| Teachers' Forum HOME | MAIL | EVENTS | INFO | LINKS | QUESTIONS | MATERIALS |
|
The Foreign Language Classroom, Culture and British Studies:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The paper is an extension of one presented
at the conference, and is motivated by a strongly-felt need to stand back and
reflect on why, with such available enthusiasm, teachers are so uncertain about
how to evaluate ideas from British Studies (BS), and why they seem to lack the
techniques to put them into practice in the classroom in a way which develops
language, takes account of contemporary social science and is integrated with
their everyday teaching. The paper risks over-reaching but its intention is to
gather ideas together, provoke questions and open a space for discussion of the
issues surrounding culture, BS and Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) at school
level. Introduction If British Studies (BS) is to come to the
Foreign Language (FL) classroom what is it going to do there? Approaches to
both FLT and ‘area’ studies (including BS) are changing in response to greater
cultural changes in the world, and this suggests that the role of BS will
differ from the past. BS enters the FL classroom via the concept of ‘culture’
(for some discussion of this see Appendix 1), but at present it seems that this
classroom does not have a clear idea of what ‘culture’ is nor what is wanted
from it, and therefore what it wants from BS. There seems to be no rationale,
principles, or systematic approach available for teachers to apply in their
culture in language lessons. Should the FL classroom look inside itself
to find what it needs or should it look out to other disciplines (such as
ethnography or cultural studies)? It is argued here that the FL classroom
should first look to itself and only then decide how to cooperate
with cultural studies, for example, to achieve those needs. This paper will
therefore discuss the relation between the FL classroom and ‘culture’, and will
take its perspective from such a classroom (with its teachers, learners
and lessons) to look out at BS and evaluate what it might offer. In section D an approach based on
cultural awareness and skills will be put forward as a way of providing a
systematic framework for discussing the role of culture in FLT. In the earlier
sections contemporary international changes in culture and language, and
changes to methodologies, will be put alongside the changes occurring in Polish
education. This will be followed by the argument that culture in FLT should be
set in a broad communicative framework and within the intercultural context
developed by Michael Byram. Later a brief consideration of the cultural
methodological consequences of such an approach will be given. Finally, against
this background, some possible roles for BS in the FL classroom will be
outlined. A/ Contemporary changes in
culture and language
Political, economic and social changes
inevitably produce changes in both language and in education, and therefore in
the FL classroom. These changes are reviewed below, as they provide the context
for the discussion of culture in language that follows. Globalisation/ fragmentation
Societies are rapidly re-defining
themselves away from the national level - both internationally (with increased
uniformity) but also subnationally with fragmentation (Giddens, 1999). National
societies are losing their coherence. Social classes are re-forming in new ways
within national boundaries as well as across. The national is no longer the
most obvious or ‘natural’ measure of culture. ‘Within-differences’ are of great
sensitivity in the Globalisation is identified with
‘western’, but is the ‘west’ a place, or is it an idea of a form of society
originating there? Cultural change today, e.g. the introduction of mobile
phones, often affects all societies simultaneously. Is there a cultural
difference between eating at McDonalds in £ódz or in Manchester? This is surely a cross-societal
similarity indicating a common western/global culture, and therefore not cross-cultural.
If it is increasingly difficult to speak of ‘Polish’ or ‘British’ - where is
culture located? Culture/ language inseparability
All language use is inescapably cultural,
with register, appropriacy and genre being well-known
examples. All cultural change is reflected in language change, with, for
instance, informalisation of clothing, social rituals and so on being accompanied
by informalisation of address and the social acceptance of
colloquialism. With the internationalisation of food comes the internationalisation
of the lexis (e.g. pizza and vodka). There is recognition that
political structures are reflected in language structures with the resultant
politicisation of language discussion. These changes are occurring across
languages, Polish as well as English, but there is also a language gradient
from English into most other languages reflecting the western/ global culture
gradient. The inseparability of culture and language is the justification for
culture in the FL classroom, and should be highlighted wherever possible.
Issues of culture in language concern the purpose of FLT in the school
curriculum. The problem is how to present these issues in the classroom. Lingua francas and world languages English at the moment is the language
primarily identified with western globalisation, and is the language of
economic power in its contemporary global reach. It is also the primary
language of the new ‘media’ (e.g. satellite TV and the internet), and the
western cultural values carried through them. NNS-NNS (non-native speaker - non-native
speaker) contacts are common in all lingua francas and in such contacts
the cultural origins of the language have to be filtered out so can serve as a
vehicle to convey the cultures of those trying to communicate. This has
consequences for the role of culture in FLT. It makes sense for culture in FLT not
to be measured against national societal boundaries. In an FLT context all languages
should be treated as if they were world languages (even those dominantly
identified with a single state such as contemporary Poland). This is an
attitude which would allow any foreign user to exploit such a language in the
way to best convey whatever meaning and identity that user wished’ and not be
bound to the norms of the dominant society. B/ Contemporary changes in
Polish schools
The changes outlined here are of course in
considerable part a response to what was outlined above. The contemporary student and English as the dominant foreign
language in schools A crucial issue surrounds the current
cultures of our students: their interests, areas of knowledge, attitudes
and values; the extent to which they may hold a variety of cultural positions;
and the cultural filters (origins, aspirations, work, leisure interests and so
on) through which they perceive the world. It is the specific mix of such
filters that constitutes the individuality and identity of the learner. Instead
of trying to minimise the influence of such filters, for individual cultural
communicative needs to be met, they should be foregrounded in the
lesson. Most
significantly perhaps for the Polish classroom is the difference in life experience
and generation of most teachers compared to most learners. Teachers, (whose
formative years were pre-1989), need to be aware of how their current learners
‘see’ the world. This in turn will be influenced by our students’ specific
futures, and the needs they have for learning English. Some learners will
go into higher education (but the majority into subjects other than English
philology), while most will go into work. Their reason for learning English is
surely to be able to use the language as a lingua franca. What should
the FL classroom be offering them? The
answers must be considered in the context of the cultural changes outlined
above. All of these ideas should be considered in
the light of the students in our own classrooms. They are already active
cultural beings, who will carry their own cultures (and the
culture/language we teach them) individually into a culturally unpredictable
world. Prepare them for this world, and evaluating what part culture plays
in this, lies at the heart of the role of BS in the classroom. Methodology and coursebook changes
Coursebooks vary a good deal in their
approach to culture. There is usually cultural input (via photographs, texts,
tapes and so on) but any culture output is almost always incidental - cultural
outcomes are not required and teacher’s books give almost no support to any
interested teacher wanting to develop them from the input provided. At the very
point where culture arrives it is ignored and outcomes are almost always
restricted to language (and are assessed as such). There seems to be a
presumption that culture is somehow obvious and ‘natural’ and that it will take
care of itself by some sort of osmosis. Token ‘your country’ questions are usually
hidden away in a corner, and assume omniscience in the learner with no
indication of the productive skills needed to successfully answer them. Such
questions hide the considerable within-country variation and the cross-societal
similarities that occur in reality. The individual’s own specific cultural
origins, present position and future aspirations are often ignored and may well
be very different from the rehearsed public face or generalised ‘stock’ view
the students feel expected to provide. The reforma For English this calls for “skills to
introduce the intercultural component, invite reflection on the learner’s own
culture and to invite comparison with other communities” (Komorowska, 1999: 8).
She suggests the purpose is to “reach acceptance of differences, pave the way
for tolerance, prevent xenophobia and facilitate mutual understanding” (ibid.).
This is the belief in education as a moral and political force as reflected in
the Council for Europe’s Threshold Levels (1990). The first quote however suggests a
disciplined, more detached, approach to culture, while the second, with its
ethical objectives, suggests an education in attitudes and values. This paper
argues that without the first the students would not be empowered to come to
their own judgements about the second. The approach below will emphasise
intercultural principles as a way of bringing about such knowledge and
therefore informing discussion of attitudes and values. C/ A communicative context
Changes in society and in Polish schools
and students must lead to changes (and continuing change) in the position and
role of culture in FLT. The approaches outlined here emerge from the above
arguments and represent a shift away from the content-based approaches of the
past which are not appropriate to the present situation. Knowledge of particular
societies does not provide the skills for coping with unpredictable cultural
situations. What is needed is an awareness of how the world is changing and
language with it, and the skills to manage those situations. Nobody goes to London to be English, but
to be both Polish and themselves in London, bringing their cultural identities
with them and wanting to communicate especially with those who hold cultures in
common (e.g. a particular youth culture). Our students need to use English as a
vehicle for expressing themselves, discussing issues involving Polish society
(or others). Essentially this means being Polish in English, (although we have
to accept that there are different ways of being Polish). So what are the cultural communicative
needs of the learner? These needs require an awareness of the issues
involved in (mis)communication (both in reception and production) and the skills
needed to reduce any loss of meaning. In any cross-cultural encounter both
sides should carry away in their minds images corresponding as closely as
possible to the realities in the mind of the other, not only comprehending
(in its fullest sense) what the other means (not just says), but expressing
what you mean yourself so that the other person can fully comprehend it in the
same way. Thus culture reception and culture production skills
are of equal value and importance. The objective of culture in the FL
classroom - the intercultural learner
The approach here corresponds to the ‘intercultural
speaker’ of Byram (1997) and the ‘third place’ of Kramsch (1993). The objective
is a learner who is aware of the cultural aspects of (mis)communication between
any societies and/or any languages and someone who has the skills to apply this
understanding. It is therefore someone who has intercultural competence.
Being a native speaker is not sufficient.
It requires standing back and taking, in a disciplined way, the position of a
‘third place’, though realising that any such ‘place’ has itself an inescapable
cultural context influencing the analysis. Such an approach is in a way, of
course, the object of all social science. What does the intercultural learner
looking to develop intercultural competence need? Such a learner
will need an intercultural teacher to help them develop the four
main cultural awarenesses and skills, get plenty of practice
through activities and projects, and using original sources where possible. The
approach, outlined below, is designed to work towards this, though in school it
would only be at an introductory level. Two quotes from Michael Byram to give some
background to this objective:
“Thus when two non-native speakers interact in English with their
perfect RP and standard English grammar, what they need are the skills and
attitudes to understand the nature of the interaction in which they are
engaged, to interpret and discover more about what the other is saying. In
fact, their mastery of RP can be a disadvantage, since it projects
a social identity which is not their own (my emphasis), and one to
which their interlocutors may attribute inappropriate views and actions. It
will be a bonus but not a necessity if they know something about the other’s
culture. As intercultural speakers they have the means of discovering more for
themselves.” (Byram, 1997: 136) An intercultural speaker is “someone who
has: - good linguistic competence,
which converges sufficiently to a standardised variety to ensure
comprehensibility - an awareness of the social
identities present in any interlingual interaction - an ability to mediate and establish relationships between their own
and other cultures i.e. someone who has ‘intercultural communicative
competence’ (my emphasis).” (Byram, 1997: 128) D/ Approaches to culture
based on awareness and skills
Awareness can be defined as knowing what questions to
discuss (and why), and skills as how to successfully
answer them. Such awareness and skills should be developed and available
for use in any cross-cultural situation, with knowledge of specific societies a
secondary consideration. It is about the strategies and tactics necessary to
manage those situations, being aware of potential cultural error and how to
avoid it. Skills without awareness have little value, as awareness guides how
and when to apply the skills. From a learner’s point of view – whatever the ambitions of the
individual, giving precedence to the development of awareness and skills is of
greater educational value and is potentially transferable to their careers. From a teacher’s point of view - the rise of the internet and the wide
availability of large amounts of information mean, awareness and skills are
essential to cope with the work presented by the learners. Extensive knowledge
of a number of societies is impossible within FLT and teachers should never be
a poor substitute for, say, a history teacher or simply a replacement textbook.
Awareness and skills are also transferable between specific societies (e.g. the
UK and other English-speaking countries) and are therefore flexible in a
changing and unpredictable world, and as such the approach suits the
requirements of the reforma. Some differences between an
awareness and skills and a content-based approach
The differences in these approaches are
those of emphasis. Content is essential for the practice of the skills and its
choice vital (see culture syllabus comments below), but the change of emphasis
is significant and any final assessment would be centred around problem-solving
abilities rather than demonstrating recall. There is a fundamental shift from
an approach centred on the teacher’s ready-prepared ‘answers’ to one centred on
the learner’s questions (available ‘answers’ no longer determining the
questions that are asked). This may require a fundamental shift in perspective
and mindset on the part of many teachers. The
‘traditional’ model of BS, often adopted in content-based lessons without any
explicit justification, takes a narrow view of what constitutes culture,
amounting simply to general knowledge. Such lessons usually have as a premise
on the part of the teacher that “I’m going to teach you something about British
culture.” BS textbooks are used primarily for their stock of knowledge which is
to be replicated as mimetically as possible by the learner. An awareness and
skills based lesson could easily begin “What is your image of....?” An attempt to list some of the main
differences in these approaches has been made below. However, it must be stressed
that these lists represent emphases, exaggerated differences, and do not
exclude those on the other side.
A systematic frame for analysing and designing materials and
activities
There are four cultural awarenesses and skills:
1/ culture reception - how to
comprehend the cultural aspects of the home society, the target society, the cultural
theme and individual cultural positions (the four cultural outcomes). 2/ culture production - how to
express any of these four areas. 3/ intercultural - how to take a
principled and detached view across the societies and/or cultures represented. 4/ investigatory - how to find
cultural information, and how to organise the other cultural skills to achieve cultural
outcomes (a standard skill in many academic subjects). The intercultural learner would be
competent in all these skills and would be able to apply them as appropriate. If these skills are present then some,
possibly all, of the four cultural outcomes will follow. Thus giving an
increased, understanding and knowledge of:
Cultural skills and outcomes are not
absent but hidden in language lessons - already implicitly there but usually
not recognised or valued, and as a consequence not developed or rewarded. It is
suggested that each skill and outcome be ‘surfaced’ and each given equal value.
It is not a prescriptive framework for any activity or theme, but if taken as
an underlying syllabus, over a period the skills and outcomes should be
balanced. The awarenesses and skills (together with
the outcomes) can provide a critical framework for analysis by locating
the position and measuring the value of what is currently done (or not). This
could be by taking a critical look at the approach and activities of ELT
coursebooks or BS textbooks (and of course our own teaching), by looking for
the presence or absence of each skill or outcome. An analysis of such
activities usually reveals an imbalance with reception skills and S2 dominating
with the others often absent. In a number of cases the activities will not
qualify as cultural at all by not producing cultural outcomes. Such criteria can also be used as a generative
framework. Thus as an opportunity to revise or extend activities, (e.g. to
an activity based on housing conditions in the UK add a question on ‘the Polish
reality’), or to produce new ones (e.g. having copies of school rules and
student timetables from an English school and developing them into activities
involving all four skills and all four outcomes). Present culture dictionaries are reception
dictionaries but there is a need for culture production dictionaries. For
Poland this would be centred on strategies for expressing aspects of Polish
life, attitudes, institutions, and so on as effectively as possible. Concern
with culture production skills is perhaps unique to FLT, whereas the other
skills can be found elsewhere, for example, in ethnography. The lack of cultural outcomes is a major
drawback in Tomalin and Stempleski’s “Cultural Awareness” (1993). In the
forward by Alan Maley an alternative title is given, “Culture as a Language
Learning Resource”, which is far more accurate. In terms of cultural awareness
many activities lack any cultural outcome (only language) and few are genuinely
intercultural. Cultural syllabuses for FL classes
A cultural syllabus should be based
primarily around the cultural skills and outcomes and on the cultural
communicative needs of the specific learners. As a consequence cultural
outcomes would be led away from the dominance of common ‘canonical’ knowledge
and toward the development of an element of individualisable knowledge. Some
consideration of what might be included in such a syllabus is given in Pulverness,
A. & Reid-Thomas, H. (1998). Cultural communicative needs fall into two
main categories: the general - focusing on the expression of cultural
issues of common value in the home society
(S1); and the individual - including the expression of family
roots, current situations, interests, aspirations and so on. To address the
second it would probably be necessary to give time to individualisable tasks
and to project work of some form (possibly outside of the class). A common thematic syllabus should be
‘bottom-up’ from the everyday life, language, aspirations and potential futures
of the learners with inclusive topics that cross the whole of society (useful
criteria for choosing syllabus themes) and
not ‘top-down’ from an institutional analysis, or topics touching only
one part of society (see App.1). As there is no formal content syllabus in the reforma
the teacher is able to design one around the present and future cultural
communicative needs of each particular class. E/ Some comments on
cultural methodology
Cultural learning needs a sound
methodology as much as language learning, which should be as sharply defined
and give both valid and reliable cultural outcomes, but it does not necessarily
have the same values. It must be able to produce materials and activities
designed to give practice in cultural awareness and skills, and take into
account, if not be centred, on the position of particular learners and their
social and individual needs. Cultural methodology must ensure that culture
should not just decorate a language classroom, be a pretext for language skills
or give colour to activities - something ‘put in’ but of no serious consequence
- but should be something which is taken away by the learners. There are two directions: it is about how
to bring culture into the class from ‘the world’ in such a way as
to develop understanding and expression of it, as well as bringing culture
out of the learners and into the class, and teach them how to
express it for later use out in ‘the world’. Both in a sense cross boundaries
into a classroom from which they are normally excluded, and should both surface
in the lesson itself. Below we shall consider some key elements
in cultural methodology. 1/ Cultural outcomes (as listed in section D) It is vital that materials and activities
are designed or selected by the teacher to have cultural outcomes, and that
these are temporarily prioritised over language outcomes. Without cultural
outcomes there can only be an incidental, chance development of cultural
awareness and skills, as cultural input alone does not lead to cultural
learning. To develop cultural skills the awkward reality of a given situation
must be confronted, and what might normally be filtered out as intruding on the
clarity of language, becomes a centre of attention. Cultural accuracy must therefore be given a high value -
opinions are insufficient. However there must be understanding of what this
involves as it is not about finding a single ‘correct’ answer but being aware
of the degree of certainty of any answer, and also how ‘answers’ can vary
according to who is asking and what is being looked for. This has important
consequences for language use, such as ‘from the video it seems....’, ‘as far as I know....’, ‘it’s only a guess,
but....’, ‘perhaps...’ and so on. This style will need to be consciously
developed. 2/ Intercultural approaches Cross-societal contrast and comparison is
not necessarily intercultural unless the principles of intercultural analysis
are taken into account (e.g. comparing like with like, using equivalent sources
and so on). Within any cultural theme such an approach is necessary to give the
other skills and outcomes full value. Sources from two or more real societies
presented side by side should mean, if they are well selected, that the sum is
greater than the parts. One particular benefit of an intercultural
approach is to allow the reasons behind the similarities between
societies to be discussed (these are too often overlooked). Not only what might
be in common by virtue of situation (e.g. the culture of teachers in both S2
and S1) but also relating similarities to globalising trends and the
fragmentation of societies. This has the advantage of moving discussion away
from national categories. 3/ Learning based on original sources As far as possible activities would take
advantage of original sources (from both S2 and S1) with a ‘hands-on’
approach to them. Having crossed the boundary of the class and brought
their voice and some unfiltered cultural reality in, they should be allowed to
lead the learning so learners can try to come to terms with their culturally
specific use of language. Such sources not only enable learners to ‘swim in
real language seas’ but also develop real cultural outcomes. This is only
possible nevertheless if the specific cultural context is explicit and valued. ‘Dedicated’
BS resources (e.g. textbooks, dictionaries etc) would indeed be necessary in
support, as original sources presume the shared knowledge found within a
society and omit a great deal of information necessary for someone from
another. Involving the learners in the finding of sources or in the selection
of material from them will develop their investigatory awareness and skills. There are a very wide variety of original
sources as culture is everywhere and in everything. All you know, or can ever
know, about any of the four outcomes has come from some source or other.
Sources include yourself and your learners (e.g. knowledge or memories of a UK
visit), UK native speakers in Poland, literature, film, popular magazines and
so on. They can be in either English or Polish (they may have to be in S1). The
ability to express the meaning of Polish sources in English is an important
culture production skill. 4/ Cultural errors
Awareness of cultural error is very important. A teacher should be
able to recognise where a cultural error has occurred, usually as a result of a
way of thinking, rather than a simple mistake. A cultural mistake e.g.
‘the British education system’ is quickly correctable (there is an educational
system for England and Wales, and separate ones for Scotland and Northern
Ireland). Cultural errors, however, being based on fundamental
misconceptions (like grammatical ones) need more attention. The two most common
are perhaps cultural transference and overgeneralisation: ‘the
English prefer modern detached housing’ is an example of the first, while
‘nobody eats the traditional breakfast any more’ is one of the second.
Content-based approaches typically overvalue mistakes of knowledge and
undervalue errors of understanding. 5/Intercultural approaches and the reforma These cultural approaches above lend
themselves strongly to certain directions taken in mainstream language
methodology: task-based and project work, learner autonomy,
learner-based and learner-centred work (often individualised),
discovery/action learning, reflective learning, activities with communicative
products and teacher-learner cooperation in which both work together
toward a common goal. The awareness and skills based approach gives real world
contexts for the application of these methodological developments and provides
a greater range of outcomes and wider educational value. This would be in the
spirit of the reforma. F/ Some consequences for FL teachers (further comments are given in Appendix
2) A fundamental shift is implied in what is
demanded of the language teacher from the former accumulation of background
knowledge, to practice and confidence in using awareness and skills in the foreground
of the lesson. This means a different investment of time and energy in
preparation and a shift in mindset. The result however would be the ability to
tackle any cultural issue from any society and to cope with whatever cultural
information comes to hand e.g. from the learner, or direct from its original
source (a particular issue with the internet).
The ultimate objective or ideal is the culturally-aware
and culturally-skilled FL teacher: an intercultural teacher who
should be interculturally competent. S/he would know how to find
original sources of cultural information (both S1 and S2), have the ability to
design materials and activities using such sources capable of producing
cultural outcomes and recognise and highlight language value at every point.
Access to and knowledge of the internet would be important not only for
themselves but to evaluate their learners’ use of it. The development of such
teachers would lead away from a ‘culture of dependence’ on external
professional support. There is no learner cultural autonomy without teacher
cultural autonomy first. Such preparation will take place over a
period of time and largely through hands-on experience - but would be economical when compared with the learning
involved in tackling the whole of a formal British Studies discipline,
something quite impractical for an ordinary teacher. Different teacher-learner relations are
implied - the teacher will not be a repository of knowledge but of the
necessary awareness, skills and experience. In many cases the learners will be
finding the knowledge and the teacher guiding them in their interpretation and
use of it. The teacher will have the ‘bigger view’ and his/her authority will
reside in judgements based on this. G/ Some conclusions on the
role of British Studies
This paper has outlined the context in
which it is suggested British Studies has to operate and find a role. In much
of BS traditionally (the ‘agenda’ of culture dictionaries, the Olimpiad, some
university entry exams and the former Matura), ‘culture’ is associated
with: ·
general
knowledge of the country (including cultural absurdities such as naming rivers
etc) not the processes producing such knowledge ·
only
certain aspects - for instance the Xmas meal but not the TV being watched at
the same time ·
differences
(e.g. national customs) - not similarities (e.g. international tourist
attitudes) ·
learnable
facts (e.g. how many Welsh M.P.s) rather than ‘unlearnable’ issues (e.g.
national identities) ·
history
(‘facts’ on Stonehenge) separated from the present (issues surrounding its
heritage role) ·
a
lack of focus on language issues and development (the inescapable culture/
language link) As BS theory and methodology have changed
(and those of language too), so will definitions and approaches to culture,
outdating many of those listed above. If the future of English for most
learners is in NNS-NNS contacts, then
there is a need to define a role for BS in the FL classroom. Some ideas of what role BS could play in
the FLT classroom are: --
a specific target societal (S2) context for illustrating and practising
cultural awareness and skills -- used to show how culturally the UK
interferes with English - constraining its role as a lingua franca --
an active participant in contemporary cultural debate with a distinctive voice
for discussing cultural issues --
one provider of cultural theory (e.g. via British Cultural Studies) --
as a society (the UK) which is sometimes used as a model for changes in Poland --
considered because there is a ready supply of resources and expertise --
the choice of teachers and learners - a traditional specialism The first two seem the most relevant for
an awareness and skills based approach in the cultural communicative classroom.
As for the roles which BS will develop in the future, there is some discussion
of the role of cultural studies in a Polish context in Edginton, B. (1997),
while King, A. et al. (1998) attempted a cultural studies approach for their
Romanian syllabus. Many BS approaches emphasise their
interdiscipliniarity - so not only ‘what is the role for BS in the FL class?’,
but ‘what can the language teacher (and linguistics) contribute to BS?’. There
should be a two-way relation, a dialogue of equal partners with both going away
having contributed to the other. The position here, as outlined in
the introduction, is one looking out of the FL classroom (filled with
its learners, its language syllabuses, its own specific small culture and so
on), not in from approaches to BS or definitions of culture. The question is
therefore ‘what can BS offer the needs of such a class?’ not how must
FLT change to accommodate it. FLT should go to BS with its own ‘agenda’, its
awareness and skills and make use of it as necessary. Finally, British Studies (or any area
studies) cannot be useful in the classroom if FLT itself does not know what it
needs. FLT must first look to itself and it is to this purpose that the paper
has primarily directed its attention. It can only be in the light of an
emerging consensus on the position of culture in FLT that a role for British
Studies will ultimately be found. Bibliography
Byram, M. “Language Teaching and European Integration: teaching culture
for a lingua franca”. In Bassnett, S. & Prochazka, M. (eds.) 1997. Culture
Learning: Language Learning. (Selected papers from the 2nd British Studies
Conference). Litteraria Pragensia/ Perspectives. The British Council,
Prague: 121-139. Edginton, B. 1997. “A Cross-cultural Approach to Teaching British
Cultural Studies”. British Studies webpages: issue one. Giddens, A. 1999. “The Reith Lectures: Globalisation”. King, A. et al., 1998. Crossing Cultures. The British Council,
Romania. (+ comment in BS Now Issue 12, 1999). Komorowska, H. 1999. “Successful teaching: how to achieve it, how to
assess it”. Network 2/2: 3-9. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pulverness, A. & Reid-Thomas, H. 1998. Branching Out: a cultural
studies syllabus. The British Council, Bulgaria. Tomalin, B. & Stempleski, S. 1993. Cultural Awareness.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Ek, J. & Trim, J. 1991, (rev. 1998). Threshold Levels 1990.
(See ch. 11 “Sociocultural Competences”.) Strasbourg: Council for Europe. Appendix 1 - Note on the term ‘culture’ In FLT ‘culture’ is often used very
loosely as a synonym for general knowledge and used for everything not covered
directly by linguistics or methodology (with literature occupying a grey area).
More popularly, anything outside the abstracted world of the grammatical system
is put down to ‘culture’, used as a catch-all to explain anything for which no
other explanation is available. At times it is even used as an available corner
in which to place ‘values education’, or carry the burden of entertainment and
so on, as against the real work of the language teacher. It is therefore often
a default term, a convenience. What is important, however, is to focus on
the real-world context of language and define that as precisely as possible.
This engagement of language with the world then is ‘culture’ from the point of
view of the FL teacher. What matters in ‘culture’ is therefore what matters for
the use of language, and the needs of such users will then define and select
what is needed from the many and various things which come under the heading of
‘culture’. Such a view would ensure that what is studied in the name of
culture is what is necessary for FLT. Imposing a definition from the outside
(such as ‘heritage or ‘the arts and popular entertainment’) distracts ‘culture’
away from its central purpose in FLT of delivering a more effective use of
language. Likewise any approach that adopts those definitions which attempt to
get to some essential ‘true’ reified core of something called ‘culture’ or
attempt in contortionist fashion to be inclusive of everybody else’s
definition. Both these are of limited value for FLT and perhaps better
discussed through the mother tongue in an appropriate discipline. In FLT culture is a living
language-forming force and should be taken positively as a component of all use
of language. By taking the term in this way everything that takes language away
from a pure system, that gets in the way and is usually filtered out, is in
fact to be welcomed, rather than avoided, overlooked or marginalised as a
problem. Certain language difficulties (e.g. institutional language, idiom,
conceptual terms and so on) should be considered for their cultural value in
pointing out how language can be comprehended and expressed in real situations.
Culture in this paper
Culture is being taken in its meaning of ‘everyday
life’. It is about the processes that produce this, as well as the
particular forms of everyday life itself (in contrast to the generality
of the social, the economic and so on). Therefore it is inescapably linked to
language and is also inseparable from identity and meaning.
Culture in terms of the processes and products of creative activities involving
language is a different, though very important, area requiring other approaches
and methodologies to those outlined here. The assumed focus is on culture at
multiple levels - in other words the cultural locations of which we occupy
several simultaneously, such as occupation, generation, stage of life,
gender, religion, leisure interest, nationality, and so on. This is
because it is at these levels (as they represent our different identities) that
there is direct influence on the use of language and they represent our speech
communities. Culture, despite some everyday uses, is
not synonymous with ‘society’, language, ‘nation’ or ‘state’ (although it
involves them). National cultural categories have never been natural and are
perhaps no longer dominant, while culture focused only at a national level
allocates a category for each person and imposes its values upon them. If the
national is taken as somehow the measure and reason behind all the others, it
seriously limits the value of culture in language teaching, leading to an emphasis
on differences over similarities between S2 and S1, and similarities over
differences within each society, and thus in the context of contemporary
cultural change give a false picture. In summary culture here is seen primarily
as:
inclusive - with every aspect of life (you cannot be at anytime
outside culture) - involving all
parts of society
non-national -
focussed on generation, occupation, etc
(with nationality as one among others)
multiple - we all
occupy several cultures simultaneously (hence S2/ S1 for society - not C2/ C1)
a process -
producing the cultural forms of behaviour, artefacts etc
contemporary -
therefore with the unfolding future (not focused on the past) Appendix 2 - Some contrasts in teacher approaches to culture
and language-centred lessons
Clear distinctions from language-centred
lessons are important if the cultural potential is not to be lost - it is a
different direction of thinking, a different mindset. The presence of cultural
outcomes will define the difference. Culture-centred lessons, though
occasional, should be clearly set up on their own terms with the development of
skills as the aim. This appendix is a collection of observations on this theme. *Culture is already present in every language lesson,
inside the class, the coursebooks and in the minds of both teacher and learners
- it does not have to be brought in. It is about the methods needed to bring
the culture out. *The learners are being taken into account
as active cultural beings - for example of their roots, current situations,
interests, aspirations and future realities - with their own considerable store
of valued knowledge and attitudes (not only of Poland but of the UK). Learners
as well as teachers will be putting culture into the lesson - in a sense as
co-owners. *As the outcome will be uncertain for the
teacher, not knowing what learner input will be and by asking questions whose
answers cannot be facts, s/he could be ‘taking culture out’ alongside the
learner. It could be argued that the lesson would be unsuccessful if this did
not happen (which could be motivating for the teacher as no lesson could
exactly repeat). This has implications for teacher-learner relations as
questions would be asked to which teachers would not have answers waiting in
their minds. The teacher too will be a learner. *There will probably be more questions
emerging than ‘answers’ and they could be valued more highly. This too should
be seen as a strength, and in fact a measure of success: the seeming fixity of
an ‘answer’ can deceive and close off further exploration, whereas developing
deeper and more focused questions would maintain an open attitude. In a
culturally unstable world, questions are more permanent than answers and the
ability to ask appropriate ones should be valued and perhaps even assessed. Approaches to the intercultural learner
1/ Target
society (S2) awareness, understanding and knowledge will almost certainly
precede L2, may remain greater and increase at a faster rate. This could have
been (and be) gained through TV news, films, geography or history lessons,
Polish magazines, novels studied in literature classes etc. It does not mean it
is reliable of course and, unlike most language learning, is almost entirely
outside the control of the teacher. Not only will teachers know more than their
learners (in some ways) but likewise most learners will know more than the
teacher (in other ways), and this should be seen as an advantage. The teacher’s
primary role will be as a source of the approaches and methods for using such
knowledge. 2/ The quality
of the cultural skills and outcomes produced will depend on the interest,
education and cognitive development of the learner - not only on the level of
L2. Methods and methodological good practice will not necessarily be the same
in the culture-centred lesson as the language-centred one (e.g. active
reflection will have a much greater role in culture). Native-like proficiency
(a bicultural approach) is not the aim and neither is ‘thinking in another
culture’. 3/ ‘Cultural’
talents are different to language talents - so expect ‘marks’ to be different
to the usual patterns. Do not project positive or negative expectations onto
the learners on the basis of their language proficiency. Equally though,
competence in L2 does not depend on knowledge of an English speaking society
either. 4/ The idea that learners are somehow ‘empty vessels’ into
which cultural knowledge is poured is surely wrong, as is the idea that they
are full of harmful stereotypes that only the teacher can redress. Learners
will already be measuring new cultural knowledge against their existing store
of knowledge, attitudes, values (or prejudices) and so on. Despite all their
uncertainties, ill-thought ideas, misunderstandings and bravado (therefore
youth), learners should not be patronised. By revealing these weaknesses they
are simply showing themselves less experienced at concealment than adults.
Their opinions should be taken seriously and challenged if necessary on
intellectual grounds. 5/ Teaching culture in FLT is an art of the possible -
the values of ‘perfection’ or incontrovertible accuracy are not possible and have
to be put to one side in favour of the less easy to quantify values inherent in
an approach based on awareness and skills. Progress can only be made in this
direction through ‘hands-on’ experience, slowly built up. It cannot be
pre-learnt. Some other implications for the teacher
§
Culture
is there in language from the very first lesson and can be actively considered
immediately. It should never be something advanced/ later/ privileged/
difficult or just for extended profile classes - it is for everyone. § | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||