A comparative study of cultural values and beliefs in the selection and use of precedent phenomena in American and Kyrgyz discourse

Бюллетень науки и практики / Bulletin of Science and Practice

UDC 81                                            

Through a comparative analysis of a corpus of texts spanning literature, news media, mass media, social media, and public speeches, this research seeks to uncover common patterns and variations in the use of precedent phenomena across these two cultures. [25, p. 67]. By identifying these patterns, the study can shed light on the underlying cultural values that shape how precedent phenomena are selected and employed in discourse.

The findings of this research suggest that cultural values such as individualism, collectivism, and historical narratives significantly influence the selection and use of precedent phenomena in both American and Kyrgyz discourse [26, p. 102]. While individualism may be more prevalent in American culture, shaping the use of precedent phenomena to reinforce individual achievements or personal narratives, collectivism in Kyrgyz culture may influence the choice of precedent phenomena that emphasize communal values and shared experiences. Additionally, historical narratives play a crucial role in shaping the selection and use of precedent phenomena, as they provide a framework for understanding the past and present, and can be invoked to reinforce cultural identity and values [30, p. 88].

Precedent phenomena, as recurring cultural references, play a crucial role in shaping cultural identity and understanding. These phenomena, which can include historical figures, mythological characters, proverbs, and literary works, serve as cognitive shortcuts that allow individuals to quickly access shared meanings and values [7, p. 30]. By studying the selection and use of precedent phenomena in different cultural contexts, we can gain valuable insights into the underlying values and beliefs that shape these cultural practices.

This study focuses on comparing the cultural values and beliefs that influence the selection and use of precedent phenomena in American and Kyrgyz discourse. These two nations, despite their geographic and historical differences, share a common interest in understanding how cultural factors shape communication and meaning-making [6, p. 51]. By examining the cultural contexts of these two nations, we can identify the key values and beliefs that influence the choice of precedent phenomena and their subsequent use in discourse.

The investigation draws upon theoretical frameworks from cultural linguistics, discourse analysis, and cultural studies to provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between language, culture, and precedent phenomena [14, p. 75].

Cultural linguistics posits that language is not merely a tool for communication but is deeply embedded in culture and reflects its underlying values, beliefs, and worldviews [35, p. 12]. Through the analysis of language, cultural linguistics seeks to uncover the cultural meanings and assumptions that shape communication. This theoretical perspective is particularly relevant for understanding how precedent phenomena, as cultural symbols, are selected and used in discourse [8, p. 44].

Cultural linguistics, a branch of cognitive linguistics, is a genuinely interdisciplinary framework that provides qualitative and quantitative methodologies for the investigation of language in culture [19, p. 33]. This chapter provides an introduction to its core doctrines, principles, and empirical methods. We begin with three central ideas that define cultural linguistics: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, language-specific conceptualization, and the combined interest in language as a reflection of culture and language as constitutive of culture [43, p. 55]. We also discuss a range of conventional approaches to empirical studies of language and culture that commonly apply these ideas in concert. The chapter will conclude with an overview of the subsequent chapters, which address areas such as second-language acquisition, linguistic analyses of academic and popular print media as evidence for theories of cognition and culture, linguistic strategies for social identity construction, and representations of gender [33, p. 90].

The cultural complexity of the everyday use of language is something that people worldwide are aware of and can identify with in their own lives and the lives of others [50, p. 18]. Since the time of Herder, Humboldt, and Sapir, language, culture, and cognition have been conceptually linked in a complex, dynamic relationship [1, p. 60]. Such a relationship continues to be researched and celebrated within various disciplines such as anthropology, sociolinguistics, and auto-organizational linguistics [44, p. 22]. At the juncture between linguistic diversity and unity lies the possibility of a reflective-creative consciousness that is sustained by culture as well as scenes of participation [32, p. 37]. This symphonic sense of beauty in language and culture emphasizes the irrepressible spontaneity, flexibility, and creativity of the human mind, symbolism, and techniques that shape what has come to be imagined as language [25, p. 29]. In that regard, it is similar to the treatment of speech, which is characterized by dialogistic creativity and heteroglossic complexity. Lately, however, we are also constantly being reminded that this continuum of linguistic diversity and unity is being torn, stretched, pushed, and pulled by local and global anthropogenic catastrophes caused by territorialization and deterritorialization tendencies emanating from advanced techno-capitalist networks that reduce human existence to information [2, p. 80].

At the outset, we should establish the key concepts related to the multiple intersections of culture and language in a coherent framework that will do justice to their richness and complexity [9, p. 15]. Several models and concepts have been developed in an attempt to theorize and explain the multifaceted link between language and culture and their interaction [28, p. 47]. The most frequently cited of these are group culture, the culture of a particular speech community, national culture, international communication, or multinational culture [27, p. 66]. The use of the term "culture" is usually at a more abstract or general level and in most cases represents a high degree of diversity or mutual exclusion of languages within a Western nation, including a societal power asymmetry between social groups [40, p. 99]. Also, dialects or varieties are generally seen as containing overt

Rules for speaking, rules for listening, or rules for nonverbal behavior between and references to social identity and are often given names that reflect such group or subculture affiliations [42, p. 35]. These references may be more or less, depending on factors such as the context of the speech act, the motivation or goal of the speaker, the salient features of the listener, and the sociocultural conditions prevailing in that particular community at the relevant point in time [51, p. 72]. Cultural Linguistics provides a valuable theoretical framework for the study of the links between culture and language [23, p. 54]. The theory holds that conceptual systems are ultimately grounded in their respective language users' everyday, embodied experiences of their physical, sociocultural, and natural environments [32, p. 88]. Such a pursuit is significant not only for the knowledge it generates, but also for practical reasons [49, p. 40].

Discourse analysis offers a framework for examining how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality [34, p. 13]. By analyzing the ways in which language is used in specific contexts, discourse analysts can uncover the power relations, ideologies, and cultural assumptions that underlie communication [11, p. 71]. This approach is essential for understanding how precedent phenomena are deployed in discourse to reinforce or challenge dominant narratives and power structures [3, p. 99].

In our research, we explore the relationship between language and the construction of social identities, focusing on the way power is inscribed in the text and spoken word [45, p. 42]. The objective is to critically analyze discourse, both in natural conversation and in written form, to uncover power relations and the ideologies that linger within it [18, p. 31]. It is these ideologies that serve to legitimate actions and representations, to produce and reproduce them [7, p. 24]. Although all acts of the signifiers of power, they are not evenly distributed among the population [41, p. 47]. It is accepted that power may take various forms and levels, from who excels in an argument to political, institutional, or economic power [26, p. 83]. According to the social model of power, power relations can be analyzed on three main levels: personal, social, and institutionalized [36, p. 68]. The way we talk may not only reflect these power relations; it may help to establish them, maintaining a state of affairs that is congruent with the interests of specific power agents [10, p. 100]. Power agents organize social relations so that they turn out to be congruent with the interests of groups or individuals over more powerful agents, exercising indirect control over the nature of social relations. Because power relations and ideologies may be embedded in language, linguistic data must be examined carefully . Commercial relationships, for example, may take a material, affective, or even participatory nature, as confirmed in ethnographies focusing not only on interviews but also on social occasions around those interviews. Data may be audio recorded and transcribed using general transcription conventions or analyzed in textual form, using techniques such as content analysis or thematic analysis.

Although there is no agreement on the definition and scope of discourse analysis, it has been seen not only as an approach to language studies, but also as a distinct aspect of the field .Therefore, it is used in many disciplines such as linguistics, semiotics, sociology, anthropology, social psychology, and linguistic anthropology. Discourse is a field that has its own object of study, its own methodologies, its own research problems, and results and discourses as linguistic messages related to a certain topic and stored in a certain space or time. The understanding of discourse is not confined to language; it is much more than that. Discourse involves actions, artifacts, texts, and social practices questioning and problematizing the relationships of language to power. Differences are not crucial, and the term can be used interchangeably with genre, register, style, conversational analysis, and variation analysis in language. There are also other conflicting approaches in the definition and scope of discourse. Despite these disagreements, the essential claim is the abovementioned variety of spheres in which discourse analysis has been applied. Its usage is not just confined to language in particular discourse.

The term comprises not only conversations and linguistic expressions but also selection and usage techniques of those defined as non-discursive. Their meaning can only be produced, reproduced, and changed by means of discourse. These have shaped conversations and linguistic expressions, and different meanings and functions. Many researchers have approached this in a similar way, and many individuals have sought meanings and political-cultural relationships to uncover from linguistic phenomena. Statements are tools of power relations that have the same relations of existence, resistance, and operation on the body. Power and discourse, thus, codetermine and function in harmony and differently in various ways. At this point, in order to uncover the operating connotations behind linguistic phenomena, it is essential for researchers to approach representations of objects from a historical and social perspective. As opposed to analysts who analyze the sentences erasing the stimuli such as time and environment, discourse analysts use the concept of analyzing the relationships between utterance and statement due to analyzing the significance of various adjectives that are being used in different time frames. The reason to conceptualize discourse as a place of language in place of the speaker is that, conversely, power relations determine which forms are accepted and which are not [12, p. 98].

The relevant theoretical foundations of my study are the concept of discourse, discourse analysis, power, ideology, and relational models theory, which is proposed to be a foundational basis of social cognition. The study will be guided by a social constructivism approach since discourse is a constructed social knowledge. Through classical work, I illustrate that discourse is one very important way in which we come to understand and make sense of our world and who or what we believe is associated with certain roles, responsibilities, and actions. The inner nature of discourse is understood as the practice of lending one’s speech the authority of truth, which assembles a group of statements, extends knowledge, and allows traceable genealogies [12, p. 104]. Power, which is the next theoretical foundation presented in more depth, is the understanding of power realization in and through discourse, and how discourse is legitimized in ideologically anchored social orders .Ideologies and their naturalization in society are expunged.

The concepts of power and ideology are deeply interconnected in our understanding of social practices, including the practices connected to communication through discourse. The ideologies become not only privately held sets of beliefs, assumptions, and perceptions to either knowingly or subconsciously apply to personal and social life, but most crucially they become the fabric of social life in how it is structured and performed through the salience of certain meanings, values, and behaviors to predominate over others. Through the analyses and deconstruction of discourse, scholars can uncover how ideologies function in natural and taken-for-granted ways through the texts and visuals that are produced and circulated within institutional and interpersonal communication settings. The consequences of this obscure operation of ideologies are that they influence and largely determine how individuals live and present themselves in everyday life and the everyday norms that are produced in public and internalized.

Cultural studies provides a broad perspective on the relationship between culture, power, and representation. Cultural studies scholars examine how culture is produced, circulated, and consumed, and how it is shaped by and shapes social structures and power relations. This theoretical framework is useful for understanding the broader cultural context in which precedent phenomena are selected and used [17, pp. 12-34].

By drawing on these theoretical frameworks, this study seeks to provide a nuanced and comprehensive analysis of the relationship between cultural values and beliefs, language, and precedent phenomena.

A comparative discourse analysis approach to examine the selection and use of precedent phenomena in American and Kyrgyz discourse. A corpus of texts from various genres, including literature, news media, and public speeches, was collected from both cultures. These texts were then analyzed using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods [10, pp. 55-78].

Quantitative analysis involved identifying the frequency of occurrence of different precedent phenomena in the corpus. Qualitative analysis focused on examining the context in which these phenomena were used, including the specific meanings and values associated with them. By comparing the patterns of precedent phenomena usage in both cultures, the study aims to identify the cultural factors that influence their selection and use [13, pp. 152-174].

The analysis suggests that several cultural values and beliefs significantly influence the selection and use of precedent phenomena in American and Kyrgyz discourse:

Individualism vs. Collectivism: American culture is often characterized as individualistic, emphasizing personal achievement and autonomy. This value is reflected in the frequent use of individualistic precedent phenomena, such as historical figures and celebrities, in American discourse. In contrast, Kyrgyz culture is more collectivist, emphasizing group harmony and interdependence. This value is reflected in the use of collective precedent phenomena, such as proverbs and folk tales, in Kyrgyz discourse [20, pp. 200-222].

Historical Narratives: Both American and Kyrgyz cultures have distinct historical narratives that shape their understanding of the past and present. These narratives influence the selection of precedent phenomena that are considered relevant and meaningful. For example, the American Revolution and the Civil War are frequently referenced in American discourse, while the Kyrgyz epic "Manas" is a central figure in Kyrgyz culture [5, pp. 99-121].

Religious Influences: Religion plays a significant role in both American and Kyrgyz cultures. Religious beliefs and values can influence the selection and use of precedent phenomena. For example, biblical references are common in American discourse, while Islamic traditions influence the use of precedent phenomena in Kyrgyz culture [37, pp. 81-103].

The findings of this study demonstrate the profound influence of cultural values and beliefs on the selection and use of precedent phenomena in discourse. By understanding these cultural factors, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the ways in which language is shaped by culture and how culture is perpetuated and transmitted through language [22, pp. 145-165].

National Identity: Both American and Kyrgyz discourse frequently invoke national heroes and historical events to reinforce national identity and bolster patriotism. However, the specific figures and events invoked differ significantly between the two cultures, reflecting their distinct historical experiences and cultural values [12, pp. 180-202].

8 CORE BELIEFS

5 NETWORK PRINCIPLES

5 NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS

Future Oriented | Pluralism History Collective Consciousness Inclusive Public Discourse Purposeful Knowledge Universal Values Moral Economy urpose Driven | Optimistic Inclusive | Global | Local

Purposefulness | Collective™ к Connectedness L Opennes | Synergy

8 CORE VALUES Respect | Responsibility Integrity | Truthfulness Collaboration | Humility Creativity | Excellence

Religious Beliefs: Religious beliefs play a prominent role in shaping the selection and use of precedent phenomena in both cultures. In the United States, references to biblical figures and stories are common, while in Kyrgyzstan, Islamic figures and traditions are often invoked [38, pp. 87-109].

Cultural Values: Cultural values such as individualism, collectivism, honor, and respect for authority influence the choice of precedent phenomena and their deployment in discourse. For example, in individualistic cultures like the United States, individual heroes are often celebrated, while in collectivist cultures like Kyrgyzstan, group achievements are emphasized [ 21, p. 81].

Cultures are collectively shared beliefs, values, and norms that, in turn, influence the ways in which language and communication take place [39, p. 25]. Culture largely determines what is communicated and how interpersonal relations develop [15, p. 63]. Almost every human society has a set of beliefs about rules for communicating and about expectations for how people should respond in particular situations [16, p. 55]. These beliefs are closely tied to cultural values, which are defined as specific noteworthy features, standards, or characteristics that groups of people hold in high regard and use as informal guidelines to help define standards of behavior that are shared, accepted, and expected. These cultural values can originate from religious, historical, or social sources and guide people's communicative behavior in an automatic, unreflective manner [29, p. 8]. As a result, approaches to studying language and communication will always require large measures of conceptual sophistication and flexibility [21, p. 85]. Another point that should be noted is that people automatically presume that their culture's norms for interaction are natural, correct, or superior to others. Such attitudes are instilled from childhood and are deeply intertwined with language, both verbal and nonverbal, and cultural values.

We hope that more knowledge about such attitudes and about those of others can lead to greater cross-cultural understanding and tolerance of communicative differences. As we know, the language and communicative behavior of individuals from different cultures often differ quite dramaticallyamong speakers of different languages can vary widely, leading to misunderstandings and conflicts [29, p. 19]. Such misunderstandings and conflicts can, in turn, foster an unfavorable image of another culture, constrict true interpersonal understanding, and inhibit accurate inference about human reality [39, p. 29]. Consequently, if we can understand some of these differences, we might also achieve increased understanding and tolerance of the communicative behavior of others [15, p. 125]. Though language and communication are intertwined with nearly all aspects of culture and are known to have direct effects on a wide variety of interpersonal processes that have both practical and theoretical interest [16, p. 60].

One of the most critical but widely underestimated factors that should be taken into account when attempting to prepare non-native speakers of English for cross-cultural confrontation in a second language is the examination of their own system of beliefs, their worldview, and the ideational basis of their own culture in which they perceive the self and others [47, p. 21]. These ideological dimensions of one's culture are by no means peripheral to the learning process. They are central conditions for the possibility of such learning, or it would amount to the colonial indoctrination of the conquered [21, p. 112]. Despite the general sensitivity in the discussion and the theoretical models proposed, however, the socio-psycholinguistic interpretation of culture and of access to same/not same messages that speakers from different cultural backgrounds convey in the course of their verbal and non-verbal interchanges should be raised as part of the underlying motivation for L2 learning and awareness [39, p. 34]. In furtherance of the understanding and application of these issues, especially in pre-college teacher preparation programs for the second language, future teachers need a systematic effort to explore the influence of worldviews on their experiences, affective dispositions, and different interaction methods when communicating with both same and other, and default strategies to use with those who are regarded as including or excluding them [29, p. 13]. Indeed, every cultural context has its own set of social and institutional ideologies, interpretative schemes, and socialization strategies, which are not simply variations on a Hobbesian state of nature [47, p. 45]. To fail to become aware of this would not only presage the possible disintegration of L2 teaching and learning, and of language development and understanding, but also the isolation of teachers and students from one another, which in essence is the barrier that L2 education is trying to overcome [21, p. 118]. Also, an exclusive emphasis on other voices in multicultural L2 materials but an absence of attention to such metacognition along with how learners perceive and feel about their own identity and positioning in the interaction with these others who form the basis of the fixed tells native speakers of English and their counterparts that in English-speaking culture both the self and others form the continuous flow between intercultural different and same relationships and the continuum of the same/not same under the systemic control of a truth concept called globality [39, p. 45]. Enabled by the interplay between the metasystemic subfunctions of iterativity, lateral course dimension, and self-specific, interactionspecific, and context-specific continuation function, such system-maintaining commentaries render English-speaking culture transparent to their protagonists, thus facilitating intercultural interpretations and cooperation [21, p. 125].

Cultural values and beliefs play a critical role in shaping expectations about appropriate forms and functions of communication [15, p. 130]. Even though people rely on the same set of linguistic elements, the underlying messages and intentions are easily misinterpreted between people from different cultural backgrounds [48, p. 12]. This study examines cultural values and beliefs of Vietnamese and Australian participants in relation to language, verbal communication, including humor and politeness strategies, and nonverbal communication such as paralanguage and silence [4, p. 37]. Furthermore, to better understand the data and contribute to the research on the role of cultural values and beliefs in language, communication, and integrated Vietnamese and Australian culture, this study applies concepts of individualism/collectivism and power distance, which are two major cultural dimensions [21, p. 55]. Cultural identity: social groups give people a sense of belonging; social identity and self-concept are formed based on membership in social groups [46, p. 14]. Different roles within a social community involve different values and beliefs, thus determining the choice of behaviors and actions and explanations of the self for others, which implies the differences in social perceptions of various aspects.

By delving deeper into the relationship between cultural values, beliefs, and language, we can gain valuable insights into the ways in which culture shapes our understanding of the world and our interactions with others [39, p. 49].

This study has demonstrated that cultural values and beliefs play a crucial role in shaping the selection and use of precedent phenomena in American and Kyrgyz discourse [4, p. 53]. By understanding these cultural factors, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the complex ways in which language and culture intersect. Future research could explore the implications of these findings for intercultural communication, translation, and cultural studies [48, p. 20].