Understanding language

This section traces the development of understandings of the nature of language. The conceptual models of understanding language have been critical to the way it has been taught, and also to the status of research methodologies employed in language

research. This reviews briefly considers language as syntax, the influence of semiotics, and the sociocultural approach which has resulted in the use of new methodologies. The purpose is to highlight the extent of the difference represented in intercultural language learning, where qualitative attitudes of cultural reflection and understanding are the focus and qualitative research methods are employed. Scarino (2007) refers to a ‘paradigm war’ in language research, which could be described in broad terms as between measurement and description, represented in the theoretical and research tensions traced below.

2.2.2.1 Language as syntax

Much language research of the mid-twentieth century was based on the notion, exemplified in the book Verbal behaviour (Skinner, 1957), that language learning is exclusively about observable linguistic behaviour. Testing of observable linguistic behaviour using quantitative methods has been characteristic of language research for the past forty years. In the late 1960s and early 70s the field of linguistics was

dominated by Chomsky (1957, 1959, 1976), focusing on syntax, sentence level and grammatical accuracy. The individual learner and his/her brain were likened to a ‘computational unit’ (Mackerras, 2006).

Empirical research which focused on syntactical development in language was always quantitative in nature, with an inherent positivist epistemology. Quantitative testing of language acquisition in immersion classrooms has used common batteries of tests of non-verbal cognitive abilities tests, basic skills tests, and various second language receptive and productive skills tests (Cummins & Swain, 1986; Lambert & Tucker, 1972; Swain & Lapkin, 1981). Unseen internal motivations of a learner’s behaviour and the cultural setting of the language were not of interest in quantitative research.

2.2.2.2 Language and semiotics

The work of Firth (1966, 1968) and his student Halliday (1975, 1978) pioneered the analysis of language in its social context and established the interdependence of language, culture and society, and language as a social phenomenon. Halliday (1978) describes language as a ‘social semiotic’ and as ‘shared meaning potential’ in a social context. Halliday emphasises that language is meaningful in context and how language ‘actively symbolises the social system, representing metaphorically in its patterns of variation the variation that characterises human cultures… Language is a form of

interaction and it is learnt through interaction’ (Halliday, 1978, p. 18). Halliday linked the linguistic sciences and both mother-tongue and foreign language teaching (Halliday, McIntosh & Strevens, 1964). His systemic–functional model inspired new attention to language’s role in all education. Vygotsky’s (1986) influence on education was also extensive, particularly through his description of social interaction and language as being the necessary fabric in which learning takes place.

2.2.2.3 Sociocultural language research: a balanced approach

The sociocultural approach offers ‘an alternative paradigm in which to understand teaching and learning’ (Mackerras, 2006). In sociocultural theory of learning and development, thought and language reflect, and are created by, setting. The

sociocultural approach connects the target language to everyday concepts and context.

Baker (1993) writes that measurement alone ‘fails to capture fully various conceptual dimensions and categorizations… [L]anguage tests and measurements are unlikely to fully represent an idea or theoretical concept’. Baker argues that measurement and testing need to be partnered by rich descriptions. Baker draws a connection with the complementary nature of measurement and description in sport:

The stark statistics of the football or ice hockey game and the colourful commentary are complementary not incompatible (Baker, 1993, p 32).

Block (2003) argues for a ‘social turn in second language acquisition’ calling for

interdisciplinary and socially informed language research. Striving towards a balance in methodologies, language research was influenced by the rise of ethnographic

interpretative methods in education research from the 1980s (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982). These methods are now being adopted in language research. Learning is recognised as ‘not merely information processing carried out solo by an individual’ (Donato, 2000, p. 33).

The changes in theoretical orientation in general education research briefly sketched above illustrate the pathway which has lead intercultural language research to address the perceptions of the student in his/her social and cultural setting, using a range of new methods.

2.2.2.4 New methodologies in language research

It is now accepted (Armour, 2004; Kramsch, 1993; Lantolf, 2000; Liddicoat et al., 2003) that language research needs to be socially informed and enhanced by the discourses of culture and sociocultural theory. It is sociocultural approaches to bilingualism, conceptualising the relationship between the language learner and the social world, which offer the best scope for understanding learner development. Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) argue that it is

about second language learning not as the acquisition of a new set of grammatical lexical and phonological forms but as a struggle of concrete socially constituted and always situated beings to participate in the symbologically mediated lifeworld of another culture. (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000, p.155)

The shift to qualitative language research methodology is exemplified by the work of Armour (2004) who uses life history method to track identity change in Japanese

learners, Mueller (2000) who uses an autobiographical method to investigate culture and values in language education, and Ho (2006) who defends the focus group interview as an important research method in language classroom studies.

The shift in understanding of language and culture as detailed above represents the cornerstone concept from which intercultural language learning has developed. While this has been occurring in the theoretical research field, in the language classroom itself, however, older models of non-integrated language and culture have often still prevailed. Without an understanding of the shift which has occurred, it is a significant hurdle for

teachers to grasp the theoretical and practical aspects of intercultural language learning. In order to understand the challenge for teachers of the new practice promoted by the intercultural language movement, this review refers briefly in the next section to

prevailing attitudes in teachers and classroom research. (This will be referred to again in relation to the teachers in the case study school, in Chapter 4, section 4.3.2.1.)

2.2.2.5 Culture in the language classroom

In the Australian ‘foreign’ language classroom of the 1960s–1990s, language was seen as divorced from its cultural context. Culture was taught as discrete items of exotic interest, most commonly food, folk-dancing and festivals, from an ethnocentric standpoint (Ozolins, 1993). This view of culture was synchronous with Angloceltic Australian community interest in the exotica of multiculturalism (Jakubowicz, 1988; Kalantzis & Cope, 1984; Kalantzis, Cope & Slade, 1989).

Many teachers still express an enduring fondness for this model (Moloney, 2000). In analysing language teachers’ discourse about their practice, Moloney (2000) showed that teachers can present an unexpected orientalist discourse, with ethnocentric attitudes and ‘knowledge’ of a country which have been shaped by their own social milieu.

Klein (2004) in her survey of 14 US high school language teachers similarly found that ‘culture teaching occurs separately from language instruction’. Klein suggests that

teachers’ fixation on maximizing language production tends to keep culture learning at ‘a surface level, and may interfere with the achievement of teachers’ cultural goals’ (Klein, 2004). Klein noted that teachers hold ‘incongruent theories of action of which they may not be aware’. This incongruity is discussed in Chapter 4 (Findings) as a feature of some teachers of this case study.

Teachers’ traditional perspective on culture has been characterised (AEF, 2004) as ‘High C’, or ‘culture with a capital C’ approach. It may feature study of the literature, music or arts of the target country; this ‘cultural footbath’ is held to have a positive effect on pupils’ mindset (Sercu, 2002). In this perspective, as noted above in section 2.2.1.1, culture is regarded as static and as embodied within the artwork or activity. A common

‘culture studies’ perspective features studies of the country, geography, food and

lifestyle. Cultural facts are easily teachable (Paige, Jorstad, Siaya, Klein & Colby, 1999), but they generally focus on superficial behaviours without examining underlying values, and are not connected with language use. Liddicoat (2006a) stresses that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with these information-rich types of culture teaching, but their weakness is that they frequently develop stereotypical images and give students no personal strategies for reflective skills.

Moran (2001) describes the optimal four types of knowing involved in culture learning: know about / know how / know why / know oneself. Information-rich traditional models of culture teaching are strong in enabling students to know about practices, but weak in development of the other areas. What the new model of intercultural language learning (see section 2.2.4 below) highlights is, firstly, the notion that the language acts as a medium for culture (Lankshear, 1997) and, secondly, student personal understanding of relationships between the cultures and their political implications (Kramsch, 2007; Sercu, 2002).

Teachers’ responsibility lies in two areas:

(a) development of students’ target language ‘communication skills’

(b) students’ overall personal development, leading to ‘lifelong personal educational and vocational benefits’ (Board of Studies NSW, 2003, p. 13).

For intercultural language learning to be meaningful to teachers it must be seen by them to be immediately relevant to these two areas, the language skill and the whole learner. It will be noted in the discussion of the different models and developments below, that the balance of these two elements changes, and seems to assume lesser and greater importance. The goal of the current model of intercultural language learning is to radically combine and hold the two elements in the most effective balance.

2.2.3 Intersection of culture and language: Intercultural Language Learning