The Challenge of Intercultural Language Teaching - Literature review Example

Name Tutor Title: Education Institution Date Introduction Language plays a significant role in enabling a speaker to function as part of a specific group. The language we use identifies us with a certain age, gender, class, ethnicity. Therefore, how we speak is a mark of our stance in society. The society determines the language we speak and hence any adjustment in social structure will possibly lead to creation of a new dialect. The language we speak affects our view about the world. The languages we speak, just as shared belief, determine which society we belong. A variety of characteristics, for example age and class, serve to distinguish members of one society from the other, leading to creation of smaller sociological groups within the larger society. Different traits, including residence, ethnicity, appearance and perhaps more significantly language mark these social constructs (Holmes 2008). A depiction of a person is shaped by the way a sentence is created and the context in which that sentence is constructed by how these ways associate with the common belief of the society. The association between a speaker and the listener including the speaker and the society is revealed by how a sentence is created. For instance, the way a high school student interacts with his/her friends would most probably differ when that student is interacting with his/her teachers. The difference in interaction patterns depicts the student’s perception of social hierarchy and the student’s position within that hierarchy. From this, we can say with confident that the language we speak is determined by our social content (Wardhaugh 2002). Context determines the chose of idiolect from circumstances to circumstances. It determines the vocabulary and sentence structure to use in a language. Language is influenced by the beliefs and ideas of a society in a more subtle manner. Varieties of linguistic objects develop founded on the society that the language exists. For example, a society that does not clear differences between past, present and future will have this belief materialize in its language through the language’s verb tenses and sentence structure. The relationship between a language’s structure and a society’s fundamental beliefs and morals becomes particularly significant when considering whether the relation is only one way (Kramsch 1993). Sociologists and linguists have been interested in finding out how language is influenced by the society. The fact that different gender, ethnicities, classes and ages all speak differently is proof of society’s impact on language development. Research studies of different languages demonstrate that a society’s beliefs manifest in that society’s language in both vocabulary and syntax. A good example of this is found in comparing Hopi language of Arizona to the Standard Average European. Hopi is a stable society, its belief blurring the line between various chronological positions. The Hopi view the world as a set of items and episodes that are imprecise and this is demonstrated in their language through the universal lack of verb forms differentiating actions founded on when their take place. On the other hand, European languages are structured and chronological. Language influences society just as the society influences it. To be more exact, “when a speaker of Hopi or Standard Average European says something, he or she must make certain observations about how the world is structured because of the structure each speaks” (Wardhaugh, 223). The Sapir-whorf hypothesis best describes how language affects society through the shaping of worldviews. This hypothesis is named after its originators Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. They theorized that the language have an influence on the speaker’s view. That conception is not possible without language and hence a society is more a make of languages and communication and vice versa. Humboldt said,” language is by no means a mere means of communication, but the mirror of the mind and of the world view of the speaker” (Humboldt, 19). Language reflects culture and society (Franz, 2010). Languages are systematic and formally complete systems. Language serves to convey a mode of thought or behavior. Apart from reflecting the speaker’s beliefs and ideals, language also has deeper and more mutual relations with the speaker’s worldviews. In fact Sapir stated, “We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do because the language habits of our community predispose certain choices of interpretation (Sapir, 210). Our thought influences language. Whorf argued that the grammar of each language served to not only communicate ideals but also to shape them. There are two ideas that can be split from the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism. The linguistic relativity suggests that a speaker’s worldview is influenced by language while linguistic determinism suggests that apart from influencing, language directly determines perception. Opponents of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis disagree with its theorizer’s main hypothesis that one culture is influenced by language (Hickmann 418). Instead, Speakers of the same languages can have varying culture and hence it becomes complex to verify the impact of language when diversities exist from speaker to speaker within languages. The main collection of proof against the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was found in studies of color perception. Past studies demonstrated that speakers of languages that used limited words to differentiate color could separate hues effortlessly as those speakers whose language used superior vocabulary for differentiating colors. However, recent studies support the theory of linguistic relativity. A study conducted in 2002 by Ozgen and Davies demonstrated that when taught latest color boundaries, students could without difficulty differentiate between colors on either side of the latest boundary than between colors within a particular color grouping. Furthermore, students started to unlearn pre-existing boundaries. This study illustrates that languages without definite color boundaries would restrict its speaker’s capacity to show definite perception across that boundary. Moreover, the neurological means of sight and color difference are not fully identified and many argue that distinctions in perception are an effect of neurology and not linguistic relativity (Benson 28). Vocabulary affects a person’s capacity to identify concepts. Language provides us with the means of understanding and categorizing. Different languages categorize in a different way. In other words, language does not construct the truth rather it contributes to its formation. For instance, three birds placed in a row will always be in truth three birds, however somebody whose language does not have the required linguistic mechanisms to explain numbers past two may theoretically perceive three birds in the same manner they would perceive four birds (Waismann, 140-141). Daniel Slobin’s theory of thinking and language provides a more convincing derivative of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Slobin proposes that labeling psychological and linguistic processes as thought and language theorizes that such processes are items that can be revealed. He advocates instead that thoughts and language be substituted with thinking and speaking and more significantly thinking for speaking. This involves a grammatical change that stresses the association between the two structures. Hence, thinking for speaking becomes a means for perception change and the name of a linguistic theory (Slobin, 1995). Slobin’s theory deals with how an individual chooses and organizes information in discourse. Slobin disagree with the cognitive scientists’ early idea that people are born with inherent understanding of different organizational structures. Slobin states that, “experiences are filtered through language onto verbalized events constructed on-line in the process of speaking” (Hickmann 412). Cognition is not limited by language, however language shapes thought into the form that is without difficulty articulated with the linguistic means accessible to the speaker. Consequently, speakers of different languages and those with contrasting understanding of the language will convey information differently (Slobin, 1995). Teaching with a perspective that is multicultural encourages understanding and appreciation of other different cultures as well as their very own. Teaching with such kind of perspective motivates the child’s sense of uniqueness of the culture he was brought up in as a characteristic that is positive and enables the child to appreciate the uniqueness of other peoples’ cultures. The attitude of the children towards their ethnic group and race and other groups of culture begin to form very early in the years of preschool. Children are influenced easily by the opinions, cultures, and attitudes of their caregivers. Perceptions of caregivers of racial and ethnic groups can impact the attitude of the child towards the minority groups (Wardhaugh, 1998). Teachers must listen and acquire a practical approach to teaching strategies taking into consideration the experiences of each student whereas recognizing the constructive contributions they make to the classroom environment. Consequently, this will promote the development of new and effective teaching and learning strategies. Student interest to speak in second language will increase once the acquisition is improved. Classroom environment will improve with enhanced strategies for both student and teacher. Studying a foreign language involves more than just assembling lexical objects in grammatically correct sentences. It includes fundamentally studying to speak with others in that language and hence communication entails an engagement with culture. It is important for teacher to teach language and culture in an integrated approach in order to enhance the learners’ capacity to comprehend, reflect on and reconcile cultures as part of their language studying experience. Language does not only facilitate the transfer of information from one person to the other but it is used to generate and maintain social interaction (Stern, 1992). The key goal of learning is not assimilation to the target culture customs, but the improvement of an intermediate position. Any intermediate position is a latent solution to the problem of reconciling between two or more culture structures and not an estimate of another system. Hence, as the learner progresses, the first culture is left behind. This view disregards the need to mediate positions instead of replacing one position with another and it also refutes the significance of identity and cultural connection in the process of learning. Progression means moving from the first culture towards the target culture with progress perceived as becoming more like the target culture and less of the first culture. This means that the aim of learning is to become assimilated to a culture and the inclusion of only one cultural structure in target language contexts. This refutes the multiplicity intrinsic in bilingual interaction (Lantolf & Poehne, 2008). Learning a second language has it effect on the second country. The learner may develop negative attitudes towards the second language, and implied, its culture by learning a second or foreign language. Porter and Garvin note, “ it may be objectionable to oblige learners to conform to an alien code of conduct…. students may prefer to keep their own accent deliberately in order to retain their self-respect” (Porter and Garvin 1989, 15). Therefore. Learners should be permitted to select what they want to learn. However, Dalton and Seidlhofer observed that learners do not generally know what they want. Nevertheless, their thoughts should be taken into consideration (Dalton and Seidlhofer 1996, 7). Most teachers view competence in culture as foreign facts knowledge and foreign culture general acceptance. Cultural acceptance concerns democratic attitude and ethics, cultural knowledge can be disseminated in building blocks that are appropriately paced. Educators are deeply aware that the challenge of real-life materials is not merely a linguistic one, but a matter of choice of topic and discourse style. Abstract topics like, the environment, ethnic minorities, rights of women are less appealing to students in America as compared to life-styles and personal stories. The challenge comes in when a foreign is interested exactly in these topics and the need for them being taught is considered. It has been stated by a scholar that a proper understanding of a different culture comprises of the central code embodied in the culture and an awareness of its regional and social economic variance (Byram, 2008). Some theorists are perturbed that due to the expansion of the field to take up the number of cultural groups that are increasing, the initial emphasis on institutionalized racism and attainment of student of color may eventually weaken. Research has demonstrated that interventions in the curriculum such as folk dance, plays, role-playing, simulations and music can carry positive impacts on the student’s racial attitudes. Discovering diversity takes extra effort, creativity, courage and diligence on the part of the teacher. On the other hand a multicultural classroom must grow on these differences and apply them as a basis for development and growth. Differences command resolution, work, understanding and openness (Lantolf & Poehne, 2008). Teachers who acknowledge these differences and include them in the curriculum will be successful in the creation of a classroom that is multicultural and will forge forward the education goals of the entire students’ population. Language teachers in classroom that is multicultural should be open to their own students and factor in the determination that is required to get to understand their students outside and inside the class. If a language teacher is reluctant concerning being open, the class will respond and the students will eventually be estranged from the teacher and from one another. This is in the effort of creating an optimal learning atmosphere where everyone in the context is taken care of. For the sole reason of being open, the teachers must develop interest in their student, courageous, ready to experiment different and new things and be sure of themselves with an aim of avoiding being personal (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999). The appropriate way of handling clash in cultures is to be knowledgeable, and open, not be shy of talking about cultural differences in the class context regardless of want is being taught. A teacher who is open will result in the creation of an open class and the open class will in turn make possible lines of communication to be open hence creating a beneficial and positive environment of learning for everyone (Kramsch, 1993). A difference in language is another main issue that teachers must be aware of in the process of establishing a classroom that is multicultural. A teacher who makes sure that he learns the native tongue of his or her student, at least a word, will signify respect for the culture of his students and increase self-esteem that is potentially in some way suffering. Injecting the culture or language of all the students present in class into the curriculum will put the massage across that students who are of that culture are equally important (Kramsch, 1993). Classrooms that are multicultural integrate different cultures simultaneously so that all the cultures are considered valuable and wonderful (Stern, 1992). A vital step towards training students to be comfortable with their cultural background is to value and encourage their input in small group of the other students. This encompasses lesson plan development and the classroom organization. When outing students in groups, teachers should place those with different background together. Students who are from a culture that is socialized tend to grow to be externally motivated, dependent on reinforcement and praise from significant others, and respond more to a curriculum that is socially oriented. Whereas students who are brought up in cultures that put emphasis on individualism, personal initiative, material-well being assertiveness (United States, Japan, Vietnam) are inclined to be competitive, analytical, task-oriented and impersonal (Smith & Osborn, 2007). Grouping children that are socially oriented with task-oriented children permits the teacher to explore, confront, and embrace the difference. A good language teacher should be in a position to create projects for a group of students with different cultures that will need the student to work together, and consequently permitting each student to form an important part of the group and get information by means of interaction with the entire group. Lesson plans that can accomplish this and arouse the interest of the students will prove to be invaluable for teachers to be in possession as the requirement for teachers to be cultural rich continues to grow by day. Maines (2001) notes that creating classrooms that are multicultural is a growing priority for many administrators and teachers. Teachers are required to pay attention to verbal and non-verbal language when responding to students who speak differently (Maines, 2001). Holmes (2008) argues that the teacher should keep off from interrupting the student when he says something with different intonation but wait until he finish before he provides the correct pronunciation. The teacher should appreciate the student for his effort in reading and thereafter model the correct version. The most vital thing to be at the back of the mind of the teacher is that each child is unique. All children are good-looking and special in their own way. No student should feel he is being excluded from the class particularly if the reason for being excluded is perceived to be on the basis of color, ethnicity or race. Technology has also been used in bridging the gap between different cultures (Byram, 2008). The language teachers have a role to play as far as emphasizing what unites people across cultures as well as recognizing the differences that exist in these particular cultures. Just knowing what unites the different cultures is not enough without appreciating the differences that exists and hence being able to appreciate every culture with its own significance and value on the global world and particularly to the people of a specific culture. According to Falvo (2010) the strategy of the language teachers is to reach out to all individuals within different cultures and be able to incorporate them in the education program. While looking at the unifying factors, it is equally important to study the differences within the cultures and make the particular students appreciate the other students’ cultures and hence be able to learn in the same environment without feeling left out or offended. The language teachers should have in mind the multicultural differences as they go on to develop the lesson plans (Waismann 1951). Conclusion This paper has articulately demonstrated that language teachers should embrace the difference within different cultures and emphasize the unity among the cultures. Looking at the unity in the cultures alone is not enough without appreciating the differences that exist within the cultures. The unity within the cultures can only be emphasized if the difference within those cultures is appreciated. A deeper understanding of different cultures gives one an opportunity to appreciate and embrace the differences that exist and emphasize on factors that can unify the cultures. We can therefore conclude that difference and unity are all important as far as teaching of language is concerned. Bibliography Benson, E., 2002, Different shades of perception, Monitor on Psychology, 33(11), 28. Byram, M. 2008, From foreign language learning to education for intercultural citizenship: essays and reflections. Cambridge: Multilingual Matters. Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A.J. 1999, The challenge of intercultural language teaching: Engaging with culture in the classroom in Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural Competence Through Language Education, Eds J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet, Language Australia, Melbourne. Dalton, C. & Seidlhofer, B. 1994, Pronunciation, OUP. Oxford Falvo, D.R., 2010, Effective Patient Education: A Guide to Increased Adherence. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Hickmann, M., 2000, “Linguistic relativity and linguistic determinism: some new directions.” Rev. of Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, edited by J. J. Gumperz and S. C. Levinson. Linguistics 38-2. Holmes, J., 2008, An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Pearson Education Limited. Humboldt, W., and Uuber, D., 2000, Belin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. 1928. From Explorations in Linguistic Relativity. Eds. Martin Pütz and Marjolijn Verspoor. Pennsylvania: John Benjamin. Kramsch, C., 1993, Teaching language along the cultural faultline, in Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehne, M. E., 2008, sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. Jakarta: Equinox Pub. Maines, D.R. 2001, The split of perception: a view of interactions in sociology. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Porter, D. & & Garvin, S., 1989, 'Attitudes to Pronunciation in ESL.' Speak Out, vol. 5, pp. 8-15. Sapir, E., 1929, “The status of linguistics as a science.” Language 5. Slobin, D., 1995, “Language and mind: Linguistic relativity and determinism.” Language Ecology Lecture. University of California at Berkeley. Smith, D. I., & Osborn, T. A., 2007, Spirituality, social justice, and language learning. Berkeley: IAP. Stern, H. H., 1992, The intralingual-crosslingual dimension in Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Waismann, F., 1951, “Verifiability.” Essays in Logic and Language. Ed. A. Fleur. New York: Philosophy Library. Wardhaugh, R., 1998, Ethnography and ethnomethodology in an Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Wardhaugh, R., 2002. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Mass.: Blackwell. Read More