Arabiyatuna Arabiyatuna
Abstract Globalization establishes English as an international lingua franca, and consequently as one of life skills of people nowadays. Observing the impact of information technology, we see kids around the world now are interchanging experience and information through the global network, like facebook. This is the time to develop the intercultural skills that will serve them in their productive period of life. This implies for us to consider both cultural sensitiveness and cultural skill as the new language skills, in addition to listening, speaking, reading and writing. Unfortunately attention to this perspective is not fully paid yet. Furthermore, those having paid to the perspective still encounter the practical problem of how can they make culture taking place in English teaching classroom. One day I was disapointed with the response of my student. I confirmed that he did not submit his assignment. “You didn’t submit your work last week, did you?” Surprisingly he replied, “Yes, I did not submit my work”. A friend of mine who was learning English seemed to have a problem with the logic of English. I asked him whether he had time to go with me to a seminar or not. Feeling no guilty, he replied, “Yes. God’s willing”. The two examples sharply show the problem of cultural sensitiveness is commonly found among English learners. This will bother the process of communication, especially with native English speakers. If a good communication process is our concern in teaching English as a foreign language, we cannot leave out the problem. Applying an anthropological perspective, it is usual to say that language is a part of culture and a culture is a part of a language, or at least, there is a reciprocal relationship between language and culture. Language, according to Sapir (1921) and Whorf (1956), is humans’ guide to reality. Language structures humans’ view of reality. Humans’ view of the world depends on the particular language they have learned. Humans’ perception of reality is at the mercy of the words and grammatical rules of humans’ language. That is why, one cannot separate the two except only in the analysis. In practice, there is an affinity between language and culture. The presentation of a statement in a way that sounds fluent and elegant in one culture may be regarded as clumsy and circular by members of other culture. This happens due to cultural bound. What an Indonesian, for instance, considers common might be odd for other nations. The mere content of language is also intimately related to culture. A society that has no knowledge of computer, for example, need have no name for it; aborigines that had never seen or heard of an airplane were compelled to invent or borrow a word for the technology. In the sense that the vocabulary of a language more or less faithfully reflects the culture whose purposes it serves, it is perfectly true that the history of language and the history of culture develops parallel line (Sapir, 1921). Considering the position of language in culture and the position of culture in language, recently experts and practitioners in English teaching have been paying attention to the cultural dimension in both instructional design and practice by providing a culturally sensitive learning materials and environments. It should be noted down also that the two cannot grow without the other. If this can be done well, the teachers of language unconsciously serve as the agents of cultural development. What make philosophy and science possible is language (Rahardjo, 2006). As a part of contributions to this conference, this paper tries to identify the strategies and methods to make culture happen in the English classrooms. In doing so, the paper draws insights from reviewing socio-anthropological theories and research findings, and taking the lesson from observing and experiencing in teaching English as a foreign language. The Signification of Culture As the use of language in general is related to social and cultural values, language is considered to be a social and cultural phenomenon. Since every culture has its own norms for conversation and these norms differ from one culture to another, some of the norms can be completely different and even conflict with others. Consequently, communication problems may arise among speakers who do not know or share the norms of other culture. To solve the communication problems in the target language, the learners of foreign languages need to learn the target culture, and the teachers should have cultural sensitiveness as well. Anthropologically culture is defined as the way people live. Some experts in the field define culture as an all-inclusive system which incorporates the biological and technical behavior of human beings with their verbal and non-verbal systems of expressive behavior starting from birth. This “all-inclusive system” is acquired as the native culture. This process, which can be referred to as “socialization and enculturation”, prepares the individual for the linguistically and non-linguistically accepted patterns of the society in which he or she lives (Gecas, 2006). As a means of communication among members of culture, language is the most visible expression of that culture. The way we speak and write in language represents our socio-cultural origin. Some say, therefore, that we can hide our social and attributive status, but we can never hide our language competence and stratification. Our world view, self-identity, and systems of thinking, acting, feeling, and communicating are shaped by language. That’s the way language forms the culture. To speak a language well, one therefore has to be able to think in the language he or she uses. Being able to think in a language used means having a good cultural sensitiveness. Using a foreign language without adopting the logic of the target language will place the users in a serious problem of communication as figured in the delayed model of communication in a foreign language (see the figure below). Being able to think in the target language is the first dimension of cultural sensitiveness. A Delayed Model of Communication in a Foreign Language Some teachers are aware of the necessity of cultural orientation. Communication is seen as the application of grammatical rules in oral and written practice. In some cases, learning about the target culture is taken as a threat to the native values, and therefore the importance of linguistically relevant information is neglected. Since having a close contact with the target culture and its speakers is a rare opportunity for all language learners in our country, learners cannot appreciate the importance of learning the cultural aspects of communication unless they visit a foreign country and experience the difficulties. The symbolic systems of target culture are sometimes picked up from cultural commodities, which are far from being helpful for communicative purposes or which may sometimes impart faulty conceptions. A bit understanding of symbolic systems of the target culture is the second dimension of cultural sensitiveness. If the learning of the cultural aspects is considered necessary for the learner’s survival abroad, the problem can be minimized, but when the person faces problems in the interpretation, translation and production of written and oral texts, the problem gets even more serious. That is to say, an analytic look at the native culture is as important as the learning of the target culture. On the other hand, problems that arise from the lack of cross-cultural awareness are not limited to the verbal side of communication. The paralinguistic aspects and appropriate manners of behavior are equally important factors in the communicatively competent learner’s performance. The fact that culture-bound non-verbal behavior can also cause miscommunication is neglected. Understanding of the non-verbal aspects of target language is the third aspect of cultural sensitiveness. As in all societies, there are social stratification, in terms of social prestige, economic status and political position (Grusky, 2006). Our understanding on that stratification will help us to practise a more favorable use of language. Language politeness is possible only when one understands that stratification. Our teaching on pragmatics should take advantage of that knowledge on social stratification. We have to keep in mind that communication is always intended to certain counterparts. Just as what Francis Bacon said – that knowledge is power —, the more we know our counterparts the better we can control (influence, persuade) them. Understanding of the pattern of social stratifications of the speech community to which we address is the fourth aspect of cultural sensitiveness. Developing Cultural Sensitiveness In practice anytime we teach the language, we would unconsciously teach culture. The forms of address, greetings, and other utterances found in the dialogues always involve some aspects of culture of the learned language. Gestures, body movements, and distances maintained by speakers should reflect cultural ideas. Some literary works also contain the very nature of foreign culture and language. Teachers can take advantages from such verbal, non-verbal and textual materials to improve learners’ cultural sensitiveness. The teaching of the target culture has to serve the development of cross-cultural understanding and communication. The achievement of this goal is possible with the preparation of an organized inventory that would include both linguistic and extra linguistic aspects of the target culture. Such preparation serves as a bridge between two different cognitive systems. As mentioned earlier, each culture has a unique pattern and the behavior of individuals. Foreign language learning, therefore, requires the changing of the learner’s behavior by internalizing a new way of life and new values of life into his settled pattern of behavior. In developing students’ cultural awareness and cultural sensitiveness, teachers have to make learners be aware of cultural differences and help the learners to develop an empathetic understanding. Students learning a foreign language also have to assimilate many new codifications and symbolic expressions if they are to understand and speak the language as its native speakers do. The objectives of integrating cultural sensitiveness into English teaching should be to: (1) develop students’ skills in communication, (2) understand both linguistic and behavioral patterns of the target culture, (3) develop intercultural understanding, (4) adopt a wider perspective, dan (5) make teaching more enjoyable. Our existing cross-cultural understanding course is on the right track. It is, however, not sufficient to help our students be able to communicate well in a foreign language. They have to be facilitated further with: (1) a deeper understanding of how to think in the target language, (2) a bit understanding of symbolic systems of the target culture, (3) an understanding of the non-verbal aspects of target language, and (4) an understanding of the pattern of social stratifications of the speech community to which they will address. It is theoretically expected that all of those dimensions will work unconsciously whenever they are in contact with the foreign language counterparts. Completed with the conventional languages skills, those four dimensions of cultural sensitiveness will enable our students to be good foreign language users. In other words, one who speaks or writes in a foreign language with cultural sensitiveness is our new wish as practitioners of foreign language education. Let’s bring our students to be members of global community with their linguistic capability and cultural sensitiveness to have a more harmonious world with mutual respects and understanding. References Gecas, V., 2006. Socialization, in E. F. Borgatta and R. J. V. Montgomery, Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan. Grimshaw, A.D., 2006. Sociolinguistics, in E. F. Borgatta and R. J. V. Montgomery, Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan. Grusky, 2006, Social Stratification, in E. F. Borgatta and R. J. V. Montgomery, Encyclopedia of Sociology. New York: Macmillan. Rahardjo, M., 2006, Bahasa, Pemikiran dan Peradaban: Telaah Filsafat Pengetahuan dan Sosiolinguistik, Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar, Fakultas Humaniora dan Budaya, Universitas Islam Negeri Malang, 9 Desember 2006. Sapir, E., 1921, Language, An Introduction to the Study of Speech, New York: Harcourt and Brace. Whorf, B., 1956, Language, Thought and Reality, New York: Wiley.
Penulis : Prof DR. H. Mudjia Rahardjo
Pembantu Rektor I Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang
