A Study of Knowledge Learning---The Role of Culture In Language Education

A Study of Knowledge Learning---The Role of Culture In Language Education Yi-Te Wu, Department of Industrial Engineering & Management, Far East College Abstract As language and culture are interrelated, language cannot be taught without culture. This paper addresses the issue of the role of culture in language education. It details how the culture plays the role in language teaching and learning. Keywords: knowledge, multicultural education, language education, culture 907

1. Introduction Language learners are also culture learners. Culture plays an important role in language education because it motives students and facilitates communication. The teaching of culture has been intertwined with the teaching of language, at times more closely than others, but never more closely than now. If language education will be to successfully incorporate the presentation of cultural information in language classroom, it would greatly increase the benefits of language study. 2. Literature Review 2.1 Define the Culture Before investigating the role of culture in language education, it is crucial to define exactly what culture is. Culture is all around us, in everything we do; yet realizing a comprehensive definition is almost impossible. As Nemni (1992) and Street (1993) recommend, this is not a simple question to answer, particularly in an increasingly international world. Some time ago, Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1954) found over three hundred definitions of culture in their study, which underlines the difficulty and scope of the issues involved in communicating and teaching about culture. Nonetheless, the development of culture teaching in language education has led to a current understanding the role of culture, which we will briefly summarize here. On a general level, culture has been referred to as "the ways of a people" (Lado, 1957). This viewpoint incorporates both 'material' manifestations of culture that are easily seen and 'non-material' ones that are more difficult to survey. This global vision of culture is reflected in Nemni's (1992, p. 19) note that the "American way of life" is glorious areas across the world. Language educators in Taiwan may well reverberation this viewpoint. Somewhat likewise, language teachers or students may refer to Canadian culture or Japanese culture in speaking of the way of life in Canada or Japan when referring to the people, societies and communication in these countries. Nemni (1992, pp. 13-17) has accurately declared several problems in speaking of a national culture. However, to claim one pure national culture for linguistic or ethnic groups denies the pluralism, which Nemni also describes as natural in all societies. Reality presents us that while there are distinctions between national cultures, they may be not easy to explain than other differences. Accordingly, we also speak of culture in a more particular approach in our language classes. Adaskou, Britten and Fahsi (1990) identify culture on a more specific level by outlining four meanings of culture. Their semantic sense encompasses the whole conceptualization system which conditions perceptions and thought processes. Their aesthetic sense includes cinema, literature, music, and media, while their sociological one refers to the organization and nature of family, interpersonal relations, customs, material conditions, and so on. Their pragmatic or sociolinguistic sense refers to the background knowledge, social and paralinguistic skills, and language code which are necessary for successful communication. While not necessarily all-inclusive or mutually exclusive, these aspects of culture offer more cores to the common definition above and reflect culture's many dimensions. The different aspects and levels of culture briefly outlined here obviously explain that the role of what culture means in language education is varied. In language teaching and learning, the issue of defining culture is best viewed as a continuum. This provides the ability to strain diverse dimensions of 908

culture at different points, and allows for major differences language contexts. For language teachers and learners in varied contexts, different aspects of culture may well be more or less important at various levels of language proficiency. 2.2 Culture Teaching in Language Education Although some language teachers appear to think that the presence of culture in recent writings is relatively current, and evaluate of the language literature shows that this is clearly not the case. The early mold is marked: people learned a language in order to read and study its literature. Allen (1985) has summarized it: "...prior to the 1960s, the lines between language and culture were carefully drawn. The primary reason for language study in the earlier part of this century was access to the great literary masterpieces of civilization" (p. 138). As Flewelling (1993, p. 339) comments, "it was through reading that students learned of the civilization associated with the target language." The sixties were also the height of the audiolingual epoch in language teaching, and the time when Brooks (1968) "emphasized the importance of culture not for the study of literature but for language learning." In the 1970s, a highlighting on sociolinguistics resulted in greater emphasis on the context and condition where the language would be used. Savignon's (1972) early study on communicative competence, for example, recommended the "value of training in communicative skills from the very beginning of the language program" (p. 9). Culture's role in the language curriculum grew, and influential works by Seelye (1974) and Lafayette (1975) appeared. 'The communicative approach' finally replaced the audiolingual manner in many areas of the world, and in describing their framework for communicative ability, Canale and Swain (1980) declared that "a more natural integration" of language and culture takes place "through a more communicative approach than through a more grammatically based approach" (p. 31). Teacher-oriented texts (Hammerly, 1982; Higgs, 1984; Omaggio, 1986; Rivers, 1981) now also included detailed chapters on culture teaching for the language class, reflecting the prevailing goal: communication within the cultural context of the target language. During the 1980s, Stern's (1983a) major work standard the 'concepts of society' in language teaching, and his (1983b) paper on the multidimensional language curriculum suggested a four component model that included a cultural syllabus. In Europe, a focus on 'cultural studies' developed in language teaching, as explain by Byram (1989) and Murphy (1988). In the 1990s, the cultural syllabus has been supported by research in the National Core French Study (Flewelling, 1994), and its importance was reaffirmed in Stern's (1992) last book. The European emphasis on cultural studies has developed further (Shotton, 1991) and has also been supported by empirical research (Buttjes, & Byram, 1990). In short, 'culture' in language education today is clearly much more than great literature. As our understanding of language and communication has evolved, the importance of culture language education has improved. This reality is reflected in current methods of language learning and teaching, including the current Tapestry approach (Scarcella, & Oxford, 1992). That culture teaching and learning is a developing area in useful linguistics is further reflected in the growing list of current publications (Cargill, 1987) that deal particularly with this aspect of our work. As Higgs (1990) stated, it is the 909

recognition of an unbreakable bond between language and culture that motivates our profession's implicit commandment that 'thou shalt not teach language without also teaching culture (p. 74). 3. Language Teaching vs. Culture Teaching As language educators, we teach and our students learn about the culture of the language whether or not we include it overtly in the curriculum. This point was made by McLeod (1976, p. 212) some years ago: "by teaching a language...one is inevitably already teaching culture implicitly". Sociolinguistics reveals why. For example, Brown (1990) questions whether or not language may be value-free or independent of cultural background. She concludes: "there are values, presuppositions, about the nature of life and what is good and bad in it, to be found in any normal use of language." Such normal language use is accurately what most language instructors seek to teach. Beyond this viewpoint, Buttjes (1990, p. 55) refers to ethnographic language studies (Peters, & Boggs, 1986) and summarizes several reasons why "language and culture are from the start inseparably connected": 1. Language acquisition does not follow a universal sequence, but differs across cultures; 2. The process of becoming a competent member of society is realized through exchanges of language in particular social situations; 3. Every society orchestrates the ways in which children participate in particular situations, and this, in turn, affects the form, the function and the content of children's utterances; 4. Caregivers' primary concern is not with grammatical input, but with the transmission of sociocultural knowledge; 5. The native learner, in addition to language, acquires also the paralinguistic patterns and the kinesics of his or her culture. (Buttjes, 1990) Having outlined these findings, Buttjes cautions readers that "as in the case of first vs. second language acquisition research, first and second culture acquisition differ in many respects" (1990, p. 55). Two of his further observations also explain just how language teaching is culture teaching: 1. Language codes cannot be taught in isolation because processes of sociocultural transmission are bound to be at work on many levels, e.g. the contents of language exercises, the cultural discourse of textbooks (Kramsch, 1988), and the teacher's attitudes towards the target culture; 2. In their role of "secondary care givers" language teachers need to go beyond monitoring linguistic production in the classroom and become aware of the complex and numerous processes of intercultural mediation that any foreign language learner undergoes... (Buttjes, 1990, pp. 55-56) Thus, from this evidence and that provided by Valdes (1990) in the paper referred to above, it is clear that language teaching is indeed culture teaching. Such a viewpoint is evident outside of the fields of applied linguistics and second language education as well, in writings on intercultural communication (Luce and Smith [1987]). Consider this sight from outside of the language education literature: Culture and communication are inseparable because culture not only dictates who talks to whom, about what, and how the communication proceeds, it also helps to determine how people encode messages, the meanings they have for messages, and the conditions and circumstances under which various messages may or may not be sent, noticed, or 910

interpreted... Culture...is the foundation of communication. (Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981, p. 24) We should and do teach our students the language culture in our classes when our goal is communicative competence. Not only is culture part and parcel of the process, but also the educational cost of it within language education is great, as Byram (1988) argues. The question arises, however, that if language and culture are so intricately intertwined, why bother overtly focusing on culture when there are so many other aspects of the curriculum that need more attention? As Kramsch, Cain, and Murphy-Lejeune (1996) have answered this very question by outlining historical reasons for a discourse-based "culture as language and language as culture" pedagogy, the short answer here includes several points. First of all, we should include culture in our curriculum in an intentional mode in order to keep away from the stereotyping and pitfalls Nemni (1992) has outlined. Second, though culture is indirect is what we teach, to assume that those who are 'learning the language' in our classes are also learning the cultural knowledge and skills necessary to be able language speakers denies the difficulty of culture, language learning, and communication. The third reason for particularly including culture in our language curriculum is to facilitate teachers to do a better job teaching culture and to be more responsible to students for the culture learning that takes place in our language classes. 4. Conclusion Language is culture. When a person chooses to learn French, for example, he or she is not merely interesting the linguistics of the language, but everything to do with French and France. What he or she is taking in includes all the preconceptions about the French language that, that it is romantic, it is beautiful, that it is spoken along the Seine, and so on. Languages come with some cultural associations attached. By speaking the language, therefore, one automatically makes parallel oneself with the culture of the language. To speak a language well, one has to be able to think in that language, and thought is very powerful. A person's mind is in a sense the centre of his identity, so if a person thinks in French in order to speak French, one might say that he has, in a way, almost taken on a French identity. That is the essence and the power of a language. Language is culture. Language is the spirit of the country and people who speak it. We believe that the role of culture in all aspects of education and language are at the core of promoting global harmony and peace. The language and culture that each individual brings to the classroom must be taken into account. Therefore we believe that language education is not an end in itself, but the bridge to a unified multi-cultural society when it taps the students' cultural and language heritage. Students move toward into the classroom with both community and individual languages and cultures. It is important to tap the cultural/language heritage and knowledge of each student to supply the foundation for a helpful curriculum. Such inventive methodologies used in Langer's work (1994a; Langer, in press) can be looked upon as starting points for curriculum development in language education programs. Langer's research develop the students' cultural and language heritage via narratives. In so doing, students employ their cultural and language heritage while 911

learning new skills. Curricular emphasis on cultural diversity need not mean group isolation and separation, but rather should enhance students' awareness and ability to understand the interconnectedness of cultures and peoples. Beyond current practice, several areas need to be investigated in order to further develop our understanding of the role of culture in language education. One area that needs to be addressed from the start concerns both teacher and student perceptions of the importance of culture learning in various language contexts and programs. How important do they think culture is in learning a language? Are certain types of teachers or learners more open to or motivated about language culture learning? What do they think about important in a cultural syllabus? While primary work has been done in language, by Lessard-Clouston (1996) and Prodromou (1992), more such information about other languages and contexts is required. What aspects of culture teaching do teachers want to progress? What resources do teachers need to teach more effectively? Which areas are most difficult? What methods do teachers use, and how successful are they? How do students respond to such lessons? Morgan (1993) has study how culture is evident in course syllabuses, but more also requests to be known about authentic classroom practice. Language studies will need to be carried out to address the performance aspects of cultural proficiency. What cultural behaviors and mold do language students need to learn, at what levels? Are acquired language cultural mold easily maintained? Over time, do students learn better if they have a greater interest in or tendency for culture learning? Do students who have spent a summer or extended periods in the language culture take significantly cultural competence or greater motivation? Clearly, a final issue is development of a theoretical framework for culture learning in the future language class, particularly based on research in language education in the areas outlined above. How does one's view of culture in language education impact his or her learning and/or teaching? Is a continuum definition of culture really valid? These questions and issues need future research in order to lead us towards a deeper understanding of the role of culture in language education. References [1] Adaskou, K., Britten, D., & Fahsi, B. (1990). Design decisions on the cultural content of a secondary English course for Morocco. ELT Journal, 44(1), 3-10. [2] Allen, W. (1985). Toward cultural proficiency. In A.C. Omaggio (Ed.), Proficiency, curriculum, and articulation: The ties that bind (pp. 137-166). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference. [3] Berns, M. (1990). Contexts of competence: Social and cultural considerations in communicative language teaching. New York: Plenum. [4] Brooks, N. (1968). Teaching culture in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 1, 204-217. [5] Brown, G. (1990). Cultural values: The interpretation of discourse. ELT Journal, 44(1), 11-17. [6]Buttjes, D. (1990). Teaching foreign language and culture: Social impact and political significance. Language Learning Journal, 2, 53-57. [7]Byram, M. (1988). Foreign language education and cultural studies. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 1(1), 15-31. 912

[8]Byram, M. (1989). Cultural studies in foreign language education. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters. [9]Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. [10]Cargill, C. (Ed.). (1987). A TESOL professional anthology: Culture. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. [11]Flewelling, J. (1993). Teaching culture in the '90s: Implementing the National Core French Study syllabus. Canadian Modern Language Review, 49(2), 338-344. [12]Flewelling, J. (1994). The teaching of culture: Guidelines from the National Core French Study of Canada. Foreign Language Annals, 27(2), 133-142. [13]Hammerly, H. (1982). Synthesis in language teaching. Blaine, WA: Second Language Publications. [14]Higgs, T. (Ed.). (1984). Teaching for proficiency, the organizing principle. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. [15]Higgs, T. (1990). Language as culture: Teaching culture from a functional perspective. In I. Maihot-Bernard & D.M. Crashman (Eds.), Canada's languages: A time to reevaluate (pp. 74-84). Proceedings of the Official Languages Education Conference, 1988. [16]Kramsch, C., Cain, A., & Murphy-Lejeune, E. (1996). Why should language teachers teach culture? Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9(1), 99-107. [17]Kroeber, A., & Kluckhohn, C. (1954). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. New York: Random House. [18]Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Ardor: University of Michigan Press. [19]Langer, J. A. (1994a). Tales from home/cuentos de mi herencia. Albany, NY: The National Research Center for Literature Teaching and Learning. [20]Lessard-Clouston, M. (1996). Chinese teachers' views of culture in their EFL learning and teaching. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9(3), 197-224. [21]Luce, L., & Smith, E. (1987). Toward internationalism: Readings in cross-cultural communication (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House. [22]McLeod, B. (1976). The relevance of anthropology to language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 10(2), 211-220. [23]Nemni, M. (1992). Mefiez-vous du discours intercultural! Canadian Modern Language Review, 49(1), 10-36. [24]Omaggio, A. (1986). Teaching language in context: Proficiency- oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. [25]Peters, A., & Boggs, S. (1986). Interact ional routines as cultural influences upon language acquisition. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp. 80-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [26]Prodromou, L. (1992). What culture? Which culture? Cross-cultural factors in language learning. ELT Journal, 46(1), 39-50. [27]Rivers, W. (1981). Teaching foreign language skills (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [28]Samovar, L., Porter, R., & Jain, N. (1981). Understanding intercultural communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 913

[29]Savignon, S. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language testing. Philadelphia: Centre for Curriculum Development. [30]Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. [31]Seelye, H. (1974). Teaching culture: Strategies for foreign language educators. Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company. [32]Shotton, R. (1991). Cultural studies in foreign language education. Language Learning Journal, 3, 68-70. [33]Stern, H.H. (1983a). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [34]Stern, H.H. (1983b). Toward a multidimensional foreign language curriculum. In R.G. Mead (Ed.), Foreign languages: Key links in the chain of learning (pp. 120-146). Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference. [35]Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [36]Street, B. (1993). Culture is a verb: Anthropological aspects of language and cultural process. In D. Graddol, L. Thompson, & M. Byram (Eds.), Language and culture (pp. 23-43). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters and BAAL. [37]Valdes, J. (1990). The inevitability of teaching and learning culture in a foreign language course. In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the Language Classroom (pp. 20-30). ELT Documents: 132. London: Modern English Publications. 914