Language Learning and Teaching (стр. 32 из 46)

LANGUAGE, THOUGHT, AND CULTURE

No discussion about cultural variables in second language acquisition complete without some treatment of the relationship between language and thought. We saw in the case of first language acquisition that cognitive development and linguistic development go hand in hand, each interacting with and shaping the other. It is commonly observed that the manner in which an idea or "fact" is stated affects the way we conceptualize the idea. Words shape our lives. The advertising world is a prime example of the use of language to shape, persuade, and dissuade. " Weasel words" tend to glorify very ordinary products into those that are "unsurpassed," "ultimate”, “super-charged," and "the right choice." In the case of food that has been sapped of most of its nutrients by the manufacturing process, we are told that these products are now "enriched" and "fortified." A foreigner in the United States once remarked that in the United States there are no "small eggs, only "medium," "large ", "extra large," and "jumbo."

Euphemisms abound in American culture where certain thoughts are taboo or certain 'words connote something less than desirable. We are persuaded by industry, for example, that 'receiving waters" are the rivers into which industrial wastes are dumped and that "assimilative capacity" refers to how much of the waste can be dumped into the river before it starts to show. Garbagemen are "sanitary engineers"; toilets are "rest rooms"; slums are "substandard dwellings." And when it comes toreporting on military conflicts like the Gulf War of 1991 or the Kosovo War of 1999, deaths are referred to as "collateral damage."

Verbal labels can shape the way we store events for later recall. In a classicstudy. Carmichael, Hogan, and Walter (1932) found that when suburb were briefly exposed to figures like those in Figure 7.1 and later asked to reproduce them, the reproductions were influenced by the labels assigned to the figures.

Figure 7.1 Sample stimulus figures used by Carmichael, Hogan, and Walter (1 932)

Forexample, the first drawing tended to be reproduced as something likethisif subjects had seen the "eyeglasses" label:

Or like this if they had seen the “dumbbells” label:

Words are not the only linguistic category affecting thought. The way asentence is structured will affect nuances of meaning. Elizabeth Loftus (1976) discovered that subtle differences in the structure of questions can affect the answer a person gives. For example, after viewing a film of an automobile accident, subjects were asked questions like "Did you see the broken headlight?" in some cases, and in other cases "Did you see a broken headlight?" Questions using "the" tended to produce more false recognition of events. The presence of the definite article led subjects to believe that there was a broken headlight whether they saw it or not. Similar results were found for questions like "Did you see some people watching the accident?" versus "Did you see any people watching the accident?" or even for questions containing a presupposition: "How fast was the car going when it hit the stop sign?" (presupposing both the existence of a stop sign and that the car hit a stop sign whether the subject actually saw it or not),

On the discourse level of language, we are familiar with the persuasiveness of an emotional speech or a well-written novel. How often has a gifted orator swayed opinion and thought? Or a powerful editorial moved one to action or change? These are common examples of the influence of language on our cognitive and affective states.

Culture is really an integral part of the interaction between language and thought. Cultural patterns of cognition and customs are sometimes explicitly coded in language. Conversational discourse styles, for example may be a factor of culture. Consider the "directness" of discourse of some cultures: in the US, for example, casual conversation is said to be less frank and more concerned about face-saving than conversation in Greece (Kakava 1995), and therefore a Greek conversation may be more confrontational than a conversation in the US. In Japanese, the relationship of one's interlocutor is almost always expressed explicitly, either verbally and/or nonverbally. Perhaps those forms shape one's perception of others in relation to self.

Lexical items may reflect something about the intersection of culture and cognition. Color categorization has been cited as a factor of one’s linguistic lexicon. Gleason (1961:4) noted that the Shona of Rhodesia and the Bassa of Liberia have fewer color categories than speakers of Euronean languages and they break up the spectrum at different points. Of course, the Shona or Bassa are able to perceive and describe other colors, in the same way that an English speaker might describe a "dark bluish green,” but according to Gleason the labels that the language provides tend to shape the person's overall cognitive organization of color and to cause varying degrees of color discrimination.

You might be tempted at this point to say, "Ah, yes, and I hear that the Eskimos have many different words for 'snow,' which explains why they are able to discriminate types of snow better than English speakers”. This claim is one of the myths about language "that refuses to die" (Scovel 1999:1), a vocabulary "hoax" (Pullum 1991) perpetuated along with other myths about Eskimos, such as rubbing noses and throwing Grandma out to be eaten by polar bears (Pinker 1994: 64). The problem lies not in thefact that there is no single language called "Eskimo," but that “language spoken in northeastern Canada like Inuit do not have a disproportionately large number of words for this cold white stuff" (Scovel 1999:1).

Another popular misconception about language and cognition came from Whorf's (1956) claims about the expression of time in Hopi. Arguing that Hopi contains no grammatical forms that refer to "time," Whorf suggested that Hopi had "no general notion or intuition of time" (Carroll 1956: 57). The suggestion was so enticingly supportive of the linguistic determinism hypothesis (see below) that gradually Whorf's claim became accepted as fact. It is interesting that several decades later, Malotki (1983) showed that Hopi speech does contain tense, metaphors for time, units of time, and ways to quantify units of time!

A tantalizing question emerges from such observations. Does language reflect a cultural world view, or does language actually shape the world view? Drawing on the ideas of Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), who claimed that language shaped a person's Weltanschauung, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf proposed a hypothesis that has now been given several alternative labels: the Sapir-Wborf hypothesis, the Whorfian hypothesis, linguistic relativity, or linguistic determinism .Whorf (1956:212-214) summed up the hypothesis:

The background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of each language is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual's mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade. Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar and differs, from slightly to greatly, as between different grammars. We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds—and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds. We cut nature up, organize it into concepts, and ascribe significance as we do, largely because we are parties to an agreement to organize it in this way—an agreement that holds through our speech community and is codified in the patterns of our language. The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, but its terms are absolutely obligatory; we cannot talk at all except by subscribing to the organization and classification of data which the agreement decrees.

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

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

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

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

In the Classroom: Toward a Principled Approach to Language Pedagogy

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

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

•Intrinsic motivation is a powerful incentive for learning.

•A moderate to high level of risk-taking behavior is important.

•Language and culture are inextricably intertwined.

•Successful learners make a strategic investment in their learning.

•Self-confidence is an important precursor to success.

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

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

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

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

CulturallyAppropriate Techniques: A Checklist

1. Does the technique recognize the value and belief systems that are presumed to be a part of the culture(s) of the students?

2. Does the technique refrain from any demeaning stereotypes of any culture, including the culture(s) of your students?

3. Does the technique refrain from any possible devaluing of the students' native language(s)?

4. Does the technique recognize varying degrees of willingness of students to participate openly due to factors of collectivism/individualism and power distance?

5. If the technique requires students to go beyond the comfort zone of uncertainty avoidance in their culture(s), does it do so empathetically and tactfully?

6. Is the technique sensitive to the perceived roles of males and females in the culture(s) of your students?

7. Does the technique sufficiently connect specific language features (e.g., grammatical categories, lexicon, discourse) to cultural ways of thinking, feeling, and acting?

8. Does the technique in some way draw on the potentially rich background experiences of the students, including their own experiences in other cultures?

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

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

Classroom experience then might stir you to further refinement.