Russian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of LinguisticsRussian Journal of Linguistics2687-00882686-8024Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba (RUDN University)2061310.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-9-22SOCIOLINGUISTICSСОЦИОЛИНГВИСТИКА社会语言学Research ArticleCultural bias and SociolinguisticsКультурные предубеждения и социолингвистикаSmakmanDickСмакманДикPh.D., Lecturer at Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, Department of English. His research interests embrace sociolinguistics, phonetics, language learning and teaching, Dutch, EnglishЦентр лингвистики Лейденского университета, г. Лейден, Нидерланды. Сфера научных интересов - социолингвистика, фонетика, изучение и преподавание языков, голландский и английский языки. Член редакционного совета научного журнала International Journal of the Sociology of Language (IJSL).d.smakman@hum.leidenuniv.nlLeiden University, Centre for LinguisticsЛейденский университет, Центр лингвистики15122019231VOL 23, NO1 (2019)ТОМ 23, №1 (2019)92226022019Copyright ©; 2019, Smakman D.Copyright ©; 2019, Смакман Д.Copyright ©; 2019, Smakman D.2019Smakman D.Смакман Д.Smakman D.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/20613Peoples and individuals around the globe continuously develop their own communicative habits. With each generation, adjustments to changing circumstances are made - economic circumstances, natural circumstances, and, for instance, mobility circumstances. The outcome of such transitions is cultural variation, which is visible in hierarchical social systems, belief systems, legal systems, traditions, attire, and all kinds of rituals. Communicative systems are part of culture, and they deserve a role in research focussing on language and communication. However, applying culture as a variable is a challenge, not only because of the cultural variation between peoples and individuals but also because the effects of culture on actual language utterances are hard to measure. Another issue is the dominance of Anglowestern cultural patterns in many analyses. This paper explains these issues and critically reviews the various criteria that well-known cultural models - like the one by Hofstede (1980), Lewis (1969), and Hall (1959, 1976) - use to categorise cultures. Examples of such criteria are: region, relationship with uncertainty, femininity/masculinity, and power relations. The paper concludes by giving a number of practical solutions to the challenge of treating culture as a variable in sociolinguistic research. These solutions are related to, amongst others, the reviewing process for journals, widespread norms of ‘good academic language’, author/editor selection, cross-cultural academic cooperation, and sharing of funds.Люди во всем мире постоянно развивают свои собственные коммуникативные обычаи. Каждое поколение приспосабливает их к меняющимся обстоятельствам - экономическим, природным, демографическим и т.д. В результате возникает культурное разнообразие, проявляющееся в социальной иерархии, верованиях, законотворчестве, традициях, одежде и разного рода ритуалах. Коммуникативные системы являются частью культуры и заслуживают внимания как объект лингвистических и коммуникативных исследований. Однако здесь возникают некоторые сложности не только из-за культурной вариативности, но и из-за того, что влияние культуры на язык трудно измерить. Проблема также состоит в том, что во многих исследованиях превалирует западная англоязычная модель анализа. В данной статье дается критический обзор этих проблем, а также критериев, используемых в известных моделях анализа культуры Хофстеде (Hofstede 1980), Льюиса (Lewis 1969), Холла (Hall 1959, 1976), таких как отношение к неопределенности, фемининность/маскулинность, дистанция власти и др. В статье предлагается ряд практических решений, способствующих эффективному рассмотрению культуры как переменной в социолингвистических исследованиях. Они, в частности, касаются процесса рецензирования для научных журналов, широко распространенных норм «хорошего научного языка», выбора авторов и редакторов, межкультурного научного сотрудничества и совместного использования научных фондов.cultural modelssociolinguisticsAnglowestern biascultural criteriasolutionsмодели исследования культурысоциолингвистикаангло-западные предубеждениякультурные критериирешения1.Ball, M. J. (Ed.) (2010). The Routledge Handbook of Sociolinguistics around the World. London: Routledge.2.Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.3.Bolton, K., & Kwok, H. (Eds.). (1992). Sociolinguistics Today; International Perspectives. London, New York Routledge.4.Coulmas, F. (2013). Sociolinguistics. The Study of Speakers’ Choices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.5.Eisenstadt, S. N. (1973). Tradition, Change and Modernity. New York: Wiley.6.Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951). Social Anthropology. London: Cohen & West Ltd.7.Fairclough, N. (2003). Political Correctness: The Politics of Culture and Language. Discourse and Society, 14(1), 17-28.8.Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.9.Gould, S. J. (2000). Wonderful Life. The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Vintage.10.Greenberg, M. L. (2015). The Slavic area. Trajectories, borders, centres and peripheries in the Second World. In D. Smakman & P. Heinrich (Eds.), Globalising Sociolinguistics. Challenging and Expanding Theory (pp. 164-177). London: Routledge.11.Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent language. New York: Doubleday.12.Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.13.Halliday, M. A. K. (2001). New ways of meaning. The challenge to applied linguistics. In A. Fill & P. Mühlhäusler (Eds.), The Ecolinguistic Reader (pp. 175-202). London: Continuum.14.Halman, L., Inglehart, R. F., Díez-Medrano, J., Luijkx, R., Moreno, A., & Basáñez, M. (2008). Changing Values and Beliefs in 85 Countries. Trends from the Values Surveys from 1981 to 2004. Leiden: Brill.15.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications.16.Hofstede, G. (n.d.). Hofstede insights. Retrieved from https://www.hofstede-insights.com.17.Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3 ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill.18.Inglehart, R. F., & Welzel, C. (2004). What insights can multi-country surveys provide about people and societies? APSA Comparative Politics Newsletter, 15(2), 14-18.19.Inglehart, R. F., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.20.Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: a Resource Book for Students (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.21.Kachru, B. B. (1976). Models of English for The Third World: White Man's Linguistic Burden or Language Pragmatics? TESOL Quarterly, 10(2), 221-239.22.Lewis, R. D. (1996). When Cultures Collide. Leading across Cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey International.23.Lozerand, E. (2015). Il n’y a pas d’individu au Japon. Critique et archeologie d’un stereotype. In C. Galan & J.-P. Giraud (Eds.), Indiviu-s et démocratie au Japon (pp. 19-71). Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Midi.24.Meyerhoff, M., & Nagy, N. (2008). Social lives in language. Sociolinguistics and multilingual speech communities celebrating the work of Gillian Sankoff. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.25.Morales, J. F., López-Sáez, M., & Vega, L. (1998). Discrimination and beliefs on discrimination in individualists and collectivists. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Páez, & J.-C. Dechamps (Eds.), Social identity. International Perspectives (pp. 199-210). London / Thousand Oaks (California) / New Delhi: Sage Publications26.Pennycook, A. (2018). Posthumanist Applied Linguistics. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.27.Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings. Psychology and Culture, 2(1).28.Smakman, D. (2012). The definition of the standard language: a survey in seven countries. Inter­national Journal of the Sociology of Language, 218, 25-85.29.Smakman, D. (2015). The westernising mechanisms in sociolinguistics. In D. Smakman & P. Heinrich (Eds.), Globalising Sociolinguistics. Challenging and Expanding Theory. London: Routledge.30.Smakman, D., & Barasa, S. N. (2016). Defining ‘Standard’. Towards a cross-cultural definition of the language norm. In I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade & C. Percy (Eds.), Prescription and Tradition in Language. Establishing Standards across Time and Space (pp. 23-38). Bristol / Buffalo / Toronto: Multilingual Matters31.Smakman, D., Barasa, S. N., & Smith-Christmas, C. (submitted). Towards cultural diversification in Sociolinguistics.32.Smakman, D., & Duda-Osiewacz, A. (2014). A contrastive rhetoric analysis of scholarly publications by Polish and Anglophone authors. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 4(2), 29-47.33.Smakman, D., & Heinrich, P. (2015). Globalising Sociolinguistics. Challenging and Expanding Theory. London: Routledge.34.Smakman, D., & Heinrich, P. (Eds.). (2018). Urban Sociolinguistics. The City as a Linguistic Process and Experience. London: Routledge.35.Smith, P. B., Fischer, R., Vignoles, V. L., & Bond, M. H. (2013). Understanding social psychology across cultures. Engaging with others in a changing world. London: Sage.36.Stanford, J., & Preston, D. R. (2009). The Lure of a Distant Horizon. Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages. In J. Stanford & D. Preston (Eds.), Variation in Indigenous Minority Languages (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.37.Wodak, R. (2001). Gender and Language: Cultural Concerns. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 5954-5960). Oxford: Pergamon.38.WVS, W. V. S. (2015). Findings and Insights. Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ WVSContents.jsp.