




































AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

58 

 

 
TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE IN THE LANGUAGE CLASS: ADDING ANOTHER 

INGREDIENT TO THE OLD DILEMMA… AND A TAXONOMY AND A DATABASE 

STRUCTURE 

 
José Antonio González 

JA-Gonzalez2@wiu.edu 

 

Western Illinois University, United States of America 

 

 

Abstract 

 This paper will discuss the problematic relationship between culture and language from 

the perspective of the second language learning/teaching process. This is not a new 

problem for the pedagogy of languages and there remains a traditional set of as yet 

unsolved epistemological questions to be answered. Although many of these problems 

and questions will be part of the reflections involved in this article, its main objective is 

to reconsider them from the perspective of new teaching philosophies and methods and 

the inclusion of modern computerized technology into the old already-troubled formula. 

 

Keywords:  second language learning/teaching, technology 

 

 

From a cultural perspective, we could summarize some of the most important questions about the 

relationship between language and culture in the process of teaching/learning a second language as 

follows: 

1. What is culture? How can one provide a useful definition for this purpose? 

2. Must culture be taught/learned together with language? (Lian 2006) 

3. If our culture is instilled into us by our community; should the learning of the new 

language be infused (at least to a certain degree) with elements of the new culture 

implicitly attached to the new language? 

4. If language is the expression of a certain culture, which is the culture that provides the 

basis for a dialogue between two non native speakers of a given language which is being 

used as lingua franca (e. g. English)? (Lian 2006) 

5. Is there a hierarchy in cultural text that could be taken as predetermined syntax? If so, is 

there an optimal starting point for the study of such a text?  

6. Should the learning of culture be systematic, haphazard, learner-driven (what do all of 

these terms mean and how do they get translated into action)? How do we decide what is 

essential? 

7. Which level or field, or social sector of a given culture is the right one to teach or learn? 

In other words: Which pieces or elements or levels of culture should be taught as useful 

communicative tools? 

8. How can technology be of use in teaching language and culture?  

 

Defining culture is a theoretical exercise historically practiced from many different perspectives and, of 

course, from all kinds of philosophical positions.  The concept of culture is crucial in the set of 

epistemological systems which have become increasingly interdisciplinary in accordance with the 

practical and theoretical needs of every discipline; e, g, anthropology, sociology, linguistics, history, 

theory of culture, theory of literature, semiotics, etc. 

 

mailto:JA-Gonzalez2@wiu.edu


AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

59 

 

Thus, instead of describing the evolution of the concept, it seems more important in our case to focus on 

considering the contrast between some of the different concepts of culture which might be useful for this 

paper.  Russian semiotician Jurij Lotman (1979) had already studied culture from a discursive 

perspective. He argued that if culture can be considered as the sum total of all the non-biological 

information which constitutes the memory of a given community, it is possible to regard culture itself as a 

certain communicative operation. Therefore this operation can be thought of as a set of decipherable 

codes (p. 41). Lotman specifies that he uses the term “memory” in the sense of systematic accumulation 

and storage of information and defines text as any given communication within a certain system of signs 

(41).  

 

From the point of view of an important anthropologist, not unlike Lotman, Clifford Geertz (1973), offers 

his ideas about the semiotic nature of culture and the polyphony of cultural texts in his work: The 

Interpretation of Cultures (P. 453).  For him: “The culture of a people is an ensemble of texts” (452). 

Both Lotman’s and Geertz’s visions of culture as a text in the form of information are valuable 

approaches for the matter of learning/teaching a foreign language.  Geertz’ statement about every society 

as bearer of its own interpretations and the need for learning how to access this interpretation (P. 453) is 

also very important in the context of this paper because it is an acknowledgment of the semantic aspect of 

culture. 

 

From our perspective then, culture is essentially discursive in nature as noted in the above arguments. Let 

us now examine more closely the problematic of cultural syntax. One of the epistemological challenges of 

connecting culture to the language learning/teaching process is how to better organize cultural 

information in terms of accessibility. The above-mentioned non-biological character of culture draws on 

the polemical concept of meme as “a unit of cultural information transferrable from one mind to another” 

(Meme 2007); because many of the proponents of this theory suggest that these units evolve in a way 

which is analogous to that of genetic information. That is the reason why we are inclined to discard the 

concept of meme as a possible unit of measure for the task at hand. 

 

On the other hand, the idea of cultural field, proposed by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is quite 

interesting. For Bourdieu (2008), the cultural field is “a social arena of struggle over the appropriation of 

certain species of capital […] structured internally in terms of power relationships” (Bourdieu 2008). The 

reason that makes the idea of field attractive to a contemporary notion of linking culture and language 

learning lies in the volition of agency that Bourdieu attributes to a given cultural field.  For him, “Agents 

subscribe to or participate in a particular field not by way of explicit contract, but by their practical 

acknowledgement of the stakes” (Bourdieu 2008).  A later consideration of the learner’s volition 

conditioned by his/her own cognitive interests (stakes) will demonstrate the potential value of the notion 

of agency in a contemporary approach to the language learning/teaching process. 

 

Now, let us consider the cultural element as something which provides a certain reassurance and even 

peace to those who involve themselves in the communication process in a given community. For Tentori  

(1970), knowing what is wrong or right is part of the crucial non linguistic completion of the semiotic act 

(p. 217). Therefore, culture, or at least some of its signs, must be learned/taught together with verbal 

language.  Another author who deals with the problems of teaching/learning culture simultaneously with 

language is Simon Greenall (2003). He prefers the culturological definition of cultureme as “a single or 

minimal manifestation of socio-culturally determined behavior, belief, attitude, custom, or tradition” (p. 

2). He also amplifies the notion of culture beyond geographic, ethnic or political boundaries to include 

other referents such as gender, social class or occupation (p. 2). Using the cultureme as a meaningful unit 

in learning/teaching culture with language may be useful. This paper will reconsider later a broader idea 

about the ranking and categorization of these cultural elements for the process itself. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship


AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

60 

 

We should now like to weigh up whether the process of learning a language implicates the learner as an 

authentic bearer of the cultural values of the community which speaks the language and to ask which of 

these values are to be assimilated by the learner as a requirement for the communication. Obviously there 

is no definitive answer for such a question, because the answer will be casuistic in nature and will depend 

on the intention and the communicative needs of the learner. In fact, communicative needs and intention, 

together with the stakes of the learner will be the leading key in many of the epistemological questions 

addressed here. 

 

We now address an interesting problem, which is obvious for some people: that of language and culture 

as precise expressions of community identity. Andrew Lian (2006) wonders whether, if language is the 

expression of a certain culture and provides constraints and contexts for making sense of discourse, then 

which is the culture which provides the basis for a dialogue between two non native speakers of a given 

language used as lingua franca (e. g. English)? (p. 26) In seeking an answer to this question, let us 

remember that the first great travelers and businessmen in history, like the Phoenicians or the traders on 

the “Spice Routes” were able to engage in a large amount of international dialogue by establishing 

multicultural rapport that was not necessarily based on the use of common languages. Therefore, there is 

no definitive answer for this either, but to produce a reflection on the communication process like the one 

above, which in our current global world is less and less hypothetical. The nature of communication itself 

is based in mutual consensus, in a negotiation of meanings that might be satisfactory for both sides of the 

semiotic channel.  Here, Vygotsky’s notion that human thought might be constructed in terms of dialogue 

is useful for approaching intercultural communication (Kozulin 1990).  Thus we could think of the lingua 

franca as a set of loaned verbal signs used to solve a given problem of mutual human understanding.  

 

In the first place, both sides must be aware of some information about the other’s culture, despite the 

particular language which supports that culture. The rank and category of the above-mentioned cultural 

information must be based on two key criteria: First, the ability to distinguish what is considered socially 

acceptable or not in the other’s culture. This is so important that ignoring this distinction could jeopardize 

the dialogue, potentially leading to what Greenall (2003) defines as a “Communication breakdown” (p. 

3). Second, each interlocutor must be aware of which elements of such cultural information could be used 

to one’s advantage in the dialogue? While this information is valuable, it is not enough to establish a 

satisfactory communication among third parties using a lingua franca as a verbal code. The missing 

element is not obviously the culture of this language out of its context as a lingua franca, but some… let 

us call it “cultura franca,” established in terms of global communication. For this purpose, Bourdieu’s 

(2008) concept of cultural field can be very useful to establish the pragmatics of this notion because the 

cultural field could be seen as “a system of social positions (e.g. a profession such as the law) structured 

internally in terms of power relationships” (p. 1). The same is true for other communicative contexts, such 

as the interpersonal one.  

 

Consequently, interlocutors using a lingua franca need to be aware of all required specific contextual 

information in order to function properly in a negotiation, e.g. the nature of business, its jargon, its 

procedures, etc… that is to say, its whole culture. Hence, it will be more valuable for individuals in the 

French diplomatic world to be more aware of the French diplomatic jargon and the international rules of 

etiquette rather than the habits of night life in Paris. Technology wizards from different countries will find 

it more important in their dealings with one another to have information about state of the art computer 

terminology and the knowhow of this community (much of it based on American technical English) than 

being skilful in how to use a fork in Philadelphia or to be able to quote Noam Chomsky or Matthew 

Arnold in a social reunion. 

 

In reference to the cognitive problem of whether grammar is culturally crucial for this process, and 

whether we can we believe we must circumscribe it to some extent and then sequence it, let us remember 

that Derrida (2000) disagreed with the notion of grammar as the Meta narrative of cultural discourse in 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_%28sociology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship


AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

61 

 

determining the essence of language (p. 396). On the other hand, Bourdieu (2008) considers knowledge of 

grammar as social capital which is crucial in the attaining of what he calls “social mobility” (¶ 2). It is 

important to distinguish between those two views of “grammar” despite both authors using the same 

word.  

 

To add another dimension to the problem, Du Bois (2001) considers that grammar: 

 Comes to life in discourse, where its pervasive mediating role touches virtually every 

aspect of social life. 

 Goes everywhere. In a given speech community the same grammar promiscuously 

participates in acts as diverse as intimate persuasion, work, gossip, sanction 

enforcement, religious speculation, joking, aesthetic play and other symbolic systems in 

social life. 

 Mediates and thus partly organizes knowledge, information, social relations, texts, 

institutions, interactional practices and more (p. 86). 

In other words, for Du Bois (2008) “to study grammar is to study culture” (p. 87). This idea becomes 

extremely handy if we reconsider it from the point of view of the textual character of culture and if we 

rethink grammar as no longer functioning as a normative leash for writing, but as a syntactic tool in a 

virtual reordering of the cultural text. 

Let us now examine the last question to be addressed in this paper. The last three cognitive problems are 

intrinsically interwoven with one another so that a reflection on any one of them impacts on to the other 

two.   

We will begin by considering which level or field, or social sector of a given culture is the appropriate 

one to be taught/learned with a specific language. In other words: Which pieces or elements or levels of 

culture must be taught as realistic and useful communicative tools? What must be the place in our culture-

teaching system of “high” culture e.g. the place of basket weaving in Mayan literary works; or “popular 

culture” e.g. the place of “The Price is right” in Mexican society as opposed to other forms of culture like 

“practical culture” e.g. what does it mean when someone from another other culture is invited to a 

Mexican’s house at 1 a.m. 

 

For a more contemporary perspective of this hierarchy we have to go back to the point where the essential 

importance of the subject’s own agency and stakes was established as a motivational engine in the 

language learning/teaching process. Andrew Lian argues that learning a language goes beyond the mere 

acquisition of some codes but to incorporate other synchronic systems which will complete the learner’s 

set of constitutive meanings that will give sense to his/her individual representation of the world (Lian 

2004). This learning process is not structured under any epistemologically guided external structure but 

through what he calls a rhizomatic approach whose hierarchy is founded on self driven will through a 

mechanism of personal needs and interests (p. 6). 

 

As a consequence, if we consider the textual character of culture. It is obvious that in a constructivist 

process of learning a language, the learner must incorporate into his/her learning of linguistic information, 

the elements of cultural systems of his/her interest and need in the very same order that the linguistic 

information is learned and in a tight connection with it. This could solve not only the question of where to 

start, but also the question of what unit, level or segment of cultural information is important to be 

learned/taught with the language. The specific cognitive necessities and interests of the learner 

him/herself may provide a possible answer to this question in each case – and each may well be different 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

62 

 

for each learner at every instant of the learning process and therefore not be amenable to pre-determined 

learning sequences. 

 

The usefulness of technology in this context should be obvious, as a set of systems of textual information 

deeply interrelated with linguistic information. Data about culture can and must be fed into the same 

devices used to learn language. Of course doing this now brings out the vagueness and indefinable nature 

of culture; it is impossible to put in Cartesian terms of labeling and of measuring all its components but 

the rhizomatic process with its multiple dynamic connections and flows and multiple explanations will 

help students better to construct internal representations of cultural processes at work. Despite this 

vagueness, categorization of some kind is necessary in order for learners to understand. While such 

categorization may not be pre-determined, it may actually be constructed at the time of need by the 

student.  Maybe the rhizomatic process must make this planning grow in new directions, in congruence 

with new learning needs, and in the case of culture the categorization must occur a little later than this 

social need but as immediately as possible so as to show new aspects of culture which were considered 

unimportant or even unknown until that moment. 

 

Let us now think of a possible computer based implementation approach to our proposal for learning 

culture. We have already identified a critically important idea for what this paper proposes: the 

conceptualization of one of several potential taxonomies for systematizing cultural data connected to a 

specific contextual target language. 

 

In turn this contours the following guidelines: 

 We take as point of departure the concept that learners are meaning-making individuals with 

unique logical and representational systems. This is because human beings make sense of the 

world only through their own representational and logical experience; through a process of 

convergence from multi-channel experience and feedback. Therefore, setting data in order to 

provide them with cultural information associated with language must always be based on a 

consensus of socially negotiated cultural functions.  Although semantic representation is internal 

and individual, it is culturally produced at the level of human interaction. 

 Learning needs will always be unpredictable because they involve “infinite combinations of 

mutually reinforcing modalities and are thus very likely to be different from one learner to the 

other. It is not logically possible to offer a sequenced (or externally scaffolded) intervention 

strategy capable of simultaneously meeting the needs of all. Entry points to solving individual 

problems are likely to be different from person to person” (Lian 2004).  

 Therefore there will never be an absolutely sufficient database i.e. a database which will meet 

every learner’s needs in every conceivable context or situation. On the contrary, all possible 

taxonomies must be conceptualized in terms of openness and dynamism. There will always be 

new growing rhizomes, i.e. connections between database items, and in many cases some of the 

old ones will eventually become socially obsolete.  

 Data systems must be abundant and diverse; their content must be useful for very different needs. 

They must provide a response wider than the specific learner’s query and its interconnectivity 

must lead in other directions of knowledge. They must also display socially active language in 

variable contexts because these contexts determine social roles and consequently important 

nuances of language and cultural behaviors. They must be based on multimedia and offer a 

combination of textual and audiovisual realia, quasi authentic materials and educational guidance, 

it means the closer to real life data is the more accurate use of it will be incorporated into the 

learner’s representational universe. Accessibility, flexibility, connectivity speed and 

independence of methodological approach will be main features.   

 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

63 

 

Accessibility is crucial in terms of gathering information; the ability to link elements is the essence of the 

meaning construction process; speed implies efficiency. On the other hand, the uniqueness of the learning 

process does not allow any imposition of a pre-established order in the approach to knowledge.  

Consequently, learners must have technological skills and train themselves to be self-driven and 

motivated. It implies a real pedagogical problem in practical terms. It would mean the epitome of the 

student centered method and would require an almost ideal kind of student, far from the current reality in 

the majority of the existing educational systems. The question of whether it is possible for an average 

student to attain, in the short term, the right amount of cognitive independence so as to function properly 

with this approach is very complex and would be best dealt within the context of another research project. 

  

Now that we have set the groundwork for this paper, we face the old dilemma of how to categorize the 

components of culture in order to adapt these categories to our needs. Shall we agree on a given minimal 

unit of cultural data? What should be the criteria for these categorizations? Would they be satisfactory? 

 

In comparing two different theories about identity, Identity Theory and Social Identity the authors Hogg, 

Terry and White  (1995) have agreed  that both theories “address the social nature of self as constituted by 

society [and] regard the self as multiple identities that reside in circumscribed practices”[ like norms and 

roles] (p. 255). They point out that the two theories which they compare “place their major theoretical 

emphasis on a multifaceted and dynamic self that mediates the relationship between social structure and 

individual behavior” (p. 255). 

 

When we think about cultural roles as the set of expectations that a given community places on 

individuals (as part of the symbolic culture inherent to that community), it becomes clear that these 

expectations must be fulfilled in terms of certain behaviors (which include language). It is possible to 

consider approaching a taxonomy of language on the basis of the interaction between the individual role 

(which defines tints of overlapping circumstantial identity) and these contextual expectations.  In other 

words, and bringing this to the process of language learning, the learner’s interest for a certain piece of 

cultural information could be triggered by the need for solving a specific communicative situation. This 

need will act as the motivation for linking multiple pieces of informative data which will provide that 

student with the communicative tools which, in turn, will empower him/her to function in terms of social 

communication according to the above mentioned set of cultural expectations. Hence, the rhizome will 

never exist in any database. It will be in the inquiring action of learners. 

 

We now face one of the biggest challenges in materializing this approach: how to establish a practical and 

useful system of information which could enable the achievement of the linking process. First, we must 

insist on the principle of the impossibility of anticipating the potentially infinite needs of learners in terms 

of specific cultural/linguistic information. If we plan to construct a database which could eventually serve 

that purpose, it can be conceived only on the basis of an extremely dynamic and elastic interaction in 

which those pieces or chunks of information requested by the learners and not yet available to them must 

be very rapidly gathered and incorporated into the database. Let us think, for example, that a certain 

European business student is particularly interested in how to establish trade connections with some mid 

size fishing companies on the shores of Japan. The student would request not only specific linguistic 

background about entrepreneurial style of communication but would also seek many other cultural 

elements at the symbolic level which could be useful for his/her goal (manners and social habits, legal 

frames, social taboos, terms for addressing people in writing and speaking, etc.). At the same time, a Latin 

American student of anthropology could be interested in artistic work at the level of popular culture in the 

same geographical area and time. Obviously, the latter’s needs in terms of language and culture would be 

different. This student will play a different role and his/her query will require from the database a very 

different set of linguistic and cultural information. (e. g. Local folklore, oral colloquialisms, musical 

patterns, mythology, etc.).   

 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

64 

 

In both cases the rhizome would be constructed very differently in their minds, and they might only share 

some spatial and cultural settings in the database but nothing else. It may be that only part of the 

information requested would be available in the database at the time of the request. The response in 

gathering this information must be very rapid and should be made available as soon as possible. Ideally, 

all possible textual and audiovisual data has to be gathered, sorted and put immediately within the 

learner’s reach. This implies the necessity to have a permanent team for updating the database with an 

extremely dynamic capacity for responding to the needs of users. The taxonomy ought to be conceived in 

a manner that data entered at the simple level will be recombined into Boolean queries to produce 

complex  Linguistic/cultural rhizomes set in terms of specific social roles under specific communicative 

situations and other constraints. A Boolean query is based on the notion of “AND” and “OR.” Such a 

query might look like this:  If the Latin American student of Anthropology needs to learn how to interact 

with the people of that area then he/she must learn to talk (orally and bodily) to them and to behave in a 

proper way according to the local symbolic cultural rules and principles. He/she must gather information 

in order to learn about specific geographic areas, the colloquial language and gestures and their folklore. 

For this to happen, the Boolean search must include the terms “Japan Shore in the twenty first century, 

“colloquial and body language” and “expressions of popular art forms.” Putting all of this under the 

operator “AND” the result could be expressed in a Venn diagram as follows: 

 
And the required information will be found in the area of intersection. The operator” OR” would add 

some alternative choices and the operator NOT would eliminate the unwanted ones. Obviously, Boolean 

logic is the very principle used in Internet search practices; and this makes it essentially familiar to the 

majority of contemporary students. 

 

On the other hand, just the mention of an immediate response-updating team brings up a huge 

management problem, which at the same time will generate many other, very practical, management 

issues. At this stage, we are still approaching the ideas at the theoretical level. Let us say that the 

management matter is a crucial one in this case. There are obvious things like the impracticability of a 

central unique database. Instead, one would have to construct a distributed network of databases 

connected by queries and very smart indexing. There is also a theoretical side to other tasks of this 

hypothetical team (or rather teams), which is not only serving the queries but also assisting learners in 

their formulation of the queries in order to help them to attain the optimum data response.   

Place and time= 
Japan Shore  in 

twenty first 
century

Colloquial 
Local Japanese 
Language and 

physical 
gestures

Expressions of 
Popular Art= 

music, poetry, 
painting, etc.



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

65 

 

Some of the variables that could be devised for one possible database taxonomy may be conceived in the 

following general terms:  

 Patterns (community grouping) 

 Settings (space and time) 

 Individual position (power related)  

 Topic (purpose of the roles). 

 

Patterns are the social constraints which hold together a given number of individuals. Group members 

behave and communicate with each other according to certain rules and social habits. This notion 

encloses groups of people with the same interests into different kinds social communities; from the idea 

of a nation and all its citizens to a social class, a professional attachment, being classmates, being of the 

same age or gender, being inmates in the same prison, being member of any organization, etc. and all the 

consequent roles implied in these contextual interactions. Settings are the spatial and temporal locations 

of the data. Their degree of detail is determined by how sophisticated the sets of cultural patterns and all 

their nuances are. The role of every individual belonging to a specific pattern is always power related. We 

could think of it in terms of being empowered, having no power or possessing an equal amount power. 

Power must be seen as the agency for interacting with the group under a favorable use of social patterns. 

 

The topic is seen as the purpose of the roles or the purpose of the culture. In seeing culture as a game, 

sometimes it is possible to perceive the reason for the very existence of the group. 

 

Let us imagine a very specific query about language and culture as a necessity for a given learner. An 

Indian college student of Portuguese language needs to know how to speak and interact with his/her 

future classmates in a Brazilian university.  In this case the pattern would be the community of young 

male and female college students. The setting could be a general one, like the country, Brazil, or a 

narrower one, like a certain type of university in a given Brazilian city, let’s say Sao Paulo. Chronological 

setting could be the present day. The individual position could be his/her status as a registered student (of 

course there is the issue of how foreign students are accepted and whether they interact equally in the 

group that could be an information variable itself). Finally, the topic or purpose is the reason these 

students conform to the behaviors of a specific group (they feel or need to think- they are special, they 

share the same kind of hobbies and preferences, etc.). 

 

To summarize, in this article we have reconsidered the already established notion of the need for learning 

specific cultural settings when learning the corresponding language. This reflection has been made from 

the perspective of a rhizomatic approach to language learning and the relevance of the use 

of contemporary technology in this process. Finally, we have proposed a theoretical model for the 

application of these ideas.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



AsiaCall Online Journal (ISSN 1936-9859) Vol. 4 No. 1 October 2009, González, José Antonio 

 

 

66 

 

 

References 

 Bourdieu, Pierre. (March 2008). Field. Wikipedia. Encyclopaedia on line. Retrieved October 9th, 

 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu#Field 

 Derrida, Jacques. (2000).  Différance. In Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan (Eds.), Literary Theory: 

 an Anthology. (385-407) Oxford: Blackwell.  

 Du Bois, J.W. (2001). Grammar. In Alessandro Duranti (Ed.), Key Terms in Language and 

 Culture. (87-90). Oxford: Blackwell. 

 Duranti, Alessandro. (Ed.), Key Terms in Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. 

   Firth, Alan. (October 2006). Discourse, Language and Culture. Retrieved April 2007 from 

 http://www.hum.aau.dk/%7Efirth/Research/cultbookSage.html 

  Geertz, Clifford. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures; .Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books,  

 Greenall, Simon. (2003). Current Concerns in Socio-Cultural Training in the Classroom. 

 The Language Teacher. Retrieved from April 2006 from http://www.jalt-

publications.org/tlt/articles/2003/07/greenall 

 Greenblatt, Stephen. (1995) Culture. In  Frank Lentriccia and Thomas McLaughlin (Eds.),Critical 

 Terms for Literary Study (225) Chicago: UP. 

 Hogg, Michael A, Deborah J. Terry and Katherine M.White. (1995). A Tale of two theories: a 

 critical comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly. 

 58(4), (255-269).   

 Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

 University Press.   

 Lian, Andrew. Language, Culture, Meaning, Learning and Technology. (April 2006) keynote address 

 at the 2006 (9th) Conference on English Language Education. Retrieved April 2007 from 

 http://www.andrewlian.com/andrewlian/prowww/fortune_2006/fortune_talk_01.mht 

       Lian, Andrew. (2004). Technology-enhanced language learning environments: A rhizomatic 

 approach. In Jeong-Bae Son, (Ed.), Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Concepts, Contexts 

 and Practices. (1-20). New York: Universe. Retrieved April 2007 from      

           http://www.andrewlian.com/prowww/apacall_2004/apacall_lian_ap_tell_rhizomatic.pdf.  

 Lotman, Jurij. (1979). Semiótica de la cultura. Madrid: Cátedra 

 ___ (October 2007). Meme. Wikipedia: Encyclopedia on line. Retrieved October 2008 from 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme 

 Tentori, Tullio. (1970) Cultura y transformación social: Cuestiones de sociología. Barcelona: Herder. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu#Field
http://www.hum.aau.dk/~firth/Research/cultbookSage.html
http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2003/07/greenall
http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2003/07/greenall
http://www.andrewlian.com/andrewlian/prowww/fortune_2006/fortune_talk_01.mht
http://www.andrewlian.com/andrewlian/prowww/fortune_2006/fortune_talk_01.mht
http://www.andrewlian.com/prowww/apacall_2004/apacall_lian_ap_tell_rhizomatic.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

