




































 

 
EDUCATIO : Journal Of Education 

Volume 1 , Number 2, November 2016 
 ISSN : 2579-8383 (Print) ISSN : 2579-8405 (Online)  

zzzzzz z 

  

Teaching Language and World Vision: 

As a Cross-Cultural Communication 

 

Lilis Rahmawati 
STAI Miftahul 'Ula Kertosono Nganjuk 

elrahmawati22@gmail.com 
 

Published:  
November 29 2016 

Reviewed:  
September 13 2016 

Accepted: 
August 11 2016 

 
Abstract: A language contains an implicit classification experience. The language 
system as a whole contains a vision of the world which by its speakers receipt 
and projected into reality. Language does not make speakers blind to the facts of 
the real world, but instead indicate the existence of relationships. Culture is 
actually an integral part and the interaction of language and mind. Cultural 
patterns, customs and way of life are expressed in the language, and culture-
specific worldviews reflected in its language. 
 
 
Keywords:language, thought, culture, vision of the world. 

 

Introduction 

There are several terms used to refer to the concept of vision of the 

world. Some of them are cosmovision,  worldview. 1  In addition, Hymes also 

mentions several other termenologi used in turns for the same concept as 

ethos, configuration, pattern, theme, metaphysics, Logica-meaningful 

Intergration. The term weltanschauung often appears as a synonym vision of the 

world.2  

Vision of the world is one of a number of concepts in cultural 

                                                      
1 AlfinoFantini, Exploring Language andCulture.(Brattleboro: St. School for International Training. 

1987). 
2 Dell Hymes, Language in Culture and Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 115. 

mailto:elrahmawati22@gmail.com


  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 172  

zzzzzz 

  

anthropology that is used for the characterization and comparison of culture in 

a holistic manner. Vision of the world is "... the sum of ideas which and individual 

within a group and / or that group have of the universe in and around them".3 

Vision of the world according to the definition above are the ideas from the 

perspective of individuals who have it from within a particular culture, not 

from outside that culture. Meanwhile, Geertz claimed that the vision of

 the world is "... the cognitive, existential aspects of a given culture, 

combining with the ethos and values (the moral and the aesthetic aspects), 

underpins religion to give a set of social values what they perhaps need most to 

be coercive; an appearance of Objectivity ". The implication of this definition is 

important for the study of symbolic systems and ethics.4 Or in other words, the 

vision of the world is the concept of culture5 or cultural.6  

This paper discusses the relationship between language and vision of the 

world. The questions posed are: 1) whether the components of the vision 

of the world, 2) whether the paradigm differences lead to different visions of the 

world, and 3) how the implications of different visions of the world that 

intercultural communication. 

Although the discussion in this paper to explain the relationship between 

language and vision of the world, a touch of culture and mind would have been 

unavoidable. This phenomenon three-crochet hook with a vision of the world 

melatarinya. The concern is about the interaction between language and culture, 

language and thought, or culture, language, and thought.7 

                                                      
3 David L.Sills,International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: The Mc Millan Company 

and The Free Press, 1986), 576. 
4 David L.Sills,International Encyclopedia. 579. 
5 David L.Sills,International Encyclopedia, 576. 
6 Need H. Seelye, Teaching Culture: Strategies For Intercultural Communication (Lincolnwood: National 

Textbook Company, 1987), 25. 
7 H. Doughlas Brown, Principles Of Language Learning And Teaching (Englewood Cliffs New Jersey: 

Prentice Halls, in 1987). 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 173  

zzzzzz 

  

 

World Vision Components 

theory of communicative competence should be able to explain what is 

known speakers of a language of his language, which allows it to produce and 

understand utterances of the new (novel) in unlimited quantities. Competency 

model rationalistic ala Chomsky was unable mengakomo tie theory of 

communicative competence and rejected based on three reasons: 1) The 

empirical test the theory does not support, 2) rationalistic theories are not able to 

accommodate the relationship of pragmatics between the speaker and the 

symbol(sign),which is fundamental in determining both the acceptability grama 

tikal and the meaning of an utterance, and 3) the implications metaphysical theory 

of universal grammar is not acceptable.8 

Empiricist with cognitive models ofacquisition languaageitsconsiders that the 

meaning of speech (ie meaning intended by the utterance in context), and the 

acceptability of grammatical utterance is ultimately determined by pragmatic 

relations speakers and emblem.9 This view seems inspired by Charles Morris 

semiotic theory which distinguishes between, syntax, semantics and pragmatics 

as the study of the relationship between 1) symbols, 2) symbol and referent, and 

3) the emblem and human users.10 

A symbol is anything that occupies a semantic function --- whether as 

arbitrators, ikonikal, or indexical. Do something that symbol or not depends on 

its usefulness(use)or functions in relation to a subject. In this context, the level of 

pragmatics provides the foundation for sintatik and semantic relationships. In 

other words, an interrelation between the three components, namely component 

                                                      
8 Carol A. Kats, Pragmatics And An Empiricisst Semantic Theory (Itcha: Cornel University Press, 

1980), 12. 
9 Carol A. Kats, Pragmatics AndSemantic,12. 
10 Carol A. Kats, Pragmatics AndSemantic,104. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 174  

zzzzzz 

  

pragmatics(use),sintatik, and semantics, which led to the communicative 

competence. 

Realization of the vision of his world seems to depend on the 

interrelation of these three components that interact with one another.11 Thus 

the world vision components include the following components. 

A. Pragmatics 

This component includes speakers of a language and its socio-cultural 

context. Sociocultural aspects meme gang a crucial role in the communication 

process, an aspect which is still part of the egocentirce transak sional self in the 

process.12 

 Sociocultural aspect is the cultural core. Larsen and Smalley, culture ... a 

blueprint that guides the behavior of people in a community and this is incubated 

family life. It governs our behavior in groups, make us sensitive to matters of 

status, and helps us know what others expect of us and what will happens if we 

do not live up to Reviews their expectations. Culture help us to know how far we 

can go as individuals and Wahat our responsibility is to the group. Different 

cultures are undrlying structures wich make-round community square round and 

square community.13 

Thus, determining the cultural context of cognitive and affective 

behaviors for each person, a pattern for personal and social existence. However, 

people tend to look reality in the context of his own culture. It is a reality that is 

created and is not necessarily the objective reality. A meaningful world where 

every human life is not a universal reality, but a reality category consisting of the 

order characteristics selectively marker deemed important by the community 

                                                      
11 Alfino Fantini, Exploring Language andCulture. 
12 H. Doughlas Brown, Principles OfLanguage,122. 
13 H. Doughlas Brown, Principles OfLanguage,122. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 175  

zzzzzz 

  

where he lives.14 

 

B. shape 

This componentis a symbol of a system that includes elements of 

linguistic, paralinguistic, and socio-linguistics. Linguiistik element includes 

phonetics, phonology, morphology, and syntax. 

 Paralinguistic vocal cues that accompany the spoken language, nonverbal 

information that color with elements of personality, attitudes, and emotional 

state. Variations accretion sound can have a positive impact on kepri badiaan, 

poor sound quality can affect the perception of the listener. 

Ekstralinguistik was nonverbal also called the hidden dimension. So 

mangasyikkan cultural expression in nonverbal communication so that obstacles 

in the greater cultural understanding on nonverbal dimension.15 Competence 

ekstralinguis tick consists of 1) proxemics: the use of distance and space, 2) 

haptics / kinesthetics: pattern for touch, 3) kinesics: gestures and body 

movements, 4) oculistics: eye contact, 5) chronemics: use of time / space, 6) 

olfactics: smell, and 7) artefacts: clothing and jewelry. Berke sociolinguistic 

aspects nan with stylistic variations are influenced by the context and defined by 

cultural criteria of appropriateness / inappro priateness, including behavioral 

marked /unmarked.Which is a determinant of stylistic variation is setting, participant 

(age, sex, role, relations). medium, topics andpurpose. 

C. Meaning / semantics 

psycholinguists assume that language is nothing more than a tool for 

knowledge exchange between speakers and listeners. In the process, the meaning 

of words depends on the system kenseptual speakers and listeners and the 

                                                      
14 H. Doughlas Brown, Principles OfLanguage,123. 
15 H. Doughlas Brown, Principles OfLanguage,209. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 176  

zzzzzz 

  

context in which the word / speech is uttered. An utterance containing a message. 

That message is determined by the knowledge of the speaker and the contextual 

situation in which the speech was uttered. Meaning, therefore, is built with 

linguistic utterances by speaker-listener pairs in the context of certain pragmatic.16 

Meanwhile, Kempson clicking revealed that there are three main 

characteristics that made by linguists and philosophers in explaining the meaning 

of natural language, namely by mendefi ned 1) the nature of the meaning of 

words, 2) the nature of the meaning of a sentence, and 3) the communication 

process.17 

Pragmatics 
 

Speakers 

(Context Sosiokultular) 
 
 

World Vision 

(VD) 
 

Symbol    System 
Meaning / Semantics 

 

Figure 1: Interaction Component Meaning 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                      
16 David S. Palermo and Lyle E. Bourne, Psicology Of Language (Glenvie, III. Scott Forresman and 

Company, 1978), 159. 
17 Ruth M. Kempson, Semantic Theory (Cambrige: Cambrige University Press, 1977), 11. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 177  

zzzzzz 

  

 

With sociocultural context, system triengles can be described as a 

symbol, and meaning / semantics follows:  

 

different, two or more interactive 

 

symbolic system includes components linguistics, tick paralinguis 

components, component ekstralingusitik (non-verbal), and components of 

sociolinguistics. 

 

D. Paradigm Different, Different World 

Vision'sVision terepresen the separate world as a result of the interaction 

of the three components, namely components build communicative competence 

of speakers, symbolic systems, and semantics. Berkaiatan with this reality, Allen 

and Corder says that "... a world-view of Might, indeed, be represented by an 

overall system of structure of calasifications".18 

                                                      
18 JPB. Allen and S. Pit Corder, Reading For Applied Linguistics (London: Oxford University Press, 

1973), 133. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 178  

zzzzzz 

  

As shown in Figure 2 above that a vision of the world reflected in a 

specific language. This means that a different vision of the world reflected in a 

different language. Speakers of different languages, thus, will see the world in a 

different way and evaluate it differently. 

In connection with this phenomenon, Sampson suggests that the contrast 

in the vision of the world can be either sharp differences and controversial. Boas, 

for instance, pointed out on snow English word can have several connotations 

in the Eskimo language, like snow falling, snow on the ground, driftingsnow.At a more 

concrete level is the gap between the conceptual schema in different languages 

quite obvious, and this fact must affect perception can thus be said that the 

human perception of the environment is modified by the conceptual categories 

owned language.19 

Sapir-Whorf proposed a hypothesis known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesisd, 

ian Whorf hypothesis, linguistics relativity or linguisticdeterminism. 20 Whorf proposed 

two hypotheses, which reads as follows 1) That all higher levels of thinking are 

dependent on language, 2) That the structure of the language are habitually uses 

influences the manner in the which one understands his environment. The 

picture of the universe shifts from tongue to tongue.21 

The first hypothesis fairly broad support. Yulian Huxley, biologist, for 

example, said that "the evolution of the concept of verbal opens the door for any 

further achievement of the human mind". Language, Whorf said, is the best show 

men puts on. Other creatures have developed a communication system rude, but 

not the language in the true sense. Language is the main means of foster children, 

in organizing the system of the human community, the legacy of a culture from 

                                                      
19 Gefrey Sampson, Schools Of Linguistics: Competition And Evolution (London: Hutchinson, 1980), 

85-86. 
20 H. Doughlas Brown, Principles OfLanguage,139. 
21 John B. Carroll, Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings Of Benyamin Lee Whorf (Cambrige: 

The MIT Press, 1956), vi. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 179  

zzzzzz 

  

generation to generation.22 

Chase himself recounts about the role of language on thought processes. 

He said:  

 "Maybe everyone has brainstorms (emergence of the idea suddenly) too 

quickly verbalized. In writing, often it happened to me. But, before I could 

manage such a thought blobs of blue sky, I must memverbalkannya, expressed 

with words to me reflect wisely. Brainstorms that can not diverbalisasikan can 

not appear on the paper ".23 

Greek thinkers were the first to examine the logic and sense. Aristotle 

created the famous syllogism as Three Laus ofThought.They turned out to 

underestimate the things that are behind the language and considers that the 

essence of the mind is the universal, shared by everyone, at least by thinkers. The 

implication of this view is that a train of thought which is expressed in a language 

can be dialihba hasakan without loss of meaning in any language.24 

The establishment of this kind, which has grown for thousands of years, 

is opposed by Whorf hypothesis that the second principle above. Whorf said: "A 

change in language can transform our appreciation of the cosmos". 

Edmund Glenn prove this hypothesis by examining the translation of 

texts of the UN to find differences caused by language concepts. In a case of the 

cases faced Glenn is so; an English speaker says I assume, transfer my French 

interpreter translated into I deduce, Russian interpreter translate the I Consider. 

Glenn conclusions on these cases is that on the surface looks smooth translation 

techniques, but the level of communication between Russia and the UK 

delegation does not seem so.25 

                                                      
22 John B. Carroll, Language, Thought andReality,vi. 
23 John B. Carroll, Language, Thought andReality,viii. 
24 John B. Carroll, Language, Thought andReality,viii. 
25 John B. Carroll, Language, Thought andReality,vii. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 180  

zzzzzz 

  

Another example can be mentioned here in connection with the second 

hypothesis, namely in English, speakers say Look at thewave.But the wave 

'surf' in nature never appears as a single phenomenon. Hopi say Look at 

thatslosh.Hopi word that is closest to thesynonyms wave in the English language 

is the slosh and this word can indeed provide a closer equivalent in accordance 

with the physics of the motion of the waves, which connotes the mass movement 

". 

Based on the fact that, Stuart Chase concludedthat:There is no one 

metaphysical pool of universal human thought.Speaker of different language see the Cosmos 

differenly, Evaluate it differenly, sometimes not by much sometimes Widely. Thinking is relative 

to the language learned. ... Research is needed to discover the world view of many unexplored 

languages, some now in danger of extination.26 

 

E. Whorf Hypothesis Logic 

David McNeill did an analysis of the Whorf Hypothesis. The results of 

the analysis concludes that Whorf Hypothesis states three interlocking claims 

about the habits of thought, as follows. 1) Linguistic determinism: the gramatical and 

lexical patterns of a lnguage are transparent and a projected onto raelity, and this guide habitual 

beliefs and attitudes aboutreality,2) Linguistic relativity: if one language has a Certain pattern 

and associated meaning, the projection onto reality of the people who speech language Reviews 

These will be different in ways predictable form the linguistic patterncontast,3) World view: 

linguistic patterns embody a world view, or a model of the world. This embodied constitues 

distinctive models thought the world. It is accepted by speakers as the contruction of the world. 

Thus Spake the culture Reaches into habitual thought patterns of its members.27 

To understand the interrelatedness of the three statements, some of the 

                                                      
26 John B. Carroll, Language, Thought andReality,v. 
27 David Mc Neill, Psycholinguistics: A New Appoach (New York: Harper and Row Pub, 1978), 178. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 181  

zzzzzz 

  

illustrations can be raised by using a comparison between English and Hopi about 

time nomen-clature. In English there is the construction of ten days, as well as 

ten stones, which projected into reality to demonstrate the existence of groups 

simultneus days and groups of simultaneous stones. This example illustrates the 

proposition (1) is linguistic determinism. 

Furthermore, the plural pattern psentasikan mere vision of the world: A-

form and substance that days,stones,and the like are included in the category that 

can be grouped and cause these cultural beliefs affect English speakers. 

Illustration supporting statement number (3) that worldview. 

Sikan memproyek Hopi language speakers of different models of reality, 

especially in this case that the days and stones included in the different categories 

of objects in reality. This is an example statement number (2), namely linguistic 

relativity. 

The third statement, said McNeill, is the key to Whorf Hypothesis testing. 

Predictions of the most dramatic and the most convincing test is the linguistic 

relativity. However, claims world view and determinism is more fundamental and 

more than it claims world view should be viewed as a primer. Because of this, 

any proposal must be based on testing of linguistic relativity progression of 

arguments in a row (3) - (1) - (2).28 

 

F. Exceptions element 

as a continuation of the vision of the world claim that (number 3) can 

happen that two or more languages has a different shape to a certain extent, but 

does not project a vision of the world. This means that the same model can be 

realized in different forms in the two languages and in accordance with the Whorf 

                                                      
28 David Mc Neill, Psycholinguistics: A NewAppoach,179. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 182  

zzzzzz 

  

hypothesis, the effect of differences in this form of the mind must be the same.29 

For example, Whorf said at the SAE languages such as French and English. In 

these languages there is no difference considered vision of the world because of 

the history that is so long, so that European countries are said to have the same 

culture (common culture).30 

BHS.JAVA DESCRIPTION BHS. BALI 
   

Janur young leaves edema 

Blarak old leaves danyuh 

Sada leaves the bone sticks 

Plapah where the leaf is attached to papah 

Tebah bunch of sticks to repel flies sampat 

Korek broom sampat 

manggar flowers troktokan 

Mandha coconut seeds are white and can empol 

 edible  

Bluluk coconuts are young andyet bungsil 

 juicy  

Cengkir coconutsvery young, bungkak 

 soft-shell reinforcededible,  

 but not fleshy.  

Degan young coconuts that have fleshy kuwud 

 soft  

glugu woodcoconut Seseh 

control ormidriblayer that can be worn smooth 

 rope.  

 

For the record needs to be added right that there may be a system similar 

symbols on languages archipelago in the region there is a coconut tree. 

Nevertheless, there had to be differences between the Balinese and 

Javanese due to the vision of the world, for example at the level of paralinguistic, 

                                                      
29 David Mc Neill, Psycholinguistics: A NewAppoach,179. 
30 GefreySampson, Schools OfLinguistics,85. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 183  

zzzzzz 

  

ekstralinguis tick, and others. 

  

G. Cross Cultural Communication Public phenomenon 

Perhaps nobody denies that a baby born to a world seemingly without 

armed with nothing (tabula rasa). Then the baby was growing along with the 

development of attitudes, beliefs, religion, personality, including his vision of the 

world largely because it is formed by the environment. This means that man, 

wherever he lives, must have been influenced by family, community, country, and 

even language. In other words, the environment affects human developm ment 

it is the cultural environment, which is manifested by the principles that exist and 

spread in the environment. 

Such a human being can be regarded as civilized human beings. He has 

been nurtured in oneculture.The man has actually become a culturalbeing.However, 

when a man, who has a certain culture confronted with another human right that 

has a different culture: what happened? Very likely persaan feelings that arise in 

him is hatred, frustration, fear, strangeness, intrusions, denial, confusion, etc.31 

Why is that? Actually, and it should be, concerned conscious of itself as 

a cultural creature. But his affection, most human beings, whatever their 

nationality, sees himself and his relatives are not as culture, but as a standard 

(which is true), and other groups as konglemerasi strange behavior.32 Such an 

attitude really is not healthy because it is colored by etnocentrism or my group is 

a standard of right. 

As a consequence of this Trism etnocen is that in view of other 

individuals, groups, the etnocentrism will use his own glass as a filter (standard). 

The result is certainly mostly mismatches. 

                                                      
31 Joys V. Valdes, Culture Bound: Bridging the Culture Gap In Language Teaching (New York: Cambrige 

Language Teaching Library, 1987), vii. 
32 Joys V. Valdes, Culture Bound, vii. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 184  

zzzzzz 

  

If both groups have to communicate, which happens must have cross-

cultural in misunderstan perceptual ding caused by mismatches between them 

that has a different culture, such as schemas, cues, values, and interpretation.33 

On the other hand, Robinson states that "... the perceived dissimilarity and 

mismatching cues and schemas would contributes to the negative impressions of people from 

cultures different from one'sown".34 

Citing the opinion Gumprerz, Jupp, and Roberts, Robinson noted four 

types of differences that cause cation communion between people of different 

ethnicities were cut off.1)Different culture Assumptions about the situation and about the 

approriate behavior and intentions within it, 2) Different ways of structuring information or an 

argument in aconversation,3) Different ways of speaking; the use of different sets of 

unconcious linguistic convention (such as tone of voice) to emphasize, to signal connection and 

logic, and to imply significance of what is being said is terms of overall meaning andattitudes,4) 

Different ways of interacting Reciprocal versus non-reciprocal forms ofconversatrion.35 

 

H. Overcoming Cross Cultural Communication Gaps 

To address gaps in cross-cultural communication, there must be the 

assumption that every individual culturally sensitive. That is, the concerned 

recognize that other people are also cultural products, like himself, which is based 

on the difference in the vision of the world. In line with the development of that 

attitude, Valdes menyim pulkan that "... (people) are (now) prepared and more willing to 

look at the behavior of persons from other culture and accept themnonjudgmentally".36 Or 

in other words, they now understand "...why (other) people act the waydo".37 

                                                      
33 Gail L. Nemetz Robinson, Cross Cultural Understanding (New York: Prentice Hall, 1988), 49. 
34 Nemetz Gail L. Robinson, Cross CulturalUnderstanding,55. 
35 Nemetz Gail L. Robinson, Cross Cultural Understanding, 55. 
36 Joys V. Valdes, Culture Bound, vii. 
37 Need H. Seelye, Teaching Culture, 28 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 185  

zzzzzz 

  

Along with the acceptance of mental nonjudg, continues also with the 

acceptance of the language, including the relationship between language and 

culture. It can be a signal that there is a willingness to enter the area of language 

and culture.38 

Clearly, Robinson proposes that such communication gap can be bridged 

by knowledge on both partners of speech, ie knowledge about the different 

cultural assumptions. With reference to the opinion that embraces Seelye rational 

approach to teaching culture. Robinson stressed that Seelye Definition 

underscored the importance of understanding why people act the way they do. Robinson 

also stressed that the assumptions underlying is "... by understanding the reason behind a 

particular event, bet it eting different foods, speaking in load voices, or speaking in close 

poximity, the learner will better understand and tolerate the person who is participating in the 

event".39 

 Effective communication right come into one's vision of a two-way 

communication process that requires two treatments. In every conversation has 

to do is "... each partner to check the other's purposed and cultural Assumptions about the 

conversation; each partner must learn about the diverse ways people structure informations; each 

must leave the different meanings associated with different ways of speaking and different forms 

of interaction; and each must learn to Anticipate and engage in reciprocal and non-reciprocal 

forms of speech"vision40 

of effective cross- cultural understanding as a two-way process has 

important implications for bilingual programs, second language education 

programs, and foreign languages. 

Conclusion 

Based on the above description, it seems that there are three dimensions 

                                                      
38 H. Need Seelye, Teaching Culture, 28. 
39 Nemetz Gail L. Robinson, Cross CulturalUnderstanding,9. 
40 Gail L. Nemetz Robinson, Cross Cultural Understanding, 67. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 186  

zzzzzz 

  

on which the discussion in this paper, the culture, the language and the mind, 

with the vision of the world as his starting point. Culture, language, and thought 

interrelated with the vision of the world as essentially elements. Culture (with a 

vision of the world as a referent) is an integral part of the interaction between 

language and thought. Cultural patterns, customs, and lifestyles tereksperesikan 

in the language, as well as the vision of the world - that is culture-specific - are 

reflected in the language. 

When between culture and language is questionable whether the language 

or culture first, then this question can not be answered in black and white. So far, 

the burning question explanation of this is that both grow and evolve together, 

each memenga Ruhi. Nevertheless, if the culture and language are separated, 

Whorf says that language that is far more established, more systematic and more 

robust. Such a view is clearly visible on the statement of Whorf following "We 

dissect nature along lines laid dowan by a our native tongues ... the world is 

presented in a kalkeidoscopic flux of impressions, the which has to be organized 

by our minds ... and this means largelly by the linguistic systems in our mind  

"Itshould be noted that the language difference occurs more due to 

differences in the vision of the world. Van Humbolt says "... the differences 

between languages derives less from differences in sounds and signs than from 

differens of world-view". 

In addition, with respect to the relationship between language and 

thought, Allen and Corder suggests that "... language structure not only as 

interactingly reflective of cultural thought but as directly formative of individual 

thought. Long before, Chase illustrates that just as Einstein in demonstrating the 

relativity of space and time, Whorf is a person who is able to reach the 

relationship between human language and the human mind, how language can 

actually form the innermost thoughts of men. 

 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 187  

zzzzzz 

  

 

REFERENCES 

 

Allen, JPB and S. Pit Corder. Reading for AppliedLinguistics.London: Oxford 

University Press. 1973. 

Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning andTeaching.Englewood

 Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, In. 1987. 

Carroll, John. B.  Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benyamin 

LeeWhorf.Cambrigde: The MIT Press. 1956.   

Fantini, Alfino. E. Exploring the Language andCulture.Brattleboro: St. School for 

International Training. 1987. 

Hymes, Dell.  Language in Culture andSociety. New York: Harper and Row. 

1964.   

Kats, Carol.A.An empiricist Pragmatics and SemanticTheory.Itcha: Cornel University 

Press. 1980.   

Kempson, Ruth. M. SemanticTheory. Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press. 

1977. 

McNeill, David. Psycholinguis tics: A NewApproach.New York: Harper and Row 

Pub. 1978. 

Palermo, David. S. and Lyle E. Bourne, Jr. Psychology ofLanguage.Glenview, Ill. 

Scott: Forresman and Company. 1978. 

Robinson, Gail L. Nemetz.  Understanding of cross-cultural.New York: Prentice-

Hall, Inc. 1988. 

Sampson, Gefrey. Schools of Linguistics: Competition andEvolution.London: 

Hutchinson. 1980. 

Seelye, H. Need. Teaching Culture: Strategies for 

InterculturalCommunication.Lincolnwood, Ill .: National texbook 

Company. 1987. 



  
 

Lilis Rahmawati 
Teaching Language and World Vision: As a Cross-Cultural Communication  

 
 

  

Volume 1, Number 2, November 2016 | 188  

zzzzzz 

  

Silss, David. L. International Encyclopedia of the SocialSciences.New York: The 

McMillan Company and The Free Press. 1968. 

Stern, H. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching.London: Oxford 

University Press. 1983.  

Titus, Harold. H., et. al ,. Issues ofPhilosophy,trans. HM Rosidi. Jakarta: Bulan 

Bintang. 1985. 

Valdes, Joys.V. Culture Bound: Bridging the Culture Gap in LanguageTeaching.New

  York: Cambridge Language Teaching Library. 1987.  

Wahab, Abdul. Issue Linguistics: Language and LiteratureTeaching.Surabaya: 

Airlangga University Press.1991.     

    

 


