Over the years, the Whorfian hypothesis has unfortunately been overstated and misinterpreted. Guiora (1981:177) criticized Whorf's claim that the influence of language on behavior was "undifferentiated, all pervasive, permanent and absolute"; Guiora called these claims "extravagant." It would appear that it was Guiora’s interpretation that was extravagant, for he put ideas into Whorf's writings that were never there. Clarke, Losoff. McCracken, and Rood (1984: 57), in a careful review of Whorf's writings, eloquently demonstrated that the Whorfian hypothesis was not nearly as monolithic or causal as some would interpret it to be. "The 'extravagant claims' made in the name of linguistic relativity were not made by Whorf, and attributing to him simplistic views of linguistic determination serves only to obscure the usefulness of his insights."

   The language teaching profession today has actually subscribed to a more moderate view of the Whorfian hypothesis, if only because of the mounting evidence of the interaction of language and culture. A quarter of a century ago, in the spirit of those who have exposed the mythical nature of many of the claims about linguistic determinism, Ronald Wardhaugh (1976: 74) offered the following alternative to a strong view of the Whorfian hypothesis:

   The most valid conclusion to all such studies is that it appears possible to talk about anything in any language provided the speaker is willing to use some degree of circumlocution. Some concepts are more "codable," that is, easier to express, in some languages than in others. The speaker, of course, will not be aware of the circumlocution in the absence of familiarity with another language that uses a more succinct means of expression. Every natural language provides both a language for talking about every other language, that is, a metalanguage, and an entirely adequate apparatus for making any kinds of observations that need to be made about the world. If such is the case, every natural language must be an extremely rich system which readily allows its speakers to overcome any predispositions that exist.

   So, while some aspects of language seem to provide us with potential cognitive mind sets (e.g., in English, the passive voice, the tense system, "weasel words," and lexical items), we can also recognize that through both language and culture, some universal properties bind us all together in one world. The act of learning to think in another language may require a considerable degree of mastery of that language, but a second language learner does not have to learn to think, in general, all over again. As in every other human learning experience, the second language learner can make positive use of prior experiences to facilitate the process of learning by retaining that which is valid and valuable for second culture learning and second language learning.

In the Classroom: Toward a Principled Approach to Language Pedagogy

It should be clear from the vignette of the previous chapter that as an "enlightened, eclectic" teacher, you can think in terms of a number of possible methodological options for tailoring classes to particular contexts. Your approach to language pedagogy therefore takes on great importance. Your approach to language teaching methodology is your theoretical rationale that underlies everything that you do in the classroom.

  Your approach actually draws on most of what is presented in this book—issues, findings, conclusions, and principles of language learning and teaching, principles such as:

• Intrinsic motivation is a powerful incentive for learning.
• A moderate to high level of risk-taking behavior is important.
• Language and culture are inextricably intertwined.

• Successful learners make a strategic investment in their learning.

• Self-confidence is an important precursor to success.

Your understanding of these principles forms a set of foundation stones upon which to build curricular plans, lesson designs, and moment-by-moment techniques and activities. (For more on principled approaches to language teaching, see Brown's Teaching by Principles, Second Edition, 2000.)

  Your approach to language pedagogy is not just a set of static principles, set in stone. It is, in fact, a dynamic composite of energies that changes (or should change, if you are a growing teacher) with your experiences in your own learning and teaching. The way you understand the language learning process—what makes for successful and unsuccessful learning—may be relatively stable across months or years, but it doesn't pay to be too smug. There is far too much that we do not know collectively about this process, and there are far too many new research findings pouring in to assume that you can confidently assert that you know everything you already need to know about language and language learning.

  The interaction between your approach and your classroom practice is the key to dynamic teaching. The best teachers always take a few calculated risks in the classroom, trying new activities here and there. The inspiration for such innovation comes from the approach level, but the feedback that they gather from actual implementation then informs their overall understanding of what learning and teaching is. Which, in turn, may give rise to a new insight and more innovative possibilities, and the cycle continues.

  Consider an example of this cycle. The language-culture connection, as explained in this chapter, is an important factor in the learning of a second language, potentially a "keystone" in one's approach to language teaching, How does that keystone interact' with   classroom   techniques?   In   a    number   of   ways, the language-culture connection points toward certain techniques and away from others. The following checklist illustrates how techniques are generated, shaped, and revised according to just this one principle.

Culturally Appropriate Techniques: A Checklist

1. Does the technique recognize the value and belief systems that are presumed to be a part of the culture(s) of the students?
2. Does the technique refrain from any demeaning stereotypes of any culture, including the culture(s) of your students?
3. Does the technique refrain from any possible devaluing of the students' native language(s)?
4. Does the technique recognize varying degrees of willingness of students to participate openly due to factors of collectivism/individualism and power distance?
5. If the technique requires students to go beyond the comfort zone of uncertainty avoidance in their culture(s), does it do so empathetically and tactfully?
6. Is the technique sensitive to the perceived roles of males and females in the culture(s) of your students?
7. Does the technique sufficiently connect specific language features (e.g., grammatical categories, lexicon, discourse) to cultural ways of thinking, feeling, and acting?
8. Does the technique in some way draw on the potentially rich background experiences of the students, including their own experiences in other cultures?

 

     The eight criteria in the checklist represent various facets of the language-culture connection as discussed in this chapter. As each item is applied to a technique that is either being planned or has already been taught, evaluation takes place and the technique thereby becomes a manifestation of a principled approach. All of the principles in your approach could easily lead to similar checklists for the validation of techniques.

     In the process of actual teaching in the classroom, it is quite possible that you will be led to modify certain aspects of your approach. For example, suppose you were a secondary school teacher in Bangladesh where boys sat on one side of the room and girls on the other, and you had planned group work that not only grouped boys and girls together but asked them to discuss women's rights. While this is an extreme example, you can see that several items on the checklist (#1, #4, #5, #6) would lead you to change that activity!

Classroom experience then might stir you to further refinement.

     As you continue to read this book, you may do well to pay increasing attention to your growing stockpile of language learning/teaching principles that together are forming a composite approach to language learning and teaching. Consider the pedagogical implications and classroom applications of every finding, every issue, every conclusion, and every generalization. In so doing your overall approach will not only be more enlightened but more readily applicable to classroom practice.

TOPICS AND QUESTIONS FOR STUDY AND DISCUSSION

[Note: (I) individual work; (G) group or pair work; (C) whole-class discussion.]

1. (G)The class should be divided into groups of five or six people per group. Each group is assigned a country; countries should be as widely varying as possible, but at least one of the countries should be geographically close to the country you are now in. First, each group should be warned to suspend their usual tact and diplomacy for the sake of making this activity more enlightening. The task is for each group to brainstorm stereotypes for the people of their assigned country. The stereotypes can be negative and demeaning and/or positive and complimentary.
2. (C) Groups in item 1 now write their list of stereotypes on the black board; each group reports on (a) any difficulties they had in agreeing on stereotypes, (b) what the sources of these stereotypes are, (c) any guilty feelings about some of the items on the list and the reasons for the guilt, and (d) comments on any of the other lists. The ultimate objective is to get stereotypes out in the open, discuss their origins, and become sensitive to how oversimplified and demeaning certain stereotypes can be.
3. (C) Anyone in the class who has lived for a year or more in another country (and another language) might share with the class the extent to which he or she experienced any or all of the stages of culture acquisition discussed in this chapter. Were the stages easily identifiable? Was there an optimal period for language breakthrough?
4. (I) Look again at Hofstede's categories: collectivism/individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity/femininity. Try to find one example of each in your own past experiences in language classrooms (or in any other classroom). What did the teacher do? Was it effective in bridging any gaps? If not, how could you have made a more effective bridge?
5. (G) In considering so-called "world Englishes," where do you draw the line in recognizing the "legitimacy" of a variety of English? If Indian English, for example, is a legitimate variety of English, is "Singlish" (English in Singapore) in the same category? What about Japanese English ("Japlish")? With a partner, think of other examples and try to arrive at a conclusion.
6. (C) Why is language learning and teaching a political issue? In countries with which you are familiar, discuss in class the extent to which government dictates language policies either in education in particular or in the country in general.
7. (G) In groups of three to five, review Phillipson's (1992) contention that English teaching efforts around the world can be viewed as fostering linguistic imperialism. Do you agree? Provide examples and counterexamples to illustrate your answer. Report your findings back to the whole class.
8. (C) If you are familiar with the "English only" debates in the US or with similar issues in another country, share with others your perceptions of how special interest groups further their cause in their attempts to influence voting.
9. (C) In foreign languages represented in the class, find examples that support the contention that language (specific vocabulary items, per haps) seems to shape the way the speaker of a language views the world. On the other hand, in what way does the Whorfian hypothesis present yet another chicken-or-egg issue?

SUGGESTED READINGS

     Morgan, Carol. 1993- Attitude change and foreign language culture learning.

  Language Teaching 26:63-75.

     Dirven, Rene  and  Piitz, Martin.  1993. Intercultural  communication.

Language Teaching 26:144-156.

Both of these summary surveys offer overviews of research on culture learning and on intercultural communication.

     Hofstede, Geert.  1986. Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10: 301-320.

Hofstede's article covers the perspectives of fifty different countries on collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity. It might be an interesting stimulus to conducting some of your own further research.

     Kohls, Robert. 1984. Survival Kit for Overseas Living. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.

This handy manual provides a good practical set of culture learning techniques especially applicable to those traveling outside their own country.

     Dresser, Norine. 1996. Multicultural Manners: New Rules of Etiquette for a Changing Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dresser's book is written for the lay audience and humorously discusses a multitude of cross-cultural rules of etiquette, ranging from body language to colors, food, gifts, religion, holidays, and health practices.

     Scollon, Ron and Scollon, Suzanne Wong. 1995. Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

The authors provide a more technical read here on the topic of discourse patterns across cultures.

     Fantini, Alvino E. 1997. New Ways of Teaching Culture. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.

A nice collection of practical classroom activities, all categorized into different types and coded for appropriate levels of proficiency, is provided in this volume in TESOL's "New Ways" series of innovative classroom techniques.

     Tollefson, James. 1995. Power and Inequality in Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

A number of sensitive political issues are covered in this very informative anthology. Topics range from power issues in classrooms all the way up to societal implications.

LANGUAGE LEARNING EXPERIENCE: JOURNAL ENTRY 7

[Note: See pages 18 and 19 of Chapter 1 for general guidelines for writing a journal on a previous or concurrent language learning experience.]

• In your journal, describe any cross-cultural living experiences you have had, even just a brief visit in another country. Describe any feelings of euphoria, uneasiness or stress, and a sense of recovery if you felt such. How did those feeling mesh with any language learning processes?
• Think of one or two languages you're familiar with or you've tried to learn. How do you feel about the people of the culture of that language! Any mixed feelings?
• Look at item 4 on page 203 and write about an example of one or more of Hofstede's categories in your own current or past experiences in language classrooms.
• Do you personally think the spread of English in the colonial era had imperialistic overtones? How can you as an English teacher in this new millennium avoid such cultural imperialism?
• Make a list of words, phrases, or language rules in your foreign language that are good examples of the Whorfian hypothesis. Take two or three of those and write about whether or not you think the language itself shapes the way speakers of that language think or feel.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
CHAPTER 8

CROSS – LINGUISTIC INFLUENCED AND LEARNER LANGUAGE

 
Up to this point in the treatment of principles of second language acquisition, our focus has been on the psychology of language learning. Psychological principles of second language acquisition form the foundation stones for building a comprehensive understanding of the acquisition of the linguistic system. In this chapter we will take a different direction as we begin to examine the most salient component of second language acquisition: the language itself. This treatment will first consider, in historical progression, an era of preoccupation with studies of contrasts between the native language and the target language (contrastive analysis) and the effect of native on target language (now called "cross-linguistic influence"). We will then see how the era of contrastive analysis gave way to an era of error analysis, with its guiding concept of interlanguage, now also widely referred to as "learner language." Finally, questions about the effect of classroom instruction and error treatment will be addressed, with some practical implications for the language teacher.

THE CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS HYPOTHESIS

In the middle of the twentieth century, one of the most popular pursuits for applied linguists was the study of two languages in contrast. Eventually the stockpile of comparative and contrastive data on a multitude of pairs of languages yielded what commonly came to be known as the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (САН). Deeply rooted in the behaviorist and structuralist approaches of the day, the САН claimed that the principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language system with the second language system, and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two languages in question would yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which in turn would enable the linguist to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter.

     It was at that time considered feasible that the tools of structural linguistics, such as Fries s (1952) slot-filler grammar, would enable a linguist to accurately describe the two languages in question, and to match those two descriptions against each other to determine valid contrasts, or differences, between them. Behaviorism contributed to the notion that human behavior is the sum of its smallest parts and components, and therefore that language learning could be described as the acquisition of all of those discrete units. Moreover, human learning theories highlighted interfering elements of learning, concluding that where no interference could be predicted, no difficulty would be experienced since one could transfer positively all other items in a language. The logical conclusion from these various psychological and linguistic assumptions was that second language learning basically involved the overcoming of the differences between the two linguistic systems—the native and target languages.

     Intuitively the САН has appeal in that we commonly observe in second language learners a plethora of errors attributable to the negative transfer of the native language to the target language. It is quite common, for example, to detect certain foreign accents and to be able to infer, from the speech of the learner alone, where the learner comes from. Native English speakers can easily identify the accents of English language learners from Germany, France, Spain, and Japan, for example. Such accents can even be represented in the written word. Consider Mark Twain's The Innocents Abroad (1869: 111), in which the French-speaking guide introduces himself: "If ze zhentlemans will to me make ze grande honneur to me rattain in hees serveece, I shall show to him everysing zat is magnifique to look upon in ze beautiful Paree. I speaky ze Angleesh parfaitmaw”. Or William E. Callahan's Juan Castaniegos, a young Mexican in Afraid of the Dark, who says: "Help me to leave from thees place. But, Senor Capitan, me, I'ave do notheeng. Notheeng, Senor Capitan." These excerpts also capture the transfer of vocabulary and grammatical rules from the native language.