文化接觸:台灣大學生與非英文母語外籍生的跨文化溝通與文化學習

(1)

1

A Master Thesis

Presented to

Institute of TESOL,

National Chiao Tung University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

Cultural Encounters: Intercultural Communication and

Cultural Learning of Taiwanese College Students with

Non-native English Speakers

Graduate: Hsiang-Ju Tseng

Advisor: Dr. Shu-Chen Huang December, 2009

(2)

i ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 " 3 4 5 67 8 # $ 9 : ; <= > ? , @ A . B C D E F G H I J KL M N O P Q D <R_{Byram (1997)}S T U VW X Y Z [_(fieldwork)\ ] R^ _ ` a b c d e Rf ^g M h i Vj k l - [(openness attitude)6 mno p q r Ks t Ru v w x y z { u W X Y Z | y # $ R } ~ I z . B C D 8 K L D R D x L 8 K_{Alptekin (2002)} L D 8 K z R # $ 8 8 L d RU / L # $ q d K# $ u ¡ <R ¢ ¢ q R£ ¤ L 8 ¥ ¦ ! § K # $ ¨ © ª « q

^¬ (Intercultural competence) ® ¯¥ t ° ± ² ³RU ´

q z ¥ ¦ ª « µ H K # $ ¶ · ¸ ¹ ª « º » ¼ µ ½ ¯¾ ¿ RU ´ ( q r À Á ÂK # $ Ã Ä h ª « Å Æ A Ç ¯ RU ´ A ÈÉ \ ¼ Ê Ë Ì Í ¥ KÎ R ª « h i Vj k l - [Ïopenness attitude)v ¼ q Ð Ç Rf Ñ Ò h Ó Ô Õ Ö ´ ° ± Ç ª \ ] × Ø KÙ q ² ³R # $ ¶ · Ú Û R ² ³Ü Ý D ¯ Þ µ ¯ ß à RU ´ á | y Ë Ì È\ ¼ K/ â t D Rã # $ ä q ª « å æ ç ¼ è é Rs t R ¤ S ê ª « ë ì q A ¥ ¦ q r ' M í ì ¥ ¦ î ç K ï ¥ / ð ñ ò Í ó ôU ´ ! ¿ õ

(3)

ii ôK # $ S ö ° / ÷ ø ù ¼ q ¼ U ´ / ÷ ú û A ü <° ± Vý þ [(world Englishes) \ ] KU L # $ A " m Ê í K ª « Å Æ ° ± RU z S « K D ^¬ (linguistic competence)R ú } U ´ h À ç RA Ê L I > K^ Ã _{(the skill of interpreting} and relating)U ´ ^h « (the skill of discovering and interacting)ß ^A

(4)

iii ABSTRCT

The TESL/TEFL professionals have drawn considerable attention to the growing importance of cultural learning in recent decades. To embed cultural learning into language learning, Byram (1997) has suggested that the fieldwork approach is one of the efficient ways to avoid reinforcing cultural stereotypes, help develop openness attitude (Robinson & Nocon, 1996; Bateman, 2002), and experience real time,

unrehearsed interaction. Nevertheless, amid previous cultural research associated with the fieldwork approach, most attention was given to the investigation of L2 learners’ contact with native speakers of English. This focus has claimed to be unrealistic since English now serves as an international language (Alptekin, 2002). Catering to the fact that nonnative-nonnative communication prevails, the present research involved four college freshman participants from diverse disciplines studying at a public university in northern Taiwan, paired up to communicate with international students who are nonnative speakers of English, studying in the same university. The study attempted to investigate how the intercultural task could foster the development of intercultural competence and to discover L2 learners’ communication difficulties and perception on the task. Data was collected from L2 learners’ written self-reflection reports, transcript of post-interviews, and transcript of the intercultural conversation between the learners and the international students.

Results showed that the task helped L2 learners increase knowledge of foreign culture, native culture, together with knowledge of intercultural interaction. The task also fostered the development of the “openness” attitude, and aroused considerable interest in introducing one’s own culture to others and in knowing other people’s way of life. In terms of communication difficulties, the results indicated that the

difficulties covered aspects of linguistics, affection, communication strategies, and sociocultural knowledge. In general, the learners showed positive attitudes toward the

(5)

iv

intercultural experience; however, few limitations such as little grammar correction given during the task were reported. The learners further suggested the number of foreign interlocutors and the frequency of the intercultural interaction perhaps could be increased.

The present study is likely to provide a framework to enhance face-to-face intercultural interaction and to help L2 learners approach world Englishes (Kachru & Nelson, 1996) in L2 learners’ country. A few pedagogical implications were provided. Activities of having L2 learners conduct the intercultural task could possibly bring them to see the communicative purpose of English, further boosting motivation for English learning. Linguistic competence remains crucial; sufficient vocabulary repertoire and comprehensible pronunciation are fundamental to successful

intercultural communication. Furthermore, the skill of interpreting and relating and skill of discovering and interacting (Byram, 1997) are discovered to be paramount and advised to practice in English class.

(6)

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank those who made my thesis possible. I would like to recognize and appreciate them for their support.

First of all, I am deeply indebted to my advisor, Dr. Shu-Chen, Huang, whose guidance and encouragement from the initial to the final stage enabled me to develop an understanding of the subject. Despite her tight schedule, she always discussed with me about my unsound arguments or illogical inferences I made in the writing.

I am grateful to my committee members, Dr. Stephanie W. Cheng and

Dr.Wen-Yuh, Shieh, for their comments. Their constructive suggestions contributed to the revision of my thesis.

Also, I want to express my gratitude to all my friends, Louis, Louie, and Nancy. Without their kind support and encouragement, I could not complete my thesis.

Lastly, I would like to thank my mother and my boyfriend, Eric, whose love and care helped my gain faith in myself and had strengths to overcome the difficulties during the years at NCTU.

(7)

vi

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Criteria for Accessing Intercultural Competence……….……26 Table 2.2 A Model for Student-traveler’s Development in Learning Abroad

Program………....38 Table 3.1 Intercultural Experiences outside and in One’s Own Country of the Six

Potential Participants…….………...49 Table 3.2 Background Information of Taiwanese Participants………51 Table 3.3 Demographic Information of Six Responding Internet Students…….……52 Table 3.4 Grouping of Taiwanese Students and International Students………….…..53 Table 3.5 Location and Time Duration of the Intercultural Interaction ………..61 Table 3.6 Procedure of Data Collection………...62 Table 3.7 Classification of Intercultural Competence………..66 Table 4.1 Frequencies and Percentage of Four Types of Intercultural Competence

Discovered………72 Table 4.2 Examples of Cultural Differences Discovered……….75 Table 4.3 Examples of Cultural Similarities Discovered……….77 Table 4.4 Examples of Knowledge Development of One’s Own Culture via the Eyes

of the International Students………....81 Table 4.5 Communication Differences Reported by More/Less proficient Learner....91 Table 4.6 Elliot’s Slip of Tongue………..……. .94 Table 4.7 An Excerpt of How High Anxiety Interfered Thomas’s Willingness To

Talk ……….94 Table 4.8 Transcription of the Confusion of “ International Perspective” ...……….102 Table 4.9 Examples of How Nina and Elliot Reacted Differently to an Unfamiliar

(12)

xi

List of Figures

(13)

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background

The Foreign Language or Second Language (henceforth FL or SL) professionals have drawn considerable attention to the growing importance of real language use in recent decades. This particular focus has become prevalent since the mid-1970s after the startling discovery that language learners, though competent in linguistic rules, are unlikely to deal with the real-time conversation with native speakers of the target language. This discouraging revelation is mostly attributed to the fact that linguistic competence (Chomsky, 1965) does not suffice to help SL or FL learners manage a multitude of variables emerging moment by moment in the genuine conversation. For most learners, the destination goal for language learning, in essence, is to develop the abilities of fulfilling the communicative need of learners themselves rather than to satisfy the cognitive demand for linguistic rules. In an attempt to compensate for the limitation of the traditional, grammar-focused language curriculum, the term,

communicative competence (Hyme, 1967, 1972) has been coined to preach the doctrine that SL /FL education ought to expand its focus to an extent that the curriculum encompasses authentic tasks or practices to help learners mobilize linguistic rules learned. According to the definition of communicative competence proposed by Canale and Swain in 1980, competent SL/FL learners are defined as learners who have sociolinguistic knowledge of the target language so as to eschew possible misunderstanding resulting from intercultural differences. In addition, skillful learner-communicators excel in the negotiation of meaning and deftly use

(14)

2

communication strategies which help sustain the interactive process to make meanings across in real, unrehearsed situations with native speakers of the target language.

Inheriting the premises of communicative competence, the FL/SL profession thus has laid a great deal of emphasis on the target-culture learning, for the

sociolinguistic knowledge of the target language is partly derived from the culture where the language is spoken. The underlying tacit culture of the society gives meaning to language or a set of social convention or rules used for behavior

evaluation. In a word, language learning cannot be divorced from culture learning if communication is the ultimate goal. Without knowing the target culture, it seems that language learners might struggle to receive the intended meaning given by native speakers of the target language and to speak proper language in the right context.

Nevertheless, this awareness of the pivotal role of the target culture plays in FL/SL learning likely fail to consider the fact that languages are spreading (Alptekin, 2002). Take the English language for example. Many English variations exist, e.g., British English, American English, Australian English, South African English or Singaporean English. Each English variation is characterized by its unique cultural or social heritage. It is unlikely to prioritize them, choose one particular culture, and integrate it into the second or foreign language education unless judging them by their social value. Additionally, English now serves as an international language, a

utilitarian tool for intercultural communication. As early as the late-1990s, the number of already fluent and competent English speakers was approximately around 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion because of the three-pronged development of first-language, official-language, and foreign-language speakers (Crystal, 1997). As such, it can never be rare that a nonnative speaker of English communicates with interlocutors from other cultural background who also learns English as SL or FL; that is to say, the

(15)

3

nonnative-nonnative intercultural conversation prevails today.

In effect, intercultural communicators require the ability of utilizing English to interact with not only native speakers of English, but also with nonnative speakers of English. Byram (1997) has argued that the concept of communicative competence is so constrained that it only indicates the necessity of learning the target culture, and disregards the equivalent importance for SL/FL learners to explore cultures in which English is used as the lingua franca. Byram (1997) then has proposed the term,

intercultural communicative competence, or intercultural competence, which adds the “intercultural dimension” to make up for the constraints of communicative

competence. A learner with intercultural communicative competence, also known as an “intercultural speaker” (Byram, 1997), is distinguished by his or her “cultural versatility” (Robinson, 1991). Furthermore, an intercultural speaker is mindful of both their own and others’ culturally constructed selves, and regards culture as a constant process of formation and transformation rather than the assumption that culture is constituted with a set of straightforward facts (Roberts et al., 2001). That is to say, in the wake of the globalization phenomenon of English serving as an international language, the need for L2 learners to be competent in carrying out socially appropriate behaviors during the interaction with their foreign interlocutor coming from

whichever culture has become pressing.

However, to connect culture with language learning is somewhat uneasy. In most cases of the cultural education design, the uncertainty of the concept of culture begets the misemployment of pedagogical methods. Some teachers regard culture as the natural outgrowth of language learning. That is to say, teachers need not offer any educational help to cultural learning based on the assumption that a person who learns a language would naturally grow an understanding of that culture. This

(16)

4

apparently problematic since bilinguals can possibly carry negative attitudes toward the second culture and this dissenting proclivity retains even after a few years of the second language education (Nocon, 1991).

Another false elucidation of what is composed of culture also influences the effectiveness of cultural learning. Here, culture is mistakenly viewed as factual knowledge and acquired through memorization. Given that learners do not seem to see the relationship between the knowledge of culture and language learning (Bateman, 2002; Robinson-Stuart & Nocon, 1996), the cultural facts introduced in class become learners’ extra cognitive burden on top of the language learning. What is even worse, this way of cultural learning would hinder learners from inquiring into foreign cultures since it is indicated that some students regard cultural learning as unnecessary or even distracting in language learning on the condition that culture is presented in sets of facts (Bateman, 2002). Investigating the relevant literature in the past, the present study tries to avoid repeating the mistakes by basing itself on the rationale of cultural learning—culture is a process. The following lies in the elaboration of the culture definition the present study takes with.

Rationale of the Study

Aware of the fact that culture is not the natural outcome of language learning nor a set of facts, the present study is based on the premise that culture is regarded as a process. That is, culture is defined as “a way of perceiving, interpreting, feeling, being in the world, wanting to smile, wanting to scream, loving, hating, and relating to where one is and who one meets” (Robinson-Stuart & Nocon, 1996, p. 432). This alludes to the fact that culture is not static. Culture in fact lies in the everyday practices of individuals and groups and is likely to reveal itself through face-to-face interaction with an individual. As such, the dynamic nature of interaction as the result

(17)

5

of a combination of variables of interlocutors and contexts affects how people in the interaction perceive or evaluate the interactive culture. Thus, the present study, adhesive to the viewpoint of regarding culture as a process, focuses on helping learners realize the situational, dynamic nature of culture.

Purpose of the Study

In a great effort to facilitate the learners to see the situational nature of culture, the present study has adopted the fieldwork approach to encourage intercultural learning. Byram (1997) has claimed that the method of fieldwork— meaning having an authentic intercultural contact with the foreign culture outside classroom, is

addressed to be the most effective way to foster learners’ attitude change toward other culture or otherness (Byram, 1997; Robinson-Stuart & Nocon, 1996). In addition, the fieldwork approach enables L2 learners to develop skills in real time. During

interaction, learners bring their knowledge to bear on specific situations and discover new information, added to their knowledge base provided in class; they can also experience communication under time pressures and be aware of the importance of nonverbal communication (Byram, 1997). Aside from the positive stimulation from the fieldwork approach mentioned, it is noteworthy that the fieldwork approach concurs with the premise that culture, as a process, reveals during interaction. The fieldwork approach encourages authentic intercultural interactions, in which foreign culture is presented as a varying entity based on communicator’s individual

experience or interpretation.

In the previous literature, research relevant to the fieldwork approach can be generally subcategorized into two types: study-abroad program and virtual

intercultural contact. In view of the former type, some scholars have integrated the “study-abroad” program into the language-and-culture study (e.g., Barro et al., 1993;

(18)

6

Murphy-Lejeune, 2003; Roberts, 2003), by which learners can seize the opportunities of staying in the foreign culture to enrich their intercultural experiences as well as to enhance their English ability. Moreover, regarding the latter type, virtual intercultural contact, here, the definition of the fieldwork is expanded due to the advent of the Internet access. Face-to-face intercultural interaction becomes feasible in the cyber land, and this kind of virtual interaction, most remarkably, enables learners to do the “arm-chair traveling” in their native country. Studies of this type (e.g., Ham, 1995; Liaw & Johnson, 2001) certify that the virtual interaction can serve as an alternative to facilitate intercultural interaction in some education contexts where the traveling aboard task is less likely to be implemented.

The field work, encouraging authentic intercultural communication via either the study-aboard program or the Internet is proven to help receive high quality of cultural knowledge (Barro et al., 1993; Murphy-Lejeune, 2003), attitude change (Bateman, 2002; Robinson-Stuart & Nocon, 1996) toward the target culture, long-term

relationship build-up with the interlocutor (Galloway, 1995), and the development of communication strategies and sociolinguistic competence (Murphy-Lejeuun, 2003). Nevertheless, most previous fieldwork in intercultural studies, either by the overseas traveling or by the Internet connection, focuses on the learners’ interaction merely with so-called native speakers of the target language. Aside from the expensive costs of traveling and potential difficulties in getting hold of cyber-mates for class, this type of intercultural learning with an emphasis on experiences with so-called native

speakers of the target language has become problematic and insufficient nowadays (Alptekin, 2002).

Due to the fact that languages are spreading, the ownership of a language might not be exclusive to a single nation or a culture. Therefore, it is almost impossible to decide which target culture to learn. For instance, choosing either British culture or

(19)

7

American culture as the target culture to learn would become an unsettled problem in sketching an English-as-second/foreign-language curriculum design. In addition, languages are subject to the globalization phenomenon. For the purpose of

communication, a certain language would be chosen as the common language among some areas or nations. English, in particular, now serves as an international language, to enable people of different cultural backgrounds to communicate. English is used in not only the native-native or nonnative-native communication, but also it, more often, serves as the mediator during the nonnative-nonnative conversation, diminishing the possible communication hurdle, originating from the fact that multiple languages are spoken on earth. It thus will make less sense for English learners nowadays to expose to merely so-called native-speaker culture of English. Instead, English learners in the modern time ought to be intercultural speakers, who do not only understand one specific culture, but who can relativize self (Byram, 1997), accept otherness no matter which culture they encounter. With the aptitude of “cultural versatility” (Robinson, 1991), they are mindful of their own identities and cultures and of how they are perceived by others, and have an understanding of the identities and cultures of those with whom they are communicating (Byram & Fleming, 1998).

As a result, similar to previous studies focusing on the authentic intercultural interaction, the present study aims to integrate the fieldwork approach into language learning. However, unlike most previous studies, the present study targeted at the nonnative-nonnative intercultural interaction in which L2 learners communicated with foreign residents in the learners’ native country with the use of the target language, English, as the mediating tool. It took place in the context where English is learned as the foreign language (the EFL context). For most learners in the EFL context, chances of using English are relatively fewer, let alone using English to acquire multiple cultures in their own country. The present research thus seeks ways to compensate for

(20)

8

the learning disadvantage that learners possibly face in the EFL context by encouraging learners to conduct the intercultural task. After the intercultural

interaction with a chosen interlocutor, who also learners English as second or foreign language and has different culture from the learners, the learners then reflected upon the intercultural interaction.

The significance of the present study lies in the fact that it scrutinizes the intercultural interaction between nonnative and nonnative speakers of English. This focus is in accord with the growing need of the cultural education after the impact of English serving as an international language. Moreover, the present study attempts to provide a teaching framework to enhance face to face intercultural interaction in learners’ native country. As seeing cross-country traveling prevails, authentic intercultural interaction need not be compromised to be carried out in the virtual world. After all, the human-human interaction, rather than human via computer interaction, is likely to be the ideal mode for language learning. Specific research questions of the present study are posited as follows.

(1) What types of intercultural competence development did the intercultural task bring on the EFL learners?

(2) What communication difficulties did the EFL learners encounter during the intercultural talk?

(3) From the students’ perspective, what were the positive/negative aspects of the task?

(21)

9

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter elaborates on the importance of the cultural learning for L2 learners in today’s multiethnic or multicultural world and literature of ways to implement the cultural learning into language education. Firstly, I offer a general introduction to major shifts of foci in language education and the relationship between culture and language. These demonstrate the necessity of the cultural instruction that helps L2 learners develop intercultural communication competence and become successful “intercultural speakers” (Byram, 1997). Further, I indicate factors and difficulties in intercultural communication. Lastly, relevant research about ways to implement the cultural learning into language instruction is highlighted.

Focus Shifts in Second/Foreign Language Instruction The Foreign/Second language learning profession has undergone several

developing phases in terms of appropriate language instruction objectives. One of the main shifts in focus has been the movement from linguistic competence (Chomsky, 1965), encompassing knowledge of vocabulary and rules of morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics, to communicative competence (Hymes, 1972), an ability to interpret or negotiate meanings in order to maintain conversations with others. This shift in focus has been generally expedited by the discouraging fact that the L2

learners, educated in a curriculum with an emphasis on linguistic rules, do not seem to be productive in language use.

It has been discovered that L2 learners who learn sets of linguistic rules are not capable of producing the language, either in verbal or in written form. That is to say, the understanding of the linguistic rules does not directly lead to the result of using

(22)

10

them. This incapability of speaking the target language (TL) concerns FL/SL teachers most, partly for language is used for the purpose of communication. Speaking is the most direct way to transmit messages, and not being able to speak the language is considered the greatest disadvantage for L2 learners who have devoted themselves to the language learning.

The primary reason that the L2 learners fail to exercise the language they learned is that face to face communication involves many variables. Successful

communication cannot be achieved simply by the application of the “rules” of the language. In fact, the characteristics of the interlocutors differ greatly. L2 learners are likely to suffer from situational problems occurring during conversations. The

possible combinations made by the factors of personality, accent, delivery speed, voice volume, and so forth, can easily bewilder L2 learners. It is very possible that L2 learners who know a great inventory of linguistic rules would still gape at the speaker after being daunted by the fleeting spoken language.

As a result, L2 learners’ incompetence in using the TL reveals the limitation of linguistic competence. In light of the importance of language use, FL/SL language professionals have redirected the instructional focus to put more emphasis on

developing the ability of L2 learners to deal with authentic, natural conversations with native speakers. As such, the term “communicative competence” has been coined to compensate for the limitation of linguistic competence, and the concept of

communicative competence has been heatedly discussed within the FL/SL learning discipline in recent decades.

Language and Culture Defining Communicative Competence

(23)

11

information are transmitted, many FL/SL scholars have scrutinized the construct of communicative competence. Hymes first defined communicative competence as the competence that “enables us to interpret and negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific contexts” (Brown, 2000, p.246). Following Hymes’s unprecedented assertion, scholars, such as Canale and Swain (1980) and Savignon (1983), have tried to substantiate communicative competence. Among these, the classic model of

communicative competence portrayed by Canale and Swain (1980) and later modified by Canale (1983) has subcategorized communicative competence into four

components: grammatical competence, discourse competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence.

The first type of competence, linguistic competence refers to Chomskyan linguistic competence, and the aim of this ability is to the linguistic mastery of a language, including knowledge of vocabulary, rules of morphology, phonology, syntax, and semantics. The next type of competence, discourse competence, goes beyond sentential-level grammar to inter-sentential relationships. That is, this competence deals with skills of producing series of sentences in a cohesive or coherent manner. Third, sociolinguistic competence emphasizes the ability to understand the social context in which the language is used. The social context mentioned here involves variables, such as roles of communicators, functions of the interaction, shared information, and other factors that determine the appropriateness of utterances. The fourth competence in this model, strategic competence, requires the adept use of either verbal or non-verbal communication strategies to compensate for possible communicative breakdowns due to insufficient language competence. Strategies, like paraphrasing, repetition or avoidance, are within this subset.

Canale and Swain’s model of communicative competence has undergone a few modifications. Bachman’s language competence model in 1990 for example is one of

(24)

12

the representatives. Notwithstanding disparate terminologies used to explain the construct of communicative competence among the several models, most scholars have agreed that aside from linguistic competence, it is suggested that learners be equipped with skills of conveying appropriate, coherent, and strategically-efficient utterances to native speakers (Alptekin, 2002). In other words, successful, competent L2 learners are judged by their capability of using the language appropriately and by the degree to which they can deal with situational problems and maintain

conversations with native speakers. That is to say, L2 learners have to develop the ability to behave or act properly in the eyes of native speakers, which requires the sociolinguistic knowledge of the TL. Accordingly, communicative competence puts considerable emphasis on language use and not just language usage, to fluency and not just accuracy. This emphasis aims to develop the ability of L2 learners to apply classroom learning to unrehearsed situations in the real world and to act or speak properly without causing any discourtesy.

The Impact of Communicative Competence: L2 Learning as Enculturation After the FL/SL professionals acknowledge the importance of communicative competence, teaching native speakers’ social value, or the sociolinguistics of native speakers, has become mandatory in language learning classrooms. The reason for learning the sociolinguistics of the TL community is that the appropriateness of language use with which communicative competence is concerned only makes sense within its social context. L2 learners need to become like native speakers of English: speak like them and act like them in order not to cause any offense while conversing with native speakers. In this light, lessons that emphasize culture-specific meanings then are highlighted in the communicative language teaching classroom. Take the sentence, “Is your mom there?” for example. The traditional language-usage-oriented

(25)

13

class only centers on vocabulary meanings or grammar. This constrained way of language instruction has been proven to be of limited benefit to real language use. Contrary to the traditional way of teaching, in the communicative teaching classroom, L2 learners need to know not only that this interrogative sentence is used to ask for the presence of the receiver’s mother, but also that the speaker is expecting an answer with yes or no to inform whether the receiver’s mother is home. Competent L2 learners also know that when this sentence is spoken in the context of telephone dialogues, the speaker is expecting the answerer can go call her or his mother to answer the phone if she is available. This example explicitly explains a sentence can be used for different functions or for different communicative purposes in varied contexts. Teaching students to understand context-dependent meanings has become a niche for educators to teach L2 learners to use the TL as authentically as native speakers do.

It is clear that L2 learners need this ability of context sensitivity to attain speakers’ real intentions. However, it is not easy for L2 learners to understand those highly context-dependent meanings. This challenge is mainly related to the fact that the social or cultural values between the native community and the target community are not transferrable since each society exists in its own right. Without the knowledge of cultural-specific meanings, L2 learners undoubtedly will have problems

understanding native speakers, which can lead to communication breakdowns. Seeing the necessity of sociolinguistic competence instruction in FL/SL instruction, we can infer that the focus of FL/SL learning should be directed at facilitating L2 learners to be “encultured” with cultural conventions of the target-language community. That is to say, if communicative competence is the ultimate goal, then FL/SL learning process is akin to a process of “enculturation” in which L2 learners obtain a set of new social criteria for their behavior and use these

(26)

14

learned principles to evaluate the appropriateness of their own behavior. Traditionally, the term enculturation refers to the socialization process in which individuals learn sets of skills, attitudes, and values that enable them to be fully functioning people in their own society (Ting-Toomey, 1999). Individuals have been experiencing the process of enculturation in order to be accepted in the society in which they reside since birth. However, here the term is used to describe the new socialization process of L2 learners internalizing primary values or social norms of another culture into their native value system in their native-culture country. Another similar term acculturation is often addressed as speaking of foreign culture learning as well. However, acculturation often describes the socialization process in which immigrants or refugees learn about the new culture as immersing in the new society and that process enables them to be adaptive to their “new” homeland (Ting-Toomey, 1999). The present study accentuates the implementation of foreign language or foreign culture education in the native culture; as a result, the term enculturation, is adopted to depict the process of foreign culture learning.

Following the striking impact of communication competence, it is the sense of “cultural awareness” that influences the modern FL/SL learning profession. It is noted that “without the cultural dimension, successful communication is often difficult: comprehension of even basic words and phrases may be partial or approximate, and speakers and writers may fail to convey their meaning adequately or may even cause offence (DES, 1990, p. 37).” As such, it can be concluded that cultural learning is indispensable in language instruction. In fact, words or sentences are used as a

medium or a tool to present meaning; culture, playing the role of an underlying factor, livens up sets of linguistic entities by offering meaning or functions, which can never be disregarded.

(27)

15

language use, and this new direction for L2 learning does not superficially imply oral ability outweighs other skills, such as reading or writing. The theory of the

communicative competence model alludes to the importance of helping L2 learners familiarize with the social norms of the TL. To be more specific, L2 learners are advised to understand the target culture and further to be capable of acting or speaking like people from the TL society to send their intended meaning across. In this regard, L2 learners need to go through a new process of enculturation so as to obtain a new value system from the target-culture community. The traditional method, which overlooks cultural studies in the FL/SL learning, seems to fail to usher L2 learners to an extent that L2 learners can perform properly when carrying out conversations in the TL. Therefore, a new and efficient way of L2 learning ought to integrate cultural studies into L2 learning curricula whereby L2 learners can understand the viewpoint of people from the TC, speak the TL, and act properly in the right social context.

Yet, the conclusion of the imperative integration of second/foreign language and second/foreign culture has put most FL/SL professionals in a quandary. The

communicative competence model seems unrealistic and problematic in terms of its standardized native speaker norms and its negligence of the lingua franca status of English nowadays.

Problems with Communicative Competence

Following the impact of communicative competence, it is indicated that L2 learners of English need to undergo a new process of second enculturation in which they learn a new set of social values and then they can behave or speak the TL properly in the eyes of native speakers of English. In other words, it is vital to have a set of standardized native speaker norms in order to put the premise of communicative competence into practice. A model of standardized linguistic features and social

(28)

16

values of the TL is thus expected to aid SL/FL teaching; however, determining such a standard model is not easy. This difficulty is in large part attributed to the fact that English includes many variations.

If we take the traditional viewpoint to determine the legitimate ownership of English, “inner circle” (Kachru, 1986) countries are infallible candidates. In this way, each of the following inner circle countries, including the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, is entitled to be orthodox. Nonetheless, each variation is inherent with its own exquisite word choices, sentence structures, and social or cultural norms. No one can claim that one language pattern is more proper or correct than the others. If a certain variation is chosen, this must be judged according to social values, and not according to linguistic norms. As a result, it seems to be impossible to have a certain standard model chosen for L2 learning amongst these inner circle countries. On top of this, who are the real native speakers of English that exemplify correct and proper language use? Thomas Paikeda self published a book, “The Native Speaker is Dead!” in 1985, and has contended that native speakership is a linguistic myth. Since then, this controversial issue of real native speakers of English has been critically examined (Davies, 1991; Kachru, 1985; Kramsch & Sullivan, 1996; Paikeday, 1985; Quirk & Widdowson, 1985; Widdowson, 1994). The entitled native speaker at the outset refers to people who have a privilege by birth. As they are born and raised in English-speaking countries, they endow the ability to recognize what is grammatical or ungrammatical, or what is proper or what is definitely wrong. Having these intuitive abilities of judging grammaticality and social appropriateness incurs that many nonnative speakers of English consider them as arbiters when it comes to uncertain linguistic usages or proper cultural manners. However, as recent decades have given great attention to non-standard language, the natural endowment of native speakers has been challenged. It has been found that “native speakers perhaps have a

(29)

17

natural feel about the language, but they are not always as correct and not as precise as linguists’ analyses” (Paikeday, 1985, p.43). That is to say, though with natural inheritance by birth, they do not necessarily construct perfect grammatical sentences. Those native speakers by birth, at most, can be regarded as “proficient users of the language.” In this light, communicative competence, adhesive to the premise that native speakers of English ought to be regarded as ideal models for L2 learners, seems unrealistic.

Besides, “communicative competence, based on standardized native speaker norms, fails to reflect the lingua franca status of English” (Alptekin, 2002, p.60). People in the world use English for various purposes. Due to the effect of

globalization, English has been considered the lingua franca, a common language for communication among people with different mother tongues. As early as the

late-1990s, the number of English speakers, both native and nonnative speakers, was approximately around 1.2 billion to 1.5 billion, which was relatively greater than that of Chinese language, 1.1 billion at that time (Crystal, 1997). Speaking English seems to be a requirement, proven by the global fad of English learning. For instance, people who dwell in the context of “outer circle” (Kachru, 1986), such as Singapore, India, Ghana, and Hong Kong, use English as their second language as well as the official language. They use English as a mediating tool under domains as government, law courts, the academic system or the media. As to people in the “expanding circle” (Kachru, 1986) countries, like Taiwan, Japan, and Korea; English there is regarded as a foreign language. Despite English is not given official status, still English is the first learnt foreign language once they arrive in the education system, and this emphasis on English is undoubtedly subject to the fact that English now serves as a utilitarian language, which can help intercultural communication. As indicated above, so many nonnative speakers of English actually use English to meet different purposes that

(30)

18

English conversations can not only occur in nonnative-native cases, but more often in nonnative-nonnative situations.

With respect to the increasing number of learners who take English as their second or foreign language, Willowson (1998) warned of the usefulness of native speaker norms of English to L2 learners, and reported the language that is real for native speakers is not necessarily real for nonnative speakers. What sense is there for Taiwanese learners who often do business with Japanese to learn British business conventions in language classes? In a word, the standardized native speakers’ norms are unlikely to suit the present situation that English is an international language. In effect, learners of English language nowadays are advised to develop the abilities of dealing with communicators from different cultural backgrounds.

In brief, as indicated previously, it is almost impossible to prioritize English variations based on linguistic correctness. It is also apparently unrealistic to follow native speakers’ linguistic behavior as they are not always correct and L2 learners might in fact have more chances to interact with nonnative speakers of English. Beyond these, if we really teach standardized native speaker norms, the efforts are to no avail. By only teaching native speakers’ culture, L2 learners’ native culture has been marginalized. The new culture of native speakers bombards L2 learners, causing them to feel they are placed in a very awkward position of totally embracing native speakers’ sociolinguistic standards. In fact, L2 learners’ indigenous culture is the most familiar asset to both teachers and learners. This shared cultural inheritance can serve as a prompt to second or foreign cultural learning, given that learning becomes efficient when it is built on something already known. Moreover, the teaching of the monolithic native speakers’ social acceptability or culture inhibits the development of multi-competent minds. Nowadays, as situated in the multicultural, multiethnic world, L2 learners need to have the ability to deal with the coexistence of multiple languages

(31)

19

or multiple cultures. As a result, the definition of communicative competence requires modifying in order to become suitable and favorable for all English users across the globe.

Redefining Communicative Competence

It gradually becomes clear that the real communicative behavior that

communicative competence has proposed needs to be redefined as English now is used as an international language. The use of English by native speakers in

English-speaking countries is real and so is the use of English by nonnative speakers. Due to the limitations of communicative competence, Byram (1997) has added an “intercultural dimension” into the model, and proposed a new concept of

“intercultural competence”. He then redefined Canale and Swain’s definitions of linguistic, sociolinguistic and discourse competence and the components of intercultural competence proposed by Byram are listed as follows.

“Linguistic competence: the ability to apply knowledge of the rules of a standard version of the language to produce and interpret spoken and written language.”

“Sociolinguistic competence: the ability to give to the language produced by the interlocutor—whether native speakers or not—meanings which are taken for granted by the interlocutor or which are negotiated and made explicit with the interlocutor.”

“Discourse competence: the ability to use, discover and negotiate strategies for the production and interpretation of monologue or dialogue texts which follow the conventions of the culture of an interlocutor or are negotiated as intercultural texts for the particular purposes (Byram, 1997, pp. 48).” Byram’s revised model retains some of the primary essence of Canale and

(32)

20

Swain’s model. His redefinition of linguistic competence takes the dimension of language use into account, which explicitly states the ultimate objective of language learning lies in whether learners can activate linguistic rules and execute those in unrehearsed, authentic situations, and whether they can apply those rules to interpret interlocutors’ intended meaning. The redefinition of sociolinguistic competence excludes the standardized native speaker sociolinguistic norm and includes meanings that are taken for granted by the interlocutor. Learners need to have the ability to discover those implicit meanings or negotiate with the interlocutor to make the tacit meanings explicit. By the same token, the redefinition of discourse competence also considers the abilities of discovery and negotiation. However, Byram mentioned that discourse competence requires the ability of adaptation, meaning the ability that learners and their interlocutors can negotiate their modes of interaction so as to fit into the nature of intercultural communication. Byram illustrated that this adaptability might include, for instance, negotiated meta-commentary, meaning that each side of the interaction knows when or how to interrupt the normal flow of conversation or knows when or how to ask for further elaboration on differences or dysfunctions if ever emergent during the talk.

As indicated by Byram, communicative competence needs to take intercultural aspect into account to face the reality of English now serving as an international language. He then has coined the term intercultural competence to make up for the limitation of communicative competence. With competent intercultural competence, L2 learners, as intercultural speakers, have the ability “to interact with others, to accept other perspectives and perceptions of the world, to mediate between different perspectives, to be conscious of their evaluations of difference” (Kramsch, 1998, pp. 5). Moreover, Byram and Fleming (1998) also defined intercultural speakers as “…the learners who are aware of their own identities and cultures and of how they perceive

(33)

21

by others, and who also has an understanding of the identities and cultures of those with whom they are interacting.” All these definitions conclude that intercultural speakers have the ability to reflect on their native value system or cultural assets, along with the ability to observe or discover foreign cultures. In other words, curious and open to foreign cultures, intercultural speakers will enquire about information of another culture. During the inquiry of another culture, learners can justify their stereotypes upon another culture by real encounters with the representatives of the certain foreign culture and gradually develop a much more objective viewpoint on otherness. Their stereotypical thoughts, such as Americans always do this, or Japanese always do that, will be modified as they learn to consider that situational factors (e.g. education background, personalities and socio-economic status) can possibly affect the cultural phenomena that they have observed. Aside from the benefit of acquiring knowledge of another culture and dispelling cultural myths, intercultural speakers will try to understand how one’s own culture is viewed by others and then magnify

self-culture of which they usually are not consciously aware, the process also known as “reflexive impact” (Byram & Fleming, 1998), a focus on learners’ native culture. In the way, L2 learners also as intercultural speakers can be much able to deal with social or cultural encounters that occur in today’s multiethnic or multicultural world.

Intercultural Communication Factors in Intercultural Communication

Byram (1997) asserted that intercultural communication involves several key components (refer to Figure 2.3): attitudes, knowledge, and skills and critical cultural awareness.

(34)

22 Skills Interpret and relate Knowledge

of self and other; of interaction: individual and societal

Education Political education Critical cultural awareness

Attitudes Relativisng self

Valuing others

Skills

Discover and/or interact

Figure 2.3 Factors in Intercultural Communication

Byram (1997) explained that attitudes refer to the feelings one holds toward people from other cultural communities. FL/SL teachers mostly concern L2 learners’ attitudes toward those people who are perceived as different in terms of their cultural meanings, beliefs, and behaviors, for these attitudes readily become prejudices or stereotypes. Seeing that the factor of attitudes is preconditioned to successful

intercultural communication, Byram suggested that competent intercultural speakers be required “to have attitudes of curiosity and openness, readiness to suspend

disbelief about other cultures and belief about one’s own” (Byram et al., 2001, p.5). That is to say, L2 learners need to undergo a process of dismantling their subjective world view and reconstructing a new reality. This process is called “tertiary

socialization” (Byram, 1989), in which learners are able to “decentre” (Kohlberg et al., 1983) and internalize other’s perspectives into their own.

Moreover, the success is also dependent upon whether one has enough knowledge of self and another culture to uphold intercultural communication. Knowledge here refers to the knowledge an individual brings to an intercultural interaction. Knowledge here is defined as “the knowledge of social groups and their products and practice in one’s own and in one’s interlocutor’s country, and of the general processes of societal and individual interaction” (Byram et al., 2001). In other

(35)

23

words, knowledge encompasses two types: knowledge of one’s own culture and another culture, and knowledge of interaction at both individual and societal levels.

The first type of knowledge an intercultural speaker needs is received through family education or the process of socialization given in one’s native society. In fact, this common, shared knowledge with people from the same social background contains the knowledge that enables an individual to address what is emblematic of his/ her culture, and to distinguish his/her culture from another culture and to mark the boundaries (Barth, 1969). Moreover, the knowledge of one’s own culture also

facilitates the knowledge development of other culture. Byram explained that knowledge of other cultures is mostly obtained by going through the process of constant comparison of one’s own and other culture. For example, how can a woman’s right be interpreted of differences in one’s own and other culture? After specifying disparities between self and others, an individual soon acknowledges other culture in relation to self one, and forms an understanding of the foreign culture. That is to say, knowledge of one’s culture and knowledge of other culture go hand in hand because for learners to understand other cultures often needs to be based upon learners’ knowledge of one’s native culture.

Regarding the second type of knowledge, the knowledge of interaction at both individual and societal levels is closely related to the first type; in fact, the first type of knowledge leads to the development of the second type of knowledge. The first type of knowledge, knowledge of one’s and other culture, could foster the awareness of how one’s own culture has been perceived by others, and how one’s beliefs or behaviors have been influenced by the macro social context of one’s native country. All of the awareness mentioned above constitutes his or her knowledge of how to interact with people from other culture and provides groundwork for successful intercultural communication. The more awareness an individual has been aroused

(36)

24

after the examination of the relation between one’s own and other culture and degrees of how one is subject to one’s own culture, the more knowledge he or she knows about how ways to interact with people from another country.

In addition to the components of attitudes and knowledge, Byram continued that the nature of intercultural exchange process is mostly based on the functions of the skills interlocutors bring to the interaction. The skills here are divided into two types: firstly, skills of interpreting and relating and secondly, skills of discovering and interacting.

The first type of skill refers to the “ability to interpret a document or an event from another culture, to explain it and relate it to documents, or events from one’s own” (Byram et al., 2001, p.6). During the interpreting procedure, one relies on his or her knowledge of one’s own culture and on that of the foreign culture, to find out any common grounds, similar concepts or values, and cultural connotative meanings between the two cultures, or discover contradicting cultural concepts that possibly lead to cross-translation failure. As can be seen, the skill of interpreting is based upon the skill of finding the relationships between one’s and other culture; moreover, Byram addressed that competent intercultural speakers are expected to find out possible solutions to intercultural communication failure or to pinpoint unsolvable issues when making meanings across cultures.

The second type of skill, the skill of discovering or interacting, refers to “the ability to acquire new knowledge of a culture and cultural practices and the ability to operate knowledge, attitudes and skills under the constraints of real-time

communication and interaction” (Byram et al., 2001, p.6). Based upon Byram’s elaboration on this type of skill, this skill comes into play when one only has limited knowledge or no knowledge of the foreign culture. The skill of discovering can be operated in one’s own time whereas the skill of interacting must consider the demands

(37)

25

of social interaction, such as the constraints of time, mutual perceptions and attitudes. Finally, competent intercultural speakers need a great degree of critical cultural awareness. Byram et al. (2001) explained this critical cultural awareness is “an ability to evaluate, critically and on the basis of explicit criteria, perspectives, practices and products in one’s own and other cultures and countries (p.7).” To put it differently, competent intercultural speakers are required to be mindful of their own values, inclusive of their degrees of openness, curiosity or tolerance toward another culture, as well as how their values have affected their viewpoint on others or otherness. Byram (1997) added that lessons for critical cultural awareness do not aim to cause any changes in learners’ values, but to make their own values or native cultural heritage explicit and conscious. Moreover, there is a fundamental value position that all language teachers need to facilitate L2 learners to develop. That is, to promote a position that learners acknowledge respect for human dignity and equality of human rights as the democratic basis for social interaction (Byram et al., 2002). This pursuit of dignity and equality overall is believed to be the ultimate goal for L2 learners in the cultural learning. Byram (2000) also proposed criteria for assessment of intercultural competence, and the criteria are listed in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Criteria for Accessing Intercultural Competence (Byram, 2000) A. Interest in other people's way of life

1. I am interested in other people's experience of daily life, particularly those things

not usually presented to outsiders through the media.

2. I am also interested in the daily experience of a variety of social groups within a

(38)

26 B. Ability to change perspective

I have realised that I can understand other cultures by seeing things from a different point of view and by looking at my culture from their perspective. C. Ability to cope with living in a different culture

I am able to cope with a range of reactions I have to living in a different culture (euphoria, homesickness, physical and mental discomfort etc.)

D. Knowledge about another country and culture

1. I know some important facts about living in the other culture and about the

country, state and people.

2. I know how to engage in conversation with people of the other culture and

maintain a conversation.

E. Knowledge about intercultural communication

1. I know how to resolve misunderstandings which arise from people's lack of

awareness of the view point of another culture.

2. I know how to discover new information and new aspects of the other culture for

myself.

Difficulties in Intercultural Communication

Barna in 1994 categorized six stumbling blocks in intercultural communication: assumption of similarities, language differences, nonverbal misinterpretations, preconceptions and stereotypes, tendency to evaluate and high anxiety. The six types of difficulties in intercultural communication are elaborated below.

The first type of intercultural communication results from the misbelief that “there are sufficient similarities among people of the world to make communication easy (p.337).” According to Barna, some people would assume that we are all human beings so that we have common requirements such as food, shelter, security and others which make us alike. However, this assumption neglects how differently

(39)

27

people could react to these biological and social needs. In fact, these common biological similarities are less helpful when it comes to communication. During conversation, we exchange opinions or information or cooperate to work out issues. In order to handle the delicate interaction, we can not merely depend on the biological commonalities among humans.

The second intercultural communication hurdle is derived from language differences. The difference of vocabulary, syntax, idioms, slang, dialects, pragmatics and so on all could lead to a hazard of intercultural communication breakdown. Barna added that the worst language problem is that people have a tendency to cling on one meaning of a new word or a phrase without considering its cultural connotation. An example of “Won’t you have some tea?” was mentioned by Barna. After hearing the sentence, a nonnative speaker of English answered, No, meaning that he or she wants some tea. However, the U.S. hostess overlooks the double negatives because of the common usage, and the guest eventually gets no tea.

The third type is nonverbal misinterpretations. People from different cultures see, feel, hear, and smell differently. These different senses cause people from different culture to interpret what they see or hear in different ways. For example, a glance of a wink may mean nothing in one culture, while it might be a nonverbal signal in another country, showing a person has a crush on someone.

The fourth stumbling block is the presence of preconceptions and stereotypes. Stereotypes and preconceptions one hold could interfere with his or her viewpoints on the reality. Barna described that stereotypes are very hard to be removed, even with some evidence, because they are solidly established as myths of truism by one’s own national culture. As such, people tend to selectively perceive pieces of new

information that corresponds to their imagined reality.

(40)

28

to evaluate. It is likely that people think their culture or ways of life is proper or right. This skewed thought could deter the subjective attention needed to perceive the behaviors from the other’s point of view. Once a cultural difference is noticed, the communication could be cut off by arising emotions and feelings toward the

difference. In place of the possible emerging evaluation on the difference, this is the time to look and listen emphatically. Also, it is time to open one’s mind and to have the courage to “risk changing our own perceptions and values to dare to comprehend why someone thinks and acts differently from us (p.342).”

The last deterrent mentioned to intercultural communication is high anxiety. Too much anxiety or tension will lead to defenses, such as distorted perceptions,

withdrawal or hostility. Barna added that high anxiety, unlike the other five categories, can be distinct or underlie the other stumbling blocks. For example, the use of

stereotypes and preconceptions can be the defense mechanism to alleviate the stress of intercultural communication. Moreover, tense feeling could affect both parties in the dyad. A person in the host country may feel uncomfortable as talking with a foreigner; likewise, the foreign member in the communication could feel uneasy when their normal behaviors are challenged by the host national. Both sides of the

communication could employ defenses or other mechanism to deal with overwhelming anxiety.

Cultural Instruction in Second/Foreign Language Learning

FL/SL teachers have recognized the importance of cultural studies, but linking language learning and cultural studies seems to be uneasy or even uncomfortable for most educators. The problem lies in the fact that the teaching of culture is relatively new and a considerable number of FL/SL teachers are uncertain about what culture really is. Indeed, the term culture is easy to address, but hard to define. This