CULTURE IN TEACHING ENGLISH AS AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE

The role of culture in language teaching Culture in language teaching has traditionally involved providing cultural information. Such information typically includes at least one of the following dimensions; culture; the sociological sense; the semantic sense; and the pragmatic sense. Two major problems exist with this approach to culture in relation to the teaching of EIL. First, it can not be assumed that the culture of any one particular country, especially the inner circle country, should provide the basis for cultural content when teaching EIL. Second, if the one of the goals of using culture in EIL teaching is to help individual interact in cross cultural encounters, then merely knowing about a culture will not be sufficient to gain insight how to interact in these encounters. Two goals discussed by Kramsch (1993) regarding the culture in language teaching particularly relevant here. 1. Establishing a sphere of interculturality; this line of thought promotes the idea that the learning of culture is more than just transfer of the information between cultures. Rather learning that an individual consider his or her own culture in relation to another. 2. Teaching culture as difference this notion of culture highlights the fact that national identities are not monolithic. Learning about culture does not mean that one must accept that culture. Kramsch (1993), for example argues that knowing about culture does not mean that one has an obligation to behave in accordance with is conventions. Rationales for culture learning It can be questioned whether the teaching of culture is necessary to the teaching of EIL. Indeed there are two who argue that there is no need to include the culture in the teaching of EIL. Gonzales, for example, maintains that in the teaching of English as

International Auxiliary language (EIAL), English is deracinated or uprooted from its original cultural soil; only special registers of science and technology, business and geopolitics are used. Central to his argument is the assumption that teaching EIL is nothing more than teaching English for specific purposes (ESP). Another rationale is proposed by Brown (1986), is that the culture is necessary because it is really an integral part of the interaction between language and thought. Cultural patterns, customs, and ways of life are expressed in language. While some people argue for the inclusion of culture in language teaching on the basis that one cannot acquire the language without an understanding of the cultures, others argue for the inclusion of information about specific cultures on the grounds that cultural content in general motivating to the students. Richard (1995), for example, in developing a textbook project, surveyed Japanese students about their life and interests in order to select content that would be motivating for those students. Source culture materials There are contexts which show that culture may be used in an EIL classroom. In the first case, the students, teacher and text all share the source culture. For example a textbook published and used in Japan with Japanese students and teachers may ask the students to describe annual Japanese events like the Childrens Day Festival and traditional arts like Haiku, Noh comedy, and Bunraku puppet show. Clearly such a context provides the students with opportunity to learn more about their own culture and to learn the language needed to explain their cultural elements in English. A reflective approach to cultural context One of the first steps that need to be taken in approaching the cultural content used in an EIL class is to examine in what ways it might appear unusual to members of another culture. A good deal of cultural information in ELT texts however is not innocuous. It often presents a western, middle class life in contexts that, as Prodromou (1988) puts it, are not only imaginary but also vacuous. Such materials can easily alienate learners as they marginalize the students own experience.

The linking of English curriculum with largely middle class western influenced values needs to be carefully considered in the context of EIL in which, as we have argued, one of the primary aims is to use English to explain ones own culture to others. The role of culture in discourse communities Swales (1990) argues persuasively for the need to separate the notion of speech communities from discourse communities. He maintains that discourse communities are different from speech communities in that literacy takes away locality and parochiality since the writers are more likely than speakers to communicate with members in distant places and react to writings from the past. Swales contends the discourse communities share the following defining criteria: there are common goals, participatory mechanism, information exchange, community specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high level of expertise. On the other hand, distance between members geographically, ethnically, and socially presumably means that they do not form a speech community. (Swales 1990: 29) The rise of EIL, along with the development of new technology, has enabled the development of discourse communities that are geographically, ethnically, and socially quite diverse. EIL is essential to the existence of many of these specialized discourse communities: at the same time it is their growth that is fueling the spread of English. Indeed one of the major reasons many individuals have today for learning English is to join discourse community. In terms of teaching EIL, what knowledge do individuals need to partake in one? Obviously, they need expertise in the discourse communitys field, knowledge that is generally acquired outside of EIL classroom. Finally they need knowledge of the community specific genres. It is here that EIL classroom can be most useful. Swale (1990) offers a valuable framework for promoting such knowledge. He contends that language learning tasks for English for specific purposes should entail attention to the relevant discourse community itself. He maintains that in order for

material designers to understand a discourse community, it is important that they undertake ethnographic studies involving observations, participations interview, questionnaires, and so on.