论文部分内容阅读
1. Intercultural language education
Culture has become an essential concern for language teaching at the moment. Bennett (2003) states that the teaching and learning of culture have been influenced by the debate in the teaching and learning of language. He mentions that various professional organizations (e.g., the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) have begun to reconsider the role of culture in the language classroom. There are more and more reasons to support such a position that culture should be placed at the core of the language curriculum and of the language instruction.
Intercultural education that stresses integrating culture learning with language learning is gaining more and more attention from a number of language teachers. Harbon (2006) states that intercultural education relates to intercultural language learning (IcLL) and intercultural language teaching (IcLT). Intercultural language learning connects the study of culture to language learning and considers them as integrated and holistic (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). It enables students to learn the knowledge of the target language, and reflect on the knowledge of their own cultures. In relation to intercultural language teaching, it aims to help students develop their multicultural view of the world and develop their intercultural competence through the learning of a foreign language.
This essay will first introduce and compare different scholars’ definitions of language, culture and intercultural respectively, then discuss intercultural language education in Australian and Chinese contexts, and then show why and how intercultural language education works there.
2. Different scholars’ definitions of language
2.1 Definitions of language
The notion of language is various and has been defined by many different scholars. For example, Clark (1981, p.1) in a book named language: Introductory Readings claims that “language is not only the principle medium that human beings use to communicate with each other but also the bond that links people together and binds them to their culture.” In addition, Fantini (1995) claims that language is a kind of road map utilized to show how one perceives, interprets and thinks, and expresses about the world, which also reflects one’s world view.
Moreover, professor Holliday(1998, p.99) in a book called on language and linguistics states that “We can identify, broadly, two images of language: a philosophical-logical view, and a descriptive-ethnographic view.” In the former view, Holliday considers linguistics as part of philosophy, and considers grammar as part of logic. In contrast, the latter describes linguistics as part of anthropology, and describes grammar as part of culture. Additionally, the former view emphasizes analogy; is prescriptive, or normative, in orientation; and concerned with meaning in relation to truth, when the latter focuses on anomaly; is descriptive in orientation; and concerned with meaning in relation to rhetorical function. In addition, the philosophical-logical view sees language as thought and represents it as rules. The descriptive-ethnographic view sees language as action and represents it as choices, or as a resource. Last but not least, the definition of language also relates to semantics and pragmatics described by Kramsch (1998, p.15) as “language can mean in two fundamental ways, both of which are intimately linked to culture: through what it says or what it refers to as an encoded sign (semantics), and through what it does as an action in context (pragmatics)”. Here the notion of language emphasizes two things: one is the linguistic sign that cannot be separated from its cultural encoding; the other is the actions and interactions in social context.
2.2 Comparing different definitions of language
It can be seen that although different scholars define the notion of language in different ways, there are some similarities in these definitions. First of all, language is considered to utilize to create meanings through words and actions and used for communication. Additionally, all of these definitions associate language with culture. Clark considers that language can bind people together and represent their individual culture, when Holliday describes grammar of language as part of culture, as well as Kramsch claims that language is associated with cultural encoding and social context. In conclusion, language is considered to embody and represent culture. In relation to the differences in these definitions, it can be found that Kramsch focuses on the meaning referring to culture, while professor Holliday’s definition is more general relating to both culture and anthropology.
3. Different scholars’ definitions of culture
3.1 Definitions of culture
Culture is a complex and difficult concept which has a great number of definitions. In different time scales, the notion of culture might be different or have different meanings and representations. First of all, Arnold in an 1868 book named culture and anarchy characterized culture as “contact with the best which has been thought and said in the world” (cited in Wilson, 1935). In Arnold’s understanding culture was closely linked to “perfection”, “beauty” and “intelligence” relating to fine arts and literature. Then, in Clifford’s approach (1992), culture was referred to the notion of “travel”. Clifford mentions that culture is always built up in human interaction and claims that “the organic naturalizing bias of the term culture -- seen as a rooted body that grows, lives, dies ect.-- is questioned.” (1992, p.101). He emphasizes that the travel-based notion of culture is movement rather than rootedness, and interaction rather than transmission. After that, Brain Street (1993) argues that the notion of culture should be considered as a practice, or a set of practices, referring to things we do rather than things we are. Street’s defnition combines culture with language, and his main purpose is “literacy events” and “literacy practices” that are distinctive rather than spoken language. Street’s significant contribution to the definition of culture allows to combine “travel” with “movement” and acknowledge continuation and stability. In addition, Kramsch’s (1995) approach is to combine culture with language directly, as well as to connect culture definitions to foreign language teaching. The first point of her notion means that “people learn a culture through language in wide range of language elements, including its way of talking, but also its products, such as its high literature, folk stories and myths.” (cited in Lo Bianco, 2003, p.23). The second point of her notion refers to real community (e.g., common territory and space, landscape and city, geography ) and imagined community (e.g., literacy, mythic & idealised). It can be seen that Kramsch’s definition relates to space, time and imagination. While the time can remind people that history and memory are parts of community and the language is the medium used to connect these, the space can remind people that they are share living space and landscape, as well as the imagination can remind people that the world of culture also belongs to a mental world (Lo Bianco, 2003).
Recently, culture is classified as Big C (Big Culture) and little c (little culture) by the Standards for Foreign Language Learning (1996) volume. Big Culture is characterized as formal culture, including “the formal institutions (social, political, and economic), the great figures of history, and those products of literature, fine arts, and the sciences that were traditionally assigned to the category of elite culture” (p.40). Compared with Big Culture, little culture is defined as “those aspects of daily living studied by the sociologist and the anthropologist: housing, clothing, food, tools, transportation, and all the patterns of behavior that members of the culture regards as necessary and appropriate” (p.40). It can be seen that the notion of culture adopted by Standards is a significant progress over earlier definitions, which includes major institutions (e.g., political events & educational events) as well as everyday active cultural patterns (e.g., eating & shopping) and everyday passive cultural patterns(e.g., work & marriage). Nevertheless, Bennett (2003) states that there are still some shortcomings in this definition; e.g., it mixs elements of subjective culture (perspectives) and elements of objective culture (products) into a single definition (p.242).
In the same period, Big C and little c was associated with objective culture and subjective culture by some interculturalists (e.g., Bennett,1998), when the objective culture (Big C) is related to cultural creations (formal culture mentioned above) and institutionalized patterns of everyday behavior. In contrast, subjective culture (little c) referring to the invisible, emphasizies the world view (e.g., cultural values, beliefs, assumptions, or style) maintained by members of a society (Bennett, 2003, p.243). With the development, today subjective culture is defined as language use (the social contexting of language), nonverbal behavior (as it generates context for language), communication style (patterns of rhetoric or discourse), cognitive style (e.g., preferred forms of logic), and cultural values (e.g., individualism or collectivism) (p.243-44). 3.2 Comparing different definitions of culture
Comparing the former definitions of culture, the later definition of culture concerning Big C and little c is more general and intergrated. The similarities of these definitions can be concluded as follows. First, all of theses culture’s definitions refer to valuable arts and literature that belong to part of language. Moreover, some of these definitions stress movement and displacement, as well as emphasize literature and arts, and focus on practice and behavior.
3.3 Relationship between culture learning and language learning
By comparing the notion of language with the definition of culture, it can be found that language and culture are intimately related to each other that cannot be separated, and they interact with each other and shape each other. Language expresses, embodies, and symbolizes cultural reality (Kramsch, 1998). Meanwhile, culture is the foundation of language, and embodies language meaning. Hence, it can be concluded that language learning is also culture learning.
Nevertheless, regarding the relationship between language and culture, scholars from different disciplines express different arguments. Some arguments support that language not only transmits but also shapes people’s beliefs and attitudes. It means that language determines culture and it is a guide to culture. Other scholars claim that language just reflects but not shapes people’s beliefs and attitudes. Although there are differences between different scholars’ definitions, all scholars still agree that a close relationship exists between language and culture.
4. Scholars’ definitions of intercultural
4.1 Definition of intercultural
The term “intercultural” emerged in the 1980s in the fields of intercultural education and intercultural communication. Kramsch (1998, p.81) in a book named language and culture maintains that “the term ‘cross-cultural’ or intercultural usually refers to the meeting of two cultures or two languages across the political boundaries of nation-states.” In addition, he mentions that “the term intercultural might also relate to communication between people from different ethnic, social, gendered cultures within the boundaries of the same national language.” (p.81). Intercultural is also referred to communication by Kramsch (1998), and he states that “intercultural communication relates to the dialogue between minority cultures and dominant cultures, and are associated with issues of bilingualism and biculturalism.” (p.82). 4.2 Intercultural competence
Successful intercultural communication which is the chief goal of intercultural language education requires language learners to gain intercultural competence. Bennett (2003, p.244) mentions that “intercultural competence refers to the ability to relate effectively and appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts.” He also claims that developing intercultural competence should focus on two approaches that are culture-specific approaches and culture-general approaches. He also characterizes that “the goal of culture-specific approaches is to achieve competence in a target culture; that is, to gain mastery of the world view and behavior specific to a particular culture.” (2003, p.244). It can be found that culture-specific approaches stress specific-culture and specific-language learning (e.g., grammar and vocabulary). In contrast, Bennett (2003, p.245) indicates that “culture-general approaches to intercultural competence focus on internalizing cognitive frameworks for cultural analysis, overcoming ethnocentrism, developing appreciation and respect for one’s own culture and for cultural difference, understanding and acquiring skills in basic cultural adaptation processes, and dealing with the identity issues that attend to intercultural contact and mobility.” In this sense, goals of culture-general approaches emphasize the characteristics and essence of culture, and they require learners to be able to value different peoples and societies and evaluate validity of statements about cluture (Lafayette, 1997). Therefore, it can be seen that the idea of intercultural competence is parallel between language learning and this kind of culture learning. In addition, the chief goal of intercultural competence is not only developing learners’ knowledge of another culture and their ability to behave correctly in that culture, but also emphasizing combining culture-specific approaches with culture-general approaches.
With the aim of being an effective language users, language learners need to develop their intercultural competence. Liddicoat (2004) indicates that language learners who gain intercultural competence have following elements. First, intercultural language users should know that cultures are relative and that different people use language in different ways to achieve similar goals. Secondly, intercultural language users know some of the common cultural conventions in the language they are learning. Thirdly, intercultural language users have strategies for learning more about culture as they interact. Last but not least, intercultural language users have the capacity to reflect on their own linguistic behavior (Liddicoat, 2004, p.19-20). 4.3 An intercultural approach to language teaching and learning
Liddicoat (2004) maintains that an intercultural approach to intercultural language teaching and learning involves four activities which are learning about cultures, comparing cultures, intercultural exploration and finding one’s own ‘third place’ between cultures. In this approach to culture, language itself is consided as a ‘system of signs’ which means language is a cultural practice. Learning language necessarily involves learning culture, when teaching language and teaching culture are inseparable. Research into language use is utilized to explore how language and culture are intimately associated with each other and how to teach culture in language, and therefore interculturalism (Lo Bianco, 2004).
5. Conclusion
By studying different scholars’ definitions of language, culture and intercultural, it can be concluded that intercultural language learning focuses on combining culture learning with language learning. To begin with, language use is essential to the construction of culture. Secondly, culture cannot be learnt without language learning; also, language cannot be learnt without culture. Additionally, culture is learnt through language and through language use.
In addition, it can be found that intercultural language teaching emphasizes combining the teaching of culture with language teaching. First of all, Liddicoat (2004) mentions that language and culture should not be taught as a separate skill, but should be taught as integration. Moreover, the goal of intercultural language teaching is to develop learners multicultural understanding and promote their efficient communication (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999).
6．Intercultural language education
Intercultural language education (ILE) is considerablely new for language learners and teachers all over the world. Considering the significance of ILE, language teachers might need to face problems and challenges in their teaching practice when they are trying to carry out ILE. In this section, the essay will describe and discuss intercultural language education in two teaching contexts. One is Australian context and the other is Chinese context.
6.1 Intercultural language education in Australia
In the Asian Language Professional Learning Project, several Australian schools present that they have successfully implemented intercultural language learning in language classrooms (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). This essay will describe and analyse how the Clare Primary School in South Australia implements ILE when teachers teach students Japanese. 6.1.1 Description of teaching
Teachers in Clare Primary School in South Australia teach students Japanese at all year levels and they have promoted the language to its school community through its LIFE (Language is For Everyone!) programme. In this programme, teachers guide students to pay attention on family and learning the literacies related to family structure and interaction with Japanese. For example, one group undertakes an extensive study of Japanese postcards in terms of their purposes, structure, messages and the language used on them. First, the teacher asks students to research Japanese postcards and find out different purposes, usage and expectation about them. Then students are guided to learn more about the usage of electronic and digital postcards throught the internet. After that, the teacher requests thses students to compare the grammatical formalities of letter writing in Japanese and English, and then write postcards to students in Japan.
6.1.2 Implementation of intercultural language teaching principles
According to Liddicoat’s intercultural language teaching principles (2004), teachers in this program may understand following teaching principles. First of all, when students are required to compare their own culture with the Japanese culture in terms of the expectation and usage of postcards, they should learn the Japanese postcards through explicit teaching but not through osmosis. Secondly, when students are provided the opportunities to communicate with Japanese students through writing postcards, they are the bilingual or multilingual speakers. Thirdly, students learn the Japanese languge and Japanese culture inseparately. Finally, when students learn the languge of Japanese, they also explore the intercultural because they have the opportunities to reflect on their own culture.
6.1.3 Implementation of intercultural approach
In this program, language teachers’ teaching method refers to Liddicoat’s intercultural approach (2004) mentioned before. When learners are requested to research Japanese postcards and find out different purposes, usage and expectation about them, they are acquiring culture about Japanese postcards; when students are required to compare the grammatical formalities of letter writing in Japanese and English, they are comparing culture and discovering their own culture; when students are asked to write postcards to students in Japan, they are experiencing cultural practice (Moran, 2001). Intercultural approach is utilized to improve students’ language learning through combining Japanese language learning with their own language and culture learning. 6.1.4 Advantages of ILE in Australia
From the example of the Clare Primary School, it can be found that there are some benefits for Australian language teachers to carry out the ILE. First of all, the ILE is supported by the Australian government, and Harbon (2006) states that some Australian documents have emphasized the importance of the ILE in schools’ curriculum. Secondly, there are many professionals and researchers working in the field of ILE, in order to provide language teachers with more and more theoretical support. In addition, teachers have an opportunity to receive professional training on ILE in the ALPLP. Finally, since Australian language classrooms are typically multicultural, language teachers have more opportunities to communicate and work with native teachers of the target language. As well as Australian students have more chances to communicate and work with native speakers of the target language.
6.1.5 Challenges of ILE in Australia
Although language teachers and students in Australia have more chances to share rich resource, teacher educators still face some challenges. To begin with, the role of teacher educators has changed, and the most important factor is that the professional standards for them are not very advanced (Harbon, 2006). In order to avoid the situation that language teachers at the crossroads, there is a need for the development of professional standards for teacher educators. In addition, how to develop teachers’ perspectives about IcLL is another major challenge (Harbon, 2006). Language teachers should practice and develop their new perspectives about IcLL, in order to find out effective language teaching methods.
6.2 Intercultural language education in China
Intercultural language education in China is completely different from that in Australia. Compared with Australian learners, Chinese students in the language classrooms share the same language background and they learn English as a foreign language. Although students have learnt English for many years in Chinese language classrooms, they still learn English without combining the culture of it, and consider the culture as a separated part. There are still many problems for the Chinese teachers to solve if they want to successfully implement the ILE.
6.2.1 Development of ILE in China
In order to find out an effective approach to implement the ILE, recently the Chinese scholars have began to explore how to combine intercultural education with EFL. Ge & Zhen (2006) claim that intercultural education in China should be consided as a main goal in EFL curriculum with the ten teaching aims, such as to access the culture through the language being taught; to train the intercultural competence that students are lacking; and to raise cross-cultural understanding –awareness of their own culture, as well as that of the target culture. Additionally, in order to develop students’ intercultural competence (ICC) in the process of language learning, Ge & Zhen (2006) maintain that there are two essential trends in current ELT. One is that the goal of language teaching should focus on communicative competence but not just linguistic competence. The other trend emphasizes English mediun education (Huang & Xu, 1999).
6.2.2 Challenges of ILE in China
Although Chinese scholars can connect the intercultural education to the EFT, and emphasize the role of intercultural communication competence in current ELT, there are some realistic problems still existing in China. First of all, the Chinese teaching context lacks of an IEL-oriented EFL curriculum. Although the significance of the ILE has been acknowledged, there are some problems still cannot be solved, such as what culture to teach and what aspects of this culture to highlight (Ge & Zhen ). Further research and study on how to effectively implement the ILE in China are necessary.
Moreover, it is difficult for most EFL teachers to implement the intercultural education in EFL curriculum when they are inexperienced and have not been trained. Moran (2001) states that culture experience is one of essential factors for culture teaching. Chinese language teachers may know little about the target culture community when they have few chances to communicate with the native speakers. Therefore, they are not able to teach culture in the process of langauge teaching, and improve students’ intercultural competence.
Thirdly, the ILE challenges the traditional role of EFL teachers and language learners. In traditional language teaching classroom, Chinese teachers usually act as language facilitators and instructors. Nevertheless, the role of EFL teachers needs to be redifined when they implement ILE in EFL context. ILE requires the EFL teachers not only act as language facilitators, but also culture transmitters. It means the EFL teachers are also learners of language and culture (Liddicoat, 1999). Both EFL teachers and learners should learn how to associate the language with culture when they are experiencing language teaching and learning in order to develop their intercultural competence.
Finally, teaching material such as the intercultural-oriented EFL course books is another problem that need to be solved. In order to help sttudents know more about their own country, as well as achieve the goal that introduce their native culture with standard and comprehensible English, the content of course books should relate the Chinese culture to the target culture. 6.2.3 Some suggestions for implementing ILE in China
First of all, teachers and students should not just focus on the assessment of linguistic knowledge and emphasize the examination. Teachers should also pay attention on the study of intercultural and provide students with various kinds of assessment that include culture.
Secondly, the computer assisted language learning (CALL) that benefits students to make an easy accesss to intercultural education should be stressed and introduced to the language classrooms. With the assistance of computer networks, teachers and students are easier to access and know more about the globle communities.
Thirdly, in relation to teaching material, Chinese teachers and professionals can create and design course books by themselves according to their realistic situation. There are two reasons for this point. One is that the imported course books that designed by the native community maybe not suitable to Chinese students. The other reason is that the course books should be designed to fit into different degrees of students. Ge & Zhen (2006) state that the development of intercultural teaching material should be based on the reality of EFL in China, in order to create materials that cover both English and Chinese cultures.
Last but not least, the development of intercultural education calls for joint effort of local government and local communities, but not just the international communities. For instance, the local government has a responsibility to provide teachers with financial support and offer them more opportunities to train and study. Moreover, international programme and modern education technology (e.g., computer) also need to cost a large amount of money. Although it is impossible for all areas in China to afford such a kind of investment, the developed areas can start to have a try.
7. Conclusion
Intercultural language education is gaining more and more attention around the world. IEL is of great significance to foreign language teaching, and it cannot be denied that language learning should be associated with culture learning with the aim of developing students’ intercultural competence.
In terms of ILE in China, there are three elements that need to be emphasized. One is that language teachers should not only pay attention on learners’ linguistic knowledge but also focus on culture learning in order to successfully implement the ILE. Another one is that language learners’ own culture should be combined with the target culture. The last factor is that more research and study related to ILE and EFL are necessay, in order to find out more effective approaches for the implementation of ILE.
References:
Asian Language Professional Learning Project. (2004). Getting started with intercultural language learning: A resource for schools based on teachers’ ideas and experiences from the Asian Languages Professional Learning Project. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Bennett, J. M. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.). Culture as the core: perspectives on culture in second language learning (pp.237-270). Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Publications.
Clifford, J. (1992). Traveling cultures. pp.96-112 in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson and P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: English with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet, (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place – Intercultural Competence through Language Education (pp.113-125). Melbourne: Language Australia.
Harbon, L. (2006). Intercultural languages education. Babel, 41 (1), 28-38.
Liddicoat, A. (2004). Intercultural language teaching: principles for practice. The New Zealand Language Teacher, 30, 17-23.
Lo Bianco, J. (2003). Culture: visible, invisible and multiple. In J. Lo Bianco & C. Crozet, (Eds). Teaching Invisible Culture: classroom practice and theory. (pp.11-38), Melbourne, Vic. : Language Australia.
Lo Bianco, J. (2004). Resources for cultural language learning. Australia: CAE press.
Moran, P. R. (2001). Teaching culture. In P.R. Moran, Teaching culture: perspectives and practice (pp.135-155), Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Street, B. (1993). Culture is a verb: anthropological aspects of language and cultural process. In D. Graddol, L. Thompson, & M. Byram (Eds.), Language and culture. (pp. 23-43). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters and BAAl.
Williams, R. (1958). Culture and society, 1780-1950. London: Chatto and Windus.
Ge, W. & Zhen, Z. (n.d.) (2006). Intercultural language teaching in China: problems and prospects. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching Methodology. Hong Kong: Authors.
Kramsch, C. & Widdowson, H. G. (Ed.). (1998). Language and culture. New York: Oxford University.
Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, culture and curriculum, 8, 83-92.
Fantini, S. E. (1995). Introduction-language, culture and world view: exploring the nexus. Intercultural journal of intercultural relations, 2, 143, 153.
Clark, V. P. & Eschholz, P. A. (1981). Introductory readings. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Holliday, M.A.K. & Webster, J. (Ed.). (2003). On language and linguisitcs. London: continuum.
Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: English with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet, (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place – Intercultural Competence through Language Education (pp.113-125). Melbourne: Language Australia.
Lafayette, R. (1997). Integrating the teaching of culture into the foreign language classroom. In P.R. Heusinkveld (Ed.), Pathways to culture: Reading on teaching culture in the foreign language class (pp. 119-148). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
作者简介：黄旭璇，女，广东省广州市，澳大利亚悉尼大学硕士学位，广州大学松田学院外语系英语教师， 主要研究方向：英语教学法
Culture has become an essential concern for language teaching at the moment. Bennett (2003) states that the teaching and learning of culture have been influenced by the debate in the teaching and learning of language. He mentions that various professional organizations (e.g., the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) have begun to reconsider the role of culture in the language classroom. There are more and more reasons to support such a position that culture should be placed at the core of the language curriculum and of the language instruction.
Intercultural education that stresses integrating culture learning with language learning is gaining more and more attention from a number of language teachers. Harbon (2006) states that intercultural education relates to intercultural language learning (IcLL) and intercultural language teaching (IcLT). Intercultural language learning connects the study of culture to language learning and considers them as integrated and holistic (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). It enables students to learn the knowledge of the target language, and reflect on the knowledge of their own cultures. In relation to intercultural language teaching, it aims to help students develop their multicultural view of the world and develop their intercultural competence through the learning of a foreign language.
This essay will first introduce and compare different scholars’ definitions of language, culture and intercultural respectively, then discuss intercultural language education in Australian and Chinese contexts, and then show why and how intercultural language education works there.
2. Different scholars’ definitions of language
2.1 Definitions of language
The notion of language is various and has been defined by many different scholars. For example, Clark (1981, p.1) in a book named language: Introductory Readings claims that “language is not only the principle medium that human beings use to communicate with each other but also the bond that links people together and binds them to their culture.” In addition, Fantini (1995) claims that language is a kind of road map utilized to show how one perceives, interprets and thinks, and expresses about the world, which also reflects one’s world view.
Moreover, professor Holliday(1998, p.99) in a book called on language and linguistics states that “We can identify, broadly, two images of language: a philosophical-logical view, and a descriptive-ethnographic view.” In the former view, Holliday considers linguistics as part of philosophy, and considers grammar as part of logic. In contrast, the latter describes linguistics as part of anthropology, and describes grammar as part of culture. Additionally, the former view emphasizes analogy; is prescriptive, or normative, in orientation; and concerned with meaning in relation to truth, when the latter focuses on anomaly; is descriptive in orientation; and concerned with meaning in relation to rhetorical function. In addition, the philosophical-logical view sees language as thought and represents it as rules. The descriptive-ethnographic view sees language as action and represents it as choices, or as a resource. Last but not least, the definition of language also relates to semantics and pragmatics described by Kramsch (1998, p.15) as “language can mean in two fundamental ways, both of which are intimately linked to culture: through what it says or what it refers to as an encoded sign (semantics), and through what it does as an action in context (pragmatics)”. Here the notion of language emphasizes two things: one is the linguistic sign that cannot be separated from its cultural encoding; the other is the actions and interactions in social context.
2.2 Comparing different definitions of language
It can be seen that although different scholars define the notion of language in different ways, there are some similarities in these definitions. First of all, language is considered to utilize to create meanings through words and actions and used for communication. Additionally, all of these definitions associate language with culture. Clark considers that language can bind people together and represent their individual culture, when Holliday describes grammar of language as part of culture, as well as Kramsch claims that language is associated with cultural encoding and social context. In conclusion, language is considered to embody and represent culture. In relation to the differences in these definitions, it can be found that Kramsch focuses on the meaning referring to culture, while professor Holliday’s definition is more general relating to both culture and anthropology.
3. Different scholars’ definitions of culture
3.1 Definitions of culture
Culture is a complex and difficult concept which has a great number of definitions. In different time scales, the notion of culture might be different or have different meanings and representations. First of all, Arnold in an 1868 book named culture and anarchy characterized culture as “contact with the best which has been thought and said in the world” (cited in Wilson, 1935). In Arnold’s understanding culture was closely linked to “perfection”, “beauty” and “intelligence” relating to fine arts and literature. Then, in Clifford’s approach (1992), culture was referred to the notion of “travel”. Clifford mentions that culture is always built up in human interaction and claims that “the organic naturalizing bias of the term culture -- seen as a rooted body that grows, lives, dies ect.-- is questioned.” (1992, p.101). He emphasizes that the travel-based notion of culture is movement rather than rootedness, and interaction rather than transmission. After that, Brain Street (1993) argues that the notion of culture should be considered as a practice, or a set of practices, referring to things we do rather than things we are. Street’s defnition combines culture with language, and his main purpose is “literacy events” and “literacy practices” that are distinctive rather than spoken language. Street’s significant contribution to the definition of culture allows to combine “travel” with “movement” and acknowledge continuation and stability. In addition, Kramsch’s (1995) approach is to combine culture with language directly, as well as to connect culture definitions to foreign language teaching. The first point of her notion means that “people learn a culture through language in wide range of language elements, including its way of talking, but also its products, such as its high literature, folk stories and myths.” (cited in Lo Bianco, 2003, p.23). The second point of her notion refers to real community (e.g., common territory and space, landscape and city, geography ) and imagined community (e.g., literacy, mythic & idealised). It can be seen that Kramsch’s definition relates to space, time and imagination. While the time can remind people that history and memory are parts of community and the language is the medium used to connect these, the space can remind people that they are share living space and landscape, as well as the imagination can remind people that the world of culture also belongs to a mental world (Lo Bianco, 2003).
Recently, culture is classified as Big C (Big Culture) and little c (little culture) by the Standards for Foreign Language Learning (1996) volume. Big Culture is characterized as formal culture, including “the formal institutions (social, political, and economic), the great figures of history, and those products of literature, fine arts, and the sciences that were traditionally assigned to the category of elite culture” (p.40). Compared with Big Culture, little culture is defined as “those aspects of daily living studied by the sociologist and the anthropologist: housing, clothing, food, tools, transportation, and all the patterns of behavior that members of the culture regards as necessary and appropriate” (p.40). It can be seen that the notion of culture adopted by Standards is a significant progress over earlier definitions, which includes major institutions (e.g., political events & educational events) as well as everyday active cultural patterns (e.g., eating & shopping) and everyday passive cultural patterns(e.g., work & marriage). Nevertheless, Bennett (2003) states that there are still some shortcomings in this definition; e.g., it mixs elements of subjective culture (perspectives) and elements of objective culture (products) into a single definition (p.242).
In the same period, Big C and little c was associated with objective culture and subjective culture by some interculturalists (e.g., Bennett,1998), when the objective culture (Big C) is related to cultural creations (formal culture mentioned above) and institutionalized patterns of everyday behavior. In contrast, subjective culture (little c) referring to the invisible, emphasizies the world view (e.g., cultural values, beliefs, assumptions, or style) maintained by members of a society (Bennett, 2003, p.243). With the development, today subjective culture is defined as language use (the social contexting of language), nonverbal behavior (as it generates context for language), communication style (patterns of rhetoric or discourse), cognitive style (e.g., preferred forms of logic), and cultural values (e.g., individualism or collectivism) (p.243-44). 3.2 Comparing different definitions of culture
Comparing the former definitions of culture, the later definition of culture concerning Big C and little c is more general and intergrated. The similarities of these definitions can be concluded as follows. First, all of theses culture’s definitions refer to valuable arts and literature that belong to part of language. Moreover, some of these definitions stress movement and displacement, as well as emphasize literature and arts, and focus on practice and behavior.
3.3 Relationship between culture learning and language learning
By comparing the notion of language with the definition of culture, it can be found that language and culture are intimately related to each other that cannot be separated, and they interact with each other and shape each other. Language expresses, embodies, and symbolizes cultural reality (Kramsch, 1998). Meanwhile, culture is the foundation of language, and embodies language meaning. Hence, it can be concluded that language learning is also culture learning.
Nevertheless, regarding the relationship between language and culture, scholars from different disciplines express different arguments. Some arguments support that language not only transmits but also shapes people’s beliefs and attitudes. It means that language determines culture and it is a guide to culture. Other scholars claim that language just reflects but not shapes people’s beliefs and attitudes. Although there are differences between different scholars’ definitions, all scholars still agree that a close relationship exists between language and culture.
4. Scholars’ definitions of intercultural
4.1 Definition of intercultural
The term “intercultural” emerged in the 1980s in the fields of intercultural education and intercultural communication. Kramsch (1998, p.81) in a book named language and culture maintains that “the term ‘cross-cultural’ or intercultural usually refers to the meeting of two cultures or two languages across the political boundaries of nation-states.” In addition, he mentions that “the term intercultural might also relate to communication between people from different ethnic, social, gendered cultures within the boundaries of the same national language.” (p.81). Intercultural is also referred to communication by Kramsch (1998), and he states that “intercultural communication relates to the dialogue between minority cultures and dominant cultures, and are associated with issues of bilingualism and biculturalism.” (p.82). 4.2 Intercultural competence
Successful intercultural communication which is the chief goal of intercultural language education requires language learners to gain intercultural competence. Bennett (2003, p.244) mentions that “intercultural competence refers to the ability to relate effectively and appropriately in a variety of cultural contexts.” He also claims that developing intercultural competence should focus on two approaches that are culture-specific approaches and culture-general approaches. He also characterizes that “the goal of culture-specific approaches is to achieve competence in a target culture; that is, to gain mastery of the world view and behavior specific to a particular culture.” (2003, p.244). It can be found that culture-specific approaches stress specific-culture and specific-language learning (e.g., grammar and vocabulary). In contrast, Bennett (2003, p.245) indicates that “culture-general approaches to intercultural competence focus on internalizing cognitive frameworks for cultural analysis, overcoming ethnocentrism, developing appreciation and respect for one’s own culture and for cultural difference, understanding and acquiring skills in basic cultural adaptation processes, and dealing with the identity issues that attend to intercultural contact and mobility.” In this sense, goals of culture-general approaches emphasize the characteristics and essence of culture, and they require learners to be able to value different peoples and societies and evaluate validity of statements about cluture (Lafayette, 1997). Therefore, it can be seen that the idea of intercultural competence is parallel between language learning and this kind of culture learning. In addition, the chief goal of intercultural competence is not only developing learners’ knowledge of another culture and their ability to behave correctly in that culture, but also emphasizing combining culture-specific approaches with culture-general approaches.
With the aim of being an effective language users, language learners need to develop their intercultural competence. Liddicoat (2004) indicates that language learners who gain intercultural competence have following elements. First, intercultural language users should know that cultures are relative and that different people use language in different ways to achieve similar goals. Secondly, intercultural language users know some of the common cultural conventions in the language they are learning. Thirdly, intercultural language users have strategies for learning more about culture as they interact. Last but not least, intercultural language users have the capacity to reflect on their own linguistic behavior (Liddicoat, 2004, p.19-20). 4.3 An intercultural approach to language teaching and learning
Liddicoat (2004) maintains that an intercultural approach to intercultural language teaching and learning involves four activities which are learning about cultures, comparing cultures, intercultural exploration and finding one’s own ‘third place’ between cultures. In this approach to culture, language itself is consided as a ‘system of signs’ which means language is a cultural practice. Learning language necessarily involves learning culture, when teaching language and teaching culture are inseparable. Research into language use is utilized to explore how language and culture are intimately associated with each other and how to teach culture in language, and therefore interculturalism (Lo Bianco, 2004).
5. Conclusion
By studying different scholars’ definitions of language, culture and intercultural, it can be concluded that intercultural language learning focuses on combining culture learning with language learning. To begin with, language use is essential to the construction of culture. Secondly, culture cannot be learnt without language learning; also, language cannot be learnt without culture. Additionally, culture is learnt through language and through language use.
In addition, it can be found that intercultural language teaching emphasizes combining the teaching of culture with language teaching. First of all, Liddicoat (2004) mentions that language and culture should not be taught as a separate skill, but should be taught as integration. Moreover, the goal of intercultural language teaching is to develop learners multicultural understanding and promote their efficient communication (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999).
6．Intercultural language education
Intercultural language education (ILE) is considerablely new for language learners and teachers all over the world. Considering the significance of ILE, language teachers might need to face problems and challenges in their teaching practice when they are trying to carry out ILE. In this section, the essay will describe and discuss intercultural language education in two teaching contexts. One is Australian context and the other is Chinese context.
6.1 Intercultural language education in Australia
In the Asian Language Professional Learning Project, several Australian schools present that they have successfully implemented intercultural language learning in language classrooms (Commonwealth of Australia, 2004). This essay will describe and analyse how the Clare Primary School in South Australia implements ILE when teachers teach students Japanese. 6.1.1 Description of teaching
Teachers in Clare Primary School in South Australia teach students Japanese at all year levels and they have promoted the language to its school community through its LIFE (Language is For Everyone!) programme. In this programme, teachers guide students to pay attention on family and learning the literacies related to family structure and interaction with Japanese. For example, one group undertakes an extensive study of Japanese postcards in terms of their purposes, structure, messages and the language used on them. First, the teacher asks students to research Japanese postcards and find out different purposes, usage and expectation about them. Then students are guided to learn more about the usage of electronic and digital postcards throught the internet. After that, the teacher requests thses students to compare the grammatical formalities of letter writing in Japanese and English, and then write postcards to students in Japan.
6.1.2 Implementation of intercultural language teaching principles
According to Liddicoat’s intercultural language teaching principles (2004), teachers in this program may understand following teaching principles. First of all, when students are required to compare their own culture with the Japanese culture in terms of the expectation and usage of postcards, they should learn the Japanese postcards through explicit teaching but not through osmosis. Secondly, when students are provided the opportunities to communicate with Japanese students through writing postcards, they are the bilingual or multilingual speakers. Thirdly, students learn the Japanese languge and Japanese culture inseparately. Finally, when students learn the languge of Japanese, they also explore the intercultural because they have the opportunities to reflect on their own culture.
6.1.3 Implementation of intercultural approach
In this program, language teachers’ teaching method refers to Liddicoat’s intercultural approach (2004) mentioned before. When learners are requested to research Japanese postcards and find out different purposes, usage and expectation about them, they are acquiring culture about Japanese postcards; when students are required to compare the grammatical formalities of letter writing in Japanese and English, they are comparing culture and discovering their own culture; when students are asked to write postcards to students in Japan, they are experiencing cultural practice (Moran, 2001). Intercultural approach is utilized to improve students’ language learning through combining Japanese language learning with their own language and culture learning. 6.1.4 Advantages of ILE in Australia
From the example of the Clare Primary School, it can be found that there are some benefits for Australian language teachers to carry out the ILE. First of all, the ILE is supported by the Australian government, and Harbon (2006) states that some Australian documents have emphasized the importance of the ILE in schools’ curriculum. Secondly, there are many professionals and researchers working in the field of ILE, in order to provide language teachers with more and more theoretical support. In addition, teachers have an opportunity to receive professional training on ILE in the ALPLP. Finally, since Australian language classrooms are typically multicultural, language teachers have more opportunities to communicate and work with native teachers of the target language. As well as Australian students have more chances to communicate and work with native speakers of the target language.
6.1.5 Challenges of ILE in Australia
Although language teachers and students in Australia have more chances to share rich resource, teacher educators still face some challenges. To begin with, the role of teacher educators has changed, and the most important factor is that the professional standards for them are not very advanced (Harbon, 2006). In order to avoid the situation that language teachers at the crossroads, there is a need for the development of professional standards for teacher educators. In addition, how to develop teachers’ perspectives about IcLL is another major challenge (Harbon, 2006). Language teachers should practice and develop their new perspectives about IcLL, in order to find out effective language teaching methods.
6.2 Intercultural language education in China
Intercultural language education in China is completely different from that in Australia. Compared with Australian learners, Chinese students in the language classrooms share the same language background and they learn English as a foreign language. Although students have learnt English for many years in Chinese language classrooms, they still learn English without combining the culture of it, and consider the culture as a separated part. There are still many problems for the Chinese teachers to solve if they want to successfully implement the ILE.
6.2.1 Development of ILE in China
In order to find out an effective approach to implement the ILE, recently the Chinese scholars have began to explore how to combine intercultural education with EFL. Ge & Zhen (2006) claim that intercultural education in China should be consided as a main goal in EFL curriculum with the ten teaching aims, such as to access the culture through the language being taught; to train the intercultural competence that students are lacking; and to raise cross-cultural understanding –awareness of their own culture, as well as that of the target culture. Additionally, in order to develop students’ intercultural competence (ICC) in the process of language learning, Ge & Zhen (2006) maintain that there are two essential trends in current ELT. One is that the goal of language teaching should focus on communicative competence but not just linguistic competence. The other trend emphasizes English mediun education (Huang & Xu, 1999).
6.2.2 Challenges of ILE in China
Although Chinese scholars can connect the intercultural education to the EFT, and emphasize the role of intercultural communication competence in current ELT, there are some realistic problems still existing in China. First of all, the Chinese teaching context lacks of an IEL-oriented EFL curriculum. Although the significance of the ILE has been acknowledged, there are some problems still cannot be solved, such as what culture to teach and what aspects of this culture to highlight (Ge & Zhen ). Further research and study on how to effectively implement the ILE in China are necessary.
Moreover, it is difficult for most EFL teachers to implement the intercultural education in EFL curriculum when they are inexperienced and have not been trained. Moran (2001) states that culture experience is one of essential factors for culture teaching. Chinese language teachers may know little about the target culture community when they have few chances to communicate with the native speakers. Therefore, they are not able to teach culture in the process of langauge teaching, and improve students’ intercultural competence.
Thirdly, the ILE challenges the traditional role of EFL teachers and language learners. In traditional language teaching classroom, Chinese teachers usually act as language facilitators and instructors. Nevertheless, the role of EFL teachers needs to be redifined when they implement ILE in EFL context. ILE requires the EFL teachers not only act as language facilitators, but also culture transmitters. It means the EFL teachers are also learners of language and culture (Liddicoat, 1999). Both EFL teachers and learners should learn how to associate the language with culture when they are experiencing language teaching and learning in order to develop their intercultural competence.
Finally, teaching material such as the intercultural-oriented EFL course books is another problem that need to be solved. In order to help sttudents know more about their own country, as well as achieve the goal that introduce their native culture with standard and comprehensible English, the content of course books should relate the Chinese culture to the target culture. 6.2.3 Some suggestions for implementing ILE in China
First of all, teachers and students should not just focus on the assessment of linguistic knowledge and emphasize the examination. Teachers should also pay attention on the study of intercultural and provide students with various kinds of assessment that include culture.
Secondly, the computer assisted language learning (CALL) that benefits students to make an easy accesss to intercultural education should be stressed and introduced to the language classrooms. With the assistance of computer networks, teachers and students are easier to access and know more about the globle communities.
Thirdly, in relation to teaching material, Chinese teachers and professionals can create and design course books by themselves according to their realistic situation. There are two reasons for this point. One is that the imported course books that designed by the native community maybe not suitable to Chinese students. The other reason is that the course books should be designed to fit into different degrees of students. Ge & Zhen (2006) state that the development of intercultural teaching material should be based on the reality of EFL in China, in order to create materials that cover both English and Chinese cultures.
Last but not least, the development of intercultural education calls for joint effort of local government and local communities, but not just the international communities. For instance, the local government has a responsibility to provide teachers with financial support and offer them more opportunities to train and study. Moreover, international programme and modern education technology (e.g., computer) also need to cost a large amount of money. Although it is impossible for all areas in China to afford such a kind of investment, the developed areas can start to have a try.
7. Conclusion
Intercultural language education is gaining more and more attention around the world. IEL is of great significance to foreign language teaching, and it cannot be denied that language learning should be associated with culture learning with the aim of developing students’ intercultural competence.
In terms of ILE in China, there are three elements that need to be emphasized. One is that language teachers should not only pay attention on learners’ linguistic knowledge but also focus on culture learning in order to successfully implement the ILE. Another one is that language learners’ own culture should be combined with the target culture. The last factor is that more research and study related to ILE and EFL are necessay, in order to find out more effective approaches for the implementation of ILE.
References:
Asian Language Professional Learning Project. (2004). Getting started with intercultural language learning: A resource for schools based on teachers’ ideas and experiences from the Asian Languages Professional Learning Project. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Bennett, J. M. (2003). Developing intercultural competence in the language classroom. In D. L. Lange & R. M. Paige (Eds.). Culture as the core: perspectives on culture in second language learning (pp.237-270). Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Publications.
Clifford, J. (1992). Traveling cultures. pp.96-112 in L. Grossberg, C. Nelson and P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: English with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet, (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place – Intercultural Competence through Language Education (pp.113-125). Melbourne: Language Australia.
Harbon, L. (2006). Intercultural languages education. Babel, 41 (1), 28-38.
Liddicoat, A. (2004). Intercultural language teaching: principles for practice. The New Zealand Language Teacher, 30, 17-23.
Lo Bianco, J. (2003). Culture: visible, invisible and multiple. In J. Lo Bianco & C. Crozet, (Eds). Teaching Invisible Culture: classroom practice and theory. (pp.11-38), Melbourne, Vic. : Language Australia.
Lo Bianco, J. (2004). Resources for cultural language learning. Australia: CAE press.
Moran, P. R. (2001). Teaching culture. In P.R. Moran, Teaching culture: perspectives and practice (pp.135-155), Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Street, B. (1993). Culture is a verb: anthropological aspects of language and cultural process. In D. Graddol, L. Thompson, & M. Byram (Eds.), Language and culture. (pp. 23-43). Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters and BAAl.
Williams, R. (1958). Culture and society, 1780-1950. London: Chatto and Windus.
Ge, W. & Zhen, Z. (n.d.) (2006). Intercultural language teaching in China: problems and prospects. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Foreign Language Teaching Methodology. Hong Kong: Authors.
Kramsch, C. & Widdowson, H. G. (Ed.). (1998). Language and culture. New York: Oxford University.
Kramsch, C. (1995). The cultural component of language teaching. Language, culture and curriculum, 8, 83-92.
Fantini, S. E. (1995). Introduction-language, culture and world view: exploring the nexus. Intercultural journal of intercultural relations, 2, 143, 153.
Clark, V. P. & Eschholz, P. A. (1981). Introductory readings. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Holliday, M.A.K. & Webster, J. (Ed.). (2003). On language and linguisitcs. London: continuum.
Crozet, C. & Liddicoat, A. (1999). The challenge of intercultural language teaching: English with culture in the classroom. In J. Lo Bianco, A. Liddicoat, & C. Crozet, (Eds.), Striving for the Third Place – Intercultural Competence through Language Education (pp.113-125). Melbourne: Language Australia.
Lafayette, R. (1997). Integrating the teaching of culture into the foreign language classroom. In P.R. Heusinkveld (Ed.), Pathways to culture: Reading on teaching culture in the foreign language class (pp. 119-148). Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
作者简介：黄旭璇，女，广东省广州市，澳大利亚悉尼大学硕士学位，广州大学松田学院外语系英语教师， 主要研究方向：英语教学法