|
Teaching Cultural Identity through
Modern Language: Discourse as a
Marker of an Individual’s
Cultural Identity
Pavel V. Sysoyev
Lyn R. Donelson
The dialectical connection between language and culture has always been a concern of second language (L2) teachers and educators. However, the degree to which L2 culture has been incorporated into L2 teaching has been a subject of rapid change throughout language teaching history. For example, if during the first decades of the 20th century researchers discussed the importance and possibilities of including a cultural component into L2 curriculum (e.g., Lado, 1954), more recent studies show inseparability between L2 and L2 culture teaching. In addition, a L2 culture is presented as an interdisciplinary core in many L2 curricula designs and textbooks (Byram, 1989; Byram & Fleming, 1998; Kramsch, 1993; Saphonova, 1996; Sysoyev, 1999, 2001a; Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). Despite these facts, scholars still argue about what the final level of learners’ sociocultural competence should be. The Modern National Curricula Standards for the Foreign Languages (U.S.A.) has published official requirements for sociocultural education in Europe and Russia that state that as a result of L2 culture teaching learners should develop cultural awareness, which includes the development of tolerance and empathy towards representatives of different cultures (ACTFL, 1999; Byram & Fleming, 1998; Byram & Risager, 1999; Saphonova, 1999; Savignon, 2002). In our previous research, we argued that cultural identity is the next level L2 learners should achieve after cultural awareness (Sysoyev, 2001a, b; Savignon, Sysoyev, 2002; Sysoyev, 2002a, b). After learning about other cultures in the mode “we” and “they” (for details see Hall, XXX), which often results in the creation of false negative or positive stereotypes and generalizations about a L2 society, L2 learners should come to an understanding of their own place within the spectrum of cultures. Such understanding means seeing commonalties and universals that exist beyond geopolitical boarders of L1 and L2 countries and which unite people all over the world. Moreover, undertaking our research within the frames of postmodern theory, we argued that learners should see themselves as polycultural subjects with multiple group membership. When communicating or expressing themselves, people are perceived as members of certain groups. Such group membership may be based on race, ethnicity, gender, social class, occupation, territory, etc., and most often includes multiple factors. The reflection of a particular facet of cultural identity or group membership is facilitated in many cases through discourse. In this paper, we examine one of the possible ways of teaching cultural diversity – teaching discourse as a reflection of the speakers’ cultural identity. The argument is made that in communication speakers attempt to establish and construct the salient facet of their cultural identity through discourse. We also argue that awareness of how discourse varies between representatives of different ethnic, social class, gender, and age groups, as well as how the discourse of an individual varies depending on the role that he or she plays, will enable L2 learners to see people and societies polyculturally, aiding them in perceiving diversity as a norm in modern polycultural societies. Cultural Identity in L2 Teaching Identity as a theoretical construct is not a new idea. It was originally developed within the field of psychology, where the major focus of researchers was altering of an individual’s state and condition over time through changes in his or her contexts (e.g., Erikson, 1968). Initially however, for psychologists an individual’s identity represented a considerably stable construct, it was supposed to change only 4-5 times during an individual’s life, usually when that person entered a new age group (e.g., child àyoung adult à grown up à elderly). Later on, the development of social psychology enabled a more advanced understanding of identity as a social construct. One of the notable leaders in the field, Tajfel, introduced the term social identity and defined it as “[T]hat part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1974: 69). Though Tajfel and other contributors to his volume introduced a new concept of individual understanding of group membership, Tajfel’s social identity theory was criticised for focusing excessively on the self, rather than on the dialogical interrelationship between self and group. In the field of applied linguistics, identity has been receiving increased attention since the recognition of its importance in L2 learning, demonstrated by Bonny Norton Pierce (1993, 1995) in her study of immigrant women. Norton Pierce introduced the term social identity to refer to “how a person understands his or her relationship to the world, how that relationship is constructed across time and space, and how that person understands possibilities for the future” (Norton (formerly Pierce), 2000, p.5). The study demonstrated that for the research subjects, possibilities for the future were strongly connected with L2 communicative competence. Such understanding of self within a linguistic milieu affected the way L2 learners perceived themselves and are perceived by others in an L2 environment. Therefore, Norton’s social identity research was the first theory that attempted to connect L2 teaching, language learners, and their understanding of themselves within a spectrum of cultures. In Europe, the term social identity has been widely used by Michael Byram (1998) and his colleagues (Byram, Zarate & Neuner, 1997; Byram & Risager, 1999) in their argument for promoting the importance of teaching L2 for the development of a common European identity among L2 learners. Knowledge of common roots as well as cultural and historical heritage of L2 learners is believed to be a major and essential step in the social unification of European societies. As a result, the “Identity” concept is currently being applied in various European L2 programs (Byram, Nichols & Stevens, 2001). Interest in the relationship between an individual’s identity and L2 learning has recently been growing. In her comprehensive review, Norton (2000) demonstrates that researchers from various fields have brought diverse perspectives to our understanding of the relationship between language, language learning, and identity. The use of different theories and methodologies by different scholars has affected the ways in which researchers conceptualize identity, and it has also resulted in the simultaneous emergence and use of different terms that describe identity as a sociocultural construct. For example, Morgan (1997), Pierce (1993, 1995), Norton (2000), and Byram (1998), focus on social identity in their research, Duff and Uchida (1997) focus on sociocultural identity, Schecter and Bayley (1997) on cultural identity, and Leung, Harris and Rampton (1997) on ethnic identity. Norton (2000) argues that all of these terms, throughout many contexts, are likely to be used as synonyms; however, power relationships between the language learner and language speaker will determine which facet of one’s identity is salient at a particular situation. In this scholarship, we chose to use the term cultural identity, which after a comprehensive review of philosophical and psychological literature in our previous research (Sysoyev, 2001b), was defined as an individual’s realization of his or her place in the spectrum of cultures and purposeful behavior directed on his or her enrollment and acceptance into a particular group, as well as certain characteristic features of a particular group that automatically assign an individual’s group membership (pp. 37-38). Individuals’ cultural identity as a construct consists of a countless number of facets. Most commonly referred to and described in literature are the following facets or types of one’s cultural identity: racial, ethnic, social, economic, geopolitical, gender, religious, ability/disability, language, professional, etc. (see figure 1) Each of the facets represents a specific category, within which a person has specific membership(s).
When understanding cultural identity as a multi-faceted construct, it is important to note that in communication the choice of portraying a specific facet of one’s identity will be context specific and negotiated between the participants of the exchange. If a salient facet of the identities of both participants is the same, then it becomes invisible and a dialogue of cultures takes place (Bakhtin, 1981; Bibler, 1991; for discussion see Savignon & Sysoyev, 2002). However, as Heller (1987) warns, conflict occurs when both participants of the exchange belong to different groups within one facet (e.g. social facet: upper class and lower middle class). In such a situation, group membership may become visible and it may affect the outcomes of the exchange. Discourse then, in most cases becomes a key factor in establishing one’s cultural identity (e.g., Ochs, 1993; Kramsch, 1998). Discourse and cultural identity When people use language to negotiate their meaning, they create discourse – “a continuous stretch of language – oral or written – which has been produced as a result of an act of communication and perceived to be meaningful, unified, and purposeful” (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2000, p. 237). Since language and culture are intertwined, it is commonly believed that there is a natural connection between discourse and an individual’s cultural identity, where discourse is viewed as the reflection of one’s group membership. By the language register, accent, word choice, and speech pattern of a person, he or she is perceived as a member of a particular social and cultural group. When people consciously or subconsciously choose certain languages or variants of the same language to associate themselves with particular groups, they engage in codeswitching. If how one wants to be seen and how one is perceived by others match, then the act of communication is completed successfully. However, problems occur when there is a mismatch between one’s language (code) and that individual’s group membership. A desire to refuse the same code or to adapting to the same language, when one interlocutor is definitely a member of a common culture, may be perceived as an affront. A vivid illustration given my Claire Kramsch (1998) representing cultural conflict generated by mismatched codes can be extracted from an interview between two American Disc Jockeys (DJ1, DJ2) and an American singer (SG), all members of a specific discourse community. 1. DJ1: So whatz up wit da album shottie? 2. SG: What’s up with the album shottie 3. DJ1: Oh, excuse me. How are things progressing with your upcoming album? (laughter) Come on, girl! You know what I’m sayin’. You KNOW you know da terminology! Don’t front! 4. DJ2: Yeah, an’ if ya don’t know, now ya know (laughter) 5. DJ1: Or at leas ack like ya know! 6. SG: I know, I know, I’m jus’ messin’ wit y’all. (From Kramsch, 1998: 71) All three members belong to a specific discourse community in which the language used differs from the “Standard” American English. DJ1 starts the conversation using the language of his and the other conversationalists discourse communities. In Turn 2, the singer chooses not to associate herself with the Disc Jockeys’ language community, which is characterized by the language used by DJ1. So, in reply, questioning the word “shottie” in turn 2, she makes it explicit that she is not participating within their discourse dialect. Her reaction made DJ1 reformulate his question and use Standard English [turn 3]. In turns 3-5, DJ1 and DJ2 implicitly remind the singer of their common group membership. These reminders pressure the singer to codeswitch in turn 6 from Standard English to the common dialect shared between the three conversationalists. Similar to codeswitching, the reflection of one’s identity in discourse can be observed on the semantic level. Let’s look at the following e-mail exchange between an L2 student (L2S) who is sharing his impressions about Salt Lake City and the United States and a native speaker of American English (NS). Both participants of the conversation are males in their mid 20s. L2S: … Salt Lake City is surrounded by the Rocky Mountains. They are covered with snow, which glitters in the sun. You can see them from everywhere. It is so beautiful. The air is very fresh too and you can easily feel that. People are extremely friendly. I love looking at the beautiful clothing and jewelry in the stores. Man, I love this city, I love this country. NS: Dude, let me explain something. We are men, and it’s not manly to love ‘beautiful clothing and jewelry.’ Next time tell me you went to ‘an awesome gun show’ or ‘saw some powerful truck engines.’ (Unpublished data from Pavel V. Sysoyev) There is no doubt that both speakers belong to different discourse communities – one to a community of native speakers, the second to a community of L2 speakers. There is nothing wrong with the “mistakes” the L2 student made, as English is not his native language and the major point of communication – getting the meaning across – was successfully achieved. It is plainly understood that he enjoyed the city very much. The native speaker corrected him and there would have not been anything else in this discourse, if not for the phrase “beautiful clothing and jewelry.” Since both interlocutors are males, the gender factor is supposed to be invisible. However, via this phrase – “beautiful clothing and jewelry” – gender identity comes into action. Ignoring political correctness and possible offence due to a sexist remark, the male native speaker tells what words and expressions should and should not be used, so there will not be a conflict between a L2 speaker’s gender identity and his or her reflection on the discourse. Application for L2 teaching One of the major goals of humanitarian education in different parts of the world is to develop citizens of the world, who identify themselves culturally, and who see themselves within a broad spectrum of cultures. A foreign language is a prominent tool in achieving this goal. Therefore, teaching a L2 and a L2 culture for cultural identity will enable L2 learners to engage in the following:
Cultural identification as a psychological process happens through the selection of a pattern of behavior from a variety of patterns of behavior (or eclectic blending pattern) (for details see Sysoyev, 2001b). The only way to teach students to identify culturally is to teach them to see diversity within L1 and L2 polycultural communities. What is more important, L2 students should learn to see themselves as polycultural subjects with multiple group membership. Therefore, discourse analysis reflecting upon the polyculturality of people is a plausible way of teaching diversity and cultural identity. Reflection on one’s cultural identity through discourse may appear to be a theoretical topic for students majoring in linguistics. After all, what is the importance of addressing this issue when teaching L2 students? In his theoretical research, based on the requirements for sociocultural education for schools with advanced exposure to modern languages (Saphonova, 1999), Sysoyev (2001a) lists a number of sociocultural strategies (within L2 communicative strategies) designed for establishing and maintaining international L2 contact in a spirit of peace and dialogue of cultures. Consequently, Savignon and Sysoyev (2002) provided empirical evidence that the ability to seek out and find one’s position on a specific cultural topic provides hints for an individual’s personal actions and gives L2 learners additional “space to maneuver.” On the one hand, it enables them to avoid non-desirable cultural bumps and cultural conflicts. On the other – it may give them new ideas and new opportunities for L2 communication. Introducing the elements of discourse analysis into L2 curriculum and teaching materials will give L2 learners the power and ability to enhance control over communicative events and in a long run will promote the dialogue of cultures to be established as a philosophy of interaction in modern polycultural communities. Conclusion This paper has examined one of the possible ways of teaching cultural diversity – teaching discourse as a reflection of the speakers’ cultural identity. We have demonstrated that in communication, speakers attempt to establish and construct the salient facet of their cultural identity through discourse. We have also argued that awareness of how discourse varies between representatives of different ethnic, social class, gender, and age groups, and how the discourse of an individual varies depending on the role that he or she plays, will enable L2 learners to see people and societies polyculturally, aiding them in perceiving diversity as a norm in modern polycultural societies. References
Copyright ©2002-2004 |
