20
This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València] On: 17 October 2014, At: 02:23 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Language and Intercultural Communication Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20 Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom Mark Pegrum a a University of Western Australia , Australia Published online: 19 Dec 2008. To cite this article: Mark Pegrum (2008) Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom, Language and Intercultural Communication, 8:2, 136-154, DOI: 10.1080/14708470802271073 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14708470802271073 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

  • Upload
    mark

  • View
    219

  • Download
    3

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]On: 17 October 2014, At: 02:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language and Intercultural CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmli20

Film, Culture and Identity: CriticalIntercultural Literacies for the LanguageClassroomMark Pegrum aa University of Western Australia , AustraliaPublished online: 19 Dec 2008.

To cite this article: Mark Pegrum (2008) Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literaciesfor the Language Classroom, Language and Intercultural Communication, 8:2, 136-154, DOI:10.1080/14708470802271073

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14708470802271073

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in thispublication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

Film, Culture and Identity: CriticalIntercultural Literacies for theLanguage Classroom

Mark PegrumUniversity of Western Australia, Australia

Language teaching in the last 10�15 years has seen a shift away from thecommunicative approach and towards the paradigm of intercultural (communicative)competence. It has also been influenced by a broader educational shift away from anemphasis on print literacy and towards multiliteracies. At the same time, we havewitnessed the rise of interrelated sociocultural and critical discourses which havemade their presence felt, somewhat belatedly, in the areas of Teaching English toSpeakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and Modern Foreign Languages (MFL). Filmis an ideal medium through which to exploit the tools offered by sociocultural andcritical discourses for the exploration of visual literacy and intercultural perspec-tives. Such exploration, it is suggested, should take place with full awareness of thetransformational power of language learning which can, on the one hand, stimulatestudents’ exploration of their own identities and, on the other, help prepare them forglobal citizenship. The model of intercultural literacies proposed here seeks to tietogether these strands of possibility and serve as a practical guide for thepedagogical use of films in language courses. It is, more broadly, applicable tothe use of any nontraditional literacies in developing students’ interculturalcompetence.

Depuis 10 a 15 ans, l’enseignement des langues a connu le revirement d’uneperspective axee sur la communication vers un modele de competence de lacommunication interculturelle. L’enseignement a aussi ete influence par un mouve-ment plus general qui tend a diminuer l’importance de la competence ecrite et adonner plus de poids a des multicompetences linguistiques. En meme temps, nousavons ete temoins de la montee de discours socioculturels et critiques qui sont encorrelation et qui se sont fait sentir avec quelque retard dans le cadre de TeachingEnglish to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) [Enseigner l’anglais a ceux quiparlent une autre langue] et de Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) [Les languesvivantes etrangeres]. Le film est un vehicule ideal pour exploiter les outils que lesdiscours socioculturels et critiques offrent pour l’exploration de la culture visuelle etdes perspectives interculturelles. Une telle exploration, suggerons-nous, devrait sefaire avec la pleine conscience du pouvoir transformationnel de l’apprentissage d’unelangue, qui peut d’un cote stimuler les etudiants a explorer leur propre identite, etd’un autre cote les aider a se preparer pour une citoyennete mondiale. Le modeled’apprentissage interculturel propose ici vise a rassembler ces echantillons depossibilite et servira de guide pratique a l’usage pedagogique de films dans les coursde langue. De facon plus generale, ce modele est applicable a tout apprentissage delangue nontraditionnel pour developper la competence interculturelle des etudiants.

doi: 10.1080/14708470802271073

Keywords: film, intercultural competence, literacy, multiliteracies, trans-formation, citizenship

1470-8477/08/02 136-19 $20.00/0 – 2008 Taylor & FrancisLanguage and Intercultural Communication Vol. 8, No. 2, 2008

136

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

With growing interest in intercultural competence, multiliteracies and theirapplication to language learning, there is a need for a model which canintegrate perspectives from these areas, link them with the sociocultural andcritical approaches which have come to prominence in recent years, andsituate them within a framework of the transformative power of languagelearning in particular and education in general. The aim of this paper, whichhas emerged from the experience of running a French, German and Spanishfilms programme in the UK (described in some detail in Pegrum et al., 2005), isto consolidate these various strands of influence into a single model of ‘criticalintercultural literacies’ to guide more practical aspects of course design.Drawing on the wider literature as well as on other models (Byram, 1997;Guilherme, 2002), which this model is designed to complement rather thansupersede, its rationale is to support syllabus building, materials selection,task construction and assessment, primarily by serving as a reminder of thevariety of intellectual tools available to us as teachers � and which we canmake available to our students.

Critical intercultural literacies may be defined as the skills necessary to helpone ‘‘‘read’’ cultural events and activities’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2003: 274)1 in avariety of media and multimedia formats in one’s own culture and othercultures; to reflect on them critically in light of one’s own previous knowledge,experiences and perspectives; and to use them to reflect critically on one’s ownprevious knowledge, experiences and perspectives (cf. Byram, 1997). Theseskills are crucial for students preparing to head out into today’s increasinglyglobalised world, where countless cultural and subcultural discourses, fromthe subtly dissimilar to the widely divergent, rub against each other with evergreater frequency and intensity, and where the consequences of misreading,miscommunicating and misunderstanding are potentially dire. Conversely,the ability to see one’s own cultural practices in a broader perspective, to learnabout and from other cultures, and to negotiate between cultural worlds, canlead to fulfilment on a personal level, awareness and empowerment on a socialand political level, and a honing of the understanding and tolerance which isso often lacking in the global arena. Through refining their own sense ofidentity as well as exploring their social situatedness, students can prepare fortheir future roles as engaged world citizens.

Changes in Language PedagogyThis model is framed by developments in the areas of language pedagogy

and literacy pedagogy which, though not causally related, are very muchcomplementary. In language pedagogy, recent years have seen a major shiftaway from the model of communicative competence,2 with its emphasis onimitating native speaker models over the course of a long apprenticeshipwhose almost unachievable goal was a seamless integration into a fixed andmonolithic ‘target culture’. In its place, we find a valorisation of the notion ofintercultural (communicative) competence, now a major goal of foreignlanguage education, notably in the European context (Kohonen, 2007: 3�4;Starkey, 2007: 57) but also, for example, in Australia and the USA. Interculturalcompetence de-emphasises the acquisition of a native-like identity and

Film, Culture and Identity 137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

encourages the learner to carve out a ‘third place’ (Kramsch, 1993) from whichhe or she will be able to negotiate and mediate between the native and targetcultures. These cultures, far from being reduced to the four Fs typical of manycommunicative courses � foods, fairs, folklore and statistical facts (asKramsch, 1991: 218 writes of small ‘c’ culture in US foreign languagetextbooks) � are viewed as evolving communities of discourse and practice,always in flux, which invite extensive and intensive exploration. What is more,in the process the learner will come to explore his or her own culture as muchas any foreign culture. Thus, intercultural communicative competenceinvolves a set of skills and practices which are very much situated in themessy real world of cultural flows and mixes. Fostering interculturalcompetence among students is a response to our increasing need to relateto, understand, empathise and communicate with otherness, both internal andexternal (Byram, 1997; Corbett, 2003; Kramsch, 1998; Phipps & Gonzalez,2004).

Intercultural competence, suggest Crozet and Liddicoat (1999), requires atleast three stages of training. Firstly, they argue, culture ‘is not acquiredthrough osmosis’ but ‘must be taught explicitly’ (120), meaning that students’attention must be drawn to cultural schemas and paradigms throughdiscussion and analysis. This stage must be followed by activities requiringcultural comparison, with the aim of helping learners to appreciate that eachculture, including their own, is ‘a valid but ultimately an arbitrary construct,one of many’ (117). These two stages, say Crozet and Liddicoat, are essentiallypreparation for the third stage of intercultural exploration, where the studentbegins to build his or her own ‘third place’ between his/her first linguacultureand the target linguaculture (118).

Changes in LiteracySimilarly, much recent work in the field of literacy, particularly the New

Literacy Studies, has seen a move away from the idea that Literacy is ‘a singlething with a big L and a single Y’ (Street, 1993, cited in Wilson, 2000) andtowards an appreciation of its complexity and social situatedness. Literacy,then, varies from context to context, giving rise to the notion of literacies.Barton and Hamilton (2000: 10�11) identify three ways in which the term mustbe seen as plural: firstly, literacy practices may involve different media andsemiotic systems (such as films or computers); secondly, ‘practices in differentcultures and languages can be regarded as different literacies’; and thirdly,literacy practices may be associated with particular domains of life (such asacademic or workplace literacy). While much of Barton and Hamilton’s workfocuses on the third of these, the first two areas have been highlighted by theNew London Group (NLG) and others (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kist, 2004;Unsworth, 2001) who reject traditional print-based literacy pedagogy with itsfocus on ‘formalised, monolingual, monocultural, and rule-governed forms oflanguage’ (NLG, 2000: 9). Instead, it is argued that there is a need for apedagogy of multiliteracies which takes into account both ‘our culturally andlinguistically diverse and increasingly globalised societies’ as well as ‘the

138 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimediatechnologies’ (NLG, 2000: 9).

Barton and Hamilton’s first point regarding media diversity is thus similarto the NLG’s second, while their second, linguistic and cultural diversity, issimilar to the NLG’s first. It is diversity of media which has been emphasisedin long-running discussions of visual literacy (Sinatra, 1986; Stokes, 2002) and,more recently, discussions of computer, electronic or hypertext literacies(Dudfield, 1999; Kern, 2006; Selber, 2004; Warschauer, 1999, 2003; Wray, 2004).

In short, from an emphasis on culturally bound national print literacy, wehave moved to what Tsui (2005: 42), referring to IT and language, calls ‘globalliteracy skills’. If, as Freire and Macedo (1987) have suggested, literacy is notjust about ‘reading the word’ but ‘reading the world’, the ability to ‘read’ onlyone nation or one community must be seen as severely limiting. If single-mode, single-language, single-culture literacy has ever been entirely sufficient� a debatable point � it is clear that it is now insufficient for increasingnumbers of people in our interconnected world. In its place, we need whatCanagarajah (2003: xi), discussing the emerging world of multilingual andhybrid textuality, calls ‘fluid literacies’. The value of this metaphor is in addingto the pluralisation already inherent in ‘literacies’ the notion of fluidity, whichsuggests not only seepage across ever more permeable boundaries betweennations, communities, languages and cultures, but the possibility of mixingand hybridisation.

A Convergent Goal: Intercultural LiteraciesThere is much shared ground between the goals of intercultural compe-

tence, which prepares learners to negotiate between cultures, and multi-literacies, which prepares learners to ‘read’ and ‘understand’ texts from avariety of media, linguistic and cultural sources. The connection is implicit inthe comments of Henry Giroux who, referring to his concept of bordercrossing, notes that:

. . . citizens need to be multiliterate in ways that not only allow themaccess to new information and media-based technologies, but alsoenable them to be border crossers capable of engaging, learning from,understanding, and being tolerant of and responsible to matters ofdifference and otherness. (Giroux, 2006: 165)

An initial attempt to represent these changes in language pedagogy andliteracy in diagrammatic form might produce the kind of model shown inFigure 1 (see p. 143). Here, parallel moves in both areas are seen as leading tothe notion of intercultural literacies which, situated on the common groundbetween them, opens up a much more (multi)modally and (multi)culturallyfluid concept of literacies.

And yet this model, while not inaccurate, seems incomplete since it makes nomention of the widely discussed critical potential inherent in the notions ofintercultural competence or multiple fluid literacies. Crozet and Liddicoat(2000: 3), for example, writing of language pedagogy, link ‘cross-culturalunderstanding, intercultural and critical communicative competence’, thereby

Film, Culture and Identity 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

making explicit the connection between the intercultural and the critical.Intercultural competence by its very nature entails stepping back from one’sown cultural discourses and practices to enter a third space, which necessarilyfosters critical distance. For this reason, as Starkey (2007: 56) notes, languageeducation with an intercultural focus may well ‘undermine narratives ofcitizenship that promote monolithic, homogenous national identities as thesole possible sense of belonging’. In the contemporary Anglophone world,gripped by terror, allegiances to other languages, other codes, and otherperspectives may be construed as unpatriotic (Pegrum, 2004). Thus, a will-ingness to adopt plural or hybrid identities may not only represent the ultimateform of critical distancing, but may even be seen as an act of subversion.

The link between literacy and critical perspectives was made long ago byFreire (1987: 212�213), who saw reading words as incorporating ‘the readingof the world, that is, the critical understanding of politics in the world’. Muchmore recently, Kern (2000: 54) has suggested that ‘what has now been added tothe teaching of literacy is a greater focus on its sociocultural and criticaldimensions’, while Street has commented that:

. . . [t]he meanings of literacy are not fixed but can be contested. Debatesover the meanings are not just academic issues but part of empower-ment: the power to name and define is crucial to real practices, to policymaking and to design of educational programmes. (Street, 1994: 16)

In brief, issues of literacy, like issues of intercultural competence, touch onissues of power. It is here that critical perspectives may emerge. To viewliteracies as multiple, multilingual, multicultural, situated and fluid is, in itself,to contest and subvert the singularity of dominant cultural approaches tonational print literacy. However, the critical potential inherent in bothintercultural competence and multiliteracies � and by extension in ourcomposite model of intercultural literacies � can be sharpened with the helpof tools derived from those contemporary discourses which, taken together,may be seen as constituting a social and/or critical turn in language teaching.

The Social/Critical TurnThe word ‘turn’ suggests a major change or a significant alteration of

course. The term sociocultural turn or, more commonly, social turn, refers to adramatic shift in recent decades across a range of disciplines. In all cases, therehas been a move away from a focus on individual behaviour and mindstowards a focus on social and cultural factors (Gee, 2000: 180). The NewLiteracy Studies are part of this turn (Gee, 2000: 180; cf. Barton, 1994: 6, 25) asis, arguably, the move in language pedagogy towards intercultural commu-nicative competence.

According to Zuengler and Miller (2006a: 37), important ‘recent arrivals tothe field of SLA � sociocultural perspectives on language and learning � viewlanguage use in real-world situations as fundamental, not ancillary, tolearning’.3 While not necessarily entailing a rejection of cognitive approaches,the social turn does require these to be complemented by a focus on thehitherto often neglected social and cultural contexts of learning (Zuengler &

140 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

Miller, 2006b: 827). It might be said that the social turn represents a realisationthat ‘the political, cultural, and social dimensions of [ . . .] language teachingare embedded in each and every decision we make’ (Hall & Eggington, 2000:1) and that we, as teachers, ‘are part of complex social, economic, and politicalrelations that flow back and forth through our classroom walls’ (Pennycook,2000: 95).4

Sometimes greater emphasis is placed on critical approaches, as in a seminalspecial issue of the TESOL Quarterly edited by Pennycook, where he promotes‘a vision of critical approaches to Teaching English to Speakers of OtherLanguages (TESOL) that sees them not as simple recipes for implementingcertain political agendas but rather as complex clusters of social, cultural,political, and pedagogical concerns’ (Pennycook, 1999: 346). This critical turnhas been described by Kumaravadivelu (2006: 74) as an ‘ongoing shift fromsystemic discovery to critical discourse’. He explains:

During the 1990s, the TESOL profession took a decidedly critical turn. Itis probably one of the last academic disciplines in the field of humanitiesand social sciences to go critical. Simply put, the critical turn is aboutconnecting the word with the world. It is about recognizing language asideology, not just as system. It is about extending the educational spaceto the social, cultural, and political dynamics of language use, not justlimiting it to the phonological, syntactic, and pragmatic domains oflanguage usage. It is about realizing that language learning and teachingis more than learning and teaching language. It is about creating thecultural forms and interested knowledge that give meaning to the livedexperiences of teachers and learners (Kumaravadivelu, 2006: 70).

It can thus be seen that the social and critical turn(s) are closely interrelated.Bringing social and cultural aspects into focus means, by extension, adopting acritical approach to the power issues that inevitably come into view when anyactivity, including language learning, is situated in this way. This turn isinformed by a number of recent discourses: a mixed bag of epistemologies,learning theories, pedagogical approaches and research paradigms, all ofwhich contribute their own analytical tools and insights. Key examples aresketched out below.

Among the best-known contemporary educational discourses is theappropriately named social constructivism. With a heritage stretching back toDewey and progressivism, and drawing heavily on the work of Vygotsky,contemporary constructivism links individual activities with their social andcultural contexts (Maybin, 2000: 198), foregrounding the role of language inconstructing our mental representations of the external world (Barton, 1994:17). It also valorises learners’ pre-existing knowledges and multiple perspec-tives, viewing students as resources for their own and each other’s learning(Kohonen, 2007: 12).

Certain parallels may be found in the ecological approach to languagelearning which, drawing on the legacy of Vygotsky et al. (van Lier, 2000),‘compels us to reconceptualize learning as always and everywhere contextua-lized’ (Lantolf, 2000: 24�25). Insisting on foregrounding learners’ complex,changing identities in its holistic approach to the classroom (Tudor, 2003), this

Film, Culture and Identity 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

in turn has much in common with the insistence on particularity of contextargued for by Kumaravadivelu (2003) in his postmethod pedagogy. In this area,we might also include the work of Stephen Bax (2003, 2006), for whomcommunicative language teaching is deficient because, like most methods, itfails to adequately consider context. Bax (2006) proposes instead a contextapproach, described as ‘a technology which tries to focus our attention on theecology’, and where context includes everything from learners’ culturalpreferences through syllabus requirements to community attitudes and eventhe weather (Bax, 2006). In other words, it represents the broadest possibleconception of layers of influence on learners in the language classroom.

While a critical orientation is far from absent in the social discoursesconsidered so far, it is perhaps more readily apparent among those whichcarry the modifier ‘critical’ or the prefix ‘post-’ in their titles. The postmodernistfocus on the role of language in constructing reality (Foucault, 1972, 1980) andshaping conceptions of the normal and the marginal highlights the creationand perpetuation of power differences, as do the many discourses which findinspiration in its broad church. These include critical discourse analysis (Fair-clough, 1995; Locke, 2004) with its view of ‘language as a form of socialpractice’ (Fairclough, 2001: 18), as well as critical literacy (Lankshear, 1997;Luke, 2000; Muspratt et al., 1997), which similarly views language as a culturalconstruct and focuses on ‘the relationships among texts, language, power andsociety’ (Lima, 2007). In so doing, it fosters students’ ‘ability to read resistantlyand write critically’ (Hammond & Macken-Horarik, 1999: 529).5 Somewhatearlier, we find the pedagogy of Freire who, in the avant-garde of the socialturn, saw literacy ‘as a relationship of learners to the world [and] as a form ofcultural politics’ (Kern, 2000: 36). Freire was an important forerunner of criticalpedagogy which, seeking to integrate a Freirean ethos with postmodernperspectives, ‘forges critique and agency through a language of scepticismand possibility’ (Giroux, 2006: 168) and has important applications in languageteaching (Norton & Toohey, 2004; Phipps & Guilherme, 2004; Tomic, 2000). Itmight be said that all of these approaches, their differences notwithstanding,aim to give students the tools with which to dissect and analyse the textswhich shape their world, and ultimately to (re)construct their own texts � andtheir own worlds. They are further complemented by the approachesvariously taken within the interdisciplinary field of cultural studies � rangingfrom literary criticism to popular culture studies, and from gender studies toqueer studies � which make use of Marxist, feminist, queer, poststructuralist,deconstructionist and other lenses through which to better examine thediscourses which compose our textual environments.6

Some of the above discourses, perhaps most obviously those labelled ascritical, serve largely to raise students’ awareness of textual constructs ofdominance and offer them access to what Auerbach (1997) has called the voicesof power � the dominant linguistic and cultural codes, or literacies, which willgive them a voice among the powerful, nationally and internationally. At thesame time, many discourses place equal or even greater emphasis onpromoting what Auerbach calls the power of voices � encouraging students todevelop their own individual voices and advocating a multiplicity of literaciesagainst the hegemony of dominant literacies. In reality, such approaches are

142 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

rarely exclusive (Pennycook, 1999: 339)7 but represent two ends of acontinuum. As Auerbach herself concludes, both are necessary to meet thegreater aim of social transformation.

TransformationCritical awareness is of little value if it does not lead to change. If, as seen,

critical potential is already implicit in intercultural literacies, it is equally truethat transformative potential is implicit in all of the social and criticaldiscourses described above. For example, an ecological approach, argues Barton(1994: 32), ‘examines the social and mental embeddedness of human activitiesin a way which allows change’.8 Critical discourse analysis, writes Locke (2004:2), has a ‘socially transformative agenda’. Critical pedagogy, says Guilherme(2002: 22), entails ‘a reformulation of the teacher’s role into an intellectual andtransformative one’.

Language learning is also viewed by many as having great transformativepotential (Lo Bianco, 1999: 62) � the potential, that is, to ‘enable learners toachieve control over their lives’ (Ellis, 2003: 331). Stress has been placed on theneed for teachers to function as ‘transformative intellectuals’ (Kumaravadi-velu, 2003: 13�17), to ‘connect [ ] their work to larger social issues’ (Giroux,2006: 166) and to realise that ‘[t]he view of our classroom walls as permeablemeans that what we do in our classrooms is about changing the worlds we livein’ (Pennycook, 2000: 102). Canagarajah puts it this way:

Rather than developing mastery in a ‘target language’, we should strivefor competence in a repertoire of codes and discourses. Rather thansimply joining a speech community, we should teach students to shuttlebetween communities. Not satisfied with teaching students to becontext-sensitive, we should teach them to be context-transforming.(Canagarajah, 2003: xiii, italics added; cf. Canagarajah, 2006: 210�211)

If language learning in particular and education in general are potentiallytransformative experiences, and if the social and critical discourses discussedalso aim at transformation, it makes sense to link up these various threads andreplace the limited model in Figure 1 with the augmented version in Figure 2.Framed by our original considerations of intercultural competence andmultiliteracies (in black), the discourses composing the social and criticalturn can be seen as providing tools for accessing the voices of power and

Language pedagogy Literacies

Communicative competence Printliteracy

Nationalliteracy

Intercultural competence Multi-literacies

Globalliteracy

Interculturalliteracies

Figure 1 A model of intercultural literacies

Film, Culture and Identity 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

promoting the power of voices (in grey). With the aid of these discourses,which feed into our original concept of intercultural literacies, we can drawout and specifically promote the notion of transformation implicit in all of theabove.

Transformation of Citizenship and IdentityWhen Guilherme (2002: 15) makes explicit the ‘link between the promotion

of critical cultural awareness and citizenship education’, she is tapping into abroader trend towards an emphasis on cosmopolitan citizenship based onhuman rights (Starkey, 2007). This is a postnational concept of citizenship. Itlends itself to promotion in the language classroom, as Byram and Cebronindicate:

. . . the community which is implied in citizenship education is that ofthe locality or, at the widest level, of the country in which one lives. Forthe language teacher and learner, however, the sense of community isinternational and thus there is a potential for the active interculturalcitizen to engage with people of an international community. (Byram &Cebron, 2006: 6)

Languagepedagogy Critical approaches Literacies

Communicativecompetence

Social turn Critical turn Print

literacyNationalliteracy

Interculturalcompetence

Voices ofpower

Power ofvoices

Multi-literacies

Globalliteracy

Interculturalliteracies

Soc

ial c

onst

ruct

ivis

mP

ostm

etho

d pe

dago

gy

Eco

logi

cal a

ppro

ach

Fre

irean

ped

agog

yC

ritic

al p

edag

ogy

Crit

ical

dis

cour

sean

alys

isC

ritic

al li

tera

cyC

ultu

ral s

tudi

esP

ost m

oder

nism

TRANSFORMATION

Figure 2 A model of critical intercultural literacies9

144 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 11: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

Similarly, Starkey suggests that ‘[i]ntercultural citizenship education needs tobe based on understandings of citizenship in terms of multiple identitiesand wider loyalties’ (57). There is no doubt that there is still much work to bedone � in language classrooms as elsewhere � to promote this emerging visionof citizenship.

Meanwhile, some of the most promising current research reflecting thesocial turn concerns learner identities (Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge,2004b), seen as ‘constituted through and by language’ (Ricento, 2005: 895). Thisfits with the aforementioned ecological view of the irredeemable complexity ofthe language classroom and all those who inhabit it. It recognises, further, that‘an investment in the target language is also an investment in a learner’s ownidentity, an identity which is constantly changing across time and space’(Norton, 2000: 11). Issues of power are central, as Pavlenko and Blackledgeremind us:

. . . individuals are agentive beings who are constantly in search of newsocial and linguistic resources which allow them to resist identities thatposition them in undesirable ways, produce new identities, and assignalternative meanings to the links between identities and linguisticvarieties. (Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004a: 27)

Many students, as late adolescents, are engaged in self-exploration and self-discovery. Many older students, who are learning a language because ofchanging life circumstances or wishes, are engaged in the same processes. Theleast we can do as educators is provide linguacultural input which offers themexposure to a wide variety of (other) ways of being.

The exploration of personal identity may seem somewhat removed from thedevelopment of global citizenship. And yet they are part of a singlecontinuum: as learners explore their identities and come to understand theirsocial situatedness, they will soon perceive the connections between them-selves, their native cultural practices, alternative cultural practices, and thewider world. In other words, identity negotiation may be situated within acosmopolitan vision. Giroux (2006: 174) observes that language is ‘the site inwhich people negotiate the most fundamental elements of their identities, therelationship between themselves and others, and their relationship to thelarger world’. In language education, the transformation of identity can thusbe linked to a transforming notion of intercultural global citizenship.

Teaching with FilmIf, as Dudfield (1999), has commented, ‘[n]ew literacies represent a new

language of power’ then it is essential that students are given exposure tothese while learning skills for interpreting and reworking them. Moreover, wemust engage with ‘screen culture, popular culture, the Internet’ and newmedia in general since, as Giroux and others have argued, these are the ‘newsites of education’, ‘sites in which people often learn, unlearn, or simply do notget the knowledge and skills that prepare them to become critical agents’(Giroux, 2006: 171�172). Film, as an enormously widespread and popularcultural medium � if frequently an under-analysed one � is an ideal context

Film, Culture and Identity 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 12: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

for exploring and developing visual literacy. At the same time, foreign film10 inparticular is a vehicle for exploring intercultural literacy, since it is one of themeans through which we may regularly encounter other cultural discourses. Itis important to introduce students to the ‘stories another culture tells aboutitself’ (Berman cited in Kern, 2000: 21); as Kern later points out: ‘Through ourstories we tell the world not ‘‘as it is’’ but rather as we see it, or as we wouldlike to see it, or as we would like others to see it’ (99). The visual medium offilm, which seamlessly entwines language, culture and context, is a good placeto start ‘looking’ through the lenses of other cultures. It is a good place to startto ‘read the world’. Moreover, while it may be most obviously relevant toforeign, second and heritage language classrooms, foreign film can also beuseful in first language classrooms, opening up new perspectives through theintroduction of discourses which contrast with those of the dominant locallinguaculture(s).

The study of films can be usefully informed by social discourses whichremind us that all texts are situated, and critical discourses which remind usthat all readings are partial (Lima, 2007), thus leading us to develop a criticalapproach involving distancing, problematisation and analysis. Educators canborrow these tools to enhance students’ awareness of difference, improve theiranalytical abilities, deepen their comprehension, and broaden their views ofother cultural discourses and practices � as well as of the discourses andpractices which surround them on a daily basis. The result of such a reflectivecycle may be the exploration of one’s own identity and the building of theskills needed for the intercultural interactions which underpin cosmopolitancitizenship. In short, foreign films surely have a place in any language learningprogramme.

Films can be read closely or in a larger frame view. Research in discourseanalysis � specifically, conversation analysis and pragmatics � has very clearlyshown up the ‘nexus language/culture [ . . .] in verbal interaction’ (Crozet &Liddicoat, 2000: 5). Where better to examine this than in film, with its fullsociocultural frame, where contextualised dialogue is accompanied by imagesof facial expressions and gestures � of speakers as well as listeners who arereacting to them? Transcripts can be analysed in detail as temporarily frozenlinguistic excerpts which, once examined, can be (re)viewed within thenarrative flow of the film. This is an ideal way of ‘sensitizing [students] todiscourse practices in other societies and to the ways those discourse practicesboth reflect and create cultural norms’ (Kern, 2000: 2).

On the other hand, it is important to avoid giving the impression that thetarget culture is a monolithic entity, that we are setting one unitary nationalculture against another, or one standardised national literacy against another.Students should be provided with sufficiently rich and varied material toenable them to see that each so-called ‘culture’ is divided against itself incountless ways, an insight which of course applies in equal measure to theirnative culture(s). Thus, films could be chosen to introduce both mainstreamand marginal voices. The banter of bourgeois Paris can be balanced with theverlan of the burning banlieux;11 Castilian can rub shoulders with Catalan orwith Mexican Spanish; pre-unification East Germany can meet the West onequal terms. Students can begin to investigate the dialectic between these

146 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 13: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

voices and reflect simultaneously on the linguistic, social and culturaldivisions and differences in their own environment.

Different lenses for analysis can be adopted to draw out different aspects ofthe films under consideration. For example, an analysis of the function of theepic genre across cultures could lead to questions about which individuals,ethnic groups or nations are currently producing such films, for whichaudiences and for what purposes. Parallel to this spatial analysis, a temporalanalysis might see movies with strong political or social texts and subtextsevaluated in relation to their sociohistorical moments as well as the presentmoment. Popular movies lend themselves to rereading from alternativestandpoints. Drawing on cultural studies paradigms such as gender studiesor queer studies, students could elect to analyse a film on the basis of genderrelations or sexual orientations. They could equally focus on race and ethnicity,or attitudes to the environment. Comparison with popular movies in students’own native culture(s) could lead to interesting insights about similarities,differences and, perhaps most tellingly, the differences which may underliesuperficial sameness.

Approaches which focus on power differentials � from critical literacy topostmodernism � provide lenses for examining the inherent biases in thetextuality of one’s own and other cultures. In learning a language, as Nortonwrites:

. . . [s]peakers need to struggle to appropriate the voices of others, and to‘bend’ those voices to their own purposes. Further, what others say, thecustomary discourse of any particular community, may privilege ordebase certain speakers. (Norton, 2006: 26�27)

As an outsider, it may be easier to analyse this in other cultures � and onlythen to draw comparisons with one’s own culture, finding points ofcongruence and divergence. Once students become more practised andconfident at analysis, they might be directed towards deconstructive analyses,which can be very engaging as well as opening up challenging and sometimesdisturbing new terrain. Such analyses remind us that it is always possible toread a text with or against the grain. The tools provided by today’s social andcritical discourses can help students learn to do both simultaneously.

Students could also reflect on the situatedness of film, and the reception ofparticular types of films � the Hollywood mainstream as opposed to European‘art’ films, for instance, or for that matter Bollywood or Hong Kong films � intheir own communities. If a community literacy event such as a film viewing isrevealing of underpinning literacy practices,12 which in turn are ‘purposefuland embedded in broader social goals and cultural practices’ (Barton &Hamilton, 2000: 8), what does this reveal about their own culture and itsattitudes to alterity? It is particularly important to ask such questions if, asMaybin (2000: 207) argues, ‘literacy events are part of a continual constructionand negotiation of identity for people in different kinds of groups andcommunities’.

Of course, cinematic representations themselves may be very powerful, ashas often been argued by film critics. Belton (1996: 2), writing of the USA,notes that films ‘not only serve as texts that document who we think we are or

Film, Culture and Identity 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 14: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

were, but also reflect changes in our self-image’. If we accept this view, it is allthe more essential to expand the range of cinematic representations � oflanguage, society and culture � to which students have access. As arguedpreviously (Pegrum et al., 2005), overreliance on one dominant film industryresults in the foreclosing of other ‘filmic, formal, political, and social’possibilities (Jameson, 1998: 62). It is useful to discuss with students fromoutside the US (and indeed from outside the US mainstream) what might belost and what might be gained by broadening the repertoire of films, and whatthe current limited focus on one culture’s films � and that culture’s depictionsof their own culture � signifies in linguistic, societal and cultural terms.Similar questions might be asked about an overreliance, more broadly, onAnglophone films, or on films which present stereotypical views of theOther.

It is relatively more difficult to see the margins from the centre: for those inthe heartland of US cinema to see and hear other Anglophone cultures; forthose in the Anglophone heartland of the international culture industry to seeand hear non-Anglophones; for those in metropolitan France to see and hearFrancophone Africa; for those in the wealthy suburbs of Madrid to see thoseon its outskirts; for nationals of a unified Germany to see the traces of East(and West) in their own past. This brings us full circle, albeit on another level,to an idea presented already: that all walks of life can, and should, berepresented in film choices. Globalisation is equally about glocalisation, theresurgence of the local through global distribution channels. Film is one ofthose distribution channels we can exploit to bring varying cultural andsubcultural discourses into the language classroom.

All of the above suggestions are partial pathways. There can be nopedagogical script for lessons which, through film or any other media, aimto promote critical intercultural literacies. This echoes the view of Phipps andGonzalez, who state:

. . . we do not believe there are universally applicable methods ortheories � other than the necessity of constantly working with andagainst the grain of the people who come to learn with us, and of theactual places � cultures and societies and material environments inwhich learning occurs. (Phipps & Gonzalez, 2005: 298)

As with films themselves, it is a case of working with and against the grain ofour students, giving them material to reflect on and lenses through which toreflect on it; challenging them to make connections across literacies and acrosscultures; encouraging them to explore their own identities in the process; andasking them questions about their perceived place in the global order. Toprescribe a single method or set of methods would be to limit the possibilities.We must begin with the material at hand: films on the one hand, with all theircomplex layers of linguistic and cultural history and influences, and ourstudents on the other hand, with their equally complex layers of linguisticand cultural history and influences. It is about opening up rather thanclosing down conversations, but the ultimate outcome must remain unknown(Phipps & Gonzalez, 2005: 299) and may well be different for every individual(Kramsch, 1993: 257).

148 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 15: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

ConclusionStreet (1994: 15) comments that learning literacy practices is not only about

learning technical skills, but about ‘taking on particular identities associatedwith them’. If our students learn to watch foreign language in addition toAnglophone films, if they begin to deconstruct the images of themselves andothers they find in the dominant media, if they begin to seek out and respondto alternative images of themselves and others in non-American and non-Anglophone media, then they will have at their disposal a far wider and moresubtle range of tools for (re)constructing their identities and conceptualisingtheir place in the world. Such critical and cultural awareness might, inturn, lead to more productive and transformative intercultural encounters(Guilherme, 2002: 55), involving ‘active citizens’ who are able to ‘responsiblyengage the new emerging structures and to consciously intervene in theshaping of history’ (Guilherme, 2002: 55). In this way, some of thetransformative potential of language learning may be realised, on anindividual level as well as on the level of global citizenship.

Film cannot and should not be seen as an answer to all our linguistic,cultural and critical needs. It may however have a role to play in guidingstudents to a point where they are better able to make sense of the web oftextuality which envelops them. This may in turn give them more options forshaping their own textual self-representations and, ultimately, aspects of theiridentities, linguistic and non-linguistic.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to Linda Hartley and Veronique Wechtler, both of theUniversity of Dundee, for their collaboration on the original research under-pinning this article. I am also very grateful to Alison Phipps, of the Universityof Glasgow, for her invaluable comments on an earlier draft of this piece, aswell as to an anonymous reader from LAIC for a number of insightfulsuggestions. Finally, thanks are due to Micheline van der Beken for her helpwith the French translation of the abstract.

CorrespondenceAny correspondence should be directed to Mark Pegrum, University of

Western Australia, Australia ([email protected])

Notes1. Kumaravadivelu (2003) does not use the term ‘critical intercultural literacies’, but

he makes the quoted comment in the course of a discussion of ‘Critical CulturalConsciousness’.

2. Despite a widespread tendency to associate ‘communicative competence’ primar-ily with spoken language, and ‘literacy’ primarily with written language, a broaderview is taken here. Both communicative competence and literacy are seen asencompassing spoken as well as written communication; and both, but especiallyliteracy, may also include nonlinguistic communication.

3. In a later reply to comments on their article, Zuengler and Miller (2006b: 827) pointout that they mean ‘sociocultural’ not in the more limited sense of Vygotskian

Film, Culture and Identity 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 16: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

research but in the broader sense of a range of approaches which emphasise socialand cultural factors in learning.

4. Hall and Eggington (2000) do not refer directly to a sociocultural or social turn, buttheir collected volume is itself part of this shift. Pennycook’s essay forms part ofHall and Eggington’s collection.

5. Although Hammond and Macken-Horarik (1999: 529) focus on written text, theyacknowledge that others adopt broader definitions of critical literacy ‘thatincorporate[s] talk as well as engagement with other semiotic systems’.

6. It is worth noting that in her Interdisciplinary Model for Teaching/LearningForeign Cultures, Guilherme (2002) includes the three macrodivisions of inter-cultural communication, critical pedagogy and cultural studies, the last of whichcovers areas such as literary criticism, popular culture, media studies and genderstudies. It is not clear that the three macrodivisions are of the same order; rather,they seem to function to indicate broad tendencies within an overall interdisci-plinary convergence, in much the same way that the various approaches we haveassociated with the social/cultural turn are broadly complementary, if notnecessarily of one level.

7. Pennycook does not use Auerbach’s terminology, but rather refers to ‘access’(Auerbach’s voices of power) and ‘voice’ (power of voices) models. Auerbach’sterminology has been adopted, notably, by Warschauer (1999: 170�171), who alsoargues that the two aspects cannot be easily separated (Warschauer, 2002: 71).

8. Barton is in fact writing of an ecological approach to literacy rather than languageteaching, but his concept has much in common with that promoted by Tudor orBax.

9. It should be noted that this model is designed to be inclusive, incorporating all keyelements, but makes no claim about the relative importance of the elements.Indeed, it is highly likely that their importance relative to each other will vary fromcontext to context.

10. Of course, many contemporary films are transnational productions with multi-lingual and multicultural teams of directors, producers, actors, technicians and soforth. Here, the term ‘foreign film’ is used loosely to refer to any film which,relative to a particular viewer, makes substantial use of a foreign language orlanguages, and/or is presented from a foreign cultural perspective. Nevertheless,taking into account internal differences within national cultures as well as theincreasing rate of cultural flows between nations, it must be recognised that theterm can only be approximate. Indeed, a case could easily be made for differingdegrees of foreignness in film.

11. Verlan refers to the slang which has become widespread among youth in thebanlieux, or suburbs, of cities such as Paris, where there has been significant unrestin recent years. This was notably captured in Mathieu Kassovitz’s 1995 La Haine.

12. Barton and Hamilton (2000) define a ‘literacy event’ as an activity ‘where literacyhas a role’ (8), while ‘[l]iteracy practices are the general cultural ways of utilisingwritten language which people draw upon in their lives’ (7). Literacy events arethus observable events which can help to reveal the underlying literacy practices ofa community. While Barton and Hamilton focus on written texts, our focus herehas been broadened to include visual and other literacies.

References

Auerbach, E. (1997) The power of voices or the voices of power? Keynote address deliveredat Community-based Approaches to Adult Education Conference, Honolulu,Hawaii, August.

Barton, D. (1994) Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford:Blackwell.

150 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 17: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (2000) Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton and R.Ivanic (eds) Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7�15). London:Routledge.

Bax, S. (2003) The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal 57(3), 278�287.

Bax, S. (2006) Rethinking methodology? The role of context. Paper delivered at 19th AnnualEnglish Australia Conference, Perth. On WWW at http://www.englishaustralia.com.au/ea_conference2006/ proceedings/pdf/Bax.pdf. Accessed 17.4.2007.

Belton, J. (1996) Introduction. In J. Belton (ed.) Movies and mass culture (pp. 1�22). NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Clevedon,UK: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. and Cebron, N. (2006) Language teaching and education for citizenship: Anexperiment. CALL Review Spring, 5�9.

Canagarajah, S. (2003) Foreword. In G. Smitherman and V. Villanueva (eds) Languagediversity in the classroom: From intention to practice (pp. ix�xiv). Carbondale,IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Canagarajah, S. (2006) An interview with Suresh Canagarajah. [With R. Rubdy and M.Saraceni.] In R. Rubdy and M. Saraceni (eds) English in the world: Global rules, globalroles (pp. 200�211). London: Continuum.

Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (eds) (2000) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design ofsocial futures. London: Routledge.

Corbett, J. (2003) An intercultural approach to English language teaching. Clevedon, UK:Multilingual Matters.

Crozet, C. and Liddicoat, A.J. (1999) The challenge of intercultural language teaching:Engaging with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat and C. Crozet(eds) Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence through language education(pp. 113�125). Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.

Crozet, C. and Liddicoat, A.J. (2000) Teaching culture as an integrated part of language:Implications for the aims, approaches and pedagogies of language teaching. In A.J.Liddicoat and C. Crozet (eds) Teaching languages, teaching cultures (pp. 1�18).Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.

Dudfield, A. (1999) Literacy and cyberculture. Reading Online. On WWW at http://www.readingonline.org/articles/dudfield/main.html. Accessed 17.4.2007.

Ellis, R. (2003) Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London:Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2001) Language and power (2nd edn). Harlow: Longman.Foucault, M. (1972) The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972�1977

(Trans. C. Gordon). Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.Freire, P. (1987) Letter to North-American teachers. In I. Shor (ed.) Freire for the classroom:

A sourcebook for liberatory teaching (pp. 211�214). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (1987) Literacy: Reading the word and the world. London:

Routledge.Gee, J.P. (2000) The new literacy studies: From ‘socially situated’ to the work of the

social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton and R. Ivanic (eds) Situated literacies: Reading andwriting in context (pp. 180�196). London: Routledge.

Giroux, H. (2006) Is there a role for critical pedagogy in language/culture studies? Aninterview with Henry A. Giroux. [With M. Guilherme.] Language and InterculturalCommunication 6 (2), 163�175.

Guilherme, M. (2002) Critical citizens for an intercultural world: Foreign language educationas cultural politics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Film, Culture and Identity 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 18: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

Hall, J.K. and Eggington, W.G. (2000) Introduction. In J.K. Hall and W.G. Eggington(eds) The sociopolitics of English language teaching (pp. 1�4). Clevedon, UK: Multi-lingual Matters.

Hammond, J. and Macken-Horarik, M. (1999) Critical literacy: Challenges andquestions for ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 33 (3), 528�544.

Jameson, F. (1998) Notes on globalization as a philosophical issue. In F. Jameson and M.Miyoshi (eds) The cultures of globalization (pp. 54�77). Durham, NC: Duke UniversityPress.

Kern, R. (2000) Literacy and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kern, R. (2006) Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL

Quarterly 40 (1), 183�210.Kist, W. (2004) New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple media. New York:

Teachers’ College Press.Kohonen, V. (2007) Developing foreign language education through transformative

growth. Humanising Language Teaching 9(1). On WWW at http://www.hltmag.co.uk/jan07/mart01.htm. Accessed 17.4.2007.

Kramsch, C. (1991) Culture in language learning: A view from the United States. In K.de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg and C. Kramsch (eds) Foreign language research in cross-culturalperspective (pp. 217�240). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Kramsch, C. (1998) The privilege of the intercultural speaker. In M. Byram and M.Fleming (eds) Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through dramaand ethnography (pp. 16�31). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006) TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends.TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 59�81.

Lankshear, C. (1997) Changing literacies. [With J.P. Gee, M. Knobel and C. Searle.] MiltonKeynes, UK: Open University Press.

Lantolf, J.P. (2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Socioculturaltheory and second language learning (pp. 1�26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lima, C. (2007) Critical literacy and English language education. IATEFL Voices 195, 2.Lo Bianco, J. (1999) A syntax of peace? Pragmatic constraints of language teaching and

pragmatics in language learning. In J. Lo Bianco, A.J. Liddicoat and C. Crozet (eds)Striving for the third place: Intercultural competence through language education(pp. 51�63). Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia.

Locke, T. (2004) Critical discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Luke, A. (2000) Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint. Journal

of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (5), 448�461.Maybin, J. (2000) The new literacy studies: Context, intertextuality and discourse. In D.

Barton, M. Hamilton and R. Ivanic (eds) Situated literacies: Reading and writing incontext (pp. 197�209). London: Routledge.

Muspratt, S., Luke, A. and Freebody, P. (eds) (1997) Constructing critical literacies:Teaching and learning textual practice. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Norton, B. (2000) Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change.Harlow, UK: Longman.

Norton, B. (2006) Identity as a sociocultural construct in second language education. InK. Cadman and K. O’Regan (eds) Tales out of school: Identity and English languageteaching (pp. 22�33). TESOL in Context: Journal of ACTA. Special Edition.

Norton, B. and Toohey, K. (eds) (2004) Critical pedagogies and language learning.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. (2004a) Introduction: New theoretical approachesto the study of negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts. In A. Pavlenko and

152 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 19: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

A. Blackledge (eds) Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts (pp. 1�33).Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pavlenko, A. and Blackledge, A. (eds) (2004b) Negotiation of identities in multilingualcontexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Pegrum, M. (2004) And on the eighth day: The struggle for linguistic organization. Badsubjects: Political education for everyday life 65. On WWW at http://bad.eserver.org/issues/2004/65/pegrum.html. Accessed 17.4.2007.

Pegrum, M., Hartley, L. and Wechtler, V. (2005) Contemporary cinema in languagelearning: From linguistic input to intercultural insight. Language Learning Journal 32,55�62.

Pennycook, A. (1999) Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. In A. Pennycook (ed.)Critical approaches to TESOL. Special issue of TESOL Quarterly 33 (3), 329�348.

Pennycook, A. (2000) The social politics and the cultural politics of languageclassrooms. In J.K. Hall and W.G. Eggington (eds) The sociopolitics of English languageteaching (pp. 89�103). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Phipps, A. and Gonzalez, M. (2004) Modern languages: Learning and teaching in anintercultural field. London: Sage.

Phipps, A. and Gonzalez, M. (2005) Future directions for modern languages in thehigher education landscape: An interview with Alison Phipps and Mike Gonzalez.[With V. Crosbie.] Language and Intercultural Communication 5 (3&4), 294�303.

Phipps, A. and Guilherme, M. (eds) (2004) Critical pedagogy: Political approaches tolanguage and intercultural communication. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Ricento, T. (2005) Considerations of identity in L2 learning. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbookof research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 895�910). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Selber, S.A. (2004) Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, IL: Southern IllinoisUniversity Press.

Sinatra, R. (1986) Visual literacy connections to thinking, reading, and writing. Springfield,IL: C.C. Thomas.

Starkey, H. (2007) Language education, identities and citizenship: Developing cosmo-politan perspectives. Language and Intercultural Communication 7 (1), 56�71.

Stokes, S. (2002) Visual literacy in teaching and learning: A literature perspective.Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education 1 (1), 10�19. On WWWat http://ejite.isu.edu/Volume1No1/pdfs/ stokes.pdf. Accessed 17.4.2007.

Street, B.V. (1994) Struggles over the meaning(s) of literacy. In M. Hamilton, D. Bartonand R. Ivanic (eds) Worlds of literacy (pp. 15�20). Clevedon, UK: MultilingualMatters.

The New London Group. (2000) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing socialfutures. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds) Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and thedesign of social futures (pp. 9�37). London: Routledge.

Tomic, A. (2000) A critical pedagogy for teaching intercultural communication tolanguage learners. In N. McBride and K. Seago (eds) Target culture � Target language?(pp. 233�251). London: CILT.

Tsui, A.B.M. (2005) Plenary. Language policy, culture and identity in the era ofglobalization. In B. Beaven (ed.) IATEFL 2005: Cardiff conference selections (pp. 41�51).Canterbury, UK: IATEFL.

Tudor, I. (2003) Learning to live with complexity: Towards an ecological perspective onlanguage teaching. System 31, 1�12.

Unsworth, L. (2001) Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: Changing contexts of textand image in classroom practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

van Lier, L. (2000) From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from anecological perspective. In J.P. Lantolf (ed.) Sociocultural theory and second languagelearning (pp. 245�259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1999) Electronic literacies: Language, culture and power in online education.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Film, Culture and Identity 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 20: Film, Culture and Identity: Critical Intercultural Literacies for the Language Classroom

Warschauer, M. (2002) Languages.com: The internet and linguistic pluralism. In I.Snyder (ed.) Silicon literacies: Communication, innovation and education in the electronicage (pp. 62�74). London: Routledge.

Warschauer, M. (2003) Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wilson, A. (2000) There is no escape from third-space theory: Borderland discourse andthe in-between literacies of prisons. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton and R. Ivanic (eds)Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 54�69). London: Routledge.

Wray, D. (ed.) (2004) Literacy: Major themes in education. New Literacies: The Impact ofTechnology (Vol. 4). London: Routledge Falmer.

Zuengler, J. and Miller, E.R. (2006a) Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Twoparallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 35�58.

Zuengler, J. and Miller, E.R. (2006b) The authors reply. TESOL Quarterly 40 (4), 826�828.

154 Language and Intercultural Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

itat P

olitè

cnic

a de

Val

ènci

a] a

t 02:

23 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014