are rife. The majority of the rural population ekes out a subsistence living from agriculture. While urban dwellers have access to medical care and education, those in the interior of the states are bereft of any such basic amenities.

http://www.journeymart.com/de/india/orissa-people-society.aspx

It depends. Mastering a foreign language and living at the same time in that linguistic environment implies mastering the culture. But it is also possible to learn a foreign language without deep insight in cultural matter

Mastering a language does not necessarily lead to mastering the culture of those speaking that language but it will help if the person is keen on learning the cultural dimensions. I came to know foreigners in England who were fluent in English & when asked how they acquired this fluency, their reply was from "pubs" & "discos" ! There is hardly any culture in such places!! However, if their reply was from "public lectures & seminars" or "museums" or "operas" or 'reading books & visiting historical sites", then they would have gained both worlds: language & culture.

One thing should leed to another. A better understanding of Language will help you learn more in terms of Culture. And Cultural knowledge, especially if it enables you to travell and intricate more deeply into cultural means, will inevitably leed to a better knowledge of the Language. And if you enter literature, through the knowledge of a language, you are entering the Culture of that language.

I believe that in most cases, both are interdependable.

Of course, that when you think of the Commonwealth Societies, or in the case of my Country Portugal if you think of the PALOP community (Portuguese-Speaking Official Language Countries, that include Brasil, African Countries, Macau and Timor), this premise will not at all apply, due to the immense diversity of Cultures. And reading Shakespeare doesn't at all imply that you understand the United States Culture !

Dear All,

Being cultured is not a privilege of university professors, not even that of university staff. Here at RG on discussed pretty often on the connections of culture and science. Regarding language-dependent cultures the knowledge of the language in question helps to penetrate into that culture. However, visual cultures such as painting and architecture do not need to speak a foreign language. However, Belles-lettres and music are much more language-dependent areas. To be really able to understand a culture of a nation needs language knowledge and the understanding of history, art, science, customs, way of thinking, even the foods and wines of the target country.

I remark, there are very characteristic nations (e.g. France, Spain, Italy, Russia not to speak on American, Asian and African countries) whose culture is unique.

As I see it, language is but one element of culture, when "culture" is taken in its anthropological sense, meaning the set of collective ideas, values, and patterns of behaviour shared by a given group of people. Culture consists of interrelated subsets that are transmitted and learned, adapting continually to changes in the geographic and social context of the group. Language is an important element of culture, but it does not define or determine culture as a whole, in spite of the chauvanistic dreams of many 19th and 20th century political leaders, with their "one nation, one language" policies. To understand a culture fully, each element -including economic, technological, social, and ideological aspects- must be understood and treated as an independent variable. If you were to graphically represent each cultural variable with a different color on a map, you would probably end up with something looking like a rather messy abstract expressionist painting, with blurry boundaries and minimal correspondence between the frontiers of distinct variables. Thus nonlinguistic cultural variables may or may not be shared across linguistic boundaries. Our cultural reality is more complex than it seems.

Hi Marcel! I have read the answers till now, quite a good puzzle.

I'm very curious about the interpretation of Creole languages in this particular context.

Is Language Culture a relation of equivalence? They fuse, overlap? No, nobody thinks so. However, can we imagine culture without language - no. Can we imagine language without culture - no.

Cultures develop in a "progressive" way because they have the property to interact and to take (over time) the best for their own existence from the other cultures. From where the interest to have several cultures.

Now we substitute into the above Culture with Language. (I'll not write it)

Makes sense perhaps to see them together?

(I wait for a pay from the tower of Babel, but they have a horrible administration)

Marcel, hm.. this time you sent us to evolution. Well done!

Dear Marcel, you have found a great idea.

Really we all should know not only a language but also the cultural practices of the nation of that language speakers to know them more.

Thanks.

Regards,

Shankhadeep

Like already stated, knowing a language is precondition to understand a culture, but imo their is no automatism knowledge of language  = knowing of culture. Why?

Dear Marcel, if we first restrict ourselves to conventional language, spoken or written in words, I´m convinced that first comes language and then comes culture without imparative connection.

If you generalize language like in your cartoon example, you are right with your question. But the risk is, how can pictures, paintings or cartoons be interpreted from different cultural basis. There are a lot of possibilities for misunderstanding!

It is obvious that people that belong to the same culture do not master the same language in the same way, e.g. depending on age or profession or....

Is mastering culture mastering knowledge (e.g. literature) or mastering a way of living?

Dear Marcel, to find an answer to your question try to understand mastering. You first must have widespread knowledge about a lot of facts, literature, art, customs (you call it way of living), language and then you have to combine all the details. Then you can start very slowly to "master".

Dear Hanno, if we would combine all the details, does anyone truly master a culture given the huge diversity in the way of living and the huge inaccessible literature, even within a city?

Dear Marcel,

we are no genious and life is to short to learn and experience everything. But "to master" is a very high claim. So I don´t believe that with this mastering concept someone will real master. If we return to mastering as quite usable knowledges, I want to repeat, first language in the original sense and then try to experience culture.

Language facilitates exchange to experience culture. But of course different people will use the learnt language in different ways so that each individual will experience local culture in an individual-specific way, e.g. the extent to have contact with neighbors also having their biased cultural background or interactions with people from other regions/cities 

Yes, the personal point of view and the depth of knowledges determine experiences.

How then can culture be properly/quantitatively defined?

I don´t want to define it, I just witness it without theoretical background.

Culture you have to live - and language you use to express it. Language will be both spoken and unspoken (body language). But without the language you will be hard-pressed to experience (internalise) the customs of the culture. The "verbal interpreter" in the left hemisphere (Broca's Area) uses language to interpret feelings (emotions) - left hemisphere cognitive memories and right hemisphere emotional memories. There is no direct cognitive control it seems over emotional memories - we respond (Pavlov) to stimuli and "talk" to ourselves to understand it. See the work of Robert Moss PhD on "emotional restructuring" on RG. So it seems you cannot "understand" the culture if you do not understand the language - and you cannot "understand" the language if you do not understand the culture 

By 'mastering' the language do you also mean having read an exhaustive list of books - not only fiction depicting the present state of the people of that culture but also the roots & folk history of that culture? if so, yes,you have begun your journey  to master that culture. Of course, as Michael puts it,knowledge about the principal figures in the cultural & political history of a culture is a must.

I think the 'art of living/be happy' is a million or more times more important. You can master whole libraries, e.g. just repeating/memorizing what others say, but will it make you and your social environment truly happy?

Perhaps reading the work from others creates local jobs?

Perhaps spending time in that culture is many times more important,but that may not always be practicable, in which case, reading & internalizing, not necessarily repeating/memorizing might be next best thing?

Is it necessary to define in words for ones own understanding which may be more instinctive?

As for me, I love hearing songs from any culture, just for the musicality of it. I think the oft repeated "music transcends language" is not just a meaningless cliche.

I think that many young people that listen to pop music they love do not (always) understand the words they are hearing. For instance, do kids that love English pop music have high scores in English?

Does it make you more happy when you look at the unimportant details of a language, e.g. spelling? I think it can create a lot of stress for no obvious reasons given that humans invented the language themselves and the rules do not follow a clear logic

Philosophy:

- Why are 'copy rights' imposed at the level of a 'sentence', not at the level of a 'word'?

- Why is liberty of expression appreciated at the level of a 'sentence', not at the level of a 'word'?