by ram 2004 culture lang g learning

8/12/2019 By Ram 2004 Culture Lang g Learning

1/21

Durham Research Online

Deposited in DRO:

11 February 2010

Version of attached file:

Published Version

Peer-review status of attached file:

Peer-reviewed

Citation for published item:

Byram, M. and Feng, A. (2004) Culture and language learning : teaching, research and scholarship.,Language teaching., 37 (3). pp. 149-168.

Further information on publishers website:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444804002289

Publishers copyright statement:

This paper has been published by Cambridge University Press in Language teaching (37:3 (2004) 149-168).http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=onlineaid=292300 Copyright 2004 CambridgeUniversity Press

Additional information:

Use policy

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, forpersonal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes provided that:

a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source

alinkis made to the metadata record in DRO

the full-text is not changed in any way

The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United KingdomTel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971

http://dro.dur.ac.uk
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444804002289http://dro.dur.ac.uk/1701/http://dro.dur.ac.uk/policies/usepolicy.pdfhttp://dro.dur.ac.uk/http://dro.dur.ac.uk/http://dro.dur.ac.uk/policies/usepolicy.pdfhttp://dro.dur.ac.uk/1701/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444804002289http://www.dur.ac.uk/


2/21

Review Article

Culture and language learning: teaching, researchand scholarship

Michael Byram and Anwei Feng University of Durham, UK

This review of work on the cultural dimension of languageteaching updates one from 1986 and shows that there hasbeen a considerable growth in interest since then. The focushas been largely on the elaboration of conceptual modelsand theories and the development of teaching and trainingapproaches; much less effort has been devoted to empiricalresearch investigating the impact of such developments and

building up a body of knowledge.In order to promote an agenda for research as well as

reporting on what has been done, we make a distinctionbetween research and scholarship, between investigatingwhat is and developing what ought to be happening inteaching and learning. We also distinguish between workon foreign language and second language teaching, a socio-logical distinction important in the cultural dimension.

In the final part of the article we analyse teaching andcurriculum development reported in the literature, and findan emphasis on approaches which draw on ethnographictechniques and theory, on approaches from critical theory

and the politics of language teaching, and on teaching ofcultural knowledge.There is more need, we argue, for interaction between

those who teach in general education and those who workin cross-cultural training in the business world. Finally we

point out that the cultural dimension of language teachingis value-laden, that researchers need to be aware of this andof the inevitability of engagement with values in teachingand researching the cultural dimension.

1. Introduction

We could claim in 1986 (Byram, 1986) that theterm cultural studies was not widely used in foreignlanguage teaching. In the meantime, attention tothe cultural dimension has much increased here asin other disciplines, and in the last two decades,an increasing number of people working in foreignor second language education have developed theirteaching theories and applications under the umbrellaof teaching culture for intercultural competence. Inparallel with this, developments in the field of trainingprogrammes for personnel to work in a multiculturalsetting or in another culture, have also gathered speed.

However, the two have not had as much mutualinfluence and contact as they might.The situation with research is different. The

flourish in work on teaching and theories of teaching

has not been accompanied by empirical research onthe causal relationships at work in intercultural com-petence. There is little to parallel research on causalrelationships between motivation and acquisitionof linguistic competence, for example. It is only ifconceptual work on what and how to teach is in-cluded under the umbrella term of research that

the picture becomes more encouraging. There isa need for more empirical research but also for aresearch agenda such that we can build up a systematicknowledge of language-and-culture teaching, theacquisition of intercultural competence by learnersinside and beyond the traditional classroom, therelationship between linguistic and interculturalcompetence, the effect of both or either of theseon social identities, and so on.

In the first part of this review article we shallpresent a distinction between research and scholarshipwhich we hope provides a framework for settinga clear agenda, illustrated by discussion of existing

Michael Byram is Professor of Education at the Universityof Durham, England. He has published several booksincluding, most recently, Teaching and Assessing Intercul-tural Communicative Competence; Language Teachers,Politics and Cultures (with Karen Risager); InterculturalExperience and Education (edited with G. Alred and M.Fleming); and is the editor of the Routledge Encyclopediaof Language Teaching and Learning. He is a Programme

Adviser to the Council of Europe Language Policy

Division, and is currently interested in language educationpolicy and the politics of language teaching.Anwei Feng teaches intercultural studies and bilin-

gualism modules to postgraduate students and supervisesEducation Doctorate and PhD students at the Universityof Durham. His research interests include interculturalstudies in language education, bilingual education, inter-cultural business communication and TESOL. He has

publications in all these areas such as: (2002, with M.Byram) Authenticity in College English textbooks: Anintercultural perspective. RELC Journal, 33, 2, 5884; (2003) Intercultural competency for TESOL profes-sionals.Reflections on English Language Teaching,

2, 138172; and (2004, with G. L. Lee, P. Gallo,H. L. Lim, J. Meyer and M. Zhang) Business andTechnical Communication. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Lang. Teach. 37, 149168. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444804002289 Printed in the United Kingdom c 2004 Cambridge University Press 149


3/21

Culture and language learning work. One significant point here is that research onteaching and learning for intercultural competencecannot avoid questions of ideology and values. In thesecond part, we shall focus on teaching and curri-culum development as reported in current literature.Finally, we return to the question of research andimplicit values, and an expectation that researchersdeal with these in a way which has not been seen inmost work on learning and teaching language.

2. Research and scholarship

2.1 DefinitionsResearch in the sciences of education to use a des-ignation borrowed from some European traditions can be broadly categorised under three headings:work which seeks to establish explanations in terms ofcause and effect, work which seeks to understand the

experience of people involved in education, and workwhich attempts to create change. The distinctionbetween explanation (Erklaren) and understanding(Verstehen) was made by von Wright (1971) forthe social sciences in general, but in addition thesciences of education also often attempt to interveneand to change the phenomena which educationistsstudy; researchers have opinions and try to influencefor example modes of teaching and learning orthe development and implementation of educationpolicy. Furthermore, educationists who wish to inter-vene and change things, do so from a particular

standpoint. Such educationists will have a view onwhat ought to be, and not just on what is. They mayattempt to intervene in what is, and find ways ofdeveloping from what is towards what they thinkought to be.

These various distinctions apply to work on thecultural dimensions of second and foreign languagelearning too. There is, for example, work in the firstcategory, which attempts to investigate the causalrelationships assumed to exist between languagelearning and attitudes towards other people andcultural groups (Morgan, 1993); this is work whichis looking for explanations (Erklaren). There is other

work which attempts to understand, from the per-spective of the learners, their experience of othercultures and groups (Verstehen). And of course thereis work in the third category on the development ofcurricula and methods of teaching or on policies ofteaching or assessment, which is undertaken in orderto move contemporary practices towards newobjectives.

The first-order distinctions which we shall use todiscuss work on the cultural dimension of secondand foreign language learning will be designated asresearch and scholarship, the former seeking for

explanation or understanding, two different perspec-tives on what is, the latter attempting to establishwhat ought to be, and sometimes attempting to im-plement and evaluate what ought to be. We shall

thus use a threefold categorisation in our analysis ofthe literature in following sections, reflecting twokinds of research and one kind of scholarship.However the more fundamental distinction is be-tween investigatingwhat is and advocatingwhat oughtto be. The focus of both kinds of research is onanalysis and description of the existing situation,whereas the focus of scholarship is on what develop-ments should be pursued in the future and why.

The distinctions we are making are not mattersof research method or design. We are not followingthe distinction frequently made between quantitativeand qualitative research, because this is in our view asecond-order distinction. Research which is explan-atory in purpose can draw on quantitative and qualit-ative methods and data, as can research which issearching for understanding, or scholarship attempt-ing to advocate and introduce new practices. It is also

self-evident, that the same individuals may work asboth researchers and scholars, sometimes investigatingwhat is and sometimes advocating what ought to be.

The topics which researchers and scholars pursuearise from personal interest, from social demand asreflected in funding arrangements, or some com-bination of these, and there are numerous aspects oflanguage teaching and learning which have culture-specific implications which are of interest to particularsocieties or individuals. One is the question ofwhether different traditions and conceptions of learn-ing in general are relevant to how languages are learnt.

For example, there is a debate on whether learnersof the Confucian heritage cultures learn languagesmore successfully through methods of rote-learningor memorising with understanding (Feng, 2003;Hu, 1996; Watkins & Biggs, 2001). Similarly thereare questions about the impact of societal conditionson motivation for language learning, for examplewhether learners in anglophone societies are willingto learn foreign languages (Reynolds, 2001). It isalso possible to study policies for language education,where both the specific conditions of a particularregion or state and the general theorising about policystudies are a central focus of concern (Ager, 2001).

However, all of these and similar perspectives areoutside our main focus, which is concerned withteaching and learning processes and outcomes, andin the following sections we shall consider these byusing the two fundamental categories of research andscholarship.

2.2 Researching foreign languageteaching-and-learningThe research questions which can be asked about cul-ture learning in a foreign language learning context

depend partly on whether the researcher is seekingexplanation or understanding. From an expla-nation perspective, hypotheses about the relation-ships among culture learning and other aspects of

150


4/21

Culture and language learning

learning and teaching can be quickly established, forexample:

The relationship between the foreign culture, or

perceptions of it, and the motivation for learning The relationship between language learning and

attitudes to and/or perceptions of other cultures and

peoples The relationship between teaching methodologies

and knowledge about other cultures The relationship between learning (about) another

culture and learners perceptions of and/or attitudes

towards their own culture The relationship between culture teaching (or

absence thereof ) and vocabulary learning The relationship between culture learning and the

development of specific social identities, particularly

national identity.

The best researched account of culture learning isundoubtedly the search for explanation of relation-ships between learners understanding of othercultures and their motivation and achievement inlanguage learning. This is an area which has beendealt with elsewhere in Language Teaching (Dornyei,1998) but it is important to note that in earlyresearch by Gardner & Lambert (1972), the notionof integrative motivation the desire to learn alanguage to be in some sense closer to speakers of thelanguage, and part of their culture was considered

the best basis for success. Later research (Dornyei,1998) has shown that instrumental motivation canbe more important than integrative, depending onthe social context in which languages are learnt. Laterresearch has also shown that many other factors needto be taken into consideration, not least the impactof classroom conditions (Dornyei, 2001). Where alanguage is dissociated in learners perceptions fromall links with native-speakers as may be the casewith English as an International Language theninstrumental or pragmatic motivation will be thebetter concept for explaining achievement.

On the other hand, integrative motivation ex-

pressed as a positive interest in peoples and culturesassociated with a language, is still a significant area ofresearch. This aspect of motivation it is only oneaspect of a very complex issue is also related toresearch on attitudes. In both cases, assumptions thatthere are linear and uni-directional causal relation-ships between attitudes or motivation on the onehand and achievement in language learning on theother are misplaced. It is for this reason that re-searchers have constructed complex models whichattempt to show the inter-relationships among atti-tudes, motivations, self-concepts, environmental

factors and instructional factors. The complexity ofsuch models may appear, to applied linguists andteachers, to limit severely their usefulness for teach-ing, and when Dornyei & Csizer (1998) offer ten

commandments for motivating language learnersbased on research, these might seem intuitively self-evident but nonetheless reassuring because of theirbase in research. The significance of culture learningis reinforced by their including familiarise learnerswith the target language culture.

The causal relationship between language learningand teaching and culture learning in the form of in-sights and attitudes is one which has been researched,albeit sparingly. Byram, Esarte-Sarries and Taylor(1991) investigated the effects of different styles oflanguage and culture teaching on learners percep-tions and understanding of a national culture. Theirconclusions were disappointing in the sense that theycould find no discernible effect of teaching, but astrong presence of other factors from outside theclassroom and the school. More recently Australianresearchers have investigated the relationship of teach-

ing to attitude formation, which again is disappoint-ing in that there seems to be no causal relationshipbetween teaching and positive attitudes (Ingram &ONeill, 2002).

There is therefore a major area in the relationshipsbetween on the one hand teaching and on the otherunderstanding of and attitudes towards self and other,own and foreign cultures, which needs much moreresearch. Such research could be informed and en-riched by comparative work on culture learning,comparing for example culture-specific views andreactions to communicative language teaching in

China and the West (Rao, 2002), in Colombiaand the USA (Schulz, 2001). There is a particularlywell-mined seam of research on vocabulary differ-ences between, for example, English and Chinese(Cortazzi & Shen, 2001) or English and German(Olk, 2002) or French and English (Boers &Demecheleer, 2001). In most cases research whichthus analyses speakers understanding of apparentlysimilar vocabulary draws out implications for teachingand learning and is thus linked to scholarship whichargues for particular aims and methods. Vocabularyteaching, as we shall see, is a particular focus inscholarship too.

There are also analyses of cultural differences inother aspects of communication: different values andcommunication styles (FitzGerald, 2003), or differentdiscourse strategies (Orsoni, 2001).

Research which is focused on understanding ratherthan explanation may not always appear to haveimmediate relevance to applied linguists and languageteachers, particularly when it deals with phenomenaoutside the classroom. This is nonetheless an impor-tant area because it situates language and culturelearning in social contexts. Lantolf (1999, 2000a,2000b) has argued for a theoretical position which

recognises the value of understanding processes ofculture learning from the perspective of learners ininformal learning contexts. Pavlenko and Lantolfhave used personal stories as a basis for analysing

151


5/21

Culture and language learning second language learning as participation and the(re)construction of selves (2000). There are recentstudies which analyse problems of identity loss aschildren learn languages (Downes, 2001; Jo, 2001)or identity maintenance for children of minoritygroups learning their heritage language (Mills, 2001).The particular role of the textbook in supportinglearners identity has also been analysed (Arbex,2001).

The learners in some of these studies are fromminority groups or find themselves in an identity-threatening situation, and there is also a growingresearch interest in the impact of language andculture learning on the cultural identities of learnersin majority groups, especially when they spendtime in another country to improve their learning(Crawshaw, Callen & Tusting, 2001; Jordan, 2001).Related research investigates the interplay between

social context, perceptions of self and languagelearning (Miller, 2003).

2.3 Scholarship and foreignlanguage teachingWork which we classify as scholarship, concernedwith intervention in the status quo of foreignlanguage learning in order to develop it in a certaindirection, is far more frequent than research. Whereasthe quality of research will be judged by criteria ofclarity of conceptual analysis, validity and reliability of

quantitative data or authenticity and trustworthinessof qualitative data, and rigour in interpreting anddrawing conclusions from data, scholarly work isoften judged by the power of the argument andthe rhetoric which sustains it, by the relevance ofthe argument to a given time and place, and by thesupport cited from research. Argument about whatought to be may depend more or less closely onresearch and the analysis of what is. Proposals forfuture directions may be judged, irrespective of re-search, as realistic or unrealistic/ideal. Scholarshipreflects, more than research, the relationship oflanguage learning and teaching to the social condi-

tions in which it is located. As the contemporaryworld changes to a state of globalisation, forexample, arguments about culture learning havechanged too.

Contemporary scholarship is therefore concernedwith and a reflection of social and political contexts,and the responses of theorists and social commen-tators. In Germany, for example, Kramer (1997) hasargued for attention to a cultural studies dimensionto the teaching of English which has its roots inthe critical social analysis of Raymond Williams andStuart Hall in England. Kramer argues that the study

of English (Anglistik) needs to respond to the newways in which people live their lives, engage intheir culture, in a time of rapid change. The studyof language and culture should address questions of

how we live and also how we ought to live, thusintroducing an explicitly ethical dimension to teach-ing and learning. Starkey, too, introduces a strongethical dimension by arguing that language andculture teaching should take note of and introducehuman rights education into its aims and purposes(Starkey, 2002).

Changing social conditions are reflected in thework of Kramsch and Zarate. The former argues,like Kramer, for new purposes and re-definitionsof language study to respond to epistemologicalshifts occurring in academia (1995: XIV) and herargument that language study creates a third place,a privileged and questioning location, where learnersgain special insights into their own and otherscultures, has become widely accepted. Zarate (2003),too, redefines the nature and purposes of languageand culture learning, stressing the significance of in-

between or border locations and the need for lan-guage teaching to respond to the particular challengesof European integration, as nation states and nationalidentities fuse and change.

Such authors present new perspectives and pur-poses. By doing so they open up new questions forresearch and scholarship. For example, researchersmight explore the self-understanding of learners andteachers living in these newly defined conditions.Scholars who are interested in intervention anddevelopment work can find guidance in theirplanning from these new purposes, and new teaching

objectives which follow from them.There are some signs of this in intervention anddevelopment work already, although the analysis ofthe relationship of classroom practice to pedagogicalaims and ethical questions is not frequent enough.We reviewed recent publications abstracted inLanguage Teaching and concluded that interventionand development work is currently often focused onthe problems of difference and distance, and howto overcome them. One example of this is work onteaching vocabulary, mentioned earlier, where tea-chers attempt to teach differences through culturallyloaded words (Qi, 2001; Galisson, 2000). Another is

the use of language corpora to teach differences inpragmatics (Berrier, 2001).

Culture learning is perceived as less feasible ifconfined to the classroom than language learning.It needs to be experiential and experience of differ-ence has to be at the centre of learners and teachersattention. Unsurprisingly, new communication tech-nologies are promoted as a means of overcomingdistance and giving learners experience of interact-ing with native speakers. Email contacts (Liaw &Johnson, 2001; Belz, 2001; Jogan, Heredia &Aguilera, 2001), electronic conferencing (Truscott

& Morley, 2001) and the internet as a source ofinformation (Herron et al., 2002; Gruber-Miller &Benton, 2001) are representative of this trend.Tandem-learning, originally developed as a means of

152


6/21


enhancing linguistic competence, is a means of creat-ing opportunities for culture learning (Rohrbach &Winiger, 2001; Kotter, 2001). Where visits andexchanges are offered to language learners forthe same purposes, there are similar attempts tocreate culture learning (Gohard-Radenkovic, 2001;Harbon, 2002; Breugnot, 2001).

Implicit in these approaches is the assumption thatinteraction with people who embody a culture, whoare native speakers of a language, is crucial. This thenleads to debate and argument for (and against) theuse of native speakers as teachers (Hinkel, 2001; Jiang,2001). The debate about the advantages of non-native and native speakers with respect to teachinglanguage (Medgyes, 1994; Widdowson, 2003: 156)is thus beginning to be extended to teachingculture, and the related question of the relationshipbetween teachers experience of other cultures

and their introduction of a cultural dimension intotheir teaching is being investigated (Aleksandrowicz-Pedich & Lazar, 2002).

Analysis of the cultural content of textbooks is awell-established area and insofar as it has begun todevelop theoretically well-founded criteria, might bebetter classified as research into the effects of teachingon learners perceptions (Sercu, 2000). Reports onthe difficulties of using textbooks written in onecountry when teaching in another (Yakhontova,2001) are however like reports of difficulties of usingWestern communication technology in non-Western

countries (Smith, 2001; Takagaki, 2001; Feng &Byram 2002). The authors adopt a more inter-cultural perspective in content analysis, and arguefor intercultural representation in selecting textbookmaterials and analysis of intention and interpretationin handling authentic texts in the classroom. Herethe scholarly purpose, the argument for a viewpointis quite explicit.

2.4 Research and scholarship in secondlanguage teaching-and-learningThe distinction between foreign and second language

learning is often considered by those concernedwith Second Language Acquisition research as un-important. Research on bilingual education wherestudents learn through the medium of anotherlanguage than their first or dominant language wouldnot make a distinction between learners who areimmigrants to another country learning through theofficial language of that country, and indigenouslearners who simply go to a school where it hasbeen decided to teach them through the mediumof another language. It is however important whenthinking about the cultural issues involved. There

is the inevitability of some kind of culture learningwhen learners live in another culture, as immigrants,in contrast to the lack of such learning outside theclassroom in the case of indigenous learners. The

latter are exposed to language learning only in theclassroom. The learning of English is however a spe-cial case in many countries, because of the dominanceof English-language media, and the inevitable ex-posure to manifestations of US American culture.

Where some Second Language Acquisition re-search does make a distinction is between tutored anduntutored learning, the latter often being the experi-ence of adult immigrants whereas child immigrantsare provided with formal, tutored language learningopportunities (Perdue, 2000). Despite the distinction,this research seeks to answer questions about theacquisition of language as a system, what paths aretaken by learners, what relationships there are amongattitudes and motivation factors, why they stop learn-ing so that their language fossilises. Further questionswhich need to be asked concern how people, childrenand adults, acquire the concepts of their new cultural

environment, the keywords which distinguish onelanguage from another (Wierzbicka, 1997b) the richpoints of a culture (Agar, 1991). As Lantolf putsit:

Although it may be possible for people to develop an intellectualunderstanding and tolerance of other cultures, a more interestingquestion, perhaps, is if, and to what extent, it is possible forpeople to become cognitively like members of other cultures;that is, can adults learn to construct and see the world throughculturally different eyes. (1999: 29)

Lantolf then provides a useful survey of research

which has examined the acquisition of lexis andmetaphors, but points out that this is still at an earlystage.

Another recent development is beginning toextend the range of interest of Second LanguageAcquisition in the way we have suggested is necessary.Norton (2000) argues that language acquisition isinfluenced by social relationships, by the socialidentities which immigrants are allowed to developby the society in which they live. By careful casestudies, she shows that the questions concerning therate of acquisition, motivation, fossilisation, preciselythose questions which focus on language as a system,

can be better explained by attention to the socialconditions and the social identities present in theexperience. Miller (2003) has carried out similarwork with children, studying in depth the cases of tenimmigrant children in Australia, to analyse the waysin which their self-representations impact on theirlanguage acquisition. Both of these are looking forexplanationbut also seek tounderstandthe experiencefrom learners perspectives.

In an attempt to understand the experience,particularly of adult language learners, Pavlenko(1998) has analysed autobiographical accounts of

language learning, notably in what she describes asacclaimed literary masterpieces whose authors havedemonstrated a heightened sensitivity and ability torecall and reflect on their learning experience. What

153


7/21

Culture and language learning is particularly interesting is that, though she startswith a focus on Second Language Acquisition anda search for further insight into the acquisition oflanguage as system, she ends with questions aboutidentity, about the possible incompatibilities of livingin two languages. The people she cites, thoughhighly sensitive and articulate authors, such as EwaHoffmann, Julien Green or Salman Rushdie, are notlanguage and culture theorists. There is very littlereflection by bilingual linguists on their experience,yet the examples of Wierzbicka (1997a) and Paulston(1992) suggest that there is rich potential for thoseresearchers who have similar experience.

In second language learning, then, there are morequestions than answers, and research is only justbeginning, but the distinction between pure re-search and committed scholarship, is just as valid.

3. Teaching and curriculum development

Our distinction between research and scholarshipmeans that we take the view that the relationshipbetween teaching and research/scholarship is deter-mined by the scholars rather than researchers, thosewho have a specific view of what ought to bein teaching and learning, what ought to be thepurposes, processes and outcomes. In the followingwe shall see that this is reflected in work whichintroduces new approaches to teaching, in otherwords work which develops the curriculum towards

specific ends with specific underlying values. Evenwhere work reported in the literature does notpresent its underlying values, it is inevitable that cultureteaching is infused with values in ways whichlanguageteaching can avoid.

Three main perspectives are identifiable in viewson what ought to be done in teaching for interculturalcompetence and communication, even though thereis inevitable overlap among them:

Culture teaching is moving towards an ethnographic

perspective; Culture teaching is moving towards a critical

perspective; Culture teaching focuses on preparation for resi-

dence in another country, often without attention

to language learning.

The first two perspectives are found in the workwhich arises from general education, in schooling orhigher education. The third is associated more withthe world of work, business and commerce.

Before considering these three in more detail,we start with discussions of context in languageeducation as these discussions seem to formulate the

major thrust in theorising contemporary efforts inlanguage and culture teaching. This is followed by apresentation of general theoretical underpinnings ofthe approaches in question respectively, with major

works reviewed for specific arguments and practicalideas of culture teaching.

3.1 Context and language-and-cultureteachingMost of the recent literature on teaching culturehas apparently arisen from the increasing importanceattached to context in theoretical discussions insociolinguistics, cultural studies teaching and inter-cultural communication. Hymes (1974) identifieseight factors that he takes as essential aspects to makeup context in interpersonal communication. Hewittily summarises them in the acronymSPEAKINGwhich stands for setting (time and place), participants,end (purpose), act sequence (form and content ofan utterance), key (tone and nonverbal clues), instru-mentalities (choice of channel and of code), norms of

interaction and interpretation, and genre. In languageand culture teaching, Kramschs (1993) monographencapsulated this in the title Context and Culturein Language Teaching. In discussing interrelationshipsbetween texts people generate and contexts shapingthem or shaped by them, Halliday (1989) coins thenotion of intertextual context by which he refers tohistorical factors and the accumulation of all othercontextual aspects. He asserts that in communicationin general the past and the present experiences cometogether to shape the intertextual context.

Gudykunst & Kim (1992) argue that in intercul-

tural interactions two types of context come into play,external context and internal context. The former refersto the settings or locations where the interactiontakes place and the meanings the society attachesto them, whereas the latter, internal context, isthe culture the interactants bring to the encounters.In intercultural communication, misunderstanding ismuch more likely to occur because the internal cont-exts, that is, the methods interactants use to perceivethe situations and each other and the meanings theyassociate with the settings, can differ greatly from oneculture to another. Thus, it is essential for languagelearners to be effective in culture learning.

These views are largely shared by Kramsch (ibid.)who summarises the discussions of the notion ofcontext along five lines: linguistic, situational, inter-actional, cultural and intertextual. She argues thatteachers need to help learners of foreign languagesdiscover the potential meanings through explorationsof the context of the discourse under study. Themore contextual clues learners can identify, themore likely their learning becomes meaningful.The fruits of this view can now be seen in con-temporary collections of articles and monographsdescribing classroom methods which focus on the

interplay between language and culture (for example:Fantini, 1997; Lo Bianco, Liddicoat & Crozet, 1999;Morgan & Cain, 2000; Moran, 2001; Byram &Grundy, 2002).

154


8/21


3.2 Ethnographic approachesThe extensive discussions on context have resulted,first of all, in the view of adopting systematically anethnographic approach to culture learning and teach-ing. The practice of ethnography originates from an-

thropology and was initially a research methodologydeveloped by anthropologists such as Malinowski(1922) to study exotic societies by living with localinhabitants, that is, by observing their culture frominside. Malinowski (1923) also asserted on the basisof his ethnographic study that one could under-stand a language in its context of situation, arguingthat meaning only comes from real and activeparticipation in relevant situations.

In the past few decades, the ethnographic approachhas gained currency in the literature of sociolin-guistics. Particularly since Hymes (1974) proposed anethnographic framework which takes into account

various factors involved in speaking, the ethnographicapproach has been adopted repeatedly by sociolin-guistic researchers to conduct empirical studies intothe interrelationships between language and society(e.g., Hill & Hill, 1986; Milroy, 1987; Lindenfeld,1990). Sociolinguists usually define ethnography asa disciplined way to observe, ask, record, reflect,compare, analyse and report. Hymes further notesthat:

Of all forms of scientific knowledge, ethnography is the mostopen, the most compatible with a democratic way of life, the leastlikely to produce a world in which experts control knowledge atthe expense of those who are studied. The skills of ethnographyare enhancements of skills all normal persons employ in everydaylife. . . . It (ethnography) mediates between what members of agiven community know and do, and accumulates comparativeunderstanding of what members of communities generally haveknown and done. (1981: 57)

Ethnography has attracted language educators partlybecause access to countries where a target languageis spoken has become increasingly easier for languagelearners, and partly because language educators andscholars have realised that language teaching canbenefit from application of other disciplines rather

than drawing solely on theoretical linguistics. Thevalue of ethnography is particularly noticeable as theliterature on culture learning and cultural studiesteaching has grown and was present already insome of the earliest writings. Discussions aboutthe close relationship between language and socio-cultural patterns in the literature of cultural studies,anthropology and sociolinguistics prompted languageeducation scholars such as Paulston (1974), McLeod(1976), Damen (1987) and Byram (1989a) to examinethe relevance of anthropological, sociolinguistic andcultural studies methodology for language and culture

teaching.More recently, coupled with social changes of thelate twentieth century that are encapsulated in thewords globalisation and internationalisation, an

increasing number of educational institutions par-ticularly in the industrialised countries havedeveloped programmes for students to study abroad.Most of these programmes are claimed to be part oftheir agendas to internationalise educational systems(Murphy-Lejeune, 2002; Kauffmannet al., 1992) andmany have the dual purposes of improving profi-ciency in the target language and developing theirintercultural competence and ethnographic skills(Byram, 1989b; Coleman, 1995; Roberts, Byram,Barro, Jordan & Street, 2001).

3.2.1 Ethnographic study in naturalisticsettingsAn ethnographic perspective in language education,first of all, takes naturalistic settings as most effectiveand central to culture learning. This view is best

illustrated in the literature on study abroad. Accord-ing to Murphy-Lejeune (2002), in 1996, UNESCOestimated that the number of internationally mobilestudents reached 1,400,000 worldwide and projectedan increase of 50,000 students each year in the yearsto come. For example, in the 1990s, the United Statesdispatched approximately 71,000 undergraduateseach year to other countries (Freed, 1995), and inEurope, under the European Unions SOCRATESprogramme alone, nearly 200,000 students studyabroad each year (Coleman, 1997). The ethnographicexperience of these internationally mobile students

attracts the attention of researchers of various discip-lines including those in language and culture learningand acquisition. Research findings, particularly thoseobtained from in-depth interviews, often show aclose relationship between students ethnographic ex-perience and their intellectual development (includ-ing development of learners linguistic competence)(Dyson, 1988; DeKeyser, 1991), international per-spectives and positive attitudes towards otherness(Carlson et al., 1990; Kauffmann et al., 1992;Murphy-Lejeune, 2002). In her summary article ofinterviews of 50 students who spent a year in aEuropean country other than in their own, Murphy-

Lejeune (2003: 113) states that the experience isgenerally positively felt by many interviewees as anadaptation process. This process does not always bringabout a drastic change in personality but it evidentlyleads to a personal expansion, an opening of onespotential universe.

Many language educators think that these study-abroad programmes ought to be opportunities notonly to develop learners linguistic competence buttheir cultural awareness and intercultural competence.Armstrong (1984) researched more than a hundredhigh-school students who participated in a seven-

week language study programme in Mexico andfound that the stay positively influenced the studentsattitude towards the host culture and the targetlanguage and led to a higher level of cultural

155


9/21

Culture and language learning awareness. In the European context, the proximity ofcountries with different languages and the advantagesof living in a multilingual continent, have led tomajor increases in the number of young learnersexperiencing other cultures which can be exploitedwith an ethnographic approach (Byram & Snow,1997). This is further encouraged within theEuropean Union by the existence of programmesof financial support such as COMENIUS, and asvisits and exchanges become increasingly frequent,language teachers often find it necessary to equipthemselves with ethnographic skills (Dark et al.,1997).

Having studied the effects of studying abroad onuniversity-level students, Jurasek (1995) concludesthat in learning another language it is importantfor a learner to engage in the ethnographic processof observing, participating, describing, analysing,

and interpreting. This engagement is much moresignificant than the product of the study itself. Hefurther suggests that as a consequence of such anapproach learners will raise their awareness withregard to perception and perspective and improvetheir ability to recognise what things might looklike from the perspective of members of anotherculture.

Perhaps, the most comprehensive ethnographicprogramme for language students is the one that wasdesigned and carried out by researchers at a Britishuniversity (see Roberts, Byram, Barro, Jordan &

Street 2001; Barro, Jordan & Roberts, 1998). Theprogramme was conducted over a period of threeyears in three distinct phases. During the second yearof their BA programme, the students were introducedto ethnography through a semester-long module.At this initial phase, the students not only acquiredbasic concepts but also familiarised themselves withethnographic methods by interrogating their ownfamiliar environment and behaviours and reflectingon taken-for-granted assumptions. Armed with theseskills, the students then spent their third year abroad tocarry out their ethnographic study. In the last phase,they were asked to analyse their field work data and

write up their ethnographic experience in the targetlanguage. Roberts, Byram, Barro, Jordan & Streetconclude that:

Language learners as ethnographers are inevitably engagedwith the otherness of their new environment not just as anopportunity to improve linguistic competence and their abilityto produce appropriate utterances, but as a whole social beingwho are developing, defining and being defined in terms oftheir interactions with other social beings. As ethnographersand intercultural speakers, they negotiate a particular relationshipwith those around them, a relationship traditionally describedas participant observation, although this fails to capture thecomplexity of the reflexive effect on the linguist-ethnographer.

(2001: 237)

Most ethnographic projects such as this and study-abroad programmes described above have reportedly

produced positive impact on learners in terms ofintercultural awareness, interest in otherness, intellec-tual and personal development. Nevertheless, someresearch findings indicate that negative experience inforeign countries can reinforce stereotypes (Coleman,1998) and some students even feel that the yearabroad is a lost year as they lose contact with theirhome school and their fellow students (Lewis &Stickler, 2000). In response to these, educationscholars and institutions have used or experimentedwith various measures to help achieve the specifiedaims. These include formal training of studentsbefore residence abroad, as in Roberts, Byram, Barro,Jordan & Street (2001), regular visits by home institu-tions and regular report or diary writing by students(Lewis & Stickler, 2000). Most of the measures arereported to be effective in bringing about positiveoutcomes.

In summary, in his overview article, Coleman(1997) points out that preparation is essential forbringing about the desired outcome. To optimise thepositive impact on students studying abroad, clearobjectives should be laid down and made familiarto all involved. Before and during their residenceabroad, students ought to be made aware of their ownmotivation, attitude, aptitude, and learning styles anddevelop their ethnographic skills and (meta)cognitiveand affective strategies.

3.2.2 Ethnographic study in structuredsettingsMuch support is generated for ethnographic learningin naturalistic settings to develop students skills toobserve complex cultural phenomena, to interactwith otherness with an open mind and to analyseand interpret ethnographic data. Recent literature onethnography has also expanded to professional devel-opment and culture teaching in a structured languageclassroom. Language education scholars have ex-plored a range of ways in which teachers as well aslearners can be encouraged to live an ethnographiclife, depending on the context of learning and re-

sources available. Both research findings and theor-etical discussions demonstrate a strong interest in theethnographic perspective for culture learning andteaching, whether it takes place in the country wherethe target language is spoken or in a structuredlanguage classroom.

In discussing ethnography for culture teachingand learning in language education, many scholarsmaintain that teachers first of all need to be ethno-graphers themselves capable of dealing with culturalissues with understanding and sensitivity. It is mis-taken to assume that teachers can competently

provide explanations of complex issues to theirstudents by simply drawing on text informationand personal experience. Damen (1987) is one ofthe early promoters of ethnography for professional

156


10/21


development of language teachers and for cultureteaching in language classrooms. She suggests sevensteps for teachers, pre-service or in-service, to planan individual ethnographic project. She names theprocedure pragmatic ethnography because she statesthat the procedure is to serve personal and practicalpurposes and not to provide scientific data andtheory (p. 63). The seven steps are summarised asfollows:

1. Select a target group for ethnographic study

2. Find informant(s) able to represent the group

3. Find information about the group through secondary

sources such as handbooks and journals, etc.

4. Interview the informant(s)

5. Analyse the interview data with the information

obtained from secondary sources to form cultural

hypotheses

6. Reflect on own references in order to understandgiven behaviours and meanings

7. Apply the insights into teaching materials selection,

lesson planning and classroom teaching.

Although this model does not explicitly suggestthat the teacher ask the students to use the sameapproach to culture learning, Step 7 attempts to linkthe teachers ethnographic learning experience withhis/her teaching practice.

Various innovative techniques using ethnographicapproach are experimented in many professional

development programmes. In a French teachertraining programme, Zarate (1991) required teachertrainees to conduct observation in three localities:one from a list of localities provided by the trainers,one that was frequented by the individual trainee,and one with relatively pluralistic representations.The trainees were required to keep a diary witha minimal requirement in format. Though Zaratepoints out that the gains of this type of trainingare not easy to pinpoint precisely, the challengeof culture teaching traditions is clear: the teachertrainees are encouraged to take up a spectatorsposition and reflect critically and objectively on the

culture which they are supposed to deal with in theirown classrooms.

Literature documenting language teachers at-tempts to study their students perceptions of langu-age learning, attitudes and classroom behaviour usingan ethnographic approach is increasing (Canagarajah,1993; Atkinson & Ramanathan 1995; Barkhuizen,1998). The findings of most of these studies shednew lights on materials selection, lesson planningand classroom teaching as Damen expects. That isthe very reason why Holliday (1994) argues thateach time a language teacher meets a new group

of students or a curriculum planner enters a newinstitution she/he should apply ethnographic skills todiscovering the hidden agendas and life objectivesof their students. It is the hidden objectives of his/

her students that determine whether they accept orreject the curricular innovations and the teachingand learning methodology used by the teacher. Theteacher cannot afford to be anything but a researcher(p. 31). In a later article, Holliday (1996) further statesthat in ethnographic studies into teaching Englishas an international language a teacher should notrestrict research to empirical research on verbal databut develop a sociological imagination, the abilityto locate him/herself and his/her actions (as a teachercum researcher) critically within a wider communityor world scenario.

In recent years, even more significant is the fact thatmany attempts have been made to equip students withethnographic techniques to conduct language-and-culture projects themselves in their own classroomsand neighbouring communities. Robinson-Stuart &Nocon (1996) report an experimental study they

carried out in an American university. In this study,the students studying Spanish as a foreign languagewere trained to employ ethnographic interview skillsto study the local Spanish speakers. Both quantitativeand qualitative results reveal that most languagestudents benefited cognitively, affectively and intel-lectually as they demonstrated a more positive attitudetowards the cultural perspectives of local targetlanguage speakers, showed more interest in learningthe target language and practised the life skill of activelistening. In Byram & Cain (1998), an experimentcarried out in two schools in France and England

using an ethnographic approach is described, arguingfor greater efforts in exploring other disciplinessuch as anthropology, sociology and ethnography inlanguage teaching practice. Carel (2001) reports aproject which made use of information technologyto develop in students cultural sensitivity and inter-cultural competence in the classroom. For this, shedesigned and implemented an interactive computercourseware package which enabled students to useethnographic skills to observe and analyse culturalphenomena, to do virtual fieldwork and reflect ontheir own culture and their previous views of thetarget culture. Similarly, a project in Bulgaria has

explored the ways in which the skills of the ethno-grapher in collecting and analysing data and studyingtheir meanings comparatively with data from onesown culture, can be brought into the classroom(e.g., Topuzova, 2001). In his monograph, Corbett(2003) also argues for ethnography as one of the mostimportant features of the intercultural approach. Asethnographic skills such as observing, interviewing,analysing and reporting are all vital skills for studentswhen they encounter otherness first hand, these skillsneed to be trained and incorporated into langu-age curricula. He offers practical suggestions and

methods to conduct interviews, to make use ofresources and to explore cultures in general usingan ethnographic approach. Finally, Fleming (1998,2003) shows how drama teaching, as a unique

157


11/21

Culture and language learning form of classroom teaching, can be linked withethnographic methodology to enable learners to seeothers behaviour and their own through the eyesof made strangers, a process of active participantobservation and reflection.

The potential of the internet for virtual ethno-graphy seems obvious but has not yet been fullyexplored. A project involving learners of Frenchin the USA and learners of English in Francedemonstrated how the interaction can be used forcollecting data from fellow learners, analysing andcomparing interpretations of the same phenomenawhich then leads into in-depth understanding ofcultural difference (Furstenberg & Levet, 2001).There are also opportunities to use the internetto encourage learners to acquire more knowledgeabout a country (e.g., Osuna & Meskill, 1998) butthis is not adding more than an attractive and rapid

way of acquiring information. For the moment theemphasis is on finding ways of enabling learners tointeract and learn from each other synchronouslyor asynchronously. Particularly interesting work hasbeen done in real-time interaction of learners ofGerman in the USA and learners of English inGermany, at university level. One of the advantagesappears to be that the multimedia environmentis cognitively demanding and encourages criticalthinking despite the limited linguistic competence oflearners in the early stages of language acquisition(von der Emde, Schneider & Kotter, 2001; von

der Emde & Schneider, 2003). This then leadsto research not only on the learning involved butalso on the nature of the cross-cultural interactionamong learners using web fora (Hanna & de Nooy,2003).

The purpose of ethnography is to make the strangefamiliar and the familiar strange, and we must bearin mind that perhaps the prime way of making thestrange familiar is through the reading of literaturefrom another time or place. Kramsch has shown thison many occasions, most recently in an article inwhich she shows how a short story read in a Germanclass can lead to further investigations and research

on her students understanding (Kramsch, 2003).Bredella and his associates have placed literature at thecentre of their teaching philosophy and demonstratedhow poems, stories and novels can be the foundationfor a methodology which develops empathy andsensitivity to the lives and cultures of others inquite different circumstances (e.g., Delanoy, Koberl &Tschachler, 1993; Bredella, 2000; Burwitz-Melzer,2001).

3.3 Critical Approaches

Another major response of language educators andscholars to the ever changing socio-political and eco-nomical context is reflected in the heated discussionson the notion of a critical perspective for language

and culture teaching. Much of the discussion is clearlydriven by three most powerful social and academicforces identifiable in todays world. Firstly, the de-bate on the notion of identity fundamentally chal-lenges traditional aims and philosophies in educationin general. The trend of globalisation and interna-tionalisation is not an imagined phenomenon but agenuine force changing our society and (re)shapingcultural identities of individuals. Many authors inBennett (1998), for example, argue that culturalidentities of individuals are no longer based solelyon geographical locations or nationality but often,among other social factors such as gender, age, eco-nomic class, etc., on internalised lived experience inmore than one geographic setting incorporating morethan one culture. The need to rethink culturaldifferences and identities is directly related to the issueof what kind of world educators should prepare their

students for, and this has clear implications for settingeducational objectives.

The second force that drives the conceptual changein the critical direction is taking shape in the literatureof a critical pedagogy. This is fundamentally aneducational philosophy to encourage educators totake teaching as a dynamic process of constructingknowledge with learners, not as a set course totransmit a body of hard knowledge (Freire, 1974,1995, 1998; Giroux, 1992, 1997). In this process,from the viewpoint of critical pedagogists, studentsshould not be treated as passive consumers but

constructors of knowledge who engage in creativecultural development. The critical pedagogy is inessence developed to encourage critical evaluationof existing assumptions regarding the relationshipsbetween culture, nation-states, and national identityand to question the presumed norms in a commonculture. The theoretical underpinnings evident inthese discussions point directly towards the core issueof how culture should be dealt with in a changingcontext in terms of social dynamics and educationalideology.

The third major driving force towards a critical ap-proach is very direct and is formulated in discussions

among language educators and linguists themselvesof the teaching of English in the ever-changing socio-political context. In particular, the debates on theeffects of English as an international language orlingua franca ( Jenkins, 2000; Knapp & Meierkord,2002; Seidlhofer, 2003; Widdowson, 2003) and onthe impact of the global spread of English on other lesspowerful languages (Phillipson, 1992; Pennycook,1994, 1998; Canagarajah, 1999; Crystal, 2000) haveresulted in reassessment and redefinition of manycommon-sense perceptions and assumptions withrespect to notions such as native speakers, standard

languages, national identities, homogeneous targetcultures, and revisiting of the firmly-held belief thatlanguage and culture are inextricably bound together(Byram & Risager, 1999; Risager, 2003). These

158


12/21


debates and reassessments clearly suggest that thepragmatic business-as-usual approaches commonlyadvocated ought to be questioned and stronglychallenged. Language educators need to define whatculture they should teach and explore ways in cultureteaching in the wider context of general education.

3.3.1 Culture teaching and politicaleducationIt is widely acknowledged by educationists andlanguage researchers such as those cited immediatelyabove that education is never neutral and foreign lan-guage education has a political role to play in any edu-cation system of the world. Many scholars and edu-cators therefore argue that foreign language teachersshould take social and political responsibilities inthe education of the young in the contemporaryworld. Byram (1997a), for example, places politicaleducation firmly at the centre of his model forintercultural communicative competence on the basisof detailed analyses of the political contexts of for-eign/second language education in many countriesincluding those in the Middle East and Europe.He suggests that insights from citizenship education,education for democracy, human rights and peaceeducation, and cultural studies can be drawn toestablish criteria of evaluation and mediation betweencultures. Byram & Risager (1999) further elaboratethis stance with data from their empirical studies intwo European countries. They show how geopoli-

tical changes affect language educators perceptionsof language teaching and analyse and recommendways to respond to these changes in languageeducation.

In her monograph on critical citizenship, Guil-herme puts even greater and more explicit emphasison the political dimension for foreign language andculture education. She states that:

Education is always political and the disciplines dealing withlanguage and culture even more so because they involve issuesof identification and representation. Therefore, it is not criticalcultural awareness per se that makes foreign language/culture

education political since education is necessarily political(Wringe, 1984: 43). However, critical cultural awareness makesthe political nature of foreign language/culture education moreevident by denying that it is neutral even when it intends orpretends to be so. Foreign language/culture education has apolitical role which, on the one hand, is particular within thecurriculum, by engaging in cultural politics, and, on the otherhand, adds to a broader political component, namely educationfor democratic citizenship. (2002: 154155)

The critical model she proposes integrates threecomponents which are all politically based. Firstly,she argues for human rights education and educationfor democratic citizenship to promote critical cultural

awareness in teaching a foreign language and culture.The second constituent is an interdisciplinary onewhich consists of cultural studies, interculturalcommunication and critical pedagogy. She suggests,

however, that the integration of the three, particularlycritical pedagogy, in foreign language/culture edu-cation, though important and attempted in somestudies, requires further research. The third compo-nent comprises a series of operations, pedagogicalstrategies that function at various levels in terms oflocal, national and global geopolitics and in relationto existential references, namely attitudes, values andbeliefs. These operations include cognitive notionssuch as analysing and evaluating, affective notionssuch as appreciating and pragmatic notions such asexperiencing and acting.

As an initial step towards a critical perspectivein language and culture teaching, a number ofmonographs have appeared recently which providetheoretical underpinnings and practical ideas forforeign language teacher training. A commonfeature of these writings is their attempts to deal

explicitly and critically with the social, politicaland ideological aspects in language and languagelearning and teaching. Nieto (1999, 2002) addressesissues of cultural diversity and identity in relationto language education in American classroomsand advocates community and classroom activitiesin settings ranging from multicultural classroomsto district or national levels. In carrying outthese activities, in-service and pre-service languageeducators are encouraged to reflect on their practiceand perceptions of language teaching and learning,conduct ethnographic field work and experience

the critical perspective through activities such ascurriculum design. Reagan & Osborn (2002) linkforeign language education with critical pedagogyand propose what they call the metalinguisticcontent for foreign language education, movingbeyond pragmatic pedagogical concerns to the socialand political domains relevant to language teaching.

The purpose for some of these writers is not onlyto make learners take new perspectives and reflecton their own, but to focus on some principled anduniversal meanings, in order to avoid the relativism ofpost-modernism. Corbett sees this as neo-humanist,placing respect for individuals at the heart of the

enterprise:The intercultural learner moves amongst cultures, in a processof continual negotiation, learning to cope with the inevitablechanges, in a manner that is ultimately empowering andenriching. The home culture is never denied nor demeaned,yet the intercultural learner will find his or her attitudes andbeliefs challenged by contact with others, and the process ofinteraction will lead to the kind of personal growth characterisedby progressive curricula. The social (or reconstructionist)outcome will be a generation of learners who are trained (todifferent degrees) in intercultural diplomacy who will conse-quently have learnt to cope with the stresses of living in the multi-cultural global village that the world has become. (2003: 211)

3.3.2 Culture taught as a dialogic processAn important feature of a critical perspective inlanguage education is the dialogic approach which

159


13/21

Culture and language learning emphasises a teacher-student relationship: mutualrespect, freedom of expression and dialogic sharing.A dialogic approach to language and culture teachingmoves away from the traditional concept of teachingknowledge as an I/It phenomenon (I teach it, youlearn it) to a teaching method that problematisesthe very concepts under study (Tomic, 2000). Theseinclude the concepts of culture itself, culturalidentity, carriers of culture and non-verbal com-munication (Hoffman, 1999; Woodward, 1997;Scollon & Scollon, 1995). Tomic argues that inculture teaching and learning it is the individualsvoice that has more resonance than the culture.Language learners undergo the empowering processas they realise that each persons voice counts.

Based on the view that language and culture learn-ing is a dialogic process of interaction with others,Morgan & Cain (2000) conducted a project that

aimed to enable secondary students in two schoolsof two countries (England and France) to learn abouteach others culture and their own and learn how todecentre and take the others perspective. Morgan &Cain make detailed analysis of the materials thestudents themselves produced and of the studentsreactions to the project and demonstrate how theproject helped students engage in the dialogic process.In addition, they state that such a project couldbenefit not only the students through constantintra-textual, inter-textual and illuminative dialoguesthroughout the process, but also teachers and

researchers because it provided them with numerousopportunities to interact with students, to understandthem in different ways, and with access to a wealthof cultural data produced by students themselves.

The articles in Fenner (2001) also represent adialogic perspective in dealing with culture in aclassroom context. Based on theories exploringthe interrelationship between text and reader andreading and writing processes as dynamic dialogues,the authors examine the interactions between thelearners themselves, the cultures involved, learnersand teachers, and texts and readers. Common to allthe articles is the fact that the practices they present

are based on classroom activities using authentic textsranging from literary texts, to drama, to internetmaterials. Interestingly, the activities the languageeducators organised in their classrooms are alsoclaimed to be authentic, in the sense the textsunder study are non-finite and open to learnersinterpretations (ibid.: 7). Fenner further states thatthis type of authentic task gave the learners scopefor personal reflection and opinion forming, andclassroom work thus became part of their personalsociocultural development. (ibid.). This argumentcoincides with Feng & Byrams (2002) notion of

intercultural authenticity.The dialogic nature of intercultural authenticity isclear. It is true that many of the texts or discoursestraditionally defined as authentic texts are produced

by native speakers for the consumption of othernative speakers of that language. It is thus notdifficult to find in the literature that some argueagainst using authentic texts in a language classroomon the ground that it is almost impossible for theclassroom to provide the contextual conditions forthe authentic language data to be authenticated bylearners. However, intercultural authenticity regardsthe issue of inauthentic context not as an obstaclebut as an opportunity to explore the language andculture, including the context, from all angles throughdialogues. First, it can encourage students voices, notsilence them, by asking what their initial responseto and interpretation of the discourse is. Second, itcan lead to discussions of the context, the possibleintended audience and the intended meaning. Andthird, it may enable both the students and theteacher to gain a multifaceted perspective through

negotiations and mediation.

3.3.3 Culture taught as knowledgesubject to scrutinyThe most conventional and also the most criticiseddimension of culture teaching is what critics call thefacts-oriented approach in which culture is basicallyviewed as civilisation, the big C culture, as well aseveryday lives, the small c culture (Oswalt, 1970;Brooks, 1975; Chastain, 1976). In this facts-orientedapproach, culture is normally dissected into small seg-

ments which are listed as topics for teaching. Manycritics take this approach as inappropriate or evendamaging, arguing that it ignores the fact that themajor component of what we call the culture isa social construct, a product of self and otherperceptions (Kramsch, 1993: 205). It may well leadto the teaching of stereotypes. This criticism is widelyaccepted as few scholars in cultural studies teachingand intercultural communication nowadays makeattempts to list cultural areas or cultural inventoriesfor cultural studies or language teaching programmes.

Nonetheless, the facts-oriented perspective inteaching culture is not entirely abandoned, partic-

ularly in language teaching situations where learnershave limited opportunities to be exposed to othernessand relatively fewer resources to explore the targetculture. In effect, many language educators in thesecontexts have been making constant efforts to addressthe theoretical concerns of this approach to developit into a critical model. Hu & Gao (1997), forexample, argue that the majority of millions offoreign language learners in China are too ignorantof the basic formulaic facts of the culture they arestudying. The knowledge of the facts is undoubt-edly necessary as a starting point for culture

learning. They warn of the risks and negative impli-cations in teaching stereotypical knowledge as theypoint out that facts only will inevitably lead tosuperficial learning and may enhance stereotypes

160


14/21


and ethnocentrism. To deal with this paradox, theypropose an approach where first learners are taughtstereotypical knowledge (to build an open bridge intheir figurative terms). Immediately, this knowledgeis put under scrutiny, by providing learners witha variety of representations of the cultural prod-uct or concept under discussion. This is to makelearners aware that there are hidden barriers alongthe seemingly straight, easy-to-cross bridge. Therepetition of the process will effectively make learnersculturally sophisticated and eventually obtain thekey to becoming intercultural speakers. In the lastdecade or so, the numerous source materials usedfor culture teaching in China (Hu, 1995; Wang,1993a, 1993b; Zhu, 1994, 1991; Deng & Liu,1989) apparently point towards this knowledge-for-scrutiny approach. This knowledge-for-scrutinyapproach is theoretically backed up by Cortazzi &

Jin (1996a, 1996b, 2001) and Jin & Cortazzi (1993,1998) whose research consistently shows evidence ofa strong knowledge emphasis in Chinese culture oflearning and suggests a synergy model to bridge thegaps.

In a similar line of thought, Doye (1999) putsforward a strategy for cultural-studies for foreignlanguage classrooms that starts with stereotypicalinformation. The twelve-step procedure, in sum-mary, engages learners in exploring pre-knowledge,creating cognitive dissonance, replacing stereotypi-cal images, exploiting related sources of informa-

tion and non-verbal communication, comparingothers with own and moving beyond the culture ofthe target language. This process not only enricheslearners knowledgeby studying the culture from dif-ferent angles, but also improves their skills in com-paring and discovering by exploring related sources,and enables them to become open-minded and cri-tical, by reflecting on their natural way of lookingat others cultures and perhaps their own. Doye callsthe knowledge, skills, and attitudes thus obtained thekey domains (cognitive, pragmatic and attitudinal)of foreign language teaching for intercultural com-munication. He argues that the exploitation of

the potential of existing strategies and conceptssuch as cultural studies and world studies strategiesand intercultural communication may lead to amodel that is required to teach English as a globallanguage.

3.4 Culture teaching and culture trainingThe work reviewed so far has general educationalpurposes as well as the intention of developinglearners practical competences. We have seen thatHymes stressed the democratic character of ethno-

graphy, and we have seen the relationship of cultureteaching to critical pedagogy with its democraticprinciples and focus on critical analysis. The locationfor this work is above all the foreign or second

language classroom in schools or universities, and thishas two important implications.

The first of these is that language and culture areseen as inseparable in the learning process; studentslearn a language and its cultural implications, evenwhere they are learning it as a lingua franca. Theylearn to communicate in a new language and this initself is part of the experience of decentring whichgives them a fresh perspective, a critical perspective,on the taken-for-granted world which surroundsthem. Their competence is both intercultural andcommunicative (Byram, 1997a).

The second implication is that teachers of lan-guages who might have previously seen themselvesas developing in their learners skills and knowl-edge, perhaps with a hope that this would lead toattitude change, now find themselves engaged withvalues. The perspectives here are based on demo-

cratic values, on challenging power relations andtraditions. Teachers have to handle questions ofmoral relativity as learners compare and contrast thevalues and traditions of their own and other socie-ties. The focus on communication skills is not lostbut in principle it is not possible to ignore thesignificance of the implicit process of challenge andquestioning.

In practice, the significance of this democratic,educational dimension can be watered down, asteachers prepare their learners for examinationswhich do not, and perhaps should not, attempt to

assess the effect of values and moral education onlearners. One of the effects of contemporary emphasison quality and standards in most education systemsis to reinforce teaching to the test.

It is also important to bear in mind this differencebetween principle and practice as we turn to thethird approach to teaching: work which trains peoplefor sojourns in other countries. Here, in principle,the emphasis is on skills and knowledge for practicalpurposes, but the educational effects in practice canalso include the decentring and challenge whichleads to re-assessment of the taken-for-granted world.On the other hand, the distinction between training

for intercultural competence without a focus onlanguage learning, and the combination of languageand culture learning in general education is usuallyclear. Culture teaching in a training perspectivefocuses exclusively on the specific information of thecountry where the sojourner is going for a short orlong stay and offers specific communication patterns,the dos and donts, for living and working in thatcontext. The approach does not usually take thelanguage level of the sojourner into account and isused particularly for short training programmes forpersonnel going abroad for business and studying

purposes. Numerous texts with titles such as Livingin Japan, Communicating with Arabs, Studying inthe U.S.A., etc. are written as resource books forculture specific study.

161


15/21

Culture and language learning The theoretical basis for this work is largely

psychological. Bennetts model for the developmentof intercultural sensitivity (1993) is often cited, andWard, Bochner & Furnham (2001) offer a recentreview and analysis of psychological theory in thisfield. An alternative approach is to focus on thelinguistic foundation for intercultural relationships.Trainers in this approach try to ensure that, ir-respective of whose language is being used, learnersbecome aware of the significance of speech acts,turn-taking, register directness/indirectness and soon (Muller-Jacquier, 2000). Often the assumptionis that learners will not have time to acquire anew language, will use a lingua franca, usuallyEnglish, and therefore need to understand theseother features to become sensitive to the nature ofthe communication. Here the underlying theoreticalbasis is a comparative linguistic analysis of discourse,

most significantly represented in the work ofScollon & Scollon (1995), and presented in itspractical implications in Pan, Scollon & Scollon(2002).

The analysis of work on cross-cultural trainingwould need an article in itself, and insofar as this workdoes not focus on language teaching and learning,would be beyond the scope of this journal. Thereare many handbooks and manuals (e.g., Fowler &Mumfort, 1995, 1999; Cushner & Brislin, 1997;Kohls & Knight, 1994). Many of these have beenproduced in the USA where the notion of cross-

cultural training has been strong, but in the lastdecade there has been an increasing interest inEurope too. The work of Hofstede (1991) andTrompenaars (1993) is widely cited, and there arepractical handbooks and guides increasingly available(e.g., Gibson, 2000; Hofstede, Peterson & Hofstede,2002). There are also many materials which remaincopyright and not widely available for commercialreasons. The main thrust of all this work has beento prepare people to go to other countries, but italso has relevance in giving those who are immigrantto a country an introduction and a programme oftransition. This applies particularly to professionals

entering a workforce, and in Britain for examplethere has been a very recent development of materialsfor health professionals from other countries seekingwork in Britain.

What is evident and carefully documented inDahlens (1997) critique of the way these intercul-turalists package knowledge of culture, is that thereis a close relationship with the business world andwith the marketplace. Dahlen argues that this leadsto an approach to culture which is a commodificationof a dated concept of culture, concluding with someirony:

Could there, despite everything, be ways to open the intercul-turalist enterprise to the views of culture which are now morecurrent in anthropology? Perhaps, but hardly without some long

and serious conversations between anthropologists and the inter-culturalists. (p. 179)

More generally, there is a need for conversationsbetween interculturalists and academics for mutualbenefit. One noteworthy attempt to do this, and

then to present the findings for a general public isGeoffroys (2001) study of the processes of intercul-tural communication in an Anglo-French company,whichinter alia demonstrates that language learningcannot be ignored even where those involvedperceive the issues as rooted in the psychology ofthe individual or the nation. This kind of study is stillrare however and it is strange that there has been littlecross-fertilisation among those who prepare studentsfor study abroad with their focus on ethnography and those who prepare business people for workingabroad with their focus on psychology. Perhaps onebridge is offered by recent work which explores theimplications for language learning of a socioculturaltheory of mind (Lantolf, 2000b). Here the perspectivetaken is that learning is mediated by interaction withother people in a given sociocultural context, andthat we can better understand the learning of otherlanguages by analysing how that interaction takesplace. The significance for culture teaching and train-ing is yet to be determined, but it suggests thatresearch is needed to analyse the ways in which peoplelearn other cultures and learn about other cultures ininteraction with people who embody them. It is tothe research agenda in general, that we turn next.

4. Taking a position and identifyingresearch needs

One of the purposes of a review article is to evaluate,and not only present, research and scholarship. Wherethere is no disagreement about the purposes of re-search, then the task is to clarify criteria for goodtheories and make judgements about which researchbest meets those criteria.

Evaluation of intervention and development workis less simple because there often remain implicitpurposes, because the accounts of what is done are

not always sufficiently detailed, and because experi-mental conditions are not rigorous. Here, teachersread teachers accounts and rely on their professionalintuition and judgement. This is not without valuesince internalised professional criteria are not arbi-trary; they reflect current theories as transmitted inteacher education. At the same time, of course, theyremain often unarticulated and therefore not open toreview and revision.

Evaluation of scholarship which is focused onwhat ought to be and argues for a particular posi-tion such as those mentioned earlier associated with

Kramsch, Kramer, Starkey and Zarate is a morecomplex issue. There are no simple criteria beyondthose of logical, clear and well-supported argument.Behind these, there is often a philosophical position,

162


16/21


an ideology of human interaction, beliefs about thenature of human beings and the societies they form.Discussion of aims and purposes of culture andlanguage teaching and learning at this level is quicklyseen to be related to judgements of values anddesirable education.

In her discussion of the ways in which languageteaching should change in universities in the USA, asa consequence of major upheavals that are shakingat the foundation of the old idea of the university,Kramsch argues that relevance is a crucial issue, thatthere is:

Renewed pressure on universities to serve national political andeconomic interests of the time by justifying their choice of theknowledge they produce and transmit, and by demonstrating itsrelevance to the current needs of society. Foreign languages areparticularly vulnerable to this pressure. (1995: XVI)

She argues that language should be taught as socialpractice and that we should teach meanings thatare relevant both to the native speakers and to ourstudents. If these were representative views thenlanguage and culture study would be, first, a means toother ends and, second, an acquisition of knowledgeof relevant meanings. Kramsch goes on, however,to say that learners can be made to reflect on theirown social upbringing and cultural values as a con-sequence of study. The overlap between scholarship,and a specific view of what ought to be, and teach-ing which reflects a purpose, thus becomes evident

and takes us back to our earlier discussion of criti-cal approaches to teaching. These perspectives mayappear to be self-evidently desirable, and yet theemphasis on the individual might be consideredWestern or European and not take sufficient noteof Asian concepts of the individual and society (Lee,2001; Parmenter, 2003).

It is clear, therefore, that where culture teaching-and-learning takes place in an educational context,questions of values and ideology are inevitable. Oncethis is accepted, there are implications for the evalu-ation of research and scholarship, which go beyondtechnical discussions of best theories. This means

that, if the position outlined above let us call itlanguage and political education is accepted, thenresearch and scholarship on culture teaching andlearning can be judged not only in terms of its rigourand clarity, but also in terms of the contribution itmakes to understanding current practice and devel-oping new, neo-humanist practices, whilst bearingin mind the issues of cultural relativity. This meansthere should be research which investigates therelationship between teaching styles, materials, andmethods, and the ability to take new perspectives, tobe critical, to understand and act according to the

principles of democratic citizenship.An alternative to this ideology-driven approachto evaluation and setting a research agenda, is toidentify gaps. When research on culture learning is

compared with that on language learning, the mostobvious gap is the lack of work on acquisition. Sercu(forthcoming) points out that empirical researchon the acquisition of intercultural competence isstill very limited, and at any rate far more limitedthan that of studies investigating second languageacquisition, and in fact she is obliged to analysework which focuses mainly on language acquisitionin her survey. She nonetheless presents a discussionof the variables which would have to be taken intoconsideration in acquisition studies: teacher variables,learner variables, teaching materials, assessment pro-cesses. This approach assumes however that cultureacquisition can be treated in the same way as languageacquisition. It may not be quite so simple, not leastbecause of the difficulty of delineating the object tobe acquired, which is much easier with language.

An alternative perspective which might be exten-

ded to culture learning is suggested by the distinctionmade by Sfard (1998) between the acquisition meta-phor and the participation metaphor. Pavlenko &Lantolf (2000) apply this to language learning.The acquisition metaphor presents learning as theability to internalise knowledge as an object, as acommodity. Language learning is conceptualised asthe internalisation of rules and specific linguisticentities. The participation metaphor makes us thinkof learning as a process of becoming a member of acertain community (Sfard, 1998: 6). Sfard goes onto describe learning of any kind as:

The ability to communicate in the language of this communityand act according to its particular norms. The norms themselvesare to be negotiated in the process of consolidating the commu-nity. While the learners are newcomers and potential reformersof the practice, the teachers are the preservers of its continuity.

The underlying image is that of socialisation(Berger & Luckmann, 1966) which involves bothparticipation in the community and the internal-isation of its beliefs, values and behaviours, its cul-ture. Sfards other suggestion that only newcomersreform, that teachers are preservers of tradition, ishowever contentious. Teaching within some edu-

cational traditions is focused precisely on criticalanalysis of the norms and this is crucial to cultureteaching too, as we have shown above.

Nonetheless, the use of this metaphor of partici-pation (combined with acquisition as Sfard says) isparticularly apposite for culture teaching providedthat the critical dimension of teaching is not for-gotten. Culture learning can thus be conceptualisedas socialisation, by the teacher as mediator, intoanother culture. The teacher acts as mediator betweenlearners and those who are already members ofthe language-and-culture group of which they seek

understanding. At the same time, if it is axiomaticfor the teacher that learners should reflect criticallyand analytically on their own culture, the partici-pation and socialisation process will not be focused

163


17/21

Culture and language learning exclusively on other cultures. For it is not the purposeof teaching, we would contend, to change learnersinto members of another culture, but to make thempart of the group who see themselves as mediators,able to compare, juxtapose and analyse (Byram,1997b).

From this perspective, learners become membersof a community whose discourse marks them out asable to reflect, analyse and compare. The process ofresearching this would therefore be focused on howteachers and learners interact, how their discoursereveals their shared position as mediators, how theirlanguage reveals the acquisition of new concepts andrules whilst simultaneously revealing their ability todecentre from their own and others concepts tobetter understand both.

This may also offer an avenue to explore the assess-ment of culture learning,

by ram 2004 culture lang g learning

Documents