CRITICALLY EVALUATING CULTURE IN EFL MATERIALS

Michael Hollenback - Konan University

THINGS TO COVER (IN 25 MINS)

➤ History of EFL Cultural Paradigms

➤ Current Research Methodologies regarding Culture in EFL Materials

➤ The Semiotic Alternative

EFL CULTURAL

PARADIGMS

EFL CULTURAL PARADIGMS

➤ “Target” Culture

➤ Inter-culture

➤ Trans-culture

‘TARGET’ CULTURE

➤ Lasts from mid-1950s through the early 1990s

➤ Treats culture as an object

➤ set of facts to be learned about the ‘target’ culture

➤ Follows Schumann’s Acculturation Theory Model (1986)

➤ Learners making an effort to adopt new linguistic/cultural practices in order to become an ‘accepted’ member of ‘target’ culture

TARGET CULTURE

➤ Criticisms

➤ Kumaradivaelu / Fairclough

➤ ‘Soft’ imperialism / Linguistic imperialism

➤ Through economic / cultural strength forcing those from other cultures to adopt ‘target’ (Anglosphere) practices

INTER-CULTURE

➤ Spans the 1990s - blends into current paradigm

➤ Learners no longer are expected to become members of a ‘target’ culture, but rather should be able to navigate ‘foreign’ cultural experiences

➤ Byram (1997) - Intercultural Communicative Competence

INTER-CULTURE

➤ Criticism:

➤ Still treats cultural membership as a binary experience

➤ You can learn to ‘tolerate’ differences or ‘navigate’ experiences, but your cultural membership is fixed and unchanging

TRANS-CULTURE

➤ Started in early 2000s

➤ Transnational / Global / Local approach focusing on cultural complexity and hybridity (Risager, 2011)

➤ Cultivation of critically reflective mind that can tell the difference between ideas and ideologies (Kumaradivelu, 2008)

➤ Transformative goal that can be achieved only through:

➤ Cultural reflection - ‘own’ and ‘foreign’

➤ Understanding - different than ‘tolerance’ or ‘acceptance’

RESEARCH ON

CULTURE IN

MATERIALS

RESEARCH METHODS

➤ Quantitative

➤ Qualitative

➤ Mixed-Method

QUANTITATIVE

➤ Coding of texts and/or images by ‘units’ identified by (fixed) membership in a cultural class or category (often national)

➤ Malask, 2008; Matsuda, 2002; Yamanaka, 2006; Yuen, 2011

➤ Coding using a combination of categories and themes

➤ Pfizer & Borzelli, 1977; Ramirez and Hall, 1990; Wu, 2010

➤ Some combination of the two above / unclear coding

➤ Lee, 2011; Gray, 2010; Ndura, 2004; Otlowski, 2003; Scanner, 2007

QUANTITATIVE

➤ Criticism

➤ Treats ‘culture’ as an objectifiable/quantifiable component

➤ Assumes meaning is fixed within text or image

➤ Assumes meaning is shared between researcher and learners

➤ Results often used as evidence of author’s/publisher’s/government’s ideological stance toward culture

QUALITATIVE

➤ Making replicable and valid inferences from texts to the contexts of their use (CDA according to Krippendorff, 2013)

➤ Camase, 2009; Gulliver, 2010; Ilieva, 2000; Liu, 2005

➤ Criticisms

➤ Studies listed above do not make reference to methodology or claim to validate/replicate their findings (overall criticism of CDA)

MIXED-METHOD

➤ Extensive taxonomy for how socio-semantic meanings can be realized linguistically and visually.

➤ Thematic approach

➤ Su, 2007; Wu, 2010

➤ Imagery

➤ Chen 2010

MIXED METHODS

➤ Underpinning Methodologies

➤ Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis

➤ O’Halloran, 2008

➤ Appraisal Theory

➤ Martin & White, 2005

➤ Visual Semiotics

➤ Dress & van Leeuwen, 2006

THE SEMIOTIC

APPROACH

PIERCE - SEMIOTIC APPROACH

➤ Semiotic Process

➤ How ‘meaning’ is created in your own mind

➤ Builds on Vygotsky (1978) - Zone of Proximal Development

➤ acquisition of new knowledge is dependent on previous learning and therefore contingent on cultural practices and language as well as universal cognitive capacity

Individual Sign

Interpretant

ABC 123

abc123

SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS

➤ Signs (textbooks) influenced by:

➤ Government policy, publisher bottom line, marketability, teaching approach

➤ Individual (student) influenced by:

➤ Motivation, learning environment, cognitive level

➤ Interpretant (meaning) influenced by:

➤ Social context, cultural background

SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF EFL TEXTBOOKS

➤ Looks at:

➤ TEXT

➤ Both English and Japanese

➤ IMAGE

➤ Accompanying and Isolated

➤ ACTIVITY

➤ Linguistic (Practice) or Expressive (Production)

SEMIOTIC ANALYSIS OF EFL TEXTBOOKS

➤ Denotational vs. Connotational Semiosis

➤ Lexical or Referential Meaning?

➤ Guided vs. Unguided Semiosis

➤ Controlled or Uncontrolled Meaning Making?

Oranges are orange.

1. Draw a picture of a Japanese person that fits this style.

ANALYSING SIGNS IN A TEXT

➤ Having pictures reinforce or explain the lexical meaning of the sentence

➤ Having activities (de)construct parts of speech

➤ Having texts removed from context with a linguistic focus

= Denotational

➤ Having pictures introduce new concepts or contrast ideas

➤ Having activities lead to student exploration of themes or ideas

➤ Having texts in cultural context with a focus on meaning

= Connotational

QUESTIONS MOVING FORWARD

➤ Does the ‘culture’ in a book serve a connotational or denotational purpose?

➤ When ‘culture’ is included explicitly in the textbook, does it use guided semiosis, or are learners free to make meaning?

➤ Is ‘culture’ in the text used as a representation of larger (gender/racial/national) groups?

➤ Are students asked to critique/question their own ‘culture’?

“Looking at texts and communicative practices as expressive of cultural assumptions requires an understanding of language beyond its denotational function and accepting learning as a complex, dynamic process.

Kiss & Weninger, 2013