Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Question of Culture38-1-2
The Question of Culture38-1-2
The Question of Culture38-1-2
Introduction As the lingua franca of the twentieth century, English is one of the most
important means for acquiring access of Anglo-American technology. As a
result, there is a huge need to learn English in non-English-speaking
countries - a need which creates a great demand for English instructors.
Since this demand far outruns the available supply of qualified local
teachers of English, many countries recruit teachers who are native
speakers of English.
These teachers, most of whom come from Britain or the United States,
bring with them the notion that a language and its culture are two
inextricably related entities, and as such should be taught together. Resting
on the empirically unverified theory of linguistic relativity, the implicit
claim is that no real acquisition of the target language can take place
without the learner’s internalization of target language speakers’ patterns
and values. After all, so the belief goes, the new linguistic and cultural
competence will enable the learner to develop new perceptions of reality
and to behave differently in the light of such perceptions. What is implied
here is that learners experience a series of cognitive and affective changes
thanks to which they take on a new identity (Brown 1981) - an identity with
both bilingual and bicultural features. Thus, foreign language teaching is
seen as a pedagogical process aimed at changing the learner’s behavior by
injecting new norms and values into it (Trivedi 1978). Since these norms
and values involve learning to perceive the world as the speakers of the
target language habitually see it, the foreign language teacher is often
advised to persuade the learners that ‘success in language learning depends
articles welcome
upon the degree to which they integrate themselves with the “native
environment” of the language, whether they are learning it in the country
in which it is spoken or not’ (Curtin 1979:281).
Attitudes to EFL in In general, EFL instruction for the host culture is important because it
non-English- affords a window on the world of advanced technology and industrial
speaking countries development. However, the cultural norms and values of the English-
speaking world which come with the technical data and equipment are
often considered to be ‘alien and unacceptable features’ of the target
culture (Wilkins 1975:49), and not necessarily for chauvinistic reasons
(Kehoe 1971, Berger et al. 1974, Schiller 1976, Olbert 1982, Alptekin 1982).
Indeed, being at the receiving end of a virtually one-way flow of infor-
mation from Anglo-American centers, the host country runs the risk of
having its own culture totally submerged, and thus imposes restrictions in
educational and cultural domains to protect its way of life (Rao 1976). For
example, in Japan, English is generally taught not as a functional tool for
cross-cultural communication in international settings, but as a codified
system (Giesecke 1980) representing the linguistic characteristics of an
idealized American or Briton (Nakayama 1982). Similarly, in China and
Korea, the pedagogical focus seems to be on the grammatical features of
English without regard for its communicative and/or cultural functions
(Scovel and Scovel 1980, Evans 1980). Elsewhere in Asia, and also in parts
articles welcome
of Africa and Latin America, there is a feeling on the part of the educated
elite that English instruction in particular and modernization in general
which has not been ‘acculturated’ and shaped to fit their country’s needs
constitute a threat to national identity. Thus, suggestions have been made
to ‘de-Anglo-Americanize’ English, both in linguistic and in cultural
respects, in order for the language to be in tune with the needs of the EFL
learners in such countries as Japan (Nakayama 1982) and Venezuela
(Thomas 1983). Moreover, there has been an increase in the production of
local teaching materials that are culturally and experientially appropriate
for learners in developing countries. In Kuwait, for instance, EFL texts are
being prepared ‘with the Kuwaiti situation in mind’ (Hajjaj 1981).
Likewise, China produces its own materials which are clearly modeled on
British EFL texts of the 1960s with one major variation - a thoroughly
transformed cultural content that aims at reinforcing Chinese cultural
norms and values (Scott 1980). Even in industrialized European countries,
as Freudenstein et al. (1981) indicate, EFL learners want to acquire an inter-
national variety of English, independent of the cultural norms and values
of native English speakers. In fact, many of these learners tend to reject the
norms and values of the English-speaking cultures, but still acquire English
satisfactorily, due to their wish to identify with international attitudes
which have developed in such fields as pop culture, travel culture, and
scientific culture where English happens to be the principal medium of
communication (Ladousse 1982).
On a deeper level, the hosts’ willingness to learn English in the context
of national or international norms and values is indicative of their belief in
the possibility of becoming bilingual without becoming bicultural - a
phenomenon whose existence is pointed out by Paulston (1978:373). It is
apparent that this’ concept of bilingualism without biculturalism, which
seeks to dissociate the learning of the target language from its nationality-
bound cultural context, soon clashes with the native English-speaking
teachers’ unwitting efforts to disseminate among their students the cultural
norms and values of the English-speaking country as part of their foreign
language teaching.
The failings of the The conflict between the opposing pedagogical views of the ‘hosts’ and the
‘guest’ teacher ‘guest’ teachers of EFL is in many cases exacerbated by the latter’s
ignorance of the ways and minds of the local people and their language. In
fact, it is quite ironic that, while espousing the idea that foreign language
acquisition is a means to increase cross-cultural awareness and sensitivity,
the guest teachers are often unable to understand the host culture or to
speak the local vernacular. Another irony lies in their attempts to expose
their students to the norms and values of the English-speaking culture in
the students’ own setting, while very often they themselves continue to
remain monolingual and monocultural there.1
This monolingualism and monoculturalism eventually paves the way to
mental and physical isolation from the host society. Given the linguistic
and cultural difficulties involved in establishing meaningful relationships
in the host culture, the guest teachers retreat into the comfort of an
English-speaking enclave of compatriots, foreigners, and a few
unorthodox local individuals. In addition to living in an enclave, there are
other factors which reinforce the native English-speaking teachers’
isolation and alienation. For one thing, they know that, at least officially,
they are not expected to acquire the language of the hosts. For another,
articles welcome
they are aware that the hosts’ vernacular is unlikely to be useful once they
are back in their home country, and they therefore fail to develop the
necessary motivation to learn it. Furthermore, they are conscious of the
temporary nature of their sojourn in the host country, and see little need to
‘affiliate’ with the hosts, either linguistically or culturally. Finally, as
instructors in the host society, they feel they need to be treated as
‘important’, ‘as bearing the cultural superiority that they suppose whoever
asks for foreign teachers must concede’ (Daniel 1975:63).
The consequences Various pedagogical difficulties arise from this mismatch between the host
country’s and the guest teachers’ patterns of thinking and behaving. First,
the native English-speaking teacher’s pedagogical attempts to modify the
cognitive and affective behavior of the students with a view to making them
bilingual and bicultural are met with reluctance, if not resistance, by the
students themselves. In fact, despite their desire to learn English, the
students are often unwilling to receive the cultural load of the target
language. Hence, it is not uncommon for many who do not want to be
‘culturally assimilated’ to give up on learning the target language. If, on the
other hand, the native English-speaking teachers succeed in their
pedagogical aims, it is not surprising, as Goke-Pariola (1982) indicates for
the Nigerian context, to see students alienated from their own social setting
as they become adjusted to the values of the Anglo-American world.
Secondly, teaching the target language along with the target culture is
done on the somewhat unrealistic assumption that a language cannot be
used if it is emptied of its cultural content. Advocates of this position claim
that teaching English while, for example, referring to the culture of the
student would be useless. They discount the psychologically sound and
motivating effects of helping and encouraging students to use the new
language to describe their own culture (Finocchiaro 1982:68), not to
mention the facilitating effect that culturally indigenous materials can have
on learners’ fluency and grammaticality in target language use (Winfield
and Barnes-Felfeli 1982). What they also ignore is the fact that, as the
lingua franca of this century, English is used extensively by millions of
people outside its original geographic boundaries to convey national and
international perceptions of reality which may be quite different from those
of English-speaking cultures. Brumfit (1980), for instance, points to the
awkwardness of pedagogical practices which deny EFL learners the oppor-
tunities and occasions to express their own cultural needs and ideas in
English :
[No person] who is not intolerably alienated from his own environment
is going to want to learn English in order to become an Englishman (or
an American) to such an extent that he never uses it to express the
ideology, the assumptions, the cultural basis of himself rather than of
Englishmen. We have the strange paradox that in mother-tongue
teaching we emphasize the clarity of the child’s ability to express himself,
while in the foreign language we demand that he express a culture of
which he has scarcely any experience. . . I We need to devise a
methodology which will enable the learner to use the language, not
passively in relation to situations which are imposed by motivations and
ideologies not his own, but actively as a product of his own needs. . .
The model of teaching which tells the foreigner to adopt our system is
both untruthful . . . and unhelpful, because it implies that he cannot
articles welcome
communicate without adopting our position unnegotiably (pp. 94-6,
105).
articles welcome
vivid and relevant pedagogical models in EFL. They can show the learners
how it is possible to achieve cultural pluralism as a frame of mind, along
with demonstrable competence in a given language. According to Bowen
(1977), successful bilingual teachers in EFL programs have a psychological
advantage over the monolingual native English-speaking teacher, since
they can prove to their students that they, the teachers, have in fact
acquired a foreign language, and that therefore the students can too.
Under these kinds of favorable and realistic learning conditions, EFL
students in non-English-speaking countries can be expected to acquire a
new identity as they become fluent in the target language. This will not,
however, be a bilingual and bicultural identity subject to anomie and
alienation. Rather, it will be an identity which is able to transcend the
parochial confines of the native and target cultures by understanding and
appreciating cultural diversity and pluralism thanks to the new language,
while not losing sight of native norms and values in the process. In short, it
is a bilingual and intercultural identity. •
Received January 1983
Note
I It should be acknowledged, however, that there do Evans, D. W. 1980. ‘An assessment of the EFL
exist native English-speaking teachers of EFL who profession in South Korea’. Teaching English Abroad
are aware of the influences of their own culture on Newsletter (September).
their thought and behavior. As a result, they are Finocchiaro, M. 1982. ‘Motivation: its crucial role in
more apt to learn the language of the hosts, and to language learning’ in Hines and Rutherford (eds.).
develop empathy for them. On TESOL ‘81. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Fishman, J. A. 1977. ‘English in the context of inter-
References national societal bilingualism’ in Fishman, Cooper,
Ake, C. A. 1982. ‘Selected sociopsychological attitudes Conrad (eds.). The Spread of English. Rowley, Massa-
associated with foreign language instruction in high chusetts: Newbury House.
school and postsecondary students’. Doctoral Freudenstein, R., J. Beneke and H. Ponisch (eds.).
dissertation. Florida Atlantic University. 1981. Language Incorporated: Teaching Foreign
Alatis, J. E. 1979. ‘President’s commission receives Languages in Industry. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
testimony on ESL’. TESOL Newsletter 13/3 : 1,25. George, H. V. 1981. ‘Unhappy professionalism’.
Alptekin, C. 1982. ‘Cultural dominance and EFL’. World Language English 1/1 :9-14.
Canadian Modern Language Review 39/1 :56-62. Giesecke, W. B. 1980. ‘Characteristics of English
Berger, P., B. Berger, and H. Kellner. 1974. The teaching in Japan’. Teaching English Abroad News-
Homeless Mind. New York: Vintage Books. letter (September).
Bowen, J. D. 1977. ‘Face validity in TESOL: teaching Goke-Pariola, A. 1982. ‘A socio-political perspective
the spoken language’ in Burt, Dulay, Finocchiaro of English language pedagogy in Nigerian high
(eds.). Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. New schools’. Doctoral dissertation. The University of
York: Regents. Michigan.
Brown, H. D. 1981. ‘Affective factors in second Hajjaj, A. S. 1981. ‘English language teaching in
language learning’ in Alatis, Altman, Alatis (eds.). Kuwait’. Teaching English Abroad Newsletter
The Second Language Classroom: Directions for the 1980s. (December).
New York: Oxford University Press. Herron, C. A. 1980. ‘Second language experiences for
Brumfit, C. J. 1980. Problems and Principles in English everyone ’ in Phillips (ed.). The New Imperative:
Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Expanding the Horizons of Foreign Language Education.
Curtin, J, B. 1979. ‘Attitudes to language learning: the Skokie, Illinois: National Textbook Company.
adult student’. ELT Journal 33/4:281-4. Kachru, B. B. 1977. ‘The new Englishes and old
Daniel, N. 1975. The Cultural Barrier. Edinburgh: models’. English Teaching Forum 15/3 :29-35.
Edinburgh University Press. Kehoe, M. 1971. ‘Teaching English to speakers of
Elling, B. 1980. ‘Special curricula for special needs’ in other languages’ in Kehoe (ed.). Applied Linguistics: A
Phillips (ed.) The New Imperative: Expanding the Survey for Language Teachers. New York: Macmillan.
Horizons of Foreign Language Education. Skokie, Ladousse, G. P. 1982. ‘From needs to wants: motiva-
Illinois: National Textbook Company. tion and the language learner’. System 10/1:29-37.
articles welcome
Marchand, J. W. 1979. ‘The centrality of language: an Thomas, P. 1983. ‘Teaching English as an inter-
editorial’. Studies in Language Learning 2/2:1-13. national language: a Venezuelan viewpoint’. Paper
Moles, A. A. 1979. ‘A French point of view on the pre- presented to the TESOL Convention, Toronto,
dominance of English’. International Journal of the Canada, 1983.
Sociologyof Language 22:51-6. Trivedi, H. C. 1978. ‘Culture in language learning’.
Nakayama, Y. 1982. ‘International English for ELT Journal 32/2:92-7.
Japanese people: suggesting multinationalization’. Wanner, D. 1979. ‘Sense and common sense in the
TESL Reporter 15/4:63-72. study of foreign languages’. Studies in Language
Olbert, J. 1982. ‘Problèmes linguistiques et Leaning 2/2:23-33.
intègration européenne’. Les Langues Modernes Wilkins, D. A. 1975. Second-Language Learning and
76/3:278-84. Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Oller, J. W., L. Baca, and F. Vigil. 1977. ‘Attitudes and Winfield, F. E., and P. Barnes-Felfeli. 1982. ‘The
attained proficiency in ESL: a sociolinguistic study effects of familiar and unfamiliar cultural context
of Mexican Americans in the Southwest’. TESOL on foreign language composition’. Modern Language
Quarterly 11/2: 173-83. Journal 66/4:373-8.
Paulston, C. B. 1978. ‘Biculturalism: some reflections
and speculations’. TESOL Quarterly 12/4:369-80.
Preston, D. R. 1981. ‘The ethnography of TESOL’.
TESOL Quarterly 15/2: 105-16.
Rao, Y. V. 1976. ‘Some dilemmas in cross-cultural The authors
communication’ in Condon and Saito (eds.). Com- Dr Cem Alptekin is currently coordinator and
munlcating Across Cultures for What? Tokyo: The instructor of English for foreign students at the Ohio
Simul Press. State University in Columbus. He has taught English,
Schiller, H. I. 1976. Communication and Cultural French, Turkish, and applied linguistics both in the
Domination. White Plains, New York: International United States and abroad. He has also trained teachers
Arts and Sciences Press. of EFL. His research interests center around socio-
Scott, C. S. 1980. ‘Some first impressions of EFL psychological factors in foreign language learning,
teaching in China’. TESOL Newsletter 14/6:11, 13, and he has published in the TESOL Quarterly and the
34. Canadian Modern Language Review. He is also the author
Scovel, T., and J. Scovel. 1980. ‘A note on EFL of Reading Comprehension in English.
programs in university level institutions in China’. Margaret Alptekin currently co-ordinates and
Teaching English Abroad Newsletter (September). teaches an ESL course at the Ohio State University in
Smith, L. E., and K. Rafiqzad. 1979. ‘English for cross- Columbus. Having received her BA in French and her
cultural communication: the question of intel- MA in TEFL from Southern Illinois University, she
ligibility’. TESOL Quarterly 13/3:371-80. taught English, French, German, and phonetics in the
Teitelbaum, H., A. Edwards, and A. Hudson. 1975. United States, Turkey, and France. Her major research
‘Ethnic attitudes and the acquisition of Spanish as a interest lies in foreign language teaching
second language’. Language Learning 25/2:255-66. methodology.
articles welcome