Developing Intercultural Perspectives on Language Use: Exploring Pragmatics and Culture in Foreign Language Learning

Introduction

Communication in today’s world requires culture. Problems in communication are rooted in who you are, in encounters with a different mentality, different meanings, a different tie between language and consciousness. Solving the problems inspired by such encounters inspires culture. (Agar, 1994: 23, italics in original)

As Agar (1994) intimated more than 20 years ago, we would be well advised to recognize the complex ways in which culture is embedded in the fabric of our communication and the implications that this has for interaction with others in the current world. In recent years the popularization of tools for online communication, the global spread of business activities and the surge in interactions among people from around the world have spurred interest in both academic and non-academic circles as to the nature of intercultural communication and the consequences it has for our lives. Intercultural communication these days is an extremely vibrant and complex phenomenon. Speakers from a wide variety of linguistic and cultural backgrounds use foreign languages to negotiate meanings and interpersonal relationships with others, drawing on cultural assumptions and world knowledge sourced from diverse contexts in the process. This means that the ways in which speakers use language for communicative purposes are also diverse, contextually contingent and subject to change over time. For some, such a picture of intercultural communication conjures up images of insurmountable differences and inevitable conflict. For others, it presents the possibility for individuals to draw on their common humanity and goodwill to promote cooperative dialogue and deepen intercultural understanding.

As one field which is particularly invested in (and responsible for) the promotion of felicitous intercultural communication, foreign language teaching is faced with the question of how classroom learning experiences can be designed to prepare learners for interacting with individuals from a wide range of cultural backgrounds, including but not limited to native speakers of the language. This book takes the position that developing the ability to successfully manage interactions and relationships through the medium of a foreign language goes far beyond the acquisition of linguistic skills. It requires the cultivation of a perspective which recognizes the potential for diverse norms, assumptions and values to influence the ways in which language is used and interpreted as a form of social action. This is not a matter of internalizing stereotypes about foreign ‘communication styles’, but rather requires a reflective and analytical engagement with how culture shapes meaning-making processes in interaction. This is something that can be fostered in the language classroom.

Intercultural Learning and the Role of Language

There have been many voices over the years emphasizing the importance of integrating language and culture study in the language classroom, often with the aim of developing learners’ intercultural competence (e.g. Beacco, 2004; Byram, 1991, 1997; Damen, 1987; Díaz, 2013; Díaz & Dasli, 2017; Hinkel, 1999; Kramsch, 1993; Lange & Paige, 2003; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; Risager, 2007). However, despite the often-repeated notion that language and culture are inseparable, language learning curricula and materials predominantly present culture in terms of non-linguistic products and practices, such as popular foods, traditional clothing and unique festivals, as well as demographic facts and historical events of nations in which the target language is spoken. For language teachers, it can be difficult to see how attention to culture might fit in with the goal of developing learners’ ability to use the target language. This can be traced to the fact that as a field we have generally struggled to articulate a view of language that conveys the centrality of culture to how linguistic meanings are constructed and interpreted (c.f. Díaz, 2013). Relatedly, we have also struggled to articulate a clear relationship between the development of communicative abilities in the target language and the development of intercultural competence. This kind of theoretical synthesis is challenging, given that the field of linguistics (which has primarily informed language teaching) has often excluded the concept of culture from its concerns, and theorizing on intercultural competence has generally failed to discuss the role of language effectively (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013).

Most models of intercultural competence derive from the field of cross-cultural psychology and tend to give emphasis to psychological attributes such as mindfulness, anxiety management, empathy, perspective-taking, tolerance, and non-judgemental attitudes towards foreign cultures (see Deardorff, 2009; Spencer-Oatey & Franklin, 2009, for good overviews). In broad terms, what is most important from this perspective is the attributes that help individuals psychologically engage with and adapt to cultural difference, while gradually moving away from ethnocentric judgements of self and other (Bennett, 1993). However, any understanding of intercultural competence needs to be able to account not only for psychological attributes and attitudinal shift but also for the specific aspects of culture in relation to which these attributes should be applied. For instance, when theorists claim that individuals should aim to cultivate non-judgemental attitudes to cultural difference, do they mean that individuals should be non-judgemental about everything that might be called ‘culture’? If not, what do they mean? If intercultural communicators should exercise ‘mindfulness’, what do they need to be mindful of specifically? In order to develop intercultural competence, whether in language teaching or intercultural training contexts, practitioners need an idea of the cultural phenomena in relation to which learners should hone their abilities. Without this, it is difficult to construct content for intercultural learning and foster learners’ interpretive and reflective engagement with cultural and intercultural phenomena.

Due to disciplinary imperatives, models of intercultural competence developed in psychology have remained primarily within the mind. Consequently, they have had less to say about the nature of culture as an entity, especially the interrelationships between language and culture that become important in intercultural communication (Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013). Although some models do discuss the need to be aware of cultural differences in communication, as Spencer-Oatey (2010) points out, the object of awareness is typically limited to general tendencies towards directness or indirectness in communication which are purported to derive from high-context/low-context communication styles (Hall, 1974; Cardon, 2008, for a critical review). Such a framing remains abstract due to lack of reference ‘to a theory of semiosis or, more specifically, a theory of language as a social-semiotic practice’ (Warner, 2011: 13). In other words, the operationalization of communication in terms of communication style fails to capture the complex ways in which we use language to carry out a range of social acts and dynamically shape our messages in coordination with interlocutors based on ongoing consideration of contextual variables.

Meanwhile, in the field of language teaching there has been extensive conceptual and theoretical discussion around the notion of intercultural competence and how it might be developed in classrooms (e.g. Baker, 2009, 2011; Byram, 1997, 2008; Corbett, 2003; Dervin & Gross, 2016; Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013; Díaz, 2013; Hinkel, 1999; Kearney, 2016; Kramsch, 1993; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; O’Dowd, 2007; Risager, 2007). At present, Byram’s (1997) model is the most well-known and influential attempt to theorize intercultural competence specifically for the purposes of language teaching and learning. This model recognizes that, although language learners aim to develop a communicative repertoire in the foreign language, this does not necessarily signify a desire or need to conform to second language (L2) norms at all times. Centred on the notion of the ‘intercultural speaker’, the emphasis is on developing the ability to ‘manage interaction across cultural boundaries, to anticipate misunderstandings caused by difference in values, meanings and beliefs, and … to cope with the affective as well as cognitive demands of engagement with otherness’ (Byram, 1995: 25). Byram (1997) aims to bring together the notion of communicative competence and the notion of intercultural competence and place them within a single model for the development of what he calls intercultural communicative competence. Within the model, communicative competence is understood as consisting of linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence and discourse competence. Meanwhile, intercultural competence is positioned as a separate construct consisting of cultural knowledge, skills of interaction and discovery, skills of interpreting and relating, attitudes of relativizing self and valuing others, and critical cultural awareness (principled evaluation).

One of the main strengths of this model is that it highlights the interactive and interpretive nature of intercultural competence – intercultural competence is instantiated in particular practices. Individuals utilize their cultural knowledge to engage in dialogue across cultural boundaries, drawing connections between behaviours and meanings situated in diverse cultural frameworks and developing their capacities for careful and reflective judgement. As has been critiqued by others (e.g. Byram, 2009; Díaz, 2013), the main limitation of the model is the theoretical separation between communicative competence and intercultural competence. Although a complementary relationship is implied, the question remains as to how the knowledge, skills and attitudes comprising intercultural competence might relate to the development of the learner’s communicative ability in the target language. This may lead some to view intercultural competence as something to be developed after the learner’s communicative competence has reached a certain level rather than being central to the language learning endeavour from the beginning.

More recently, Baker (2011, 2015) has articulated the notion of ‘intercultural awareness’ as a way of capturing the knowledge, skills and attitudes to be developed in language learning for intercultural communication. He defines intercultural awareness as follows:

Intercultural awareness is a conscious understanding of the role culturally based forms, practices and frames of understanding can have in intercultural communication, and an ability to put these conceptions into practice in a flexible and context specific manner in real time communication. (Baker, 2011: 202)

This notion of understanding culturally based frames of understanding is not limited to awareness of L2 norms but is a more general awareness of the ways in which individuals inevitably draw on conscious and unconscious assumptions and expectations within the process of communication. This stems from the premise that when speakers from different cultural backgrounds interact with one another in a particular language, the norms and assumptions that shape that interaction are not only pre-existing but are also created dynamically within and across interactions among particular speakers. That is, speakers in intercultural communication necessarily accommodate to each other and, through a process of negotiation, come to establish consistent frames of reference and common ground that sustain communication (Kecskes, 2014). This represents an important shift away from static views of intercultural communication in which individuals instantiate culturally determined ‘communication styles’ (Dervin, 2011; Holliday, 2010; McConachy & Hata, 2013). In Baker’s (2011) conception, it is important for language learners to develop awareness of specific cultural differences and also the ways in which the cultural knowledge of conversational participants is mobilized and negotiated in a dynamic sense-making process. In other words, the influences of culture should be viewed from both the perspectives of fixity and fluidity. It is valuable that this work draws attention to the fact that there is a variety of cultural frames of understanding at work in the process of intercultural communication and also in language learning. It is also valuable that it highlights the potential for individuals to construct norms for interaction and understanding within the process of communication. However, as in other models, further specification is required regarding the nature of the cultural frames of understanding that learners should become aware of and, in particular, how cultural frames of understanding influence the meanings and values that are ascribed to features of spoken communication.

In terms of making intercultural learning an integral part of the language learning process, the important issue for language teachers and researchers is not how culture relates to ‘language’ per se, but how culture relates to ‘linguistic meaning-making’ – to discourse (e.g. Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013; Kearney, 2016; Kramsch, 1993, 2009; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; Risager, 2007). Culture influences the ways in which individuals carry out specific communicative acts such as requests, apologies, compliments, invitations, etc., and also the ways in which individuals interpret the performance of these acts within interaction in terms of politeness, friendliness, arrogance, and a wide range of other interpersonal attributions (Liddicoat, 2006; Meier, 2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2008). How, then, can the learner’s developing insight into the impact of culturally based frames of understanding on interpretation of such aspects of language constitute a form of intercultural awareness? How can we theorize the nature of intercultural learning that occurs as language learners begin to reflect on specific aspects of language use in context and view the interpretation of meaning from multiple perspectives? It will be argued in this book that reflection on language use provides opportunities for coming to see language not just as a code, but as a culturally interpreted form of social action. I, therefore, extensively illustrate and discuss the interpretive and reflective processes by which learners construct such a ­perspective on language use.

The Notion of Intercultural Perspective on Language Use

As one way of capturing the language learner’s growing awareness of the various ways in which aspects of language use are interpreted and evaluated according to culturally constituted assumptions and values, in this book I develop the notion of ‘intercultural perspective on language use’. This notion of intercultural perspective on language use starts from the premise that language is best viewed not primarily as a code but as a form of cultural behaviour which emerges out of, and is continually shaped by, humans’ broader attempts to negotiate the structures, meanings and values of the social world within and across social groups (Duranti, 1997; Geertz, 1973). The communicative patterns within particular languages can be seen as a complex representation of the various pathways for meaning established by and for social groups to deal with everyday life and to attribute a sense of purpose to phenomena, people and events (D’Andrade, 1984; Fantini, 1995; Strauss & Quinn, 1997). Each language provides conventions for carrying out concrete social acts, such as requests, apologies, compliments, etc., and these acts are interpreted with reference to socioculturally constituted norms, frames of reference, assumptions and values (Hanks, 1996; Hymes, 1972). Speakers of a particular language interpret the social meanings and appropriateness of ways of carrying out linguistic behaviours by drawing on culturally derived assumptions about sociocultural factors such as interactional setting, age, gender and power, as well as more abstract norms which relate to the rights and responsibilities of individuals within social and interpersonal roles and relationships (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989; House-Edmonson, 1986; Kasper & Schmidt, 1996). Culture constitutes a resource which individuals use to interpret language use as socially meaningful. However, as people approach events and activities from different positions in the social structure and from a different background stock of knowledge and experiences, divergence in interpretation is an inevitable part of communication (Kramsch, 2009). Therefore, in this book, culture is not seen as a monolithic entity but as a semiotically encoded framework which individuals use for negotiating interpretations of social actions with others in an ongoing fashion (Geertz, 1973). This opens up scope for understanding the dynamic ways in which language learners utilize cultural understandings drawn from one language for interpreting language forms and meanings in another.

Indeed, language learning is a dynamic process by which learners come to interpret new linguistic forms and practices, while reflecting on how languages work to construct social meanings. The conventionalized patterns of use within the foreign language present to the learner the opportunity to explore new ways of viewing the world, and new ways of constructing the self and others while carrying out communicative acts which build and maintain interpersonal relationships (Kramsch, 2009). Such exploration requires engagement with potentially different assumptions about the nature of relationships and the ways in which perceptions of rights and obligations in particular relational and sociocultural contexts bear influence on how language is used and interpreted within communication (Spencer-Oatey, 2008). At the same time, as Byram (1991) rightly emphasizes, it is meaningless to pretend that the learner is tabula rasa. Language learners bring with them particular cultural schemas, assumptions about social relationships, and repertoires for interpreting interpersonal behaviour which have been developed through a history of life experiences in previously acquired languages (Kecskes, 2014). Importantly, learners will have (sometimes stereotypical) perceptions of L2 speakers and foreign cultures that mediate the attribution of meaning. The language learning process is thus one which is centred on complex processes of interpretation right from the beginning (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013).

As an interpretive process, language learning involves exploring new ways of communicating while reflecting on one’s own assumptions, testing out the extent to which they might work within contexts of L2 use, and then revising and reconstructing them as necessary. This does not mean that learners necessarily conform to the range of pre-established communicative patterns or frames of interpretation prevalent in the target language. Language learning is an inherently synergistic affair whereby new interactional patterns, new ways of communicating, new meanings, and new frames of interpretation are constructed by the learner as they learn and use the language for communicative purposes (Kramsch, 2009). Such a constructivist view of the intercultural in foreign language learning foregrounds the importance of the learner’s ability to direct close attention to how language is used in context, to reflect on what one has observed and experienced within interactions, to compare what has been observed with what one already knows, and to develop the capacities for viewing the exchange of meanings from multiple perspectives (Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). The notion of ‘intercultural perspective on language use’ is intended to capture a learner’s emerging capacity for paying close attention to how language is used in context, reflecting on the construction of meaning from multiple (and conflicting) perspectives, and developing insight into the influence of cultural assumptions and frames of understanding on communication.

The development of an intercultural perspective on language use hinges very much on whether the learner is willing and able to suspend taken-for-granted perceptions and open up to other ways of seeing. An intercultural perspective on language use, therefore, necessarily embodies a strong reflexive orientation (Byram et al., 2001; Dervin & Liddicoat, 2013; Díaz, 2013; Kramsch, 1993, 2009; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013; Risager, 2007; Warner, 2009). It is not enough for learners to gaze at others. An intercultural perspective implies that an individual develops the ability to reflect on his or her own taken-for-granted assumptions about how language should be used, such as what is considered appropriate language use in particular situations and relationships, and then contextualize them against different assumptions applied to the same situation. The notion of ‘perspective’, therefore, does not imply a static way of seeing but a flexible lens for approaching the interpretation of language use which enables the individual to be mindful of the ever-present impact of cultural assumptions on how individuals interpret and evaluate each other in interaction.

From a teaching perspective, helping learners develop an intercultural perspective on language use is not primarily a matter of trying to present learners with a stereotypical body of knowledge about native speakers of the target language. It can be seen more as a process of socializing learners into the practice of looking at aspects of language use in the first language (L1) and L2 as a form of social action, interpreting the significance of linguistic choices from multiple perspectives, reflecting on interpretations with peers, and considering the nature of one’s continually developing frames of interpretation and interactional repertoire as applied to a range of contexts and purposes. While this might sound like a daunting task for teachers, this book will aim to show that guiding learners in meaningful processes of reflection on language use can be achieved even with relatively conventional materials and questioning strategies that can be strategically deployed. Importantly, classroom learning activities aimed at developing intercultural perspectives on language use do not always need to involve explicit reference to other national cultures. For example, creating opportunities for learners to reflect on aspects of L1 communication in a range of contexts and to develop awareness of taken-for-granted assumptions in communication is a highly meaningful activity in terms of contributing to the development of intercultural perspectives. Not every aspect of learning needs to be about ‘foreign’ things in order to be conducive to the development of intercultural perspectives. This is a key point which will be illustrated in various ways throughout the book.

Pragmatics as a Resource for Developing Intercultural Perspectives

As a theoretical resource for articulating the notion of intercultural perspectives on language use in this book, I draw on work in the field of pragmatics and aim to fuse it with work from intercultural communication theory and social psychology. Pragmatics is chiefly concerned with the issue of meaning – how it is constructed and interpreted – and how individuals use language as a tool for managing their social relationships (Lo Castro, 2012; Spencer-Oatey, 2008). Research in this field has thus produced a range of insights into how individuals carry out social acts in their communication that have then informed foreign language teaching and learning. One of the significant ways in which pragmatics has influenced language teaching is that it has led language teachers to develop deeper awareness of the many different things that humans do with language in communication. This has translated into the teaching of common speech acts such as requests, apologies, compliments, complaints, etc., as well as many other pragmatic and discoursal features of language use (e.g. Alcón Soler & Martínez-Flor, 2008; Bardovi-Harlig et al., 1991; Ishihara & Cohen, 2010; Kasper & Rose, 2001; Rose, 2005; Taguchi, 2015, and many more). Importantly, the presence of pragmatics in the communicative language curriculum has led to increased attention to notions of appropriate communication and some of the specific communicative norms that exist in particular languages.

However, despite increased emphasis on language use as a form of social action within communicatively oriented language teaching, the influence of culture on language use has been somewhat neglected. Awareness of pragmatic norms, typically expressed through the notion of pragmatic awareness, has been treated as a matter of whether learners are able to effectively recognize conventional mappings of form, function and context in the target language (Schmidt, 1993). That is, the emphasis has been on whether learners know which forms to select in order to carry out a particular speech act depending on to whom one is talking. Such a framing has led to relative lack of attention to how culture informs judgements about the appropriateness of linguistic forms when used in particular sociocultural and relational contexts. Meier (1999, 2003, 2010, 2015) is one author who has consistently advocated the need to more clearly bring together pragmatics and culture in pedagogy, but implementation has been hampered due to the difficulty in making the relationship between language and culture accessible to learners. Culture is clearly not an easy notion to deal with, particularly if it is seen as something that needs to be ‘taught’ in terms of rules or formulae.

In this book I offer a reconceptualization of the notion of pragmatic awareness and explain its relevance to the development of intercultural perspectives on language use in the language classroom. A core part of this reconceptualization involves renewed emphasis on the learner’s awareness of their L1 (and any other previously acquired languages) and how culturally based assumptions about language use drawn from multiple languages influence the process of learning. It is important to point out that this book does not purport to offer a new ‘method’ or ‘bag of tricks’ for teaching pragmatics. In fact, one of the main aims of this book is to show that, although many teachers might feel overwhelmed by the idea of dealing with culture, it is possible to create opportunities for meaningful learning even with conventional materials such as coursebooks and by guiding language learners to analyze and reflect on their own interactional experiences inside and outside the classroom. In order to achieve this aim, I present data from a case study of the intercultural language learning of four learners of English taught by the author during a 10-week communicative English course at a study-abroad preparation institute in Tokyo, Japan. I show how making language use an object of analysis and reflection within