136

Target-language culture in EFL materials

Cem Alptekin

Expressing and interpreting meanings in a given language involves two types of knowledge. Systemic knowledge refers to the forma/properties of language, comprising its syntactic and semantic aspects. Schematic knowledge, on the other hand, is socially acquired. It is an important part of the fit which exists between peoples culture-specific cognition and their native language. In native language learning, the childs schematic knowledge and systemic knowledge develop concurrently. Given what is known about the facilitating effects of familiar schemas (or schemata) on foreign language acquisition, it is most natural for learners to rely on their already established schematic knowledge when developing new systemic knowledge. For this reason, foreign language teaching materials which make use of target-language culture elements to present the systemic data are likely to interfere with this natural tendency. It is argued here that such teaching materials are actually detrimental to foreign language learning for a variety of reasons. The article discusses the problem in question in the context of EFL materials, yet with English as a lingua franca in mind. Pedagogic suggestions are then offered to make smooth transitions from familiar to unfamiliar schemas.

Introduction Culture, aside from its reference to the artefacts of a given community, involves socially acquired knowledge. This knowledge is organized in culture-specific ways which normally frame our perception of reality such that we largely define the world through the filter of our world view. Put differently, schemas, which are cognitive structures through which we interpret information, evolve largely as part of a societys imposition of its own differential view of reality on its individual members. Culture, then, as socially acquired knowledge, can be said to play a central role in cognition.1

Schematic and Widdowson (1990) refers to socially acquired knowledge as schematic systemic knowledge, which he contrasts with systemic knowledge. The latter, in

know/edge his view, is the knowledge of the formal properties of language, involving both its semantic and syntactic systems. In native language learning, the childs schematic and systemic knowledge are said to develop concurrently, each supportive of the other. However, as Widdowson states, the foreign language learning experience is quite different: Here learners have already been socialized into the schematic knowledge associated with their mother tongue: they are initiated into their culture in

ELT Journal Volume 47/2 April 1993 Oxford University Press 1993

the very process of language learning. For example, while a child from the Anglo-American world will normally think of a dog as mans best friend, Middle Eastern children are likely to perceive it as dangerous and dirty. Similarly, whereas the image of the secondary-school teacher in Japan is one of an intelligent, high-status, authoritarian, and humble male, the image of the typical Anglo-American teacher does not necessarily match these traits. It follows that when learners confront uses of the foreign language they are acquiring, their natural inclination is to interpret them in reference to this established association (Widdowson, 1990: 110).

The role of The fit, or consistency, between the culture-specific aspects of cognition schematic and the native language undergoes a substantive degree of conflict when

knowledge in one begins to learn a foreign language. The acquisition process causes language learners schemas to be subjected to novel cultural data whose

acquisition organization for purposes of comprehension and retention becomes difficult or even impossible to achieve. As a case in point, a learner of English who has never resided in the target-language culture will most likely experience problems in processing English systemic data if these are presented through such unfamiliar contexts as, say, Halloween or English pubs. Even if these are explained, the learner may still fail to perceive Halloween or the pub in the same way in which they are normally evoked in the mind of the native speaker of English, as ones natural tendency is to assess a novel stimulus with respect to ones own cultural system. As such, it is possible that the learner in question will react to Halloween or the pub context with less than full comprehension, regardless of how much explanation is provided. And if one cannot fully access the schematic data, one can hardly be expected to learn the systemic data with any ease.

One area where the violation of the fit is shown to influence foreign language learning negatively is that of reading comprehension. It is well- established that readers make use of culture-specific schemas in relating input to what they already know and, consequently, construct the writers intended meaning. When the relevant cultural background assumptions and constructs are missing, however, reading tends to turn into a time- consuming, laborious, and frustrating experience (Brown et al., 1977; Steffensen et al., 1979; Reynolds et al., 1982; Nelson, 1987). In fact, familiarity with the dictionary definition of the lexical items and knowledge of the sentence structures in a text do not seem to be enough for learners to comprehend new information. Wallace (1988) attributes this problem to the learners lack of what she calls cultural competence, that is, a very complex package of beliefs, knowledge, feelings, attitudes and behaviour (Wallace, 1988: 33).

Given that culture plays a major role in cognition, which in turn significantly affects comprehension and interpretation, one of the salient issues in foreign language pedagogy is the determination of the type of schematic input to be presented to the learners. This article aims at discussing target-language culture elements learners often face in EFL

Target-language culture in EFL materials 137

Elements of the target-language

culture in EFL materials

Rationale for using elements of

the target- language culture

Commercial considerations

138

materials, the practical and theoretical rationale for the use of such elements, and the social and psychological problems which ensue. Following the discussion, certain suggestions concerning the use of different types of schematic input in English language teaching are offered, with a view to facilitating the language learning process.

Writing operates in terms of schemas moulded by the social context in which the writer lives. Writers not only construct mental representations of their socially acquired knowledge, but such schematic knowledge also influences their writing in various areas such as the rhetorical organization of a text, audience awareness, topical priorities, etc. Numerous studies in contrastive rhetoric (e.g. Clyne, 1981; Hinds, 1983; Koch, 1983; Kobayashi, 1984; Norman, 1984; Matalene, 1985; Johnstone, 1986; Nishimura, 1986; Connor and Kaplan, 1987; Alptekin, 1988) demonstrate how thinking and writing operate in terms of culture- specific schemas. As a case in point, Clyne (198 1) shows the fundamental contrasts between English rhetorical patterns - which are generally characterized by linearity in the presentation of ideas - and German rhetorical patterns - which are marked not only by digressions, but also digressions from digressions. Similarly, Koch (1983) points out that, unlike Western modes of argumentation, which are based on a syllogistic model of proof, Arabic argumentative prose makes use of repetition as a device for textual cohesion and rhetorical effectiveness. In the same vein, Jenkins and Hinds (1987), speaking of audience awareness skills, indicate that while American business letters are reader oriented, the French ones are writer oriented, and the Japanese ones are oriented to the space between the writer and the reader. Finally, it is no secret that topical priorities change from one culture to another. For example, while the White House seems to be a favourite topic with American EFL textbook writers, the British Royal Family appears to be a popular topic with British EFL writers.

Such examples show that EFL textbook writers, like everyone else, think and compose chiefly through culture-specific schemas. Because native speakers have face validity in EFL circles (Alptekin, 1990; Phillipson, 1990), most textbook writers are native speakers who consciously or unconsciously transmit the views, values, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings of their own English-speaking society - usually the United States or United Kingdom. As such, when learners acquire a new set of English discourse as part of their evolving systemic knowledge, they partake of the cultural system which the set entails.

One reason for EFL textbooks focusing on elements about the American or British culture stems from the fact that it is generally not cost-effective for publishers to set materials in the learners society, as such a decision would cause other learners from other societies not to make use of the materials in question on account of their irrelevance to their own cultures. Furthermore, the schematic focus on the target-language culture may offer a lucrative deal to the writer(s) as well as the publisher in those cases where the textbook is made use of in both EFL and ESL contexts.

Cem Alptekin

Author preference

Target language in its own culture

Problems with the rationale

Lack of experience

Alien modes of behaviour

Another reason is that native-speaker textbook writers, who normally reside in their own Anglo-American culture, find it hard to compose data that go beyond their fit. By contrast, the presentation of the fit through sets of discourse particular to the target language culture is relatively easy and practical. They write about their own culture and in tune with that cultures formal schemas, where they are at home so to speak.

Apart from such mundane matters that affect the determination of the type of schematic input in EFL materials, one witnesses theoretical claims about the necessity of teaching the target language in relation to its own culture. In fact, various sources on the subject repeat the orthodox yet unsubstantiated notion that language and culture are inextricably tied together, and that it is impossible to teach a foreign language without its culture base. Stewart (1982), for instance, regards the target-language culture as an essential feature of every stage of foreign language learning, and asserts that teaching the formal aspects of the foreign language while referring to the native culture of the learner is virtually useless. Valdes (1986: 121) considers the use of the native culture in foreign language teaching a trap, leading to a gross misfit or an impasse. Besides, she claims that it is virtually impossible to teach the foreign language without its cultural content. Byram (1988) generally supports the belief that a language cannot be taught separately from its culture. If this is done, he says, it would lead to a denial of a purported fundamental purpose of language learning, namely, giving learners the opportunity to cope with experience in a different way.

Although practical advantages do exist in teaching and presenting the target language in relation to its own culture, there are several problems associated with this approach as well. To begin with, it forms part of the strange paradox that, while in mother-tongue teaching the clarity of childrens ability to express themselves is emphasized, in foreign language teaching learners are forced to express a culture of which they have scarcely any experience (Brumfit, 1980: 95). Secondly, developing a new identity, or what Byram (1989: 57) calls otherness, as a result of ones sudden exposure to the target-language culture, is likely to cause a split between experience and thought which is conducive to serious socio- psychological problems affecting the learners mental equilibrium negatively. Anomie (Alptekin, 1981), regression (Green, 1977), and schizophrenia (Clarke, 1976; Meara, 1977) are perhaps the worst of such problems in that, among other things, they are associated with reluctance or resistance to learning.

Of course, not all culture-specific schematic knowledge leads to such serious problems. Most often, the effects are more subtle. Edge (1987), for example, points to one such area. He says that the task-based and problem-solving activities which characterize communicative approaches and materials are not value-free modes of behaviour. Rather, they involve Western modes of communication which may not be in harmony with the traditions of some cultures - including learning

Target-language culture in EFL materials 139

conventions. Hence, argues Edge, learners from those cultures cannot learn English properly by behaving in ways which are both alien to their educational culture and proscribed in their daily life. Little wonder then that Chinese EFL teachers, for instance, seem to shy away from communicative procedures and materials (Bumaby and Sun, 1989); Chinese EFL students prefer teacher-centred instruction over task-based learning involving the contribution of peers (Young, 1987). After all, Chinese students are accustomed to simple transfer of information from the teacher and to retaining such data through rote learning.

Ownership of Another problem concerning the use of target-language culture elements language has to do with the fact that such a position equates a language with the

combined uses and usages of its native speakers, thus making them not only its arbiters of well-formedness and appropriacy but, more importantly, its sole owners. Yet, as Paikeday (1985) notes, the notion that the native speaker is the arbiter of well-formedness and appropriacy is incorrect, as there are educated as well as naive native speakers. Differences among such native speakers in matters relating to well- formedness and appropriacy in a given language are only differences of degree. As such, some non-native speakers of the language may be more entitled to arbitrating well-formedness and appropriacy than some putative native speakers. In the case of English in particular, it is virtually impossible to think of its native speakers as the only arbiters of grammaticality and appropriacy and consequently as its sole owners, given the lingua franca status of the language. To cite Smith (1987: 3), English already represents many cultures and it can be used by anyone as a means to express any cultural heritage and any value system. In fact, different norms of communicative competence have evolved for English, including those of indigenized varieties such as Indian English (Kachru, 1985). Hence, rather than indulging in an over-simplification such as the inseparability of language and culture, it would be more realistic to speak of one language which is not always inextricably tied to one particular culture, as is the case with English.

Acknowledgement Finally, the position relating a language and its culture appears to ignore of learners needs the positive effects of familiar schematic knowledge on foreign language

learning. Familiarity with both content and formal schemas enables the learners to place more emphasis on systemic data, as their cognitive processing is not so much taken by the alien features of the target- language background.2 Moreover, familiar schematic knowledge allows the learners to make efficient use of their top-down processing in helping their bottom-up processing in the handling of various language tasks.3 Needless to say, familiarity in this context refers to schemas based chiefly on the learners own culture.

140

Numerous examples exist in the literature, in fact, on how familiar schemas facilitate foreign language acquisition and, in particular, comprehension. Johnson (1982), for instance, shows that, in reading comprehension in the foreign language, syntactic and lexical

Cem Alptekin

simplification can be far less important than familiar content schemas. Similarly, Nunan (1985) suggests that more than the provision of systemic knowledge, what makes a foreign language text easier to process is the learners degree of familiarity with its content schemas. Based on the findings of her own extensive research on the subject, Carrel1 (1987) concludes that good reading comprehension in the foreign language entails familiarity with both content and formal schemas. Winfield and Barnes-Felfeli (1982) stress the cognitive processing difficulties encountered by foreign language learners not only in reading but also in writing activities involving unfamiliar content schemata. In the same vein, Friedlander (1990) indicates that foreign language learners planning and writing are enhanced when they are asked to write on topics related to their native language background. Hinds (1984) points to another interesting aspect of the positive role of familiar schematic knowledge in foreign language learning through his discovery of a relationship between the degree of the learners familiarity with formal schemas in essays and the degree of their ability to retain information from such essays.

Stereotyping What further exacerbates the problem of presentation of the target language in relation to its own culture is the generally stereotypical representation of that culture in much instructional material. Hartmann and Judd (1978), for example, show how many American EFL materials present stereotyped portrayals of men and women (often to the detriment of the latter), through one-sided role allocation, overt put-downs, or simple omissions. Likewise, Clarke and Clarke (1990) point to numerous instances of stereotyping in British EFL materials in areas of gender, race, class, and religion. In general, the authors argue, Britishness seems to be the standard, and cross-cultural perspectives in communication are de- emphasized or denied.4

Pedagogic Language has no function independently of the social contexts in which it implications is used. In the case of English, as a lingua franca, such contexts are as

varied as they are numerous. Similarly, the schematic knowledge of the speakers of such contexts is quite diverse. Hence, to confine English to one of its native settings and, what is worse, to present that setting in a stereotypical manner is not only unrealistic and misleading, but also a disservice to EFL learners in that they are likely to find themselves in the undesirable position of tackling unfamiliar information unnecessarily while trying to cope with novel systemic data.

Instead of diving simplistically into the narrow confines of a given target- language culture, in a manner devoid of comparative insight and critical perspective, EFL writers should try to build conceptual bridges between the culturally familiar and the unfamiliar in order not to give rise to conflicts in the learners fit as he or she acquires English. Such bridges can be built, among other ways, through the use of comparisons as techniques of cross-cultural comprehension or the exploitation of

Target-language culture in EFL materials 141

universal concepts of human experience as reference points for the interpretation of unfamiliar data.

Finally, given that the traditional notion of the communicative competence of the native speaker is no longer adequate as a goal to be adopted in an EFL programme, the transition from familiar to unfamiliar schematic data should not necessarily be thought of as moving from the learners native culture to the culture of the native speaker of English. Even though this still remains a strong option, other options may involve transitions from the learners native culture to the international English of such areas as pop culture, travel culture, and scientific culture, or the culture of one of the indigenized varieties of English (e.g. Indian or Nigerian English).

Received September 1992

Notes 1 Of course, not all knowledge is culturally

determined. Cognition further involves shared non-cultural knowledge as well as non-shared non-cultural knowledge (Hudson, 1980: 77).

2 Content schemas refer to a persons background knowledge of the content area of a piece of discourse. Formal schemata, on the other hand, refer to a persons background knowledge of the organizational structure of a given piece of discourse (Carrel1 and Eisterhold, 1983).

3 Bottom-up or data-driven processing involves activities derived from the nature of an incoming stimulus and nothing else. By contrast, top-down or cognitively driven processing involves activities influenced by factors not present in the stimulus itself. Such factors include the learners general knowledge of the world or logic and inference competencies.

4 Even if textbook writers make serious efforts to eliminate stereotyping by striving for authenticity in the construction of teaching materials, it should not be forgotten that such efforts, in the final analysis, are normally based upon a selection process which is bound to be, at least, partially subjective. Thus, as Nostrand (1989: 50) indicates, the selected texts are not likely to present authentic reality but the writers own artefact.

References Alptekin, C. 1981. Sociopsychological and

pedagogic considerations in L2 acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 15/3: 275-84.

Alptekin, C. 1988. Chinese formal schemata in ESL composition. British Journal of Language Teaching 26/2: 112-15.

Alptekin, C. 1990. A look into the use of native- speaker teachers in EFL programs. TEFL Turkey Reporter l/l: 5-9.

142 Cem Alptekin

Brown, A., S. S. Smiley, J. D. Day, M. A. Townsend, and S. C. Lawton. 1977. Intrusion of a thematic idea in childrens comprehension and retention of stories. Child Development 48:1454-66.

Brumfit, C. J. 1980. Problems and Principles in English Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Burnaby, B. and Y. Sun. 1989. Chinese teachers views of western language teaching: context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly 23/2: 219-38.

Byram, M. 1988. Foreign language education and cultural studies. Language Culture and Curriculum l/l : 15-31.

Byram, M. 1989. Cultural Studies in Foreign Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Carrell, P. L. 1987. Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly 21/3: 461-81.

Carrell, P. L. and J.C. Eisterbold. 1983. Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 17/4: 553-73.

Clarke, J. and M. Clarke. 1990. Stereotyping in TESOL materials, in Harrison, B. (ed.). Culture and the Language Classroom. Hong Kong: Modern English Publications and the British Council.

Clarke, M. A. 1976. Second language acquisition as a clash of consciousness. Language Learning 26/2: 377-90.

Clyne, M. 1981. Culture and discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics 5/1: 61-6.

Connor, U. and R. B. Kaplan (eds.). 1987. Writing Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Edge, J. 1987. From Julian Edge. ELT Journal 41/4: 308-9.

Friedlander, A. 1990. Composing in English: effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language, in Kroll, B. (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the

Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University writing. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Fordham Press. University.

Green, M. F. 1977. Regression in adult learning of a second language. Foreign Language Annals 10/2: 173-83.

Nostrand, H. L. 1989. Authentic texts and cultural authenticity: an editorial. The Modern Language Journal 73/1: 49-52.

Hartman, P. L. and E. L. Judd. 1978. Sexism and TESOL materials. TESOL Quarterly 12/4: 383-93.

Hinds, J. 1983. Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and English. Text 3/2: 183-95.

Hinds, J. 1984. Retention of information using a Japanese style of presentation. Studies in Language 8/1: 45-69.

Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jenkins, S. and J. Hinds. 1987. Business letter writing: English, French and Japanese. TESOL Quarterly 21/2: 327-49.

Nunan, D. 1985. Content familiarity and the perception of textual relationships in second language reading. RELC Journal 16/1 : 43-51.

Paikeday, T. M. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead. Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc.

Phillipson, R. 1990. English Language Teaching and Imperialism. Tronninge, Denmark: Transcultura.

Reynolds, R. E., M. A. Taylor, M. S. Steffensen, L. I. Shirey and R. C. Anderson. 1982. Cultural schemata and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 17: 353-66.

Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1987. Discourse Across Cultures. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, P. 1982. Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly 16/4: 503-16.

Johnstone, B. 1986. Arguments with Khomeini: rhetorical situation and persuasive style in cross- cultural perspective. Text 6/2: 171-87.

Kachru, Y. 1985. Discourse analysis, non-native Englishes and second language acquisition research. World Englishes 4/2: 223-32.

Kobayashi, H. 1984. Rhetorical patterns in English and Japanese. TESOL Quarterly 18/4: 737-8.

Koch, B. J. 1983. Presentation as proof: the language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics 25/1 : 47-60.

Steffensen, M. S., C. Joag-Dev, and R. C. Anderson. 1979. A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly 15: 10-29.

Matalene, C. 1985. Contrastive rhetoric: an American writing teacher in China. College English 47/8: 789-808.

Meara, P. 1977. Schizophrenic symptoms in foreign language learners. Paper given at the BAAL Annual Conference, Colchester.

Nelson, G. L. 1987. Cultures role in reading comprehension: a schema theoretical approach. Journal of Reading 30: 424-9.

Nishimura, Y. K. 1986. Prose-organizing strategies of Japanese college students: contrastive analysis. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 19: 207-18.

Norman, N. 1984. Contrastive analyses of organizational structures and cohesive elements in native and ESL Chinese, English and Spanish

Stewart, S. 1982. Language and culture. USF Language Quarterly 20/3: 7-10.

Valdes, J. M. (ed.) 1986. Culture Bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallace, C. 1988. Learning to Read in a Multicultural Society. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Widdowson, H. G. 1990. Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Winfield, F. E. and P. Barnes-Felfeli. 1982. The effects of familiar and unfamiliar cultural content on foreign language composition. The Modern Language Journal 66/4: 373-8.

Young, R. 1987. The cultural content of TESOL: a review of research into Chinese classrooms. RELC Journal 18/2: 15-30.

The author Cem Alptekin, Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Bogazici University (Istanbul), publishes internationally in the areas of second language learning and teaching, neurolinguistics, and contrastive rhetoric. He has also taught ESL in the United States, and EFL in Turkey and North Cyprus.

Target-language culture in EFL materials 143