1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
9
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.72.12.1
How to Cite:
Luan, L. (2023). Cultural factors in foreign language teaching and their linguistic interpretation. Amazonia Investiga, 12(72), 9-16.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.72.12.1
Cultural factors in foreign language teaching and their linguistic
interpretation
外语教学中的文化因素及其语言学阐释
Received: November 1, 2023 Accepted: December 29, 2023
Written by:
Luan Luan1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2173-2177
Abstract
Systemic functional linguistics, intercultural
communication and linguoculturology
systematically explain the relationship between
language, culture and communication. They are
the main theoretical basis for modern foreign
language teaching research. Based on the
framework of the relationship between language
and culture from the perspective of three
disciplines, their cultural views are analyzed.
General scientific methods of analysis and
comparative study are utilized for conducting
research. We propose that foreign language
teaching includes three kinds of cultural factors,
namely, symbolic resource culture,
communicative norm culture and cognitive
psychology culture, and point out the adaptation
relationship between different theories and
foreign language teaching research directions.
Each subject has its emphasis, and the
combination of the three can form a closed-loop
research on language teaching and culture
teaching in foreign language teaching.
Keywords: cultural teaching, foreign language
teaching, intercultural communication,
linguoculturology, systemic functional
linguistics.
Introduction
The relationship between language and culture
has been discussed in the research of many
philosophers, linguists, and anthropologists, but
the real systematic and scientific argumentation
on the cultural characteristics and attributes of
language, the role and influence of culture on
language, as well as the relationship between
1
Doctor of philological sciences, Wuhan University, China.
language and culture in communicative activities
began in the 1960s and 1970s. The representative
theories are Systemic functional linguistics
proposed by British scholar Firth and
British-born Australian linguist Halliday,
Intercultural communication studies emerging in
the United States, Linguocountry studies
10
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
(лингвострановедение) proposed by Russian
scholars Vereshchagin and Kostomarov, and
Linguoculturology (лингвокультурология),
which has been developed based on them. There
are many similarities between the theories of
these disciplines, such as the emphasis on the
communicative function of language, i.e., the
distinction between “language” and “speech”;
the focus on non-linguistic factors in the study of
language, i.e., “context” and “culture”; the
exploration of the breadth of semantics, i.e.,
“meaning potential”, “decoding language
information”, “lexical context”, etc. Different
theories have different perspectives and focus on
language and culture, which makes Systemic
functional linguistics sociolinguistic and
Linguocountry applied linguistics.
Linguoculturology explores the multi-
dimensional relationship between language and
culture. Intercultural communication involves
inter-ethnic cultural communication, inter-
subcultural communication, and even
communication between individuals with very
small cultural differences in their standpoints or
perspectives. The interpretation of the
relationship between language and culture in the
above disciplines has both commonality and
distinctive features. On the one hand, it
systematically demonstrates the cultural
attributes of language and the influence of culture
on speech; on the other hand, the different
theoretical constructs reflect the differences in
the disciplines’ ideological origins, social
backgrounds, and fields of application.
Like two wheels of a bicycle, language teaching
and culture teaching are two equally important
elements in foreign language teaching, and they
are interrelated and interdependent. Different
linguistic theories on the relationship between
language and culture provide the theoretical basis
for research on foreign language teaching and
pedagogy. In the research on cultural factors in
foreign language teaching, the theories of
Systemic functional linguistics (Zhang, 2004,
2005; Feng, 2012; Zhao, 2023), Intercultural
communication studies (Gao, 2001; Gu, 2017;
Yang & Zhuang, 2007) and Linguoculturology
(Liu, 2002; Zhao & Jiang, 2003) have been
widely used, but few studies comprehensively
analyze the views of language and culture
constructed under the perspectives of different
theories. This paper attempts to analyze the
similarities and differences of the cultural
viewpoints of different linguistic theories
through a comparative analysis of the
frameworks of Systemic functional linguistics,
Intercultural communication, Linguocountry and
Linguoculturology studies, and to expound on
the relationship between language and culture
from multiple perspectives. It points out three
kinds of cultural factors in foreign language
teaching, demonstrates the focus of each theory,
presents a relatively complete picture of
language and culture, and explains the scope of
application of different theories in foreign
language teaching research from the perspective
of the nature and characteristics of the discipline,
to provide a reference for the research on second
language acquisition and foreign language
teaching methodology.
Theoretical framework or literature review
The symbolic, instrumental, and informational
nature of language essentially reflects the
communicative function of language. Language
is a symbolic system combining sound and
meaning. As symbols have the common
characteristics of materiality, denotation and
conventionality, language establishes a link
between “significant” and “signified”, laying the
foundation for realizing the communicative
function. As a tool, language is an important way
to realize communication, and at the same time,
as a carrier and intermediary, language transmits
information such as thoughts and knowledge
through the conversion of sound and meaning.
However, exploring the communicative function
of language from its basic attributes remains in
the field of structural linguistics, i.e., “language
for language’s sake”. Although Saussure ignored
the importance of speech, his distinction between
language and speech and his interpretation of the
two concepts is the initial point of language and
culture research. According to Saussure, to
distinguish between language and speech is to
distinguish between the “social” and the
“individual”, the obligatory and the optional
(de Saussure, 1959). This point of view has been
extended in the theoretical systems of Systemic
functional linguistics (SFL), Intercultural
communication studies, and Linguoculturology,
which further reveal the communicative function
of language, the cultural factors of language and
speech through systematic studies of speech
activities.
SFL recognizes the view that language is a
system, but it is different from Structural
linguistics in that the “system” here goes beyond
the scope of linguistic structure to include the
view that “language is a part of the social system”
(Halliday, 1974, p. 85), and that “the semantic
system is itself a realization of something beyond
language; a higher-level semiotic which we may
define as a behavioral system or more generally
as a social semiotic” (Halliday, 1978, p. 39). SFL
Luan, L. / Volume 12 - Issue 72: 9-16 / December, 2023
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
11
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
regards language as a system with social
functions, and its metafunctions include
ideational, interpersonal and textual functions,
which are realized by the “meaning potential” of
language, depending on the participants in
speech activities and the context, i.e., cultural
factors. The ideational function is the
communication between human beings and the
material world, reflecting the knowledge,
perception, and understanding of the real world
by the participants in the speech activity, and
reflecting “the meaning potential of the
communicator as an observer” (Zhao & Jiang,
2003, p. 181). Interpersonal function and textual
function are person-to-person communication.
The former reflects the social relations between
participants in speech activities and their
attitudes towards events (objects), reflecting the
meaning potential of the different identities of the
communicators. The latter reflects the
relationship between grammatical forms and
encoded meanings, reflecting the meaning
potential of communicative forms and
expressions. According to the theory of SFL,
language is a “meaning potential” system to
realize social functions and its meaning is
determined by the context of communicative
activities. This idea of context-constrained
meaning began with Malinowski.
Malinowski pioneered the concepts of “context
of situation” and “context of culture”
(Malinowski, 1923). He believes that context of
situation mainly refers to the immediate context
of the utterance, including the participants of the
speech activity, non-linguistic factors, the
general context of the situation, etc. While
outside the context of situation, there is the
context of culture, which refers to the
communicator's living environment and cultural
background, etc. “Malinowski’s concept of
contexts has a more obvious cross-cultural
awareness as the concept of context of culture is
proposed in response to the need for the study of
foreign languages” (Peng, 2008, p. 109). The
study of any foreign language must be carried out
in conjunction with its situation and culture.
However, Malinowski did not explicitly point out
the relationship between language and culture.
Halliday further explored context of situation and
context of culture within the framework of SFL,
arguing that the two are relations between the
instance and the system, the part and the whole,
with the former being a specific meaning
potential system linked to the situation of a
particular speech activity, and the latter being the
entire meaning potential system of the language.
Although Halliday pointed out that culture as a
context includes “traditional lifestyles, beliefs
and value systems of a language community”
(Halliday, 1999, p. 284), his research focused on
the same kind of language and the social nature
of language, which did not break through the
boundaries of cross-linguistic culture. In this
case, his concept of "context of culture" refers to
the socio-cultural factors of different social
groups within the same nation. From this point of
view, the “context of culture” is not unrelated to
the age, gender and class of the communicators,
which are also important factors in characterizing
the participants in speech activities within a
given "context of situation".
It can be seen that SFL makes it clear that the two
kinds of contexts are related to each other, but it
does not explain the difference between the two
clearly, and the exploration of the relationship
between language and culture has the
characteristics of sociolinguistics, i.e., it
recognizes the relationship between language,
society and culture. SFL emphasizes the role of
context of situation and believes that context
determines semantics. Its research focuses on
specific communicative activities, including the
influence of communicators, field, tenor and
mode on the meaning of the discourse.
Intercultural communication studies emerged in
the United States. Three factors contributed to
the development of the discipline. Firstly, with
the increasingly significant trend of
globalization, a large number of Americans went
overseas to live, work and study. There was an
urgent need to adapt to the local culture in order
to achieve effective communication. Secondly,
the United States is a multi-ethnic country, so
how to achieve inter-ethnic communication and
mutual understanding is the common concern of
anthropologists, sociologists, linguists,
ethnologists and culturalists. At the same time,
the US is also a multicultural country, and the
friction between subcultural groups and their
collision with the mainstream culture is
becoming more and more prominent. Thirdly, the
communicative character and individual
consciousness of Americans. Influenced by
individual consciousness, each individual can be
regarded as a carrier of “a small culture”, and the
communicative behavior between people can be
regarded as cross-cultural communication. While
the communicative character constitutes the
original demand for the development of cross-
cultural communication. These three factors also
determine the theoretical construction and
research scope of the discipline. Intercultural
communication is “a transactional, symbolic
process involving the attribution of meaning
between people from different cultures”
12
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
(Gudykunst & Kim, 2003, p. 17) or “the
exchange of information between individuals
who are unalike culturally” (Rogers & Steinfatt,
1999, p. 1), which includes “communication
between different countries, ethnic groups, races,
social groups, tributaries or subcultures, different
linguistic associations, and even strangers or
individuals” (Jia, 1992, p. 53). The view of
culture in the field of Intercultural
communication is broad, the “culture” here not
only covers the factors of national context in the
perspective of Linguocountry studies, but also
includes the cultural and context of situations
concerned by SFL, and also involves the values,
worldviews, thinking, cognition and emotions of
the communicating individuals.
In terms of the scope of research, the context of
culture in SFL studies the socio-context of
culture, and the context of situation includes the
objective factors of specific communicative
situations and the “subjective factors related to
the communicator, such as age, gender,
occupation, cultural literacy, emotion, etc.”
(Zhao & Jiang, 2003, p. 180), which is similar
with the study of subcultural group
communication and interpersonal
communication in Intercultural communication.
In terms of theoretical structure, the former's
view of culture is vertically structured (Figure 1),
while the latter is horizontally structured (Figure
2).
Figure 1. The relationship of speech activities and culture in the framework of SFL.
Figure 2. The relationship of speech activities and culture in the framework of Intercultural communication
studies.
SFL argues that there are two different levels of
context: the context of culture and the context of
situation. In the context of situation, subjective
factors and identity factors of the participants of
speech activities are influenced by the higher
level of context of culture. This higher level
includes ideologies, thinking patterns, living
habits, communicative traditions, and other
cultural factors. The context of situation
determines the meaning potential of discourse. In
the theoretical framework of Intercultural
communication study, intercultural
communication, communication between
subcultural groups, and interpersonal
communication are three types of speech
activities, which are juxtaposed at the same level.
Participants in speech activities are regarded as
representatives of a kind of “culture”, and the
focus of the study is on “cultural”
communication. Regardless of the scope of the
“culture”, the variables involved in the three
types of communication activities are the same
and have the same characteristics with a cross-
cultural nature. Communicative language
produces different semantics because it carries
different cultural information and meanings.
In terms of research content, the cultural
differences involved in Intercultural
communication studies include cultural
differences in verbal communication, cultural
differences in non-verbal communication,
cultural differences in social structure, ideology
and values, which are also at the same level, i.e.,
effective intercultural communication activities
benefit from understanding the cultural
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
13
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
differences between the two sides of the
communication, which include verbal, non-
verbal, and ideological differences. They
correspond to the meaning of speech, context of
situation and context of culture in the structure of
SFL.
Linguocountry is a sub-discipline of linguistics
based on the development of foreign language
teaching. It was born in the late 1960s and early
1970s by the Soviet scholars Vereshchagin and
Kostomarov and was positioned as “an aspect of
the teaching of the Russian language to
foreigners”, to realize “the culture-bearing and
culture-accepting function of Russian as a
foreign language” (Vereshchagin &
Kostomarov, 1990, p. 5) in the educational
process. Similar to SFL, the theory of
Linguocountry proposes three functions of
language: communicative function, culture-
carrying function and instructional function. The
theoretical basis of these three functions reflects
the discipline’s research ideas and echoes its
definition, which believes that foreign language
teaching is essentially a communicative activity,
teachers and students use language to realize the
communicative purposes of teaching and
learning, language carries national culture,
collective and individual experiences, and in the
process of foreign language teaching, the culture-
carrying function of language is explored and
utilized to play the instructional function of
language, to make the students aware of the
Russian national culture and national conditions,
and to realize the cultural importation.
The Linguocountry study focuses on the culture-
carrying function of language, and more
specifically, on the culture of words, i.e., the
theory of lexical context. According to the theory
of lexical context, words consist of lexemes,
which represent symbolic features, and sememas,
which reflect semantic features. Semema
consists of conceptual and non-conceptual
morphemes, the former reflecting the attribute
characteristics of things or phenomenons
represented by the word, which is the basic and
rational meaning of the word. The latter includes
the associative, rhetorical and cultural meanings
associated with the word, which can be divided
into social and individual morphemes according
to their nature. Social morphemes can be
subdivided into national cultural morphemes and
cross-language morphemes.
As the research scope of Linguocountry was
limited to the field of pedagogy, and the content
of research was focused on the vocabulary
reflecting the culture and lifestyle of the Soviet
Union, it was not possible to systematically
explain the relationship between language and
culture within the framework of the discipline.
The research contents were fragmented linguistic
phenomena. At the end of the twentieth century,
based on the continuation and refinement of
Linguocountry studies, Linguoculturology
opened up a new way of thinking for the study of
language and culture, and the research contents
included both the culture in language or “people
in language” (человек в языке) and language in
culture or “language spoken by people” (язык в
человеке). The most representative is “linguistic
personality” (языковая личность) theory, which
“truly finds the mediator between language and
culture, both perfecting the understanding of the
language itself and deeply revealing the ethnicity
of the people who speak the language” (Wu &
Peng, 2001, p. 205). The expansion of the
research object and scope of Linguoculturology
determines its cross-disciplinary nature,
analyzing the interaction and mutual constraints
between language and culture from multiple
dimensions and directions. Linguoculturology
studies regard language and culture as a
juxtaposition rather than a subordinate or
inclusive relationship.
Methodology
This is a qualitative study that aims to analyze the
various disciplines related to language, culture,
communication and their relationship. The study
employs general scientific methods of analysis
and comparative research to achieve its
objectives.
The research comprises three main steps. Firstly,
the study analyzes the disciplinary ideological
origin, social background and theoretical
structure of Systemic functional linguistics,
Intercultural communication, Linguocountry and
Linguoculturology studies. It explains how each
of these disciplines understands language,
culture, communication and their relationship.
Secondly, the study carries out a comparative
analysis of the theoretical frameworks and
cultural viewpoints of the different disciplines.
The aim is to summarize the differences and
similarities in the perspectives of the language
and culture research of the various disciplines.
By doing so, the research helps to establish a
clear picture of the theoretical landscape of
language and culture research.
Finally, the paper points out that foreign
language teaching involves three kinds of
14
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
cultural factors: symbolic resources,
communicative norms and cognitive psychology.
The study explains the research perspectives and
research focuses of various disciplines from a
doctrinal point of view. The aim is to organize
the theoretical picture for the research on foreign
language teaching and to provide a theoretical
basis for the further development of more
specific pedagogical research.
The study's reliability is confirmed by an in-
depth analysis of a large number of research
works on the topic, which provides a significant
amount of analyzed theoretical material.
Additionally, the study conducts a
multidimensional and complex analysis of the
relationship and interaction of language and
culture within different disciplines.
Results and discussion
In this study, disciplines – Systemic functional
linguistics (SFL), Intercultural communication,
Linguocountry and Linguoculturology – have
been compared to identify their distinctive
approaches to language and culture. SFL
emphasizes the functions of language and asserts
that social culture determines the meaning of
discourse. It regards linguistic analysis as a study
of meaning and defines it as a function in context
(Firth, 1964, p. 19). SFL studies language in
culture. On the other hand, both Intercultural
communication and Linguocountry emphasize
the cultural aspects of language and believe that
language reflects culture. While Intercultural
communication focuses on applied research and
linguistic and cultural differences in
communicative activities, Linguocountry
emphasizes theoretical research and linguistic
and cultural differences in the lexical and
grammatical levels of linguistic structures.
Although there are differences between these
disciplines, they all share the common use of
advancing the research on the theory and
methods of foreign language teaching.
Foreign language teaching is a communicative
activity that involves the transfer of linguistic and
cultural information through linguistic and non-
linguistic tools. It consists of four factors –
language, culture, communication and teaching.
From the cultural view and theoretical structure
of SFL, Intercultural communication,
Linguoculturology, and taking into account the
cultural factors in foreign language teaching, it is
possible to broadly classify the directions of
pedagogical research that are compatible with
different theories.
SFL focuses its perspective on the relationship
between the context of situation and meaning
potential. Its disciplinary nature is to study the
realization of language functions in the social
system, emphasizing the ideational, interpersonal
and textual functions of language. From the
perspective of foreign language teaching,
pedagogical research can start from the
situational and textual contexts, by setting up
specific scenarios to enable students to master the
semantic and pragmatic norms in the situation,
and by utilizing the influence of the field, tenor
and mode on the discourse domain to carry out
foreign language teaching.
The theoretical core of Intercultural
communication is the communicative theory in
general communicative studies. The focus of its
attention is the communicative culture, i.e., the
differences between different cultures in terms of
language, non-language, cognition, and ideology
that are manifested in communicative activities.
Scholars argue that intercultural communication
competence consists of global awareness,
cultural adaptation, knowledge and
communicative practice (Yang & Zhuang, 2007,
p. 16). From the perspective of foreign language
teaching, intercultural communicative
competence is the highest level of
communicative competence and the ultimate
goal of foreign language teaching. The first three
competencies, i.e., global awareness, cultural
adaptation and knowledge, are the basis and
prerequisite for the realization of communicative
competence. The “knowledge” here does not
mean linguistic knowledge such as phonetics,
vocabulary, grammar, etc., but cultural
knowledge including values, social customs,
history, and religion in communication. The
theory of Intercultural communication can be
applied to research centered on communicative
normative culture and cognitive psychological
culture in foreign language teaching.
Linguoculturology studies are developed based
on Linguocountry studies, which were proposed
for the study of teaching Russian as a foreign
language. Linguoculturology focuses on the
study of language and culture and how they
interact with each other. Within the theoretical
framework of the discipline, the theoretical and
practical research on pedagogy can be carried out
from the perspectives of cultural comparison,
cross-cultural training, cultural adaptation and
the model of cultivating cross-cultural
communicative competence. The practical
research can include the preparation of teaching
materials with knowledge of the cultural
background of the national context and the
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
15
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
teaching materials for communicative training
including audio-visual and speaking.
In summary, these linguistic disciplines have
distinct theoretical structures that can be utilized
in pedagogical research. SFL's perspective can
be applied to research centered on symbolic
resources and communicative norms,
Intercultural communication theory can be
applied to research centered on communicative
normative culture and cognitive psychological
culture, and Linguoculturology can be used to
study the relationship between symbolic
resources and culture of cognition and
psychology (Figure 3).
Figure 3. The fitting relationship between the disciplines and the study of cultural teaching in foreign
language teaching.
Conclusions
The present research examines the theoretical
structures of three linguistic disciplines, namely
Systemic functional linguistics (SFL),
Intercultural communication and
Linguoculturology, and their implications for
foreign language pedagogy. SFL primarily
emphasizes the functions of language and how
social culture shapes the meaning of discourse.
Linguistic analysis within the framework of SFL
is defined as a study of contextualized meaning,
whereby meaning is construed as a function in
context. SFL studies the relationship between
language and culture and is particularly
concerned with the ideational, interpersonal, and
textual functions of language. Pedagogical
research under the aegis of SFL may begin by
focusing on situational and textual contexts and
utilizing the field, tenor and mode to convey
foreign language teaching. The theory of
Intercultural communication, on the other hand,
emphasizes communicative culture and
differences between cultures in terms of
language, non-language, cognition and ideology.
Foreign language pedagogy may benefit from the
theoretical underpinnings of Intercultural
communication by emphasizing the cultivation
of intercultural communication competence,
which is composed of global awareness, cultural
adaptation, knowledge and communicative
practice. Linguoculturology, a field developed
based on Linguocountry studies, emphasizes the
cultural aspects of language and how they reflect
culture. The theoretical foundations of
Linguoculturology may be applied to foreign
language pedagogy by focusing on cultural
adaptation, cross-cultural training and the model
of cultivating cross-cultural communicative
competence.
Bibliographic references
de Saussure, F. (1959). Course in General
Linguistics. New York: Columbia University
Press.
https://archive.org/details/courseingenerall0
0saus/mode/2up
Feng, J.H. (2012). A review of classroom
discourse research methods. Foreign
Languages Research, 135, 49-55.
https://doi.org/10.13978/j.cnki.wyyj.2012.05
.019
Firth, J. R. (1964). Papers in Linguistics 1934-
1951. London: Oxford University Press.
https://acortar.link/rn7CFI
Gao, B.H. (2001). Foreign language teaching and
intercultural communication. Journal of
Sichuan International Studies University, 17,
101-102. https://acortar.link/X1HhmZ
Gu, X.L. (2017). Theoretical and practical
models of intercultural communication
competence cultivation in foreign language
teaching. Foreign Language World, 178,
79-88. https://acortar.link/67Cm16
Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2003).
Communicating with strangers: an approach
to intercultural communication. Boston:
McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0072321245,
9780072321241
Halliday, M. A. K. (1974). Discussing Language.
M. A. K. Halliday In H. Parret (Ed.),
p. 81-120. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter
16
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110813456
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social
Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of
Language and Meaning. London: Edward
Arnold.
https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesP
apers?ReferenceID=2122383
Halliday, M. A. K. (1999). The notion of “context”
in language education. In J. J. Webster (Ed.).
(p. 269-290). Beijing: Peking University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.169.04hal
Jia, Y.X. (1992). A study of intercultural
communication in the United States. Foreign
Languages Research, 62, 50-53.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96945x/19923/10
02964193.html
Liu, H. (2002). On research trends in teaching
Russian language and culture. Foreign
Languages and Their Teaching, 157, 54-58.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/81206x/200204/1
2306281.html
Malinowski, B. (1923). The Problem of Meaning
in Primitive Languages In C. K. Ogden & I.
A. Richards (Ed.). The Meaning of Meaning
(p. 296-336). London: K. Paul, Trend,
Trubner.
https://simplish.org/static/media/documents/
OgdenRichards1923.pdf
Peng, L.Y. (2008). The differences and
similarities between context of situation and
context of culture. Journal of Sichuan
International Studies University, 24, 108-113.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/96673x/200801/2
6813472.html
Rogers, E. M., & Steinfatt, T. M. (1999).
Intercultural Communication. Illinois:
Waveland Press. ISBN 1577660323,
9781577660323
Vereshchagin E. M., & Kostomarov V. V. (1990).
Language and Culture. Moscow: Russki
Yazik Publishing House.
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01001548147?
ysclid=ls0hictf6i369420
Wu, G.H., & Peng, W.Z. (2001). Linguistic
culturology in Russia. Contemporary
Linguistic, 3, 199-209.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/82143x/200103/1
0515246.html
Yang, Y., & Zhuang E.P. (2007). Constructing a
cross-cultural communicative competency
framework for foreign language
teaching. Foreign Language Circle , (4),
13-21. https://acortar.link/DNG4DZ
Zhang, D.L. (2004). Exploring Halliday’s
functional language teaching ideas. Foreign
Language Education, 25, 18-23.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/82149x/200403/9
596722.html
Zhang, D.L. (2005). An overview of functional
linguistics research results on language
teaching and learning. Foreign Languages
and Their Teaching, 190, 19-22.
http://www.cqvip.com/qk/81206x/200501/1
1374861.html
Zhao, A.G., & Jiang, Y.M. (2003). Introduction
to Applied Linguoculturology. Shanghai:
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
ISBN 9787810806190
Zhao, R. (2023). Construction of a semantic
generative model of critical intercultural
literacy in English majors from the curricular
ideological and political education
perspective. Foreign Languages Research,
40, 67-73.
https://doi.org/10.13978/j.cnki.wyyj.2023.02
.008