Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis: some tools for teachers

Troy McConachy
Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Despite long-standing recognition of the importance of sociocultural context in meaning making, criticisms have been levelled at communicative language teaching (CLT) for failing to effectively address this at the level of classroom practice. In fact, it has been argued that the way CLT presents content reveals a fundamentally reductionist view of communication. This paper uses examples of dialogues from the New Interchange series to briey illustrate what can be considered a typical shortcoming of many modern commercial English language textbooks: the neglect of the place of sociocultural context in dialogues and dialogue-related activities. This paper shows two ways in which this neglect is manifested and then suggests some concrete ways that teachers can use the SPEA KING model developed by Hymes (1972) to increase their awareness of elements of sociocultural context and also develop analytical questions for learners.

Introduction

Over 35 years have passed since Hymes (1972) coined the term communicative competence in recognition of the inadequacy of the Chomskyan notion of linguistic competence. Since this time, much theorizing has taken place about the social nature of language, such as the ways in which different social groups use language to manage and structure their daily lives (Duranti 1997). A number of researchers have outlined further models of communicative competence that have gone on to become widely recognized by language teachers. The highly inuential model provided by Canale and Swain (1980), as well as the more recent model provided by Bachman (1990), share one point; recognition of the fact that being competent in a language, whether rst or subsequent, means a lot more than simply knowing how to form syntactically accurate sentences. Despite such recognition, it has been suggested that modern teaching methods, even those labelled as communicative, are still failing to adequately address the sociocultural aspects of language and the complexities of language in use (Corbett 2003). The importance of context in linguistic communication has been recognized for decades and it is now a truism that no linguistic utterance can be denitively understood without referring to the social and communicative context in which it was uttered (Goodwin and Duranti
E LT Journal Volume 63/2 April 2009; doi:10.1093/elt/ccn018

Context in C LT

116

The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Advance Access publication May 23, 2008

1992). With the advent of CLT, this realization can be said to have affected pedagogy to the extent that presenting input in a manner that is authentic, or based on real-world situations became a priority. However, it has been argued that the emphasis on real-world situations and doing things with language in CLT has led to a reductionist view of communication (Corbett op. cit.; Kraus 2003). It is reductionist in the sense that in CLT communication is often seen as a process of bridging an information gap, and communicative competence the capacity to t appropriate language to specic transactions (Byram 1990: 18). To be sure, the ability to do things with language is important and deserves pedagogical attention. It is a problem, however, when language functions are presented without due attention to the sociocultural dimensions of language in use. Learners need to be aware that the particular language forms that speakers choose to get things done reect not only their identities but also a broad range of sociocultural variables, such as their relationship to the interlocutor, and wider social structures. Unless learners are specically made aware of aspects pertaining to the social nature of language use, there is the danger that a learner will apply his or her native interactional norms, which may be inappropriate (Liddicoat 2005).

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Context in commercial English language textbooks

A transactional orientation to language is clearly evident when examining the way that language functions are presented in dialogues in many commercial language textbooks. In this section, I will illustrate what I see as two major shortcomings. For this purpose, I will provide samples of dialogues from the New Interchange series by Richards, Hull, and Proctor (1998a,b). Although many textbooks contain similar problems, this series was chosen simply due to its prevalence in the context where I work. Sample 1: James This has got to stop! Another Friday night without a date! What can I do? Mike What about looking through the personal ads in the newspaper?

James Actually, Ive tried that. But the people you meet are always different from what you expect. Mike Well, why dont you join a dating service? A friend of mine met his wife that way.

James Thats not a bad idea. Mike Also, it might be a good idea to check out singles night at the bookstore.

James Yeah. If I dont nd a date, at least I might nd a good book! (Taken from New Interchange (1998b), Students Book 3: 57) The rst major shortcoming identiable in this dialogue is the distinct lack of explicit contextual information given to introduce the dialogue. In the New Interchange series, there are dialogues (labelled conversations) like the one above in each chapter in which a wide range of characters are discussing various things. Despite the obvious potential for harnessing these various identities to focus on the cultural aspects of language use, the dialogues do
Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis 117

not come with an introduction containing explicit information as to the identities of the speakers, their relationship to each other, or their location. In the above dialogue, the pedagogical goal is clearly to show how suggestions can be made: however, the absence of explicit contextual information makes it seem as though the logic of suggestions and the discourse that goes along with it will be plain and transparent for learners everywhere. The second major shortcoming of this dialogue is that on top of the lack of explicit contextual information, there is also a lack of learning activities based on the dialogue that could encourage learners to analyse the language used in terms of sociocultural context. In New Interchange, some dialogues are followed by a number of questions that learners can answer by listening to a continuation of the conversation from the dialogue. Unfortunately, the focus of these questions also reveals a reductionist orientation to the act of comprehension. Sample 2 below shows another dialogue with questions. Sample 2: Chris So, what did you do this weekend Kate? Kate Oh, Diane and I went for a drive in the country on Saturday.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Chris That sounds nice. Where did you go? Kate We drove to the lake and had a picnic. We had a great time! How about you? Did you do anything special?

Chris Not really? I just worked on my car all day. Kate That old thing! Why dont you just buy a new one?

Chris But then what would I do every weekend? Listen to Kate talk about her activities on Sunday.
1 What did she do? 2 Where did she go?

(Taken from New Interchange (1998a), Students Book 1: 40) The questions listed above are the type which require students to comprehend information as part of a listening exercise based on the dialogue in order to answer them. This is one skill which is certainly important for language learners; however, again, the problem is that the act of comprehending of meaning in context is reduced to that of nding information. The above questions ignore the interpersonal dimension of conversation and, in this particular conversation, the role that this type of discourse (chatting about weekends) plays in social life. Over-exposing learners to comprehension questions, where comprehension is understood as the skill of nding information, will discourage learners from looking deeper at the relationship between the speakers and other social contextual factors as inuencing language use. In consideration of this fact, and to make up for the inadequacies of textbooks, it can be argued that it is necessary for teachers to devise ways to ensure that learners come to see communication as something that emerges from and is affected by the

118

Troy McConachy

relationships between people rather than simply the lling of an information gap.

Turning the tide

Teaching contextual aspects of language use is something that can present difculty for many language teachers, particularly those without a heightened awareness of the communicative parameters of the target language: aside from the typical aspects of language such as grammar and lexis, it is not clear what should be taught (Barraja-Rohan 2000). What is needed is for language teachers to increase their own awareness of the ways in which context affects the choice of language forms and unfolding interaction in a language sample such as a dialogue. Based on this heightened awareness, teachers will be in a better position to design comprehension questions that focus not only on the skill of locating information but also on the skill of analysing language use in reection of sociocultural context. In order for teachers to be able to teach the importance of sociocultural context, it may be helpful to have a model that can be used as a reference point. I would like to suggest one in the next section. SPEAKING is a mnemonic which was developed by Hymes (1974) to represent his framework for the analysis of language in context. Each letter of SPEAKING stands for an aspect of context which is thought to inuence the construction and interpretation of meaning. Due to its mnemonic nature and relatively transparent components, I believe it can be useful to language teachers in two main ways. Firstly, it provides a framework for increasing teachers awareness of sociocultural factors of language use. Secondly, the components can be used as a framework for generating a range of questions for learners that encourage consideration of the role of context in meaning making. In Table 1 below I lay out the components of the SPEAKING framework with a rationale statement to explain why these aspects of context are important for language teachers and learners to think about. In Table 2 I also list questions for each component that could be used to assist teachers to become aware of the socioculturally signicant dimensions of communication in a textbook dialogue or sample of natural language.

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

A framework for teacher reference

Developing questions for learners

In the next section, I show teachers can move from using the S P EA K I N G framework to identify relevant sociocultural factors in a dialogue to generating a range of analytical questions to raise the sociocultural awareness of learners. In a given dialogue, there are likely to be many interactional features that learners will benet from examining, and an important rst step is to identify them according to the S P E A K I N G framework. For example, you may notice an example of polite language, which you could look at from the perspective of the participants or ends. In other words, the use of polite language may be a reection of the relationship between the participants, or it could be related to the ends: as in the case of high imposition requests. Once the teacher has developed a perspective on a given utterance, they will be better prepared to formulate questions to help their learners. Obviously it can be challenging to attempt to simplify difcult concepts into questions that can be understood by language learners and it will certainly take
Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis 119

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

table 1 Components of the SPEAK ING framework

practice before a teacher improves his or her ability. As far as the wording of questions is concerned, there are many possibilities that will depend on the types of learners and the relevant pedagogical goal. Below I will outline four different question types that, on the basis of experience, I consider to be particularly useful and easy to apply.
1 Language-based questions

I use this term as these questions begin with some language from the dialogue, based on which learners speculate on possible meanings and interactional functions in context. For example, based on the use of the discourse marker I see in a dialogue, the following questions could be formulated: n What does I see mean? Or n Why does person X say I see?
2 Function-based questions

I call these function-based questions as rather than quoting language from the dialogue, these questions use metalanguage which describes
120 Troy McConachy

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

table 2 Questions to help teacher analysis

the potential interactional or social function of an utterance in the dialogue. The use of metalanguage encourages learners to look for forms that might be used to accomplish particular functions. These questions are useful for helping learners see language use in terms of interactional and social functions rst, and then focus on forms second. This can be particularly useful when the teacher wants to prescribe an interpretation of an utterance, or draw learners attention to an obvious interactional norm. An example of a function-based question based on I see might be as follows: n In the dialogue, where does speaker X show understanding? Or n Where does speaker X show interest?
Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis 121

3 Comparative questions

Comparative questions encourage learners to compare an aspect of interaction or sociocultural relationship noticed in the dialogue/s they are using with that of their native culture. The process of reecting on aspects of interaction in ones native culture is argued to be an effective way to help learners come to see the hidden interactional norms of their own ` -vis the target language, and to be able to objectively contrast these vis-a language (Liddicoat op. cit.). For example, in the case of a dialogue which contains the speech act of apologizing, the following questions could be asked:
Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

n In your culture do people apologize like this? n Does everyone apologize like this? n What other ways are there to apologize in your culture? n How do you feel about the style of apologies in this dialogue?
4 General speculative questions

General speculative questions are Why do you think . . .? questions which are versatile in that they can be formed in regards to any type of question when the teacher would like to emphasize that the learners job is to give their own interpretations, rather than search for a correct answer. Examples: n How old do you think the speakers are? n Why do you think the man refused the invitation?

Application

In this section I will provide concrete examples of questions that I have developed based on my understanding of SPEAKING that could be applied when using one of the sample dialogues from New Interchange quoted earlier. There is a certain amount of overlap among the questions; these are simply examples to demonstrate the different ways that questions could be formulated. Dialogue James This has got to stop! Another Friday night without a date! What can I do? Mike What about looking through the personal ads in the newspaper?

James Actually, Ive tried that. But the people you meet are always different from what you expect. Mike Well, why dont you join a dating service? A friend of mine met his wife that way.

James Thats not a bad idea. Mike Also, it might be a good idea to check out singles night at the bookstore.

James Yeah. If I dont nd a date, at least I might nd a good book!

122

Troy McConachy

Setting: Where do you think James and Mike are having this conversation? Why? Where do you think wouldnt be a good place to have this conversation? Why? In James culture, do you think many people go on dates on Fridays? Why? When do people usually go on dates in your culture? Participants: Do you think Mike and James are good friends? Why? How old do you think they are? Why? Do you think Mike is married or has a partner? Why? Ends: Why do you think James started this conversation? Do you think Mike wants to help him? Why? Act sequence: How many different suggestions did Mike make? What is their order? How did James feel about each suggestion? Why do you think this? Why did James say actually? In the conversation, where does Mike show agreement? Key: How does James feel at the start of the conversation? Why do you think this? Instrumentalities: Is the language in this conversation casual or polite? Show an example. Norms of interaction: How does Mike accept or reject the suggestions? Why do you think he chose these forms? Genre: What sort of conversation is this? Do people in your culture have this type of conversation often?
Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Tips for using the questions

While I have listed quite a large number of questions for the previous dialogue, it is unlikely that this many could actually be asked in one class. The process of looking at language use from a sociocultural perspective is something which many learners may not be familiar with. As a result, some learners are likely to go through initial difculties as they adjust to the various processes of analysing, reecting, and comparing. This is one thing

Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis

123

which needs to be taken into consideration when allocating time for learning tasks.

Reacting to learners interpretations

It is necessary to recognize that we cannot always expect knowledge about sociocultural aspects of language use to be as explicable or quantiable as grammar and lexis. As the focus of these questions is interpretive, there is necessarily a multiplicity of possible answers. While some questions may be designed to lead learners to a particular interpretation of language, others are simply speculative. In this case, the aim is not to elicit some kind of predetermined correct answer but rather to develop meta-awareness concerning the fact that sociocultural context is important in language use. In this case, the processes that learners go through, and the skills that are developed when involved in analysing language use, can also be considered important. It is possible that some will object to using dialogues at all to raise sociocultural awareness due to the fact that dialogues do not always mirror the way language is really used (Seedhouse 2004). Undoubtedly, some dialogues are more natural than others. The process of constructing dialogues based on what research tells us about how people communicate needs to be ongoing. However, it does not seem logical to wait until perfect dialogues are achieved before we nally turn our learners heads towards context. It is important to work creatively with the educational resources we have now to achieve a high quality of learning. In any case, dialogues, or even samples of authentic data, should not be viewed as perfect samples of language use, due to the fact that any communication is inherently ambiguous and variable (Scollon and Wong-Scollon 1995). Consequently, learners should not simply approach language as a thing to be remembered, but as a thing to be examined. Any language use in a dialogue is nothing more than something that might be said in a particular situation. It is not necessary to have perfect samples of communication as the imperfect nature of communication can now become a topic of speculation and discussion. In this paper I have argued that teachers may need to increase their own awareness of the general importance of sociocultural context as a determinant of language use. This is important so that teachers are no longer limited to simply teaching the cleaner aspects of syntax and lexicon. As long as teachers and students only see dialogues in terms of how they illustrate grammar usage, there is a waste of learning potential. The SPEAKING framework is a useful device for making salient the myriad sociocultural factors that inuence language use in order to generate sociocultural meta-awareness, as well as to highlight specic interactional norms. It is hoped that this kind of meta-awareness will put learners in a better position to anticipate and perceive potential differences in crosscultural communication and an increased exibility to deal with them. Final revised version received September 2007

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Possible criticisms

Conclusion

124

Troy McConachy

References Bachman, L. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barraja-Rohan, A. 2000. Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis in A. J. Liddicoat and C. Crozet (eds.). Teaching Languages, Teaching Cultures. Melbourne, Australia: Language Australia. Byram, M. 1990. Teaching culture and language: towards an integrated model in D. Buttjes and M. Byram (eds.). Mediating Languages and Cultures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Canale, M. and M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1/1: 147. Corbett, J. 2003. An Intercultural Approach to English Language Teaching. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C. and A. Duranti. 1992. Rethinking context: an introduction in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.). Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kraus, H. 2003. Creating histories and spaces of meaningful use: towards a framework of foreign

language teaching with an emphasis on culture, epistemology and ethical pedagogy. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Canberra. Liddicoat, A. J. 2005. Teaching languages for intercultural communication in D. Cunningham and A. Hatoss (eds.). An International Perspective on Language Policies, Practices and Prociencies. Belgrave, Australia: F I PLV. Richards, J., J. Hull, and S. Proctor. 1998a. New Interchange: English for International Communication (Students Book 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J., J. Hull, and S. Proctor. 1998b. New Interchange: English for International Communication (Students Book 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scollon, R. and S. Wong-Scollon. 1995. Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Seedhouse, P. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. The author Troy McConachy holds an MA (Applied Linguistics) from the University of New England, Australia. He is currently conducting his doctoral research on intercultural language teaching through the Research Centre for Languages and Cultures at the University of South Australia. He also lectures on English and intercultural communication at Rikkyo University, Tokyo. Email: mcconachyt@hotmail.com

Downloaded from eltj.oxfordjournals.org at INFLIBNET N List Project (College Model) on December 23, 2010

Raising sociocultural awareness through contextual analysis

125