Cultural Globalization & Language Education

This article by Kumaravadivelu (SJSU) explores nativist undercurrents in language acquisition which have infiltrated Ln teaching. According to Wikipedia, nativism is rooted in Chomsky’s theory of innate and universal grammar. But this article uses them term in what seems to me more of an ethnocentric way, with a definite negative connotation.

Question for class: How does one define “nativism” and does it always imply judgment about the superiority of one’s language and culture over another?

The article explores a 1966 article by Robert Kaplan that marked the beginning of a subfield called “contrastic rhetoric”: how people’s first language and culture shape their writing in a second language. He suggested a relationship “between linguistic rhetoric patterns and cultural thought patterns.” However, there were serious flaws in his argument:

• He was comparing students writing in their second language, which they were still learning, with that of highly educated native English-speakers.
• He overlooked evidence that the rhetorical errors of these students were similar to those of native English-speakers at a similar stage of writing development. (Unlike listening and speaking, reading and writing “are not biologically endowed.”)
• He didn’t take into account linguistic and cultural variations within each group.
• He relied less on the analysis of data and more on his belief in the strong version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which asserts that language controls human thought. (The weak version says language just influences it.) Thus, his study is considered highly ethnocentric.

Nonetheless, he theory is still influential in the English-teaching world.

Two tenets of nativist ideology are:

• Language and culture are inextricably interconnected.
• Cultural difference is cultural deficiency.

Kaplan equates linguistic structure with cognitive ability, and linguistic rhetorical styles to cultural thought patterns. There’s an implicit assumption of the superiority of English rhetoric.

My question is still: while I bristle at the thought that linguistic structure relates to cognitive ability, I do see language and culture as interwoven. Is this writer saying that aspect of nativist theory is suspect?

The article goes on to look at a theory of John Schumann in LA. It relates to language learning and assimilation. He believes that someone’s lack of ability to learn the L2 of their new country relates to their unwillingness or inability to assimilate.

There are obvious problems with that idea. First, assimilation is not necessary, and depending on the learner it may well be undesirable. Second, it puts the onus of language failure on the learner, rather than on the mainstream community which may be blocking opportunities for the learner. Schumann’s ideas, according to the author, also fall into the “nativist” category: because language and culture are inseparable, language acquisition and cultural assimilation or interconnected.

The author looks at some attempts on the part of Nelson Brooks to bring pragmatics and culture into the classroom, but these — patterns of politeness, verbal taboos, greetings, festivals — are “fragmented cultural tidbits that may not be sufficient to understand the unity and character of a cultural community.”

Rhetoric = The art of using language to persuade.

Discourse

Related to semantics. Derived from the Latin for “to run to or from.”

Defined by Fromkin/Rodman/Hyams as, “a linguistic unit that consists of more than one sentence.” Also, “How speakers combine sentences into broader speech units. Discourse analysis involves questions of sytle appropriateness, cohesiveness, rhetorical force, topic/subtopic structure, differences between written and spoken discourse, as well as grammatical properties.”

From Brown: Part of communicative competence: “the way we use language in different styles depending on the context of a communicative act in terms of subject matter, audience, occasion, shared experience, and purpose of communication.” Discourse styles are “sets of conventions for selecting words, phrases, discourse, and nonverbal language in specified contexts.” According to Brown, styles include:

1. Oratorical
2. Deliberative
3. Consultive
4. Casual
5. Intimate

Pragmatics

“The study of meaning in context.” — McCarthy, 1991

“The study of speaker and hearer meaning created in their joint actions that include both linguistic and nonlinguistic signals in the context of socioculturally organized activities.”— LoCastro, 2006

“The study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication.” — Crystal, 1997

My favorite: “The study of how speakers mean more than they say and how listeners can understand them.” — LoCastro, 2006