project paper revision iv

VIVY LUVIANA/ELS-EDU/P0600214050

ENGLISH FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSE MID TERM PROJECT

(A PAPER ANALYSIS)

My friend’s original paper presented in TESOL in Practice course last semester is the

one belongs to Kak Suaib, whose title is “English is a language of multipurpose

communication”.

The article used in Kak Suaib’ s paper

As it turns out that Kak Suaib made no use of any articles in his paper, but books,

one of which is written by McKay – the one we used as our handbook in TESOL in

Practice class last semester, I then tried to find one article from the suggested reading

section in that book. Since chapter 4 was what interested me most as it discussed

about culture, I straight browsed the articles cited there one by one. Luckily enough, I

found a couple of articles which could be free downloaded, and my preference went

with that composed by Cem Alptekin, Target-language culture in EFL materials. The

whole following then ties with that very article.

The structure of Cem Alptekin’s article is a problem-solution structure

It first begins with a description of a general situation of how culture can play a

significant role in language learning. For this, two types of knowledge made use by

learners for learning language are explained. They are systemic and schematic

knowledge. The first refers to knowledge of forms of language and its syntactic as

well as semantic system through which information and experiences are expressed,

while the second to cognitive structures through which information and experiences

are interpreted. It is through schematic knowledge where culture inherently influence


language learning as this schematic knowledge is a type of knowledge that is socially

acquired as part of a culture; as a part of a way of living. In foreign language

learning, students are naturally inclined to use their pre-established schematic

knowledge referring to their native culture when confronted with texts or learning

material presented through target-language context which they are not familiar with.

Moving on, description of problems is presented. As almost all of the learning

materials for EFL are written by writers or textbook composer whose cultural

background is in target-language, many elements of the writers’ cultures are

presented through the material they compose, leading to such a conflict, among

others, in part of EFL learners as they lack experience in interpreting the contexts.

Since naturally when facing such unfamiliar situations, EFL learners will tend to

make use of their pre-established schematic knowledge referring to their native

culture to decode the meaning of their learning, some problems may emerge as their

native schematic knowledge may not be in match with the target-language schematic

knowledge while in the meantime they are demanded to express a culture in which

they do not have experience at their disposal. In the light of this, EFL learners are

potentially to be urged to behave in such a way which is not allowed in their daily

lives or in their educational situations.

Following the thorough description of problems, there comes a brief description

for two possible solutions – for the part of EFL writers; strategy EFL writers can do

in dealing with differences between native schematic knowledge of EFL learners and

that of target-language while composing EFL learning materials, and for the part of

EFL learners. For the part of EFL writers, it is can be done by building such a


conceptual connection between contexts that EFL writers are familiar, with those

which they are unfamiliar with, thus making avoiding the rises of conflict in the part

of the learners, while for the EFL learners, they are suggested while making

interpretation to transit from their native culture to the international English, which

belong to an international community rather than to one of the particular cultures of

its native-speaking countries.

The flow of arguments of the writer

Based on rocket.csusb.edu/~jburoker/jill/Courses_files/Arguments.pdf which

mentions that argument is a set of statements, some of which are offered in support of

another, that is, the conclusion (Philosophy 190, Jill Buroker), the flow of an

argument in that paper is as follows:

Very first of all, the writer addresses the centrality of the role of culture towards

cognitive structure or schematic knowledge whereby information is interpreted. He

further recognized that there exist some differences in the way information and

experiences are interpreted by students of EFL learning as he quoted the work of

Widdoson (1990) addressing these differences.

As a consequence of those differential ways, the writer then points out that

learners’ schematic knowledge may be in clash or conflict when learning foreign

language for systemic data of target-language may be presented through a context in

which the EFL learners are not familiar with. To provide support for his very

statement, the writer cites works from Brown et al (1977), Steffensen et al (1979),

Reynolds et al (1982), and Nelson (1987) which are in concern with reading

comprehension, in which in reason of either the incompatibility of native schematic


knowledge to interpret the meanings of the reading tasks – the native schematic

knowledge is naturally used by EFL learners to interpret meanings when they are

confronted with unusual experience, as stated by Widdowson (1990) – or the lack of

target-language cultural competence, as stated by Wallace (1988:33), reading activity

can turn into such a nerve-racking experience.

After giving such general information on cultural role and a brief example in

reading area where such conflict due to the differences in EFL learners way

interpreting meanings, the next thing the writer does is to discuss issues of target-

language cultural elements which are usually included in EFL learners’ written

materials, and which are culturally different from other cultures, particularly those of

EFL learners’. For this, again, as an attempt to provide support, the writer reviews

some works of other researchers. They are Clyne (1981) showing that contrastive

rhetorical cultures between that of English and that of German; Koch (1983) pointing

out that Western mode of argumentation is in contrast with that of Arabic making

uses of many repetitions; and, Jenkins and Hinds (1987) finding out that while

Japanese business letter is oriented to the space between the writer and the reader,

that of American tends to be reader oriented while that of French writer oriented.

After providing examples of numerous cultural elements that EFL writers include

within their learning material composition, the writer moves to point out some

underlying rationales for such doing. Generally, as also stated by the writer himself in

his other paper (1990) and Philipson (1990) as well, EFL writers feel like having

justification in their so doing over EFL in the non-native speaking countries as most

of them come from native-speaking countries.


Then the writer discusses the theoretical and practical rationales or justification

for those EFL writers’ so doing further, in which the writer first mentions commercial

consideration for composing or publishing EFL material composition in the target-

language culture rather than on EFL learners’. Second, he mentions that such

inclusion is also based on those EFL writers’ preferences, in which they feel more

convenient to compose based on their cultural schematic knowledge rather than

others in which they lack knowledge of. The last, the writer mentions that such target-

language cultural element inclusion is based on theoretical judgments of some

scholars, like Stewart (1982), Valdes (1986:121), and Byram (1988), in which they

are generally in agreement that including some elements from EFL learners’ native

culture would not be useful, then must not be necessary.

Afterwards, the writer points out that concerning such rationales, some problems

may occur; first of all, to cite Brumfit (1980: 95), learners are forced to express

culture in which they barely have experience. Next, the writer cites the work of

Byram (1989: 57) revealing that due to such force, EFL learning may endure mental

socio-psychological problems. For this, the writer quotes other works too, such as

Alptekin (1981) stating that such can lead to anomie; Green (1977) saying that such is

also possible to trigger regression; and Clarke (1976) as well as Meara (1977)

revealing the possible occurrence of schizophrenia as the worst problem.

The writer then addresses another subtle problem which may emerge resulted

from either the conflict between EFL learners’ schematic knowledge and that of

target-language or their lack of cultural target-language experience by pointing out

the work of Edge (1987) explaining that it can take form in learners’ ways of


behaving which are not considered appropriate in their native environment as general,

like Chinese students being active in classrooms in which generally, by citing the

work of Young (1987), prefer a teacher-oriented process, and that of Burnaby and

Sun (1989) showing that even Chinese teachers shut them down from communicative

procedures materials as it is generally considered inappropriate and by then

proscribed.

Another problem discussed as the writer continues is in concern with the

ownership of English language. Inclusion numerous target-language cultural elements

in EFL materials may serve as justification of the ownership of native speakers, in

which by then comes their rights to determine the grammaticality and the appropriacy

of using English. However, the writer shows that through the citation of Paikeday’s

work (1985), that such right is not valid as not all native speakers have appropriate

educations to determine the two aspects of language. The writer then continues to cite

Smite (1987: 3) that as English is an international language, the ownership of it to

particular groups or countries is not valid either as it has been denationalized as the

consequence of its being an international one. In concern with this ownership, the

writer again cites other work by Kachru (1985) that even varieties from

indigenization such as Indian English has developed their own competence of using

English which indicates that they have their own English version, not the one dictated

as owned by native speakers. So it means that a matter of claim of ownership of

English is not a relevant matter.

After a matter of ownership, the writer explains another problem, rising from the

presentation of cultural target-language elements in learning material. As the writer


points out to better understand their materials, learners make use of their native

schematic knowledge. To support his points, several works of authors are cited;

Johnson (1982), Nunan (1985), Carell (1987), Barnes-Felfeli (1982), Friedlander

(1990), and Hinds (1984) in which all the works basically clarify the importance of

the degree of familiarity of the contexts used by learners in their learning. However,

with the numerous inclusion of cultural target-language elements which is out of the

range of learners’ native schematic knowledge, the learning tends to become a lot

harder than it would be if the learners are presented with contexts they are familiar

with.

At last, the writer addresses stereotyping issue as one of the potential problems

that may emerge in which EFL writers who are mostly native speakers make

generalization over what is right for their culture also right for others. For providing a

concrete support, the writer takes an example for the work of Hartman and Judd

(1978) showing that many EFL writers from American stereotyped the way they put

roles on men and women, and that of Clarke and Clarke (1990) pointing out that EFL

writers of British nationality did much stereotyping in the area like gender, race,

class, and religion.

After elaborations of each point with explanations and evidences, the writer

asserts his argument that is to retain the inclusion of target-language cultural

elements of one of its native-speaking countries in EFL learning material, not to

mention to stereotype those elements into the cultures of others is detrimental for

EFL learners since it is not helpful for them instead making their learning

processes more laborious as when they are confronted with unfamiliar situations in


which they do not have experiences while working out new syntactic and semantic

data. After asserting his argument on the detrimental effects of such inclusion, the

writer provides solutions that EFL writers can work out so as with EFL learners. For

EFL writers, they are encouraged to build such conceptual connections between

contexts of cultures they are familiar with, that is, the contexts of their own culture,

with those of cultures they are not familiar with, that is, the contexts of EFL learners’

culture. The building of such conceptual connection, as the writer further maintains,

can be done by making such a cross-cultural comparison and searching for the

universal concepts of human experiences to be used as a basic reference by the time

EFL learners are confronted with unfamiliar data. By working out such conceptual

connections between the two, as the writer continues, the materials they compose for

EFL learners no longer trigger conflict for the part of EFL learners while making use

of materials that have been written by those native-speaker writers.

As the last point of his article, the writer elaborates a solution that EFL learners

can work out when dealing with different schematic knowledge they are facing, that

is, making transitions from their cultural familiar context to the contexts of English as

international culture that are widely spread and belong more to an international

community, rather than confine it to one of its particular native contexts. By so doing,

the level of EFL learners’ conflict can be more managed as no need to tie their selves

with a particular cultural context.

The flow of arguments of other sources


In case with this, there is no other source in sense of other person to argue in this

paper, but the writer, as this article is a conceptual article in nature, not a review

based, in which such differing argumentation between the writer that writes the

review article and the other source whose work is reviewed is present. The writer of

this conceptual article, Alptekin, indeed cites some works of others as part of the

arguments of the writer himself – to provide support for his – not of other persons’.

The identification of writer’s argument is as follows:

A series

of statements

- Culture as socially acquired knowledge can be

said to play a central role in cognition.

(page 1, paragraph 2)

- However, as Widdowson states, the foreign

language learning experience is quite different.


- The ‘fit’ or consistency, between the culture-

specific aspects of cognition and the native

language undergoes a substantive degree of

conflict when one begins to learn a foreign

language.


- One area where the violation of the ‘fit’ is shown

to influence foreign language learning negatively

is that of reading comprehension. It is well-

established that readers make use of culture-

specific schemas in relating input to what they


already know and, consequently, construct the

writers’ intended meaning.


- Writing operates in terms of schemas moulded by

the social context in which the writer lives.


- Such examples show that EFL textbook writers,

like everyone else, think and compose chiefly

through culture-specific schemas.


- One reason for EFL textbook focusing on

elements about the American or British culture

stems from the fact that it is generally not cost-

effective for publishers to set materials in the

learners’ society.


- Another reason is that native-speaker textbook

writers, who normally reside in their own Anglo-

American culture, find it hard to compose data

that go beyond their ‘fit’.


- Apart from such mundane matters that affect the

determination of the type of schematic input in

EFL materials, one witnesses theoretical claims


about the necessity of teaching the target

language in relation to its own culture.


- Although practical advantages do exist in

teaching and presenting the target language in

relation to its own culture, there are several

problems associated with this approach as well.

To begin with, it forms part of the ‘strange

paradox’ that, while in mother-toung e teaching

the clarity of children’s ability to express

themselves is emphasized, in foreign language

teaching learners are forced to express a culture

of which they have scarcely any experience.

Secondly, developing a new identity, or what

Byram (1989: 57) calls otherness, as a result of

one’s sudden exposure to the target-language

culture, is likely to cause a split between

experience and thought which is conductive to

serious sociopsychological problems affecting the

learner’s mental equilibrium negatively.



- Hence, argues Edge, learners from those cultures

cannot learn English properly by behaving in

ways which are both alien to their educational

culture and proscribed in their daily life.


- Another problem concerning the use of target-

language culture elements has to do with the fact

that such a position equates a language with the

combined uses and usages of its native speakers,

thus making them not only its arbiters of well-

formedness and appropriacy but, more

importantly, its sole owners.


- Finally, the position relating a language and its

culture appears to ignore the positive effects of

familiar schematic knowledge on foreign

language learning.


- What further exacerbates the problem of

presentation of the target language in relation to

its own culture is the generally stereotypical

representation of that culture in much


instructional material.


Conclusion - Hence, to confine English to one of its native

settings and, what is worse, to present that setting

in a stereotypical manner is not only unrealistic

and misleading, but also a disservice to EFL

learners in that they are likely to find themselves

in the undesirable position of tackling unfamiliar

information unnecessarily while trying to cope

with novel systemic data (page 6, paragraph 18)

- Instead of diving simplistically into the narrow

confines of a given target-language culture, in a

manner devoid of comparative insight and critical

perspective, EFL writers should try to build

conceptual bridges between the culturally familiar

and the unfamiliar in order not to give rise to

conflicts in the learners’ ‘fit’ as he or she acquires

English. Such bridges can be built, among other

ways, through the use of comparisons as

techniques of cross-cultural comprehension or the

exploitation of universal concepts of human

experience as reference points for the

interpretation of unfamiliar data.



- Finally, given that traditional notion of the

communicative competence of the native speaker

is no longer adequate as a goal to be adopted in

an EFL program, the transition from familiar to

unfamiliar schematic data should not necessarily

be thought of as moving from the learners’ native

culture to the culture of the native speaker of

English. ...other options may involve transition

from the learners’ native culture to the

international English....


I pick up the argument part as follows:

“Hence, to confine English to one of its native settings and, what is worse, to

present that setting in a stereotypical manner is not only unrealistic and

misleading, but also a disservice to EFL learners in that they are likely to find

themselves in the undesirable position of tackling unfamiliar information

unnecessarily while trying to cope with novel systemic data”.

My own comment on it, excluding the part of stereotypical manner, is that I can

only partly agree with that, which means that I also disagree to some part. In fact,

even the inclusion of target-language culture into EFL learning material may be hard

to understand by students, but once they figure out the meanings behind the

presentation of target-language cultural context either they do it by themselves or by


our help as facilitator, as far as my experiences tell, it also interests the students. They

even get more motivated to study hard to be able to continue their study or save more

money so as to some day go visit the given foreign countries mentioned in the text

and by then experience and learn their culture directly.

To me, it may not be simply a matter of EFL learners’ schematic knowledge

confronted with that of target-language schematic knowledge that make them hard to

understand or interpret the meanings presented in target-language context – so

making the composers of the materials are to blame – but also the students’ ability

with the systemic knowledge – students’ knowledge particularly in concern with

vocabularies and the grammar, in which as addressed by Richard (2001: 15), that they

are the most fundamental aspects of language – through which the concerned context

is presented. Perhaps, the complexity of the language in terms of its grammar and

vocabularies in the text we use is just too hard for them to understand; then, it should

be our responsibilities to select appropriate texts or materials we use in classrooms by

being aware of our students’ general levels.

The contextualization of the writer’s argument

Rather than contextualize the writer’s argument, I prefer to do it with one of the

solutions offered by the writer, but taking it to the context of the learners, not that of

the EFL material writers. One of statements of the writer’s solutions found in the

paragraph 3, page 6 in “Pedagogic implication” sounds as follows:

”instead of diving simplistically into the narrow confines of a given target-language

culture, in a manner devoid of comparative insight and critical perspective, EFL

writers should try to build conceptual bridges between the culturally familiar and the


unfamiliar in order not to give rise to conflicts in the learner’s ‘fit’ as he or she

acquires English. Such bridges can be built, among other ways, through the use of

comparisons as techniques of cross-cultural comprehension or the exploitation of

universal concepts of human experience as reference points for the interpretation of

unfamiliar data”

I would like to contextualize the bold part only. To me, I very much agree with

that solution since it was the technique my team-teaching partner and I used to

employ, making such kind of that bridge when teaching, through which students were

encouraged to make a reflection on diverse target-cultural contexts presented to them

in their learning material by comparing those differential contexts to the contexts of

their own cultures. As a whole, these reflective or comparative techniques have

proved useful in my teaching atmosphere as it helped learners to decode or interpret

the meanings of their learning experiences with ease and fun in the light of having

such a basis from which they can tackle unfamiliar contexts.

However, I would also like to suggest some changes to part of the writer’s

solution. Instead of being critical to other cultures, it is better to just being

comparative as being critical projects some ideas to correct other cultures by

imposing our own cultures. To tell the truth, such thing is prevalent, suggesting others

for being critical on others’ cultures, but surely irrelevant and inappropriate as there is

no such a good or a bad culture. What exist is only different ways of lives, different

ways of seeing things, not superiorities of some to others as the aim of reflection is to

understand uniqueness of cultural differences and have broader insights into own

(McKay, 2002: 98), not to judge other cultures. Being critical will take us nowhere to


better understand other cultures instead keeping us away from respecting differences.

As our students are encouraged to be critical of other cultures, their learning will

instead turn into more conflicts as they will never find cultures with a hundred

percent similarity with theirs.

project paper revision iv

Education