The way we see and think the realm will indicate who we are in midst of entire world. Our existence is indeed so unique in terms of we are able to breathe or live, think, speak or utter something, live among creatures to interact using the symbols or language that we have in order to get various experiences. Clark said in Gentner & Meadow (2003) ‘Although we use language every day to talk about experience, language itself is far from being an exact representation of our experience’. Even though we have high philosophy in thinking of the realm, are able to utter phenomenon in good sentences, are able to represent an attitude, aptitude, and latitude as human beings who have culture but we still cannot represent the entire world in which we live.
Less and more than 6.800 languages are spoken in this world by which the linguists and anthropologists come to debate such numerous languages in quantity but here we do not further explain or debate the quantity. The point is that each language represents its culture and thought so as they are being in existence in this world as the realm of society. Human communicate using languages or symbols, they think and behave base on the tradition they have that reflect each culture of language spoken. There are three points that will be put into account in terms of human existence generally in this world and community especially, namely Language, Culture, and Thought. These three terms really determine the civilization of human being. All human beings are not apart from the fact that they are being in these three terms in order to exist as living creature that is different from other creatures.
Dealing with the topic, there will be some explanations of the three terms with its part of important supporting topic. The three terms will be sequentially explained till we can get the gist of the relationship among them so as to become a postulate in scientific logos in linguistics, sociology, philosophy, psychology research, anthropology, and other research disciplines. The point is that we are able to distinguish the three terms and each function in regarding to the work of linguistics area. This paper is presented to lecturers, teachers, and students who do want to know more about Language, Culture, Thought, and its relationship so that the three terms will be functionally applicable to daily life.
B. The Definition of Language
The word LANGUAGE derives from Indo-European, which means “tongue, speech” through Latin; lingua, “tongues” and Old French; Langage. This word is sometimes used to refer to the codes, ciphers, and other types of communication systems which are artificially constructed like those used for computer programming. A language in this sense is a system of signs for encoding and decoding information.
The following is some definitions of language:
- Language is a human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication.
- Language is something that offers an exciting new perspective on the way people communicate.
- Language is a complex system of human communication that uses arbitrary signals (random), such as the voices, gestures, or written symbols.
- Language is the most important aspect in the life of all beings.
- Language is a symbol that we use to communicate with each other, and the rules that govern how we use it.
- Language is words, pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by the public.
- Language is a systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by using conventional signs, sounds, gestures, or marks that have understood the meaning.
- Language is a system of formal signs and symbols (such as FORTRAN or a calculus in logic) including rules for the formation and transformation of expressions that can be accepted.
- Language is a body of words and the systems for their use common to a people from the same community or nation, the same geographical area, or the same cultural tradition.
- Language is communication with sound in a way unique to humans, using arbitrary sounds (random) in a conventional manner with conventional meanings (speech).
- Language is a system of linguistic signs or symbols considered abstractly (as opposed to speech).
- Language is any set or system of such symbols are used in a way that is more or less the same by a number of people, which thus makes it possible to communicate with each other to be easy to understand.
- Language is a system of symbols, signs, sounds, gestures formalized, or as used or understood as a means of communicating thoughts, emotions, etc. (mathematical language, sign language).
All definitions of language stated above are, however, at least easy to understand to approach to what we think as language. To define the language in the form of words is very difficult, however, of some language definitions above, it can be concluded that the interpretation of the language is a tool of communication in the form of a sign or symbol, sound, movement or body language, and odor randomly transferred and which has been formalized or agreed by each community with both coder and decoder can mutually understand its meaning.
Chomsky said “a language associates sound and meaning in a particular way; to have command of a language is to be able, in principle, to understand what is said and to produce a signal with an intended semantic interpretation” (Chomsky: 2006). He stated “language is an extra-human object, the standard view within major currents of philosophy of mind and language, and also put forth recently by prominent figures in neuroscience and ethology” (Chomsky: 2002). Language is not only such a symbol or sign that have meaning but it is more to how to interpret semantically. An interpretation is needed to conceptualize what a speaker utter in his or her own concept so as to understand or get the meaning. Cooper said “language is the most complex and sophisticated of our possession” (Cooper: 1973). In present modern situation, language is not used by human as an alive being but also things like computer, robot, and or digital machine can use language though they cannot develop in concept as human beings do. A language derives from one’s concept in thought and it will be interpreted as a meaning. The way in conceptualizing language is regarded to a philosophical work.
a) The Philosophy of Language
Language should be and has been conceptualized in thought. A philosophy is one of disciplines that can work of such conceptualization. Philosophy is a discipline that study and investigate everything in common and specific that refers to principle or basic concept of thought of all being not exist yet, being exist, and will be being exist which is its existence is referring to the noble and wise goals. If we try to connect a philosophy and language then we deal with a Language Philosophy which is a branch of philosophy in which philosophers attempt to analyze, elucidate, and investigate certain crucial linguistics concepts such as meaning, reference, and truth (Cooper: 1973).
In this correlation, the philosophers tried to analyze what are employed by the linguists. The linguists concern with and focus on the language while the philosophers are on analyzing certain or crucial concept of a language. When someone is speaking about something then we will think or ask “what does it mean?” This enforces us to describe the meaning of what is being spoken and we try to analyze and elucidate in our own concept referring to the spoken word. Each community has each philosophy by which a ‘meaning’ will be varying in each aspect of speech. We may also differ a ‘meaning’ from the point of view of cultural case. One’s culture will be different to another since another one has a probability in elucidating a concept of his or her culture. Hudson approaches to meaning by underlining two approaches namely Relativism and Determinism. He lines Relativity as a Cultural Relativity which refers to the difference of language or non-language in culture. Based on this view then we can say that there is a non-linguistic aspect in culture (Hudson: 1980) that can arise a different meaning for each cultural background. The view of the influence of a language on thought which is the statement of Determinism. There must be a certain thing of a spoken word or sentence that can influence the way of one’s thought. The influence then will become certain meaning of each listener who is listening to it and of course; it is based on listener’s cultural background or his/her linguistic items. Let’s say the different culture between Torajanese and Mamasanese. Lexically in Isogloss, when people of Toraja use the word kamu’ (with an apostrophe) then it is a polite way of a pronoun (you) to a superior. In contrast with Torajanese, people of Mamasa use the word iko to a superior as a polite way of a pronoun (you). Dealing with this lexical use, it is really impolite to say iko to a superior for people of Toraja unless it is used to an inferior.
We still concern with the approaching to a meaning, Cooper puts three terminologies in dealing with a meaning. He firstly puts the approach as Verificationism; it is the theory according to which giving the meaning of a sentence is simply describing the ways in which it would be verified (Cooper: 1973). Although he takes this theory on his book but he is rather disagree with it but he is precisely with another theory of a model of verification namely The Principle of Verification. This theory states that there is no sentence will have a meaning except one is able to show the way to test its truth or falsity. This theory does actually describe a meaning empirically rather than simply describing a meaning through only the behavior or to what is uttered. The second is Emotivism which is a meaning since it refers to the response of an emotional utterance. In the other words, a meaning can appear out of a psychological activity such as emotional expression. The last is Paradigms and Polarity Case. A meaning that concerns with a freedom of the will is called Paradigm case. In order to understand further this concept, it is important to observe attentively the case of marriage at certain area in Indonesia. The people of Minangkabau are only tribe who are in contrast with other tribes in Indonesia in terms of courtship. Casually, in asking in marriage; a male’s family should do asking in marriage to a female’s family. This is a general tradition for any tribe of people of Indonesia but in Minangkabau, the one who does asking in marriage is the female’s family. Concerning with a freedom of the will, people in Minangkabau will unhesitatingly do such expression or act as long as it is acted in courtship context of Minangkabau. It will be absolutely different and incompatible to the situation when a person from different tribe who lives in Minangkabau does his or her own cultural tradition in which a male’s family will ask in marriage to female’s family, the fact that male’s family will hesitatingly do it. His family, of course, will consider such action or expression when they want to do it in the society of Minangkabau but by their own knowledge and a freedom of the will, they could unhesitatingly do it in Minangkabau and we all should admit it that it is valid. If God as human Creator does not appreciate human free willingness then human beings will be defenselessly in terms of finding out their bride or bridegroom. But with knowledge in human thought that they should have an effort to do so as the freedom of the will besides only praying then they realize that they have freedom of the will and God indeed appreciates it at all. In line with this Paradigm Case, the concept of Polarity will focus on a Polar Case. By the name of Polarity that means opposite to will arise the case of meaning. The word Polarity is understood as an opposite meaning to one another. In the other words, there must be a meaning that is in polar opposite to another meaning. For example, the word probable is in polar opposite to the word certainty (Cooper: 1973). If we say head then we also say that there must be a tail. The two words are seen as different meaning. Physically, it is true that they are different in shape, measure, and meaning but in unity of one body they are the same as to have function. We cannot say that head is more important than tail or vice versa; they should be seen as the two things that have function and cannot be separated to each other. The cases of Paradigm and Polarity point out the meaning as different understanding. But although it is so, we should understand that meaning is relative to the way of one thinks of something.
b) The Sense of Language in Speech
Cohen stated in McKay and Hornberger (2009) ‘a speech act is a functional unit in communication’. Speech becomes the central of a language function by which human give information and express meaning through a language. Piaget said that adults do speech is to convey ideas or information and it is social (Lund: 2003) but children do not convey information; they are only using the words as what they have heard before. By these two different ways in using speech as an interaction, we will see the sense of a language. We can say that the sense of a language refers to the way to feel utterances in order to understand meaning and keep significantly relationship. The case of sense of a language is also showed by Schoeck when he tried to investigate the sense of using Envy and Jealousy. Here are the lines of his:
…envy is present when there is ‘mortification and ill-will occasioned by the contemplation of superior advantages.’ On the other hand, envy may simply mean that one wishes one might do the same as someone else. The first definition of envy as a verb is most specific: ‘To feel displeasure and ill-will at the superiority of (another person) in happiness, success, reputation, or the possession of anything desirable.’ (Schoeck: 1966)
‘Jealous’ and ‘jealousy’ are given detailed treatment by the Oxford English Dictionary. Obviously ‘jealous’ at first denoted simply an intense or highly excited emotional state, and then came to include a craving for the affection of someone else. Later it came to designate the fear of losing another person’s affections, just like ‘jealous’ in the modern sense. Sometimes ‘jealous’ has the sense of ‘envious,’ as in: ‘It is certain that they looked upon it with a jealous eye.’ Earlier there was also an English term ‘jealous glass,’ meaning the frosted glass used for groundfloor windows, analogous to the French jalousie. But the principal meaning of ‘jealousy’ remains the passionate endeavour to keep something that is one’s own by right. In complete contrast to the envious man, therefore, one may postulate a man of jealous disposition whose mind is at rest once he knows that he is free of rivals. (Schoeck: 1966)
Using words in a speech means we express the sense of its meaning. We sometimes confuse how to use certain words in a speech when the words come to be applied in a different utterance. Let’s say the words to remember and to remind. Mostly language users are still confusing in using the words in a speech. We tend to say “please remember me to bring you the book” instead of “please remind me to bring you the book”. The way we feel those words is rather skeptic. This is because of the concept in the thought that we have made all this time. We might know their different meaning but we still confuse when we are going to use them in a speech. So, the sense of a language should be the basic concept in dealing with a speech.
When we express something then we use language to express it. Since speech is central to the proposed functional language system, it is necessary to take note of the nature of speech production and speech perception, as well as the general role of speech (Lieberman, 2002). According to the received view of linguistic communication, the central function of language is to enable a speaker to reveal his or her thoughts to a hearer (Gauker, 2003). Language expression is not only verbal but also non verbal. People who want to express something by using language in both verbal and non-verbal of course have reason why they want to communicate it. Language is the only tool in speaking and communicating or expressing what we want to do. As King stated ‘whatever our views about language- strict or liberal, traditional or progressive – it is abundantly clear that language is at the centre of all of the activities we connect’ (Demers: 1986) to each other. At least there are four main reasons why people want to communicate (Verspoor & Sauter: 2000) as follow:
- People want to inform someone of something
- People want to get information from someone
- People want to get someone to do something
- People want to express one’s attitude about something
What they want to do is only to intertwine the relationship and desire to maintain it for a long term communication. Speaking and Expressing are fundamentally different. Speaking is the ability of a person in spelling letters and uttering words, phrases, and sentences by involving linguistic competence. Expressing is the ability to act a speech or communicate the discourse or language function by involving linguistic performance in a nuance of a language. Speaking refers to the knowledge in thought while expressing refers to both knowledge and emotion. Most people are able to speak but in fact, they are not able how to express appropriately in communication. The hearers still feel like confusing and even they feel aggrieved or angry after hearing what those are speaking. They just speak what they have in their thought without understanding emotionally the interlocutor.
Expression involves speech act ability. Speech act refers to a language function and of course this pervades social life. Just as language use pervades social life, the elements of social life constitute an intrinsic part of the way language is used (Krauss & Chi). How language used in daily life will become the factor in relationship among people. Using language as the tool of communication is not just the way of mere communication. It should involve the taxonomy of speech. Austin had distinguished three kinds of action within each utterance as follows:
The physical act of producing an utterance. What is defined here is actually about the concept in thought of meaning. In other words, the form of Locution is limited to a mere understanding cognitively in mind and it has not been uttered but it is still being in the thought and might be in a shape of word or sentence. Cohen stated in McKay and Hornberger (2009) that Locution or Propositional Meaning is the literal meaning of the utterance.
The act that is committed by producing an utterance. When we utter the concept in speech form then we do an Illocution. We act to produce the utterance; that is the point of an Illocution which has five basic categories of verdictive, expositive, exercitive, behabitive, and commissive (Searle: 1979). Cohen said as the social function that the utterance or written text has.
The production of an effect through locution and illocution. For example, the execution of an order by the addressee (Renkema: 2004). In other words, Perlocution appears just because the effect of the concept and speech uttered. Cohen explains Perlocution as the result or effect that is produced by the utterance in that given context.
In expressing a language or acting a speech then we must refer to a philosophy of a language that has been exposed previously above. This is important to understand before performing the speech or expression because this contains a philosophical utterance as Searle stated the study of speech acts seemed to lie clearly on the side of the philosophy of language, and until the past few years most of the research on speech acts was done by philosophers and not by linguists (Searle, 1979). That is why the nuance of language has the effect or influence of the hearers.
c) Language, Speech, and Thought
Lund (2003) stated “Language is used both to communicate with others and to monitor our internal thoughts”. The definition of language has been explicitly rolled out before in many definitions. A language is general; any tool of communication but speech is the unit of a language by which language is structured, arranged and uttered through capability of human being to use the language. The way someone acts a speech is really determined by human thought. Brain has a mind to think about thinking and “Mind” refers to the part of you that is capable of thought. The process of thinking creates thought; so, thought is the deposit of a mind. According to Bohm, thought is nothing more than a form of reflex and conditioning. When we are thinking of something then we reflexively churn the deposit and conditioned various kinds of concept in the thought. The ancients simply decided that thoughts came from the mind and the heart. Everything we think is becoming a thought in the mind which belongs to the brain. So, the ‘mind’ is just our everyday way of saying the ‘brain’.
The relation of these three terms is really unique and interesting. The reason, all living things philosophically have a language. Animals and plants are also having language; symbols which are the language but they are not able to use it in terms of acting a speech to communicate. Another case with human beings, they have language or symbols and they are able to use it to communicate in conveying information to understand. Human languages are known to be much more uniform than was at one time thought, which may be one reflection of their neurological basis (Trimble: 2007). This is however the thing that differs to animals and plants. Previously stated that human has language to communicate and human has brain in which thoughts deposited in mind. Thought covers a number of different mental activities (Hudson: 1980) which is the concept in human mind. When human beings try to communicate, they will have capability to act a speech in any interaction that they make because one feature that sets human communities apart from animal communities is the use of language (Lund: 2003). The use of language refers to the capability of acting a speech in interaction. Language is the tool and speech is the way to use the tool. No matter how good the tool is, but if we do not know and cannot use it properly based on the function then the tool is absolutely meaningless. That is so, although the language is good but if we do not have ability to use it in a speech act then it will be meaningless at all. This ability to act a speech is actually determined by maturity of mind in which thoughts exist. Amajian (2001) stated that speech act is an act performed in uttering expressions. Dealing with uttering expressions then we should pay attention to the act of uttering sounds, syllables, words, phrases, and sentences from a language. So, speech act emphasizes the functions, aesthetics, and ethics of a language production. Thoughts which are the basic deposit in mind will enable brain to command nerves of articulators to construct and utter those speech items. Mind is the representative of thoughts; a speech act is the representative of a language and it represents one’s culture.
C. The Definition of Culture
What actually do the people think of the entire world, the other people, the things around them, and even of themselves? How do people respond to what they see, think, and perceive and what will be the effect on them? How do people behave based on their thought?
All the questions above will bring us to the complexity of the term of Culture. It is a truism that each individual has a cultural diversity, by which they express his/her thought. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) stated ‘culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action’. We do not explain a culture in the pattern of one’s perception but we should try to put it across into wide definition in order to get and cover the widest range of what people think about the nature of culture itself. From the 18th century, debates surrounding the merits and demerits of ancient and modern culture one can trace the developing historical understanding from a limited awareness of the historicity of culture and science to the full recognition of the historical nature of art and knowledge (Oergel: 1964). So, we will cover all terms deal with culture in this paper.
The following definitions of a culture will vary in understanding but they basically have been included in the previous definition:
- “Most social scientists today view culture as consisting primarily of the symbolic, ideational, and intangible aspects of human societies. The essence of a culture is not its artifacts, tools, or other tangible cultural elements but how the members of the group interpret, use, and perceive them. It is the values, symbols, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish one people from another in modernized societies; it is not material objects and other tangible aspects of human societies. People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols, artifacts, and behaviors in the same or in similar ways.” Banks, J.A., Banks, & McGee, C. A. (1989)
- “Culture: learned and shared human patterns or models for living; day- to-day living patterns. These patterns and models pervade all aspects of human social interaction. Culture is mankind’s primary adaptive mechanism” (Damen, L :1987 p. 367).
- “Culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another.” (Hofstede, G: 1984 p. 51).
- “By culture we mean all those historically created designs for living, explicit and implicit, rational, irrational, and nonrational, which exist at any given time as potential guides for the behavior of men.” (Kluckhohn, C., & Kelly, W.H: 1945)
- “Culture is the shared knowledge and schemes created by a set of people for perceiving, interpreting, expressing, and responding to the social realities around them” (Lederach, J.P: 1995 p. 9).
- “A culture is a configuration of learned behaviors and results of behavior whose component elements are shared and transmitted by the members of a particular society” (Linton, R: 1945 p. 32).
- “Culture…consists in those patterns relative to behavior and the products of human action which may be inherited, that is, passed on from generation to generation independently of the biological genes” (Parson, T: 1949 p. 8).
- “Culture has been defined in a number of ways, but most simply, as the learned and shared behavior of a community of interacting human beings” (Useem, J., & Useem, R: 1963 p. 169).
- “The ecological matters of life and death are relevant to a proper understanding of what we collectively value, believe, seek, avoid, and do: that is, our culture.” (Vliert: 2009)
- “Culture is as shared knowledge – not a people’s customs and artifacts and oral traditions, but what they must know in order to act as they do, make the things they make, and interpret their experience in the distinctive way they do.” (Quinn: 1987)
- “Culture-meaning classical or high culture founded on a concept of creation and the life of the spirit-was a major weapon in the state’s armory in its mission to civilize and socialize its citizens.” (Silverman: 1999)
- “However we define culture, most anthropologists agree that it has to do with those aspects of human cognition and activities that are derived from what we learn as members of society, keeping in mind that one learns a great deal that one is never explicitly taught.” (Monaghan & Just: 2000)
It seems to be so complex to understand but we will try to gain an understanding that Culture, however, covers all things concerns with patterns, behaviors, symbols, distinctive achievements of human groups, embodiments in artifacts, ideas, values, systems, actions, knowledge, microorganisms, belief, art, law, morals, and custom. All things that affect on human beings and affect on the things are categorized as a Culture.
a) The Linguistic and Cultural Relativity
By imaging that almost 7000 languages used in this world today will at least remind us a hypothesis of Sapir and Whorf about Linguistic relativity. Chomsky even said to approach to Linguistic or Language Relativity – I believe without exception, depart from the commonsense notion in several ways; these departures also affect the concepts of knowledge or understanding of language, use of language, rule of language, rule-guided linguistic behavior, and others (1986). A linguistic relativity hypothesis says that some particular aspect of language influences some particular aspect of cognition. In the other words, some linguistic items can influence the way one thinks of. Because this is just a hypothesis then we should give a test in order to raise the truth of it. Let’s take an example of this; in Bahasa Makean Barat, Halmahera Selatan, there are three levels in choosing words in terms of acting a speech to a superior, peer, and inferior. Put an example of inviting; “Mari Makan” (Let’s have meal), people in Makean Barat use ‘fajou’, ‘falakut’, and ‘fa’ to mean ‘makan’ (to eat). When children and adolescents want to invite adult to have meal, they should say ‘Ino tē fafajou’. At the level of peer, they say ‘Ino tē fafalakut’ and when adolescent or adult invite children to have meal, they say ‘Ino tē fafa’. The case of linguistic relativity will arise when children use ‘Ino tē fafa’ to invite adult to have meal and mostly adult will react emotionally and cognitively. Adults think that that child is impolite and his/her parents should teach and educate him/her to act an appropriate speech. This is a kind of Linguistic Relativity in terms of Lexicon.
The same case happened when I was being in Balikpapan, Kalimantan Timur. I am a Torajanese and of course I am from Sulawesi. Mostly people in Sulawesi have a concept of Taxi as a public transportation which is a brand of a type of Sedan. When I first arrived in Balikpapan, my uncle asked me out to look around. I asked “What transportation should we take to leave?” and my uncle replied “We will get a Taxi”. It was accidently becoming above the common in my mind to leave for looking around by Taxi and of course it would be so expensive, I thought. It was just a moment that then the ‘Taxi’ came to picked us up. It was happening next that I was so surprised because what they meant by a ‘Taxi’ was a Microlet which I knew as ‘Pete-pete or Angkot’ as my concept in my mind. I had time to think that people in Balikpapan were categorized as middle to upper economy level.
Next example of linguistic relativity is the linguistic item concerns with Phonology. In 2002, I was in Surabaya for an International Seminar. The next day after arrival, I was looking for socks and I found a store nearby my hotel. When I bargained; spoke in Makassarese dialect, the seller was accidently startling then said “Lo.. lo.. lo.. lo… Mas dari Makassar ya?” (Ough.. ough.. ough.. ough… Are you coming from Makassar?) “Iya” (Yes) I said. She replied “Pantes, ya” (No wonder). So, what the gist here is that firstly she did not know actually where I come from but she directly confirmed “Are you coming from Makassar?” This means that she had a concept about Makassarese dialect so she knew that I was coming from Makassar. Second is that when I responded “Yes” to her confirmation she made and she replied “No wonder”. The case is that she had a concept in her mind about Makassarese and she reinforced her thought by replying “No wonder”. She knew that so a Makassarese was.
Besides Linguistic Relativity or Linguistic Diversity, there is another relativism concerned with culture; Cultural Relativity or Cultural Diversity or Cultural Relativism. Cultural relativity states that all customs, beliefs, morals, norms and or ethics are relative to the individual within his/her own social context. In other words, a concept of “right” and “wrong” and “may” or “may not” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another cultural background, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs. Herder in Sikka (2011) said ‘different societies and ages hold distinct systems of belief regarding what is good and bad, right and wrong, and that there are no objective, transhistorical, and transcultural criteria for judging between these systems’. In this sense of cultural relativity, a culture is thought as a paradigm case which has freedom of the will. Whatever someone sees, thinks, perceives, and behaves, it is all about the freedom of one’s will. No one can deny or judge it as wrong thought or custom. Let’s say me; I am a Torajanese and I of course have culture. I was born in other region that brings me into another concept of thought because I do not grow up in Toraja but in Kolaka where indigenous people are Tolakinese. People of Tolaki then of course have different way of life, thinking, philosophy, etc. I grew up in those cultural items and I realize that many things are really far from my ethnicity; Toraja. I do then free to manifest my own thought, philosophy, belief, custom, and things that I have grown in it up. My original custom as Torajanese has gone long time ago and I am not with some beliefs of Torajanese but I do appreciate them as diversity of a culture.
Cooper (2004) stated ‘diversity can be seen as constitutive of freedom to the extent it makes it practically possible for people to choose and live out different kinds of lives. At the same time, social diversity functions as an expression, product and symbol of freedom – we read freedom’s presence in the range of life choices that exist. But diversity also works to define freedom’s subjects: the different social groups who pursue liberation through the lifting of restrictions, the abolition of exploitative or oppressive relations, and through accessing the resources necessary in order to flourish’. Individual cultural diversity is really complex if we see it in the narrow point of view, so we should leave our culture behind then we try to figure out what are the same as ours and what are the difference. In order to be more standing up on our culture, we should lift the restriction up to the concept of diversity. One point of a diversity or distinction is that we concern with a freedom but here is not a freedom of uncontrolled system. We still have something that control the freedom itself by which we are free but still controlled based on the norm and aesthetic of the environment of social culture. An uncontrolled freedom will bring us to an anarchy that can break the country up.
b) Culture and Systems of Thought
As it has been stated above that culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another (Hofstede, G: 1984). There is actually the relationship between Culture and thought and it is applicable to the way of how one lives. Whatever we do, we think, we behave, there must be the influence of thought concerning with what do. When we contact to the environment then we will soon contact to culture and when we contact to the culture then we start to think and respond to what we have seen, perceived, and heard. Our brain will be active to process it in mind then become a thought of a concept. As Styles (2005) said ‘to enable us to interact safely with real objects in the environment, the brain encodes and makes available many sources of information about the properties of objects’. Culture is the collective programming of the mind; Culture is as shared knowledge; Culture is the concept of nature. Mostly these sentences are concerned with a system of cognitive. It makes obvious that indeed culture influence cognitive or the way of thinking and vice versa; cognitive can influence the culture by which culture experiences the changing so as to make new culture of society. The changing of the thought system is very influenced by an intercultural environment. The system is changed when any culture is seen and perceived that can lead to a behavior changing. This needs a process of approaching and learning because each man has previous concept about the way s/he thinks of, behaves, reveals, and any other way of life.
Sikka (2001) argued ‘Languages are transmitted across generations, and what is transmitted along with them is a way of thinking: a set of beliefs, values, and judgments, a particular, bounded perspective on the world’. The system of thought is the way of thinking itself; culture is the result of the system of thought which contains the way of thinking and it is happened over and again so as to shape perspective to the new concept of behavior. When a behavior is formed with its concept in thought then it will be a custom of life that we call Culture. Whatever comes to human five sense will be received by cognitive then process it to create new concept on an object seen, perceived, and learned then the result will influence the previous concept in mind to create new concept. The influence then will depend on the strength of the previous thought.
D. Delta Connection of Language, Culture, and Thought.
Most of us usually just point out two terms concern with language, Culture, and Thought. We just correlate the two terms; Language and Culture, and ignore another one; Thought.