communicative tasks, but also in dealing with cultural differences. Further-
more, Stern voices concern with the sheer scale of the curriculum
designer’s task: given the vastness of culture, how is cultural knowledge to
be addressed in the classroom?
One reason why, perhaps, writers who championed the cause of culture
were nevertheless comparatively neglected until the later years of the 1980s
was that, having identified the problem, they were seldom in a position to
provide the solution. Books such as Loveday’s (1981) are given over to
providing examples of cross-cultural difference: for instance, how classifi-
ers work in Amerindian and Asiatic languages, or the interpretation of long
periods of silence in Amerindian, West Indian and Quaker communities.
Loveday identifies what he calls ‘framing and symbolising patterns’ (1981:
65–100) which seem to equate loosely to (1) knowledge of what are later
called spoken and written genres, and (2) the verbal and non-verbal means
by which people construct messages (e.g., speech, writing, intonation,
voice quality, kinesics, mime, visual symbols). However, having identified
these as areas of theoretical exploration, he does not provide ways of inte-
grating them in the communicative language teaching classroom. Clearly,
it is impossible to tell the learner everything he or she needs to know about
the target culture, for example, how people buy eggs, socially acceptable
and unacceptable greetings and leave-takings in face-to-face situations, on
the phone, by email, and so on. Instead, we need to attune the learner to the
possibility of difference, and seek to explore how ‘decentring from one’s
own taken-for-granted world can be structured systematically in the class-
room’ (Byram & Fleming, 1998: 7). This endeavour means going beyond
the information gap and making people’s use of language a topic of
classroom exploration.
Despite the mainstream emphasis on the transactional nature of
language, and the complexities of deciding just what culture is, since the
late 1980s there has been a renewed interest in the integration of ‘culture’ in
the language classroom in Europe, Asia and the United States. This interest
is evident in a proliferation of articles and books on the subject, ranging
from
Culture Bound: Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching
(ed.
Valdes, 1986), to
Target Culture –Target Language?
(Seago &McBride, 2000).
Such studies draw upon various disciplines and theoretical frameworks,
and they consequently define ‘culture’ in different ways and have different
views of its application to language teaching. The diffuse nature of the
concept of culture, and the varied, and sometimes suspect, aims of those
who have tried to incorporate culture into their classes might also have con-
tributed to its marginal status in ELT. The main approaches to teaching
culture in a communicative curriculum can be summarised as follows.
24
Intercultural Approaches to ELT
C:\Documents and Settings\Stephen Cracknell\My Documents\corbett\corbett.vp
13 August 2003 16:39:00
Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile
Composite Default screen