qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
Constructed
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
Culture?
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
A critical analysis of the cultural
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
content in ELT coursebooks used in
Luxembourg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
Kim Heuskin
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert
yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
Plagiarism Statement
I hereby certify that this thesis (travail de candidature) is my own work and contains no
plagiarism. It has not previously been published or submitted at any institution. All source
material, whether quoted directly or indirectly, is clearly acknowledged in the references
and the bibliography using APA style.
Kim Heuskin
Kim Heuskin
Professeur Candidat au Lycée technique des Arts et
Métiers
Constructed
Culture?
A critical analysis of the cultural
content in ELT coursebooks used in
Luxembourg
Luxembourg 2012
ABSTRACT
The aim of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the cultural content in the New Headway
Elementary (3rd edition) series and the impact that it has on English language learning and
teaching in Luxembourg. Used widely both in the ES as well as the EST, the coursebook
reaches a large number of learners and therefore, I would argue that it is of crucial interest to
identify its ideological and cultural messages.
The first chapter (‘Culture in ELT’) examines different interpretations of culture in the
context of language learning in order to establish the theoretical framework for the case study.
The difference between ‘culture 1’ and ‘culture 2’ or ‘objective’ and ‘subjective culture’ is
outlined to illustrate how varying views of what culture represents can affect learner identities
and the way language and culture are addressed in the classroom. Notions such as
intercultural communicative competence and the need for ‘hybrid’ learner identities are
explored as a possibility to deal with, and ultimately understand, cultural difference.
The case study in the second chapter deconstructs various important components of
the NHE (3rd edition) course in order to evaluate the ideological and cultural assumptions
underlying them. Aspects such as methodology, language selection, topics and
representational practices are analysed so as to outline the culturally biased content of the
series rooted in anglicised western ideals. Likewise, the case study underlines how a number
of systematic omissions, taboo topics and other exclusions in the course project an intricately
constructed notion of cultural reality far removed from the heterogeneity of the target
culture(s).
As a potential alternative to the artificial content in global coursebooks such as NHE,
the third chapter investigates EIL (English as an International Language) as a possibility for
language learning to take place in a more pluricentric and less standardised context. Rejecting
both the narrow ideals of the native speaker model as well as limited interpretations of target
culture, EIL thus represents a more inclusive and democratic view of language and target
culture. Hence, EIL can offer a number of advantages for ELT in Luxembourg, especially due
to the fact that it contributes to fostering intercultural communicative competence. At the
same time, the third chapter also exposes a number of issues related to EIL which need to be
addressed and resolved before the concept can function as a true alternative in the
Luxembourg context.
Table Of Contents:
Chapter 1: Culture in ELT
page
1.1 Defining Culture
1.1.1 Two Kinds of Culture
1.1.2 Why Do People Need Culture?
1.2 Language and Culture
1.3 Culture and Language Learning (in Luxembourg)
1.4 The Cultural Context of Language Learning
1.4.1 Nonnative English-Speaking Teachers
1.5 Cultural Difference
1.5.1 Cultural Relativism, Generalisations and Stereotypes
1.5.2 Dimensions of Culture
1.6 (Inter)Cultural Competence
1.6.1 Intercultural Learning
1.6.2 Hybrid Identities
1.6.3 Intercultural Communicative Competence
1.7 Teaching Culture
1.7.1 Ways of Teaching Culture
1.7.2 A Case against Teaching Culture
Chapter 2: A Case Study - New Headway Elementary (3rd edition)
2.1 Rationale
2.2 Working with Coursebooks
2.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Coursebooks
2.2.2 Choosing Coursebooks
2.2.3 The ‘Global Coursebook’
2.3 Methodology in New Headway Elementary
2.3.1 NHE and Coursebook Authority
2.3.2 Methodological Approach in NHE
2.3.3 Aims and Objectives in NHE
2.3.4 NHE and the Ideal Student
2.3.5 The Ideal Teacher
2.4 Language in New Headway Elementary
2.4.1 Accents and Varieties in NHE
2.4.2 Accuracy and Fluency in NHE
2.4.3 Linguistic Capital and Empowerment
5
9
11
13
14
15
18
19
20
20
22
26
26
28
29
30
30
32
page
35
37
37
38
39
40
40
42
44
47
50
51
51
56
58
2.5 Texts and Topics in New Headway Elementary
2.5.1 Materialism, Consumerism and Entertainment
2.5.2 Globalization, Internationalisation and Technologization
2.5.3 Safe EFL Topics
2.6 Representational Practices in New Headway Elementary
2.6.1 Ethnicity and Multiculturalism in NHE
2.6.2 Age and Disease in NHE
2.6.3 Homosexuality in NHE
2.6.4 Families in NHE
2.6.5 Education and Employment in NHE
2.7 New Headway Elementary Culture and Literature Companion
2.7.1 Tourist Information in NHE CLC
2.7.2 History and Festivals in NHE CLC
2.7.3 Heroes in NHE CLC
2.7.4 Symbols in NHE CLC
2.7.5 Literature in NHE CLC
2.8 NHE - Conclusions
Chapter 3: EIL - An Alternative for Luxembourg?
3.1 Definition
3.1.1 What is EIL (not)?
3.1.2 EIL and ELT in Luxembourg
3.2 Which Standard to Use?
3.2.1 Fear of Degradation of Standards
3.2.2 An Alternative Approach
3.3 Implications of EIL
3.3.1 Political Implications
3.3.2 Implications for Target Culture
3.4 EIL in the Classroom
3.4.1 EIL and Coursebooks
3.4.2 EIL and Topics
3.4.3 EIL and Intercultural Communicative Competence in the EU
3.5 EIL: A Feasible Alternative?
Chapter 4: Conclusion
60
60
63
64
69
69
70
71
72
73
75
75
76
78
79
80
83
page
85
85
87
89
89
90
93
93
95
96
96
98
99
101
page
4.1 Looking Back
4.1.1 Culture and New Headway Elementary
4.1.2 EIL and Intercultural Communicative Competence
6
105
105
106
4.2 Looking Ahead
4.2.1 Possible Outcomes of ICC
4.2.2 Repercussions for English Language Teachers
Appendices
108
108
110
page
Appendix 1: Coursebooks for 8ePO, 9ePO, 8eTE, VIe mod. & Ve cl.
Appendix 2: Distribution of Learners According to Nationality (2009-2010)
Appendix 3: Document about the aims of ELT in VIe mod. & Ve cl.
Appendix 4: Document about the development of skills in VIe mod. & Ve cl.
Bibliography
113
118
119
120
page
121
7
8
Chapter 1: Culture in ELT
1.1
Defining Culture
The notion of culture has been defined and re-examined repeatedly in a variety of contexts, be
they anthropological, linguistic, sociological or psychological. Given that this thesis focuses
on the concept of target culture in language learning, I will mainly concentrate on the two
most relevant and prominent interpretations of the concept, namely those used in the linguistic
as well as the anthropological domains of research and the respective discourses.
Claire Kramsch’s definition of culture in the light of linguistics is based on the
dichotomy between nature and culture since ‘nature refers to what is born organically (...)
[whereas] culture refers to what has been grown and groomed’ (1998: 4). With this definition,
Kramsch outlines the fundamental nature/nurture debate about the influence of nurture or
culture on human beings and their genetic programming given at birth. Nature, in opposition
to nurture or culture, is not acquired and developed over a lifetime, but is defined by those
predetermined elements that human beings consist of. Culture and language, on the other
hand, can be seen as imposing restraints on nature using different forms of socialisation and
acculturation that shape behaviour through child rearing and education (Kramsch 1998a: 5-6).
Thus, if we assume a basic equality among humans at birth, a cultural ‘tabula rasa’ at the
outset, then culture, or nurture, can be identified as the driving force when it comes to
outlining and understanding cultural differences in general.
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
From an anthropological point of view, Geert Hofstede understands culture as the
‘mental software’ of our brains, a form of
unconscious conditioning which leaves individuals considerable
freedom to think, feel and act but within the constraints of what his or
her social environment offers in terms of possible thoughts, feelings
and actions (1991: 235).
This interpretation of culture already outlines one of its essential elements, that of a shared
system of emotions, values and actions which members draw from to express themselves,
from which they cannot, however, break free and escape. In this sense, ‘home is normal’ since
we all ‘look at the world from behind the windows of a cultural home and everybody prefers
to act as if people from other countries have something special about them’ (Hofstede 1991:
235). Being part of a cultural group thus provides people with the knowledge of being
understood by co-members, yet at the same time it also implies a certain rigidity or
confinement, since, according to Hofstede’s view of culture, members cannot think or act
outside of their system of shared codes as the latter has been acquired over a lifetime of
exposure to fixed patterns. This process of assuming customs and conventions is what is
generally referred to as ‘enculturation’, a learning process that involves adopting cultural
practices and thus ‘predisposes members of a given culture to view the world from a
particular perspective’ (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 13). DeCapua and Wintergerst
conclude that ‘culture bestows a set of lenses for seeing the world, lenses that influence the
way members of groups choose, decipher, process and utilize information’ (2004: 13). The
idea of lenses underlines the subjective filtering of information based on one’s cultural
context and explains how people from different backgrounds may interpret the same data or
event in completely different ways. Ultimately, this justifies the belief that one’s own reality
and perception is the only ‘correct’ or ‘normal’ one (Brown 2007a: 189; Hofstede 1991:235);
a subconscious presupposition to own the only relevant and valid set of codes and practices to
interpret data.
10
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
1.1.1 Two Kinds of Culture
The kind of culture that Hofstede defines in his work Cultures and Organization is
fundamentally different from its dominant interpretation in Western regions, which applies
exclusively to education, art and literature. For Hofstede, this kind of culture, ‘culture one’, is
a rather limited interpretation of the concept and does not correspond to his broader
(anthropological) use of the term that refers to people’s mental programming called ‘culture
two’. In his view, this second kind of culture is always a collective as well as a learned
phenomenon that should be kept separate from elements such as human nature or personal
individuality (1991: 4-5). ‘Culture two’, as a set of acquired notions, thus also involves dayto-day activities such as fixed forms of greetings, acceptable physical distance, the
appropriateness of showing feelings in various situations, and so on. H. Douglas Brown sums
this up excellently when he claims that culture ‘establishes for each person a context of
cognitive and affective behaviour, a template for personal and social existence’ (Brown
2007b: 133).
DeCapua and Wintergerst, on the other hand, use the more common distinction
between ‘Culture’ (with a capital C) referring to ‘highbrow culture’ or ‘objective culture’ such
as literature, art and music in opposition to ‘culture’ (with a lowercase c) relating to
‘subjective culture’, the everyday features of a group of people (2004: 15). This distinction
suggests an inherent discrepancy between the externally visible characteristics of a culture
(‘objective culture’) and the underlying constituents of cultural groups (‘subjective culture’).
Upon closer examination, Hofstede’s as well as DeCapua and Wintergerst’s attempts
to delineate common Western interpretations of culture from linguistic or anthropological
views reveal a common disposition to differentiate between external factors such as art and
literature that can easily be observed or specified, and subconscious and therefore more
elusive elements of cultural programming. Hofstede claims that culture manifests itself at
different levels of depth with unconscious values constituting the centre of his ‘onion
diagram’ (1991: 9), which consists in the part that cannot be discussed or directly observed by
outsiders.
11
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
Fig.1 Hofstede’s ‘onion diagram’ (1991:9)
Symbols, heroes and rituals, which form the outer layers of Hofstede’s ‘onion’, all
have a set of practices that are visible to outsiders but the cultural meanings of these remain
hidden. As the most external layer, symbols typify the most superficial and values, as the
‘inner core’, represent the deepest expression of culture that cannot be observed through
patterns (1991: 7-9). Thus, via cultural practices, a group’s values penetrate all levels of
everyday life yet are not readily discernible for outsiders. Given the fact that cultural patterns
are mostly a set of implicitly learned codes that members of a group are unaware of, at least
until confronted by opposing values, defining culture then becomes a rather problematic
attempt to pin down elusive components that cannot readily be perceived.
What is more, even though members of a culture generally share similar patterns of
behaviour and ways of viewing the world, these generalisations cannot necessarily be applied
to all members of a group. According to Dwight Atkinson, a dominant ‘received view’ of
cultures sees them as
geographically (and quite often nationally) distinct entities, as
relatively unchanging and homogeneous, and as all-encompassing
systems of rules or norms that substantially determine personal
behaviour (1999: 626).
Atkinson continues by arguing that, in opposition to this ‘received view’, cultures are far from
homogeneous because they often reveal ‘fissures, inequalities, disagreements, and crosscutting influences that exist in and all-around cultural scenes’ (1999: 627). These divergences
and conflicts that Atkinson mentions underline the overall diversity that can exist within
cultures and which is shaped by members whose dissimilarities determine subgroups or
subcultures that share some (but far from all) of the characteristics of the dominant culture.
Subcultures thus create heterogeneous realms where members of a group share common
12
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
features but can at the same time differ in significant ways in relation to their regional,
religious or ethnic background (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 12). Similarly, cultures
cannot be regarded as being static or permanent since a culture is ‘a changing combination of
different ambient factors, diverse constituents and complex elements’ (De Capua and
Wintergerst 2004: 12). As a result, it is not only the differentiation between ‘culture one’ and
‘culture two’ (or between ‘Culture’ and ‘culture’), but also this dynamic and heterogeneous
feature of a particular ‘culture’ that renders a precise definition of its characteristics fairly
complicated.
In the light of the above conceptual analysis, it seems almost impossible to formulate a
satisfactory definition of culture, at least in the context of language learning, which
encompasses all the prominent points without ignoring pertinent distinctive features.
Nevertheless, I will use the term culture in this thesis in the sense of ‘culture two’ or ‘culture’,
i.e. those elements of everyday life that shape people’s behaviour and thought processes.
When analysing the cultural content in Headway Elementary in chapter 2, I intend to evaluate
the kind of texts and data provided in the light of these definitions. Incidentally, it will also be
of great interest to establish to what extent coursebooks try to convey ‘objective culture’ or
‘culture one’ as a manifestation of values generally associated with ‘culture two’.
1.1.2 Why Do People Need Culture?
Having outlined various views and interpretations of culture, the question about the use and
role of culture deserves greater attention. As mentioned above, culture provides groups of
people with shared ways of seeing and interpreting the world; it ‘can be defined as
membership in a discourse community that shares a common social space and history, and
common imaginings’ (Kramsch 1998a: 10). Because it is ‘universal (...) [and] permeates all
aspects of human society’ (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 11), culture can be regarded as a
form of ‘collective identity’ that meets inherent ‘biological and psychological needs in
people’ (Brown 2007a: 188). For Kramsch, ‘the culture of everyday practices draws on the
culture of shared history and traditions’ and therefore it represents the ‘historical dimension in
a group’s identity’ (1998: 7). Culture then grants groups of people the necessary historical
13
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
coherence that they need to exist and allows them to determine themselves in the sense of
belonging - or not - to a particular group. By providing its members with clear boundaries that
determine inclusion and exclusion, culture becomes a powerful tool for defining notions such
as ‘self’ and ‘other’ within a group.
1.2
Language and Culture
The idea of inclusion and exclusion that culture generates in people is enhanced considerably
by the use of language because, as Kramsch argues, ‘common attitudes, beliefs, and values
are reflected in the way members of the group use language’ (1998: 6). Hence, the sense of
belonging within members of a same cultural group is developed by being part of a discourse
community that shares the same code to meet its social needs (Kramsch 1998a: 6-7).
Language and culture are thus closely connected and influence each other since the latter has
an impact on the way people perceive the world whereas language partly determines how
speakers view the world and how they communicate (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 23).
This idea that language shapes people’s thinking processes, commonly known as ‘linguistic
relativity’, can be described as follows:
different people speak differently because they think differently, and
(...) they think differently because their language offers them different
ways of expressing the world around them (Kramsch 1998a: 11).
This theory that the structure of the language a group uses substantially determines the way
they conceptualise their surroundings (generally referred to as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
after the two linguists who established it) is no longer widely accepted today. A so-called
‘weak version’ of their hypothesis, however, supported by the findings that cultural
differences do exist in the ways that members of various cultural groups interpret seemingly
common ideas, is now largely recognised among linguists (Kramsch 1998a: 11).
As mentioned above, cultural learning impacts the ways people perceive the world and
today, in the light of the weak version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there is a general
14
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
acceptance that ‘language, as code, reflects cultural preoccupations and constrains the way
people think’ (Kramsch 1998a: 14). Consequently, language and culture are closely
interlinked; however, the notion of linguistic relativity does not imply that a language limits
the way people can think but merely influences the way they normally tend to reason and
interpret empirical data (Kramsch 1998a: 14). In fact, it does not suggest an intellectual
capacity or inability to express and reflect upon a set of semantic associations; it simply
underscores how cultural learning can shape world views and the way these are expressed
with language. Accordingly, language, as an organised system of symbols, conveys ‘uniform
meanings’ among the speakers of a language and ‘encompasses the historical and cultural
backgrounds of a people’. Thus, ‘language is more than speech; it is a means of identification’
and ‘an indicator of a culture’s social realities’ (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 25).
Language therefore carries and transmits cultural and social messages among users for whom
the significance of various speech acts will be inherently perceivable.
One must not forget, however, that cultural identity is created mainly through shared
values, not simply through a common language and therefore ‘language and culture are not so
closely interlinked that sharing a language implies sharing a culture’ (Hofstede 1991: 214). In
fact, it is recognised that context plays an essential role in ‘complementing the meanings
encoded in the language’ (Kramsch 1998a: 14). Language can be considered an indicator for
cultural realities, as DeCapua and Wintergerst have argued, but it is in no way sufficient to
understand these. Just like rituals, symbols and heroes are outer manifestations of cultural
practices that can be observed but not understood (see Hofstede 1991: 214), language can also
only unfold its full meaning if it is analysed within its cultural context.
1.3
Culture and Language Learning (in Luxembourg)
When it comes to examining the link between language learning and culture, it is essential to
define and establish an appropriate learning context before analysing its influence on cultural
understanding. In Luxembourg, English Language Teaching (ELT) will necessarily take place
in a foreign language learning context because ‘students do not have ready-made contexts for
15
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
communication beyond their classroom’ (Brown 2007b: 134). Evidently, students in
Luxembourg have the opportunity to access such ‘contexts’ through films, books or the
internet, but this kind of availability still qualifies as a foreign language context as students do
not have ample opportunity to use the language for everyday communication and interaction
outside the classroom (Brown 2007b: 134).
Second language contexts, on the other hand, offer learners the advantage of having
‘an instant “laboratory” available 24 hours a day’ (Brown 2007b: 134), a constant exposure to
the language and the cultural surroundings connected to it. At this point, Brown cites teaching
English (to foreigners) in the US or in Australia as an example because learners of English in
that context would have ample opportunity to be exposed to and use the language alongside
their English lessons. Since the concepts of EFL and ESL (English as Second Language) have
repeatedly been used interchangeably, it is important to establish which elements of language
learning might not be readily applicable to the EFL context, where students remain in their
home culture trying to learn a language with a multitude of foreign cultural connotations
(Brown 2007b: 133). The notion of ‘language ego’, which develops as learners start to acquire
a second identity based on new ways of thinking, feeling and behaving, can only seldomly be
applied to the EFL context (in Luxembourg).
In second (as opposed to foreign) language-learning contexts, the
success with which learners adapt to a new cultural milieu will affect
their language acquisition success, and vice versa (Brown 2007b: 75).
This statement shows that foreign language learners do not profit from the positive impact
that permanent exposure to the ‘cultural milieu’ or the cultural surroundings of the target
language can have on second language learners. As a direct result of its EFL context, English
language and cultural learning in Luxembourg will inevitably be affected by the absence of
the acculturation or socialisation process because learners do not become part of a new
cultural group through their language learning efforts and do not internalise the conventions
and culture of the discourse community (Kramsch 1998a: 125, 127). The development of
learner identities, or language egos, in Luxembourg is consequently stifled because the
language acquisition process cannot be promoted by constant exposure to, and immersion in,
the target culture. Cultural learning in the EFL context in Luxembourg will, as a result,
always be a form of ‘knowledge about the culture’ (or ‘cultural competence’) in opposition to
16
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
‘an experience of the culture’ or ‘cultural performance’ (Nostrand 1989, and Valdman 1992,
as cited in Kramsch 1993a: 181).
Given this distance from a target culture, our students’ cultural learning process cannot
be compared to that of a student in a second language context at all. The latter will repeatedly
be confronted with authentic communicative situations where they will eventually learn to
interpret signs and expect certain behaviour. These structures of expectation (also called
frames or schemata) are set up in people’s minds by the culture they live in and will slowly be
acquired by second language learners (Kramsch 1998a: 26-27).
In addition, speech acts or verbal encounters are anchored in the speakers’
perspectives and display markers of social deixis that indicate their position and status
(Kramsch 1998a: 41). Through permanent immersion in the target culture, second language
learners will build a repertoire of acceptable norms about the organisation of communication
in the target language whereas foreign language learners need to extract this kind of
information about the target language and culture from the material presented to them by their
teachers in the language learning classroom.
The successful acquisition of a foreign language is often also strongly dependent on
the value attributed to both their native and the target language. If the learning process takes
place in a context of ‘additive bilingualism’ (or ‘plurilingualism’ in the case of Luxembourg),
a situation found ‘where the native language is held in prestige by the community’ and where
the learners consequently approach the second (or foreign) language positively, the learners’
success will be notably higher than in situations where the native language is seen as
‘subtractive’ because it is supposedly detrimental to the learning of another language (Brown
2007b: 139). EFL courses in Luxembourg, like most EFL programs, can be considered
additive because a sound knowledge of English is considered to be an asset, a tool for upward
mobility (Brown 2007b: 139).
Moreover, the fact that English language learning in the Luxembourg secondary
education system is compulsory also has a considerable impact on both learner motivation and
success rates in their courses. As the students do not choose to learn English of their own
accord, but are compelled to do so, their intrinsic motivation could be deflated, or even stifled.
17
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
Bearing in mind all these prominent factors determining English language learning in
Luxembourg, it is vital to state that the overall ELT context in Luxembourg is one where the
foreign language that the students are obliged to study will later be a marker of upward
mobility since it will likely grant students greater prospects on the labour market. On the other
hand, the students are confronted with learning a language and culture that few will ever
really be immersed in. A proper acculturation or socialisation process where learners
eventually become full members of the new group and understand the social and cultural
realities and expectations embedded in the language use rarely takes place for learners of
English in Luxembourg.
1.4
The Cultural Context of Language Learning
As shown above, the language taught in foreign language education is not used or spoken in
the students’ direct environment, and therefore ‘the link between the foreign language and any
specific speech community is an arbitrary one’. This implies that the connection between the
language and the culture needs to be made clearer and more explicit for learners to become
aware of the cultural background of the language (Kramsch 1993a: 92).
Halliday interprets language as social semiotic in which context plays a crucial role
and takes a dialectic relationship with the text. For Halliday, context is therefore ‘the total
environment in which a text unfolds’ (Halliday 1978: 5, as quoted in Kramsch 1993a: 67).
The overall context of a text can then only be established if all the variables have been
examined and considered. In addition, the dialectic relationship of text and context implies
that the context influences the text, and vice versa. Contexts ‘are constantly changed and
recreated by individual speakers and hearers, writers and readers’ (Kramsch 1993a: 67); they
are not stable or static but change according to the people involved in a dialogue, be it written
or spoken. Within this kind of contextual multiplicity, meaning is established and recreated
repeatedly depending on individuals and their own backgrounds and interpretations.
Halliday’s and Kramsch’s views of context thus eradicate the idea that the meaning of a text
18
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
is unique or universal at any point in time because it is created anew each time someone
engages with a text.
1.4.1 Nonnative English-Speaking Teachers
In the same vein, foreign language classrooms and their participants also create their very
own, if not unique, cultural context ‘by shaping the conditions of enunciation/communication
and the conditions of reception/interpretation of classroom discourse’ (Kramsch 1993a: 48).
Interaction between learners and teachers reflects the culture that both were socialised in,
while teachers (and students) also echo the behaviour of speakers of the target language as
they use it (Kramsch 1993a: 48). In this instance, Kramsch’s view of language teachers and
their cultural role in the classroom evidently concentrates on non-native English-speaking
teachers (NNESTs) who teach English in their home country. In their classrooms, these
teachers create a blend of cultures based, on the one hand, on the traditional social culture that
they share with their students and which constitutes the instructional setting. On the other
hand, these teachers also convey a sense of the target culture through their use of the language
and the contextualised learning situations they create. In one of her articles, Kramsch claims
the following:
When teaching a different culture, most language teachers have a
necessarily limited view of difference, filtered in part through the way
the target society represents itself through its written and spoken
‘texts’, in part through the presuppositions and expectations that the
teachers themselves bring to the reading of these texts. This filter is
the more powerful as it is often invisible (...). (Kramsch 1993b: 350)
This statement underlines once again the considerable role of teachers as bearers of the target
culture who influence the ways in which it is received by students. Nonnative Englishspeaking teachers are usually not aware of their own presuppositions since they have not seen
their own culture from the outside in the way they have observed the target culture (Zarate
1986 no pagination indicated, as quoted in Kramsch 1993b: 350). NNESTs thus tend to
subconsciously adapt the cultural message they convey according to their interpretation of the
text and the target culture that it originates from. For Kramsch, language teachers
19
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
consequently ‘are so much teachers of culture that culture has become invisible to them’
(1993a:48). The kind of ‘invisible culture’ that Kramsch mentions is an unconscious blend of
native and target culture that defines foreign language classrooms and makes them culturally
unique.
In addition to the importance of the teacher’s cultural impact, the fact that EFL classrooms in
Luxembourg are composed of students from increasingly diverse backgrounds entails that
teachers can no longer rely ‘on a stock of common knowledge against which to teach the
foreign language and culture’ (Kramsch 1993a: 49). In fact, they need to take into account a
great variety of native tongues and cultures when trying to teach English as a foreign
language. The overall context of ELT classrooms in Luxembourg is therefore incredibly
diverse and thus teachers ‘become instrumental in creating alternative contexts of culture’
(Kramsch 1993a: 49). This shows that the overall cultural context in a foreign language
classroom is a complex combination of variables that heavily depend on both teachers and
learners with their respective social heritage and experience, and therefore, the meaning
attributed to written and spoken texts becomes ever more diverse in such learning
environments.
1.5
Cultural Difference
1.5.1 Cultural Relativism, Generalisations and Stereotypes
According to DeCapua and Wintergert, the crucial variables to distinguish one given culture
from another ‘are not easily observable phenomena such as dress, housing, food or table
manners, but, rather, the underlying values, attitudes, beliefs, and worldviews that shape how
a culture perceives itself and others’ (2004: 15). This way of interpreting cultural difference
clearly echoes Hofstede’s ideas about subconscious values, as seen in his onion diagram, and
he advocates ‘cultural relativism’ when being confronted with foreign cultures. This kind of
relativism calls ‘for suspending judgement when dealing with groups or societies different
20
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
from one’s own’ (1991:7), in opposition to applying one’s own norms and ideals to it. The
students in the foreign language classroom should thus be encouraged to temporarily set aside
the bias of their own culture-related worldview which all too often leads us to regard other
cultures and their unfamiliar perceptions in an oversimplified manner. Generalisations and
stereotypes are thus created because people from a given culture assume their reality to be
objective and the only ‘correct’ one; differing worldviews, on the other hand, are perceived as
false or ‘strange’ (Brown 2007a: 190-191).
Stereotypes tend to assign ‘group characteristics to individuals purely on the basis of
their cultural membership’ (Brown 2007a: 191) and therefore deny each member of a group
their uniqueness and individuality. Even though a stereotype might be an accurate way of
picturing a ‘typical’ member of a culture, it cannot, and should not, be applied to individuals
since ‘all of a person’s behavioural characteristics cannot be accurately predicted on the basis
of an overgenerali[s]ed median point along a continuum of cultural norms’ (Brown 2007a:
191).
This idea of uniqueness, which stereotypes ignore, can be found in the different ‘layers of
culture’ that form each member of a group. Hofstede argues that ‘everyone belongs to a
number of different groups and categories of people at the same time’ and therefore ‘people
unavoidably carry several layers of mental programming within themselves’ based on their
gender, religion, class, ethnicity, generation, etc. (Hofstede 1991: 10) and as a result,
generalisations and stereotypes inevitably disregard a variety of elements that constitute
individual members of the same group.
In addition, stereotypes are often the result of biased attitudes, not only based on extreme
ethnocentric thinking, but also on insufficient knowledge, and thus ‘potentially devalue
people from other cultures’ (see Brown 2007a: 191-192). According to Brown, negative
attitudes are usually formed due to indirect exposure to reality through films, books, the news
media or other, less reliable sources. In the foreign language learning context, however,
students hardly ever get the opportunity to experience the target culture first-hand, and
therefore, they are most susceptible to the danger of accepting stereotypes as reliable truisms.
The learning material that these students use is therefore even more important since it is one
of the main sources of information about the target language and culture that they encounter.
21
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
1.5.2 Dimensions of Culture
When it comes to mapping out cultural difference, dimensions of cultures, which are aspects
of cultures that can be measured relative to other cultures, can serve as a valuable source of
information (Hofstede 1991: 14). Hofstede defines four dimensions of culture: 1. power
distance, 2. collectivism versus individualism, 3. femininity versus masculinity, and 4.
uncertainty avoidance (1991:14). These dimensions reveal major differences among national
cultures and will serve as one aspect from which to analyse coursebook material in chapter 2.
At this point, however, one must not forget that nations (and national cultures) often
represent arbitrary boundaries, resulting from colonial powers mapping countries, which
cannot necessarily be considered social boundaries. In fact, societies frequently transcend
national borders, while a lot of social and cultural varieties may also exist within one nation
state. The nation state, as a fairly recent invention, can thus not be equated with the idea of
society (Hofstede 1991: 11-17, 212). Hofstede therefore suggests that one should apply the
same four dimensions used to differentiate between national cultures to distinguish among
cultures that coexist within one nation state or country.
I will now quickly outline the four dimensions that Geert Hofstede describes as they will later
form part of the basis for my analysis of the Headway material and the cultural message that it
carries.
1. Power Distance:
‘Power distance is the term used to refer to how widely an unequal distribution
of power is accepted by members of a culture’ (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004:
201). Great power distance among people can be found in countries or cultures
with important dependence relationships between subordinates and members of
authority and where this difference is readily accepted. The overall hierarchy can
be considered paternalistic and autocratic, in opposition to cultures with small
power distance, where there is little emotional distance between leaders and
followers and where inequalities are not accepted unquestioningly. Such a state
is defined by a social hierarchy where subordinates would not be afraid to
22
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
disagree with a boss and where individual efforts and achievements are
rewarded.
In an educational context, students are not worried about questioning
their teacher in a culture with small power distance, whereas they would not dare
to do so in a setting with great power distance as it would be considered rude to
‘attack’ a teacher’s position of power. Power distance is a good indicator to
analyse relationships of dependence in cultures and it provides illuminating
information about a society’s underlying cultural values.
Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (PDI) unfortunately does not include
any data about Luxembourg but the information about our neighbouring
countries is nonetheless rather helpful. Both France and Belgium have
comparably high scores on the PDI showing an important amount of power
distance, whereas Germany and the Netherlands, for instance, show proof of
being small power distance societies. If we assume that Luxembourg, with its
Romanic as well as Germanic heritage, would be situated somewhere in between
the above examples, it can be seen as a culture that has a certain degree of power
distance but where students would not necessarily shy away from criticising a
teacher (see Hofstede 1991: 24, 27, 33-37) .
Great Britain, as the main target culture in EFL classrooms, also scores
low on the power distance index, which is interesting to consider when
analysing learning material and the ways it portrays the roles of teachers and
learners as well as the overall aims of language courses.
2. Collectivism VS Individualism:
According to Hofstede, the majority of people on the planet live in societies that can
be defined as ‘collectivist’ because the interests of the group prevail over those of each
individual member. These societies are characterised by the power and protection of
the group which ultimately shapes each individual’s identity and consequently
guarantees an individual’s lifelong loyalty to his ‘ingroup’ or ‘we’ group.
Individualist societies, on the other hand, are groups where the interests of the
individual predominate over the group’s wellbeing; the ‘I’ prevails over the ‘we’.
Personal identity is not shaped by the group but is formed independently.
23
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
Education in individualist societies aims at enabling children to eventually
become autonomous and independent learners. Since individualist societies are usually
also defined by small power distance, teaching situations in such societies are studentcentred, inviting learners to voice their own opinions and experiences.
In collectivist societies, classroom routines are solely teacher-centred and
learners try to avoid confrontations and discussions. Learning aims are centred on
skills that turn students into accepted and useful group members.
Britian scores a very high rank (n°3) on Hofstede’s Individualism Index (IDV),
which classifies it as a highly individualist society where members focus first and
foremost on themselves. Education is therefore based on two-way communication and
exchange rather than on teacher-centred lecturing. The teacher is meant to facilitate
learning and prepare his/her students separately (or individually) for a place in a
society made up of other individuals. Teaching materials and coursebooks that focus
on British and American values are consequently heavily affected by individualist
ideals, both regarding content as well as teaching methods (see Hofstede 1991: 50-54,
61-63).
3. Femininity VS Masculinity:
In Hofstede’s study of cultural dimensions, societies where modest behaviour is highly
desirable are referred to as ‘feminine’ societies, whereas ‘masculine’ cultures value
assertiveness and open competition.
In educational terms, masculine societies reinforce rivalries among students
and consider the best student to be the norm. Students try to be visible in class and
failure is considered a disaster.
Feminine societies, however, base their norm on the average student and open
competition is not desirable. Failure at school is not regarded as a catastrophe and
teachers’ friendliness and social skills are more important than their academic
brilliance (see Hofstede 1991: 80-81, 90-91).It is interesting to analyse societies and
teaching situations based on the feminine/masculine dichotomy because it reveals a lot
about a culture’s hidden values.
24
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
4. Uncertainty Avoidance:
Hofstede defines uncertainty avoidance as ‘the extent to which the members of a
culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations’ (Hofstede 1991: 113,
italics are the author’s). Countries thus differ in their readiness to tolerate the
unpredictable, and uncertainty avoidance is usually shared with the other members of
one’s society; it leads to a collective pattern of behaviour.
At school, learners from countries which show strong uncertainty avoidance
(like Germany for instance), expect their teachers to be experts who have all the
answers. Such students tend to prefer detailed instructions and precise tasks with fixed
outcomes and preferably one correct answer that they are meant to find. Based on the
uncertainty avoidance index, British students, who come from a culture with weak
uncertainty avoidance, are more inclined to favour open-ended tasks where creativity
and originality are foregrounded. The fact that two Western European countries like
Germany and Britain, which both have Germanic roots, display such major differences
on the uncertainty avoidance level shows that, despite their common heritage, they are
still fundamentally different.
Language learning, by its nature a situation in which learners face doubts and
error, can thus be paved with anxiety for people from cultures with strong uncertainty
avoidance. Therefore, not all language learning materials and methods are suitable for
all kinds of students; the latter need to be exposed, at least at the beginning, to material
that does not raise their level of anxiety and consequently heightens their affective
filter which impedes their language acquisition process (see Krashen, 1985: 100).
Uncertainty avoidance is a crucial factor in language learning that should not be
disregarded when selecting methods and tasks. In this respect, one size certainly does
not fit all and teachers need to be aware of their learners’ preferences in order to create
the best possible learning situations for them.
25
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
1.6
(Inter)Cultural Competence1
1.6.1 Intercultural Learning
According to John Gray, the predominant paradigm in ELT towards the end of the twentieth
century had the tendency to leave cultural learning mainly in the background with the aim to
allow learners to survive merely as consumers or tourists in the target culture (Gray 2010: 33).
In her introduction to Context and Culture in Language Teaching, Claire Kramsch claims that
the reason why culture has long been ignored in ELT is that it represents difference,
variability and a potential source of conflict. In opposition to grammatical forms and
structures, which are straightforward elements that can be taught and practised, culture is a
‘terrain’ full of possible pitfalls and uncertainties, both for teachers and students because it
can ‘unsettle the good language learners (...), making evident the limitations of their hard-won
communicative competence, challenging their ability to make sense of the world around
them’ (Kramsch 1993a: 1).
Kramsch’s work thus revealed the need for cultural learning to gain importance in
order to develop abilities in learners going beyond mere communicative competence based on
exclusive skills training (see Kramsch 1991:1; Gray 2010: 28, 29 & 33).
Given the
inseparability of language and culture, students should not only be exposed to an approach
that considers language as a purely formal system. In the Council of Europe’s introduction to
the intercultural dimension, Byram, Gribkova and Starkey state that
learners need not just knowledge and skill in the grammar of a
language but also the ability to use the language in socially and
culturally appropriate ways. (...) [The] essence of [the cultural
dimension] is to help language learners to interact with speakers of
different languages on equal terms, and to be aware of their own
identities and those of their interlocutors. It is the hope that language
learners who thus become ‘intercultural speakers’ will be successful
1
Intercultural competence is the term mainly used in Europe to refer to the combination of sociolinguistic
competence, knowledge and attitudes. Other authors also use expressions such as cultural or cross-cultural
competence to express the same concept (Kramsch 1998b: 20). I will use the terms interchangeably according to
the term used by the authors quoted.
26
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
not only in communicating information but also in developing a
human relationship with people of other languages and cultures
(Byram, Gribkova and Starkey 2002: 7).
This introduction to the ‘intercultural dimension’ underlines the need for learners to become
aware of their role as culturally and socially informed interlocutors in order to communicate
appropriately with people from other cultures. Intercultural learning, however, does not
devalue a solid linguistic competence; it simply aims at allowing students to use their
knowledge in order to communicate effectively and appropriately with others in the target
language.
In the light of CLT and its stress on (inter)cultural learning, the overall goal of
language teaching has been redefined, shifting towards a more culturally informed
understanding of language. The new aim is therefore no longer to turn learners into native
speakers of the target language, but to help them become intercultural speakers who are
‘ethnographically sensitive and culturally aware’ (Byram and Zarate 1994:11, as quoted in
Gray 2010: 31) and who are able to adapt their language to ‘meet contextual demands’ (Gray
2010: 32). In opposition to the ‘single-voiced’ native speaker model which measures students’
success according to a native speaker’s command of the language, the intercultural speaker is
not expected to use the language flawlessly, but actually has the right to sound and behave
‘foreign’ (Kramsch 1993a: 27-28; Gray 2010: 32). Educating intercultural speakers should
therefore focus on ‘an acceptance of experimentation with language, a refusal to ignore
cultural difference and the recognition of the possibility of cultural incommensurability’
(Gray 2010: 32). Intercultural learning thus celebrates difference as a possibility for crosscultural understanding and advocates positive attitudes to cultural dissimilarities which can
ultimately pave the way to eliminate stereotypes (see Brown 2007a: 191).
In fact, the intercultural dimension also aims to develop learners’ awareness as
mediators who are able to grasp the complexity of their interlocutor’s social and cultural
identity and who can, in the process, avoid stereotyping. Prejudice and stereotyping can only
be counteracted successfully if the interlocutor is perceived as an individual whose qualities
are to be discovered rather than as a representative of a group and its characteristics (Byram,
Gribkova and Starkey 2002: 9).
27
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
1.6.2 Hybrid Identities
According to Kramsch, viewing a learner’s linguistic development solely on an interlanguage
continuum with the native speaker norm at its end risks intimidating and ultimately
demotivating learners. Kramsch suggests a re-evaluation of language study as an ‘initiation
into a kind of social practice that is at the boundary of two or more cultures’ (Kramsch 1993a:
9). In opposition to a purely formal and structural view of language, Kramsch and Byram,
Gribkova and Starkey identify the goal of language learning and teaching as an exploration of
differences, boundaries and similarities, a process in which students develop alternative or
‘hybrid’ identities outside their own culture. In turn, this allows them to reconsider their own
heritage and approach a target culture more openly (Kramsch 1993a: 9; Gray 2010: 32). These
hybrid identities, in opposition to completely new cultural identities, do not represent a
learner’s new voice in a target language, but an amalgam of a learner’s native culture and of
the target one; the result then is a kind of ‘third perspective’ or ‘third culture’ which is formed
when cultural exchanges take place. Kramsch continues to argue that
the language that is being learned can be used both to maintain
traditional social practices, and to bring about change in the very
practices that brought about this learning (Kramsch 1993a: 233).
Target culture can thus influence learners’ and teachers’ home culture as it offers new frames
of reference to the way in which the world is perceived. This experience can either be very
rewarding or deeply troubling because various voices coexist in conflict. The latter can make
learners discover how they echo their social environment and to what extent they share ways
of perceiving the world with the speakers of the target language (Kramsch 1993a: 27, 234).
The third perspective could thus enable students to take an insider’s as well as an outsider’s
view on their own culture and the target culture.
DeCapua and Wintergerst describe language as ‘both a mirror and a window’ because,
like a mirror, it reflects what a culture considers to be important: values, beliefs and attitudes.
On the other hand, like a window, it reveals and exposes what a culture deems essential and
how it realises its truths through language. Therefore, for DeCapua and Wintergerst, crosscultural (or intercultural) consciousness means becoming aware of one’s own as well as other
28
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
cultures; it implies gaining an understanding of the impact that subconscious factors can have
on our interpretation of the world around us (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 26-27).
1.6.3 Intercultural Communicative Competence
Scholars have differentiated between ‘intercultural competence’ (IC), which defines the
ability to interact in one’s own language with people from another country and culture, and
‘intercultural communicative competence’ (ICC), which implies interaction taking place
between people from different cultures and countries in a foreign language (Coperías Aguilar
2008: 65). In this thesis, I will only refer to and analyse intercultural communicative
competence as my focus remains exclusively in the foreign language learning context.
The Council of Europe’s introduction to the cultural dimension identifies the components
that characterise the intercultural communicative competence as follows:
 Knowledge (or savoirs) of social groups, social processes and interaction
patterns.
 Intercultural attitudes (savoir être): an openness and readiness to suspend
disbelief about other cultures and one’s own; an ability to ‘decentre’ one’s world
view and beliefs. (This echoes Hofstede’s cultural relativism which also
advocates suspending one’s judgement when dealing with other cultures to avoid
ethnocentric stereotyping (1991: 7).)
 Skills of interpreting and relating (savoir comprendre): the ability to interpret
experiences from another culture and relate them to one’s own.
 Skills of discovery and interaction (savoir apprendre / faire): the ability to
acquire new knowledge about a culture and to apply it in real-life interaction.
 Critical cultural awareness (savoir s’engager): an ability to critically evaluate
practices and views based on precise criteria (Byram, Gribkova and Starkey
2009: 11-13).
These skills and values show the more personal and contextual component that the
intercultural communicative competence tries to foster among learners as it greatly facilitates
interaction. This echoes again Hofstede’s quote that sharing a language does not imply
29
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
sharing a culture (1991: 214). The intercultural dimension thus attempts to equip learners with
the necessary additional cultural skills to bridge the gap that a purely linguistic competence
leaves between learners and a (native) speaker of the target language.
As already mentioned, in the context of EFL, learners are generally not expected to
become full members of the target culture through acculturation since they tend to remain in
their home cultural setting when learning a foreign language. As a result, intercultural
learning needs to be fostered first and foremost in the language classroom and is strongly
dependent on the teaching materials and methods employed; the teacher and the coursebook
thus play a crucial role when it comes to fostering intercultural awareness and understanding.
1.7
Teaching Culture
1.7.1 Ways of Teaching Culture
Since teaching culture has long been neglected in favour of learning language as a system of
forms, this dichotomy has often led teachers to consider cultural learning as separate from
language teaching; a secondary element that only rarely found its way into the traditional
grammatical syllabus. After having outlined various authors’ take on the importance of
developing intercultural communicative competence, I will now focus to a greater extent on
the question of how culture can be taught.
In ELT, teaching culture has long been considered as a simple transfer of information
about the people of the target country, their world views and practices, and not as a feature of
the language as such (Kramsch 1993a: 10, 205). Similarly, Kramsch argues that ‘culture in
language learning is not an expendable fifth skill, tacked on, so to speak, to the teaching of
speaking, listening, reading, and writing’ (1993a: 1). Accordingly, if language is regarded as a
social practice, culture becomes the very core of language teaching since meaningful
interaction cannot take place if the cultural and social contexts are ignored (see Kramsch
1993a: 8).
30
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
In the same vein, Gray states in his alternative approach to culture in language
teaching that students should not be construed as skills acquirers but as ‘apprentice
ethnographers’ who intend to explore the target country and culture deeply and critically
(Gray 2010: 33). To reach this goal, Kramsch suggests creating a ‘sphere of interculturality’
which establishes the link between linguistic forms and social structure by encouraging
students to reflect on and relate the target culture to their own in order to explore similarities
and differences (Kramsch 1993a: 205). In addition, Kramsch argues that instead of teaching
fixed norms, teachers should attempt to find a way to help their students understand
foreignness or ‘otherness’. This kind of awareness would also be useful if one considers the
various cultural groups and categories that form the basis of each individual’s personality, as
Hofstede’s argument has stipulated. Atkinson proposes the following guideline when
incorporating culture in the language curriculum:
If we can develop a notion of culture (...) that takes into account the
cultural in the individual, and the individual in the cultural, then we
will have a conceptualization that will stand us in good stead in the
21st century (1999: 648-649).
The goal of Atkinson’s principle is to avoid cultural stereotyping by considering the
individual and their varied cultural setup, while trying at the same time to incorporate cultural
elements that define each individual, since each person is, according to Atkinson, always an
‘individual-in-context’ that never exists separately from his or her social background (1999:
642).
If we bear this ideal in mind and then connect it to the intercultural communicative
competence, teaching culture does not mean transferring cultural presuppositions hoping to
turn learners into imperfect members of the target culture, both in terms of language use and
of cultural behaviour. Students are thus not expected to copy and ‘plagiarise’ behaviour and
language structures they encounter in (non-)authentic materials (Kramsch 1993a: 181). In
contrast, the aim is to help them develop a general sociolinguistic competence which will
ideally allow them to understand how worldviews and values affect the way they - and others
- perceive people and the world around them (DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 28).
Particularly if we take into account that one should not forget ‘the individual in the cultural’
as Atkinson said, the idea of a generic native speaker whose language use and cultural
31
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
behaviour are regarded as a representative example for learners to be acquired and matched,
needs to be questioned (Kramsch 1993a: 180). Firstly, the native speaker model creates an
impossible target for foreign language learners, and secondly, were it possible, it would create
the wrong kind of competence since ‘it would imply that a learner should be linguistically
schizophrenic, abandoning one language in order to blend into another linguistic
environment’ (Byram 1997: 11).
The idea whether or not culture can indeed be taught, however, remains doubtful, even though
generations of students have been taught about culture (see Tomalin and Stempleski 1993: 3,
foreword by series editor Alan Maley). Maley argues that learners should be encouraged to
develop critical thinking and tolerance by raising their awareness of cultural factors. These
ideals transcend mere language learning by making it an aspect of values education (Tomalin
and Stempleski 1993: 3).
‘Teaching’ culture, or encouraging cultural understanding, is the more difficult
because ‘culture is a social symbolic construct, the product of self and other perceptions’
(Kramsch 1998b: 24). In fact, the reality of facts that shape a nation’s history is
complemented by a cultural imagination, or public consciousness, that shapes an imagined
sense of community (Kramsch 1998b: 24). As a social symbolic construct, culture can thus be
seen as a combination of a country’s historical events and the way its members perceive
themselves.
1.7.2 A Case against Teaching Culture
To this point, we have only considered stances that support cultural learning and
understanding, yet Cem Alptekin argues the exact opposite, namely that cultural components
can be ‘detrimental to foreign language learning’ (1993: 136). In the same vein, Kramsch’s
statement that cultural learning can be hindered since culture is both real and imagined
underlines the great complexity involved in cultural understanding.
Alptekin differentiates between systemic knowledge, which refers to the formal
properties of language, and schematic knowledge which is socially acquired. In EFL, students
32
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
whose schematic and systemic knowledge in the native language developed concurrently tend
to rely on their established schematic knowledge (of the mother tongue and home culture)
when developing new systemic knowledge. Thus, learners are inclined to use their native
cultural background as a reference point when learning the formal systems of a foreign
language. Yet, when learning a foreign language, the consistency between the ‘culturespecific aspects of cognition and the native language undergoes a substantive degree of
conflict’ because the ‘learners’ schemas are subjected to novel cultural data’ (Alptekin 1993:
137). In fact, students are likely to have difficulty processing target-language systemic data
(grammar or syntax for example) if these are presented through unfamiliar (i.e. target
language) contexts (Alptekin 1993: 136-137). This shows to what point learning a foreign
language can lead learners to question their existing knowledge and explains why familiar
schematic knowledge can have a positive effect on foreign language development (Alptekin
1993: 140). Particularly in the light of English, which is often used as a lingua franca outside
of any target culture context, the question arises whether or not it is reasonable to teach the
language alongside its cultural connotations. I intend to return to this issue in chapter 3 in my
discussion of EIL as a possible alternative for the Luxembourg context.
33
CHAPTER 1: CULTURE IN ELT
34
Chapter 2: A Case study
New Headway Elementary (3
2.1
rd
edition)
Rationale
My aim in this case study is to analyse to what extent the language and cultural content in the
New Headway Elementary series can be regarded as a form of ‘constructed culture’; a filtered
version of reality to meet the needs of a large international market. I will concentrate mainly
on the Student’s Book, the Teacher’s Book, the Culture and Literature Companion and the
class CDs in the light of elements such as the varieties of English used and the overall
methodology, as well as the topical content and the representational practices that dominate
the series. Intending to reveal the so-called ‘hidden curriculum’ or the underlying ideological
and economic dimension (Gray 2010: 7) of the series, I want to illustrate that the content of
global coursebooks like New Headway Elementary constructs a form of reality that is not
always way neutral, universal or representative of British culture. Michael W. Apple defines
the hidden curriculum as the ‘values that are implicitly, but effectively, taught in schools’ but
which are not usually mentioned in the aims and objectives defined by the syllabus (Apple
1990: 84). In this case study, I want to analyse the ‘hidden curriculum’ of a coursebook which
I believe also teaches embedded values without stating this openly.
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
The choice to analyse New Headway Elementary (3rd edition) in my case study was partly
motivated by the series’ dominating presence in Luxembourg’s ELT context. Not only have
various editions of Headway Elementary been used in VIe moderne as well as in Ve classique
for over a decade, but the third edition has recently also conquered classes such as for instance
8eTE, 8ePO and at times also 9ePO1, which traditionally tended to use different coursebooks.
In 2010, Oxford University Press released a fourth version of the New Headway Elementary
and sent tester copies to schools across the country, yet an overwhelming majority of schools
decided to keep to the third edition, which had only been released a few years prior to its
predecessor. Due to its large presence in Luxembourg’s ELT classrooms, it consequently
made more sense to analyse this, albeit less recent edition of New Headway Elementary.
Since the New Headway Starter or New Headway Beginner series are not usually used
as coursebooks for beginners in Luxembourg, students who are new learners of English as a
foreign language generally start with New Headway Elementary as their very first coursebook.
For a large number of students, their coursebook is also the first place where they encounter
the new language in a culturally contextualised setting. Therefore, the overall impression and
interpretation that the coursebook conveys of the target language and culture can have a major
impact on students’ later views and attitudes, both towards learning the language and towards
speakers of that language. In Luxembourg, as in many other countries, students evidently tend
to encounter British or American culture much earlier, often through the media, but their EFL
course is often the first time they encounter the culture in a systematically guided fashion.
What is more, the Headway series is not only a very popular choice in Luxembourg,
but it is, what Angela Pickering calls a ‘publishing phenomenon’, a ‘classic’ which has come
to dominate the world of EFL publishing and the sales of which, consequently, place it very
close to the top of the EFL materials bestseller list (Pickering 1999: 5).
1
Information about the various coursebooks used in the different classes / schools can be found online:
http://www.myschool.lu and in appendix 1.
36
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
2.2
Working with Coursebooks
2.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Coursebooks
Using coursebooks in class certainly has a lot of benefits since the books and their carefully
prepared content provide a coherent syllabus and clear language control adapted to various
levels of learning. Most coursebooks publishers also offer extra material such as workbooks,
extra resource material, CDs or DVDs with listening and video activities, teacher’s guides,
tests and wordlists. The New Headway Elementary series for example encompasses a
Student’s Book, a Workbook with grammar and vocabulary exercises, a Culture and
Literature Companion with texts, a Teacher’s Resource Book with precise instructions on
how to structure lessons and CDs with tapescripts to be used in class as well as a DVD with
video material. All of this support gives teachers confidence, and students reassurance, since
coursebooks like this seem to have a form of authority for students (and teachers) as they help
to map progress and support revision of material whenever required (Harmer 2001: 304).
On the other hand, coursebooks can have a number of drawbacks, particularly if they
are used indiscriminately. First of all, they can impose learning styles and methods which
neither the students nor the teachers feel comfortable with. Secondly, some of the content
might be inappropriate for a certain age group or cultural group while topics may be
demotivating rather than encouraging language learning (Harmer 2001: 304). Harmer
suggests two options when encountering inappropriate material in a coursebook: omission
(and replacement) of particular lessons or changing the coursebook material to suit learner
needs. These may seem like interesting ways for dealing with coursebooks but the danger of
confusing learners and losing one’s overall coherence arguably rises with every unit or lesson
that is skipped or changed.
37
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
2.2.2 Choosing Coursebooks
In Luxembourg’s ELT context, teachers have no choice but to use the set coursebooks and the
stipulations attached to their use as they are prescribed by the two commissions nationales and
the national syllabus. Whether or not to use a coursebook in class is thus not usually an
option; the way the material is used, however, lies within the teachers’ range of control. For a
number of levels (8eTE for instance), however, schools have the right to choose from a list of
set books and therefore it is interesting to quickly highlight the variety of criteria to be taken
into consideration when selecting a coursebook. According to Harmer, elements ranging from
availability, layout and methodology over topics and cultural appropriacy to price and
usability (2001: 301) should be taken into account when choosing a coursebook.
Alan Cunningsworth also states a number of principles that can aid coursebook
selection based on a systematic evaluation of their benefits and shortcomings.
1. The first principle outlined is that the coursebook should relate directly to the aims and
objectives of a particular language course and that the material should support the
aims, not vice versa (Cunningsworth 1984: 5). The way in which the books are used
should be determined actively by the teachers since ‘coursebooks are good servants
but poor masters’ (Cunningsworth 1984: 1).
2. Secondly, the purpose of the language course should remain a main focus when
selecting teaching materials. Looking beyond the classroom and analysing the
potential situations which learners need to be prepared for should ideally guide the
decision about which particular coursebook to use.
3. The way the language is presented, the components that are selected and how they can
encourage and stimulate learning is a third criterion to be taken into account. The
learners should be able to relate to the material individually and as a group.
4. Finally, the way in which new items are presented, recycled and practised is an
important feature to consider when choosing textbooks. The activities should have
precise language learning aims rather than just being used for their own sake
(Cunningsworth 1984: 5-7).
38
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
Learner needs and language requirements to be met are thus important contextual factors that
have an impact on the choice of coursebook. If the main objectives of a course is for learners
to be able to express functions of language such as making a phone call, ordering a meal,
making a complaint or completing a form, then the decision to use a so-called ‘global
coursebook’ which claims to teach universal functional language seems perfectly justifiable.
Most EFL courses, particularly at lower levels, have a very general aspect and their objective
is to teach English which can be used in a large variety of contexts. This is no different in
Luxembourg, where English language learning is almost exclusively designed to equip
learners with the functional language they need to communicate effectively in the target
language2. At elementary level, whether in the ES or in the EST, the overall aim is for
learners to achieve the A2 or A2+ level of the CEFR (Common European Framework of
Reference) after one (8eTE, VIe mod., Ve cl.) or two years of language learning (8e and 9ePO)3.
In the light of Cunningsworth’s principles, these aims defined in the syllabus should direct the
process of coursebook selection.
2.2.3 The ‘Global Coursebook’
Global coursebooks are very general language courses which try to teach every aspect of
English and are thus designed to satisfy a large international market and to be usable
anywhere in the world. Since these coursebooks are not aimed at a particular group of learners
with a specific native language for example, they usually have an English-speaking country as
their main setting (Cunningsworth 1984: 2). Consequently, the cultural baggage transmitted in
these coursebooks is necessarily Anglocentric and westernised. The Headway series, as a
‘classic’ and popular choice in the EFL world thus also qualifies as a global coursebook since
2
There are very few exceptions to this rule in Luxembourg: the anglais technique course in the formation de
technicien of the formation professionelle initiale is one example of a more specific English language class
designed to equip learners with the particular language that is used in a narrow range of professional situations
(English for IT professions for example).
3
More details about the specific aims of the different language courses can be found online: www.men.public.lu.
39
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
it is not aimed at a narrow group of learners from one particular area but can be used for
(teenage) students across the world.
Luxembourg’s favoured choice of teaching support is thus very much in line with
international tendencies regarding EFL material. However, here the question arises whether or
not Luxembourg’s language learning situation can indeed be compared to that of other
countries (or whether the language situation of any given country is comparable to that of any
other place). The international presence of Headway certainly suggests that there is one
correct and appropriate version of English to be taught and a coursebook to meet the needs of
a large number of EFL communities across the globe.
2.3
Methodology in New Headway Elementary
This first part of the case study will be focused on the methodological approach used in New
Headway Elementary (3rd edition) (NHE) and the issues resulting from the choices made by
the authors. I intend to outline the inherent ‘culture of learning’ portrayed in the series
because the implementation of methodology and approaches to learning disclose culturally
determined preferences. In fact, choices about teacher and learner roles or classroom practices
disclose deep-rooted beliefs which are part of the cultural setup of a given community.
2.3.1 NHE and Coursebook Authority
As mentioned above, teachers in Luxembourg cannot always choose which coursebook to use
for a particular group of learners and often have to use material that they feel does not entirely
meet their students’ needs; the temptation to replace and omit a lot of the material is then of
course substantial. On the other hand, some teachers might not challenge the coursebook’s
authority at all and consequently follow it unquestioningly (see Gray 2010: 7).
40
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
In fact, the New Headway series clearly sees itself as having a form of authority over
the teachers who use the course because the authors John and Liz Soars describe it as follows:
The world’s most trusted English course
New Headway is the course teachers and learners can rely on. Why?
An authoritative integrated syllabus, motivating topics, and clearly
focused tasks combine with a real understanding of what works in the
classroom. It all makes for effective teaching and effective learning.
Tried and tests all over the world, it’s probably the most popular
course ever written (J. & L. Soars, NHE Student’s Book 2006: back
cover).
The authors establish the overall authority of the coursebook based on its popularity across
the world and the number of teachers who have used and thus validated it. As an
‘authoritative’ coursebook, it is presented as a trusted and reliable tool that seems to demand
adherence to its teaching and learning ideals due to its ‘real understanding of what works in
the classroom’. Teachers are clearly discouraged from challenging the validity of the material
and since the course has been ‘tried and tested’, it suggests that any failure of learning is in no
way due to the material but must be the fault of either the teacher or the student. The authors
are referred to as ‘internationally renowned’ and ‘highly experienced teachers and teacher
trainers’ (J. & L. Soars, NHE Student’s Book 2006: back cover), which establishes a precise
hierarchy between the coursebook as a mentor or expert colleague, and the teachers who use it
as ‘mentees’ (Pickering 1992: 30).
In the same vein, the NHE Teacher’s Book also reinforces a clear power structure
between the authors of the course and those teachers who use it. Some of the instructions to
teachers at the very beginning include, for instance, information on the ‘Don’t forget!’
sections, which remind teachers of supposedly salient material and exercises in the Workbook
or on the Video/DVD that should not be left out (see J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE
Teacher’s Book 2006: 5). Other instructions to teachers have a similar tone of authority as
exemplified by this command on how to use the tapescript transcripts at the back of the
Student’s Book in class:
In a gap fill task, care should be taken not to focus on too random a set
of vocabulary. Lexical sets or key structural items (auxiliaries,
41
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
question words, past tenses, past participles, prepositions, etc.) are
useful items to gap (J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s Book
2006: 5).
Such statements are good examples to highlight the - at time patronising - air of authority and
experience that the Headway series wraps itself in. Teachers, particularly inexperienced ones,
could feel intimidated by such suggestions and statements, both on the back cover and in the
Teacher’s Book, which openly encourage precise teaching styles and classroom practices.
In addition, the fact the NHE course is issued by Oxford University Press, a publishing
house held in esteem around the world, can be seen as yet another way by which the authority
of the coursebook is reinforced and which could preclude teachers and learners from
questioning the content and the methodology promoted by it.
2.3.2 Methodological Approach in NHE
Regarding the overall methodological approach of the third edition, the Teacher’s Book states
the following:
The basic Headway methodology is the same. Proven traditional
approaches are used alongside those which have been developed and
researched more recently (J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE
Teacher’s Book 2006: 4).
This mixture of established and more innovative techniques can appear bewildering,
particularly since the front cover of the Student’s Book as well as the Workbook display the
word ‘new’ printed in bold upper-case letters. Pickering claims that this blend of methods is
used to avoid alienating consumers who might not be familiar with the Communicative
Approach (1992: 33). Teaching practices like the Communicative Approach or CLT
(Communicative Language Teaching) are deeply culturally embedded because learner and
teacher roles are defined by socially and culturally determined views. The blend of methods
and approaches thus reveals that the course tries to cater for potential buyers from a large
variety of cultural and social backgrounds.
42
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
Hofstede’s analysis of cultural differences based on features such as power distance,
collectivism VS individualism and feminine VS masculine societies makes it clear that
student and teacher roles vary according to their societal context. CLT, for instance, is defined
by a shift in learner and teacher roles based on the ideal that teachers should no longer
function as ‘gurus’ who have all the knowledge and who are meant to transfer it into the heads
of their students. This kind of teaching, however, only functions in a society with small power
distance, i.e. a social structure where the relationship between students and teachers is not
defined by a strict hierarchy. Brown, for example, states that
our widely accepted communicative approach to language teaching
(CLT) which aims to empower and value students, may itself reflect
cultural bias that is not universally embraced. Not all educational
traditions value the learner-centred, interactive approaches that could
– in the mind of the teacher – usurp the teacher’s authority and power
in the classroom’ (1997b: 518).
This shows that methodology and approach are in no way neutral but deeply influenced by
cultural values because they reflect a society’s perception of learner and teacher roles, and, in
extension, a society’s hierarchical structures.
The blend of methods in the NHE series then shows that the authors try to adapt their product
to a large market which is not necessarily always familiar with dominant western teaching
methods that place the student at the centre of the learning process. The grammar-based
syllabus, a truly traditional approach to language learning, can thus be regarded as a
concession made in order to attract a wider range of potential consumers that might not have
chosen NHE had it been based exclusively on the ideals of CLT.
On the other hand, the strength and confidence with which the authors underline the
value and authority of their course reveals the predominant assumption that some
methodological practices are commonly applicable (Pickering 1992: 33). The fact that the
series is marketed worldwide suggests that the overall approach used in the coursebook is
universal and can be exercised anywhere on the planet. At the same time, the prescriptive tone
which the authors use in the Teacher’s Book for example shows the assumption that certain
43
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
methods can be identified as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and should be regarded as such no matter
what the educational and social context (see Pickering 1992: 23).
This analysis of the methods used in NHE shows the cultural baggage attached to choices of
approach and methodology. Influenced by cultural ideals of learning and teaching, they
promote a particular view of how English should be taught. CLT in particular is shaped by
ideals of teacher and learner roles that are not easily compatible with social structures
dominated by great power distance or collectivism for example. The ‘great emphasis on
personalized speaking’ (J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s Book 2006: 4) might not
be successful or desirable in societies which do not favour individualism, yet the authors
repeatedly establish practices like this as if they were part of a set of shared norms of teaching
accepted around the world. Such CLT orthodoxies reveal the western assumptions that are
found throughout the NHE course and which are arbitrarily applied to any teaching situation
(Pickering 1992: 32).
2.3.3 Aims and Objectives in NHE
With the shift towards skills-based teaching (at times also referred to as ‘competence-based
teaching’), Luxembourg’s ELT stepped away from overly traditional and grammar-based
methods of instruction in favour of a more communicative and eclectic approach to teaching
English as a foreign language. This innovation, however, was not accompanied by a change in
teaching material; in fact, (New) Headway Elementary remained the coursebook of choice in
most beginners’ classes across the country. Although the overall approach to teaching had
been revolutionised, the tool to implement the change stayed the same. It must be said that the
more recent editions of NHE partly take this new kind of teaching focus into account by
considering CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference) criteria, yet the dominant
position of grammar and accuracy work remained. The fact that the NHE series is such a
universally applicable course, adaptable to the requirements of skills and competence-based
teaching, could explain why there was no change in teaching material.
44
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
If we bear in mind the blend of methods used in New Headway Elementary (3rd
edition) and its rather dominant focus on grammar teaching, the use of this coursebook might
still tempt teachers into implementing the course almost religiously from beginning to end,
without considering the more differentiated and specific aims and objectives defined by the
new syllabus. Particularly if one considers Cunningsworth’s argument that coursebooks are
‘good servants’ but ‘poor masters’ and should therefore not be used to define the aims of a
particular course, the fact that NHE is used so widely and at times indiscriminately certainly
does not promote such skills or competence-based aims. The repetitive structure of the units
also favours an overall course organisation that always puts grammar at the heart of the
learning process, an approach that is manifestly detrimental to the achievement of the newlydefined aims of competence-based teaching in Luxembourg with its focus on functional
language.
An example to highlight the traditional grammar-based approach of New Headway
Elementary (3rd edition) can already be found in the table of contents. In fact, each unit is first
described in terms of its grammar input, for example the verb ‘to be’ and possessive
adjectives for unit 1 or the present simple tense for units 2 and 3. What is more, the grammar
focus of each unit is also highlighted in blue colour whereas other language features such as
vocabulary or ‘everyday English’ sections are not (see also Gray 2010: 96-97).
A similar ‘hierarchy’ of language input can be found in the domain of skills
development since the ‘writing sections’, albeit found only at the end of the Student’s Book,
are nonetheless also printed in bold letters whereas speaking and listening activities for
instance, do not stand out in any way. Hence, writing is clearly rated as more important than
the other skills, which reflects the rather traditional accuracy and writing based approach of
the course.
In addition, the dominant grammatical meta-language (‘possessive adjectives’ for
instance) which can be found in the table of contents as well as at the beginning of each unit,
is not only confusing for students, but also reinforces the authority of the coursebook and the
45
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
aims and objectives that it defines because the authors exhibit their deep knowledge of
grammar by using difficult terminology which is likely to be unfamiliar to most students.
In the light of the course’s prevalent focus of grammar, it is interesting to note the fact that
some essential grammar features are nonetheless not explained and practised thoroughly. The
‘possessive ‘s’ for instance, is dealt with rather superficially, especially the difference
between ‘s for possession and ‘s as a short form of the verb ‘to be’ is not outlined in detail.
The way this is dealt with in the coursebook implies that learners will understand the
difference straight away once it has been outlined. There is only one very small exercise in the
Workbook to practise the different uses of the ‘s, which suggests that students should be able
to work out the grammatical implications rather quickly. The obvious lack of recycling and
practice at times might not pose a problem for students who are able to work at the abstract
level of grammar learning; other learners, however, who have greater difficulty with metalanguage and who require more practice to internalise complex grammatical rules are
certainly disadvantaged. Teachers consequently need to provide additional explanations and
practice for those learners that have difficulty with abstract grammar learning and who
respond better to less form-focused but more student-centred ways of instruction. Here, the
fact that the New Headway Elementary series is used in the ES as well as in the EST on a
variety of levels (VIe moderne, Ve classique, 8eTE and 8ePO) might seem bewildering since it
suggests that all these students work and learn in the same way.
Moreover, due to the fact that the coursebook did not change with the introduction of
competence-based teaching in Luxembourg, teachers are still compelled to dedicate valuable
class time to grammar teaching since the structure of the coursebook requires it, but does not
provide sufficient explanation and practice. A grammar-based coursebook setup can thus
impose learning styles and teaching practices, even if the overall aims and objectives of a
course are considerably different (see Harmer 2011: 304).
46
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
2.3.4 NHE and the Ideal Student
Since the New Headway Elementary course is mainly structured around grammar instruction,
the authors clearly assume that learners will be motivated by, and will respond positively to,
accuracy work. Each language point is developed in the grammar reference section at the back
of the book and recycled a few times in each unit, both in the Student’s Book and in the
Workbook. According to the authors of the course, the ‘ideal student’ (see Pickering 1992: 31)
is thus a learner who appreciates a repeated focus on form and who is able to quickly
internalise grammar rules after little exposure and practice. Students’ cognitive ability to
deconstruct and learn grammar elements is thus a prerequisite for the course to be successful.
The Teacher’s Book itself states that ‘we try to guide students to an understanding of new
language, rather than just have examples of it on the page’ (J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE
Teacher’s Book 2006: 5, emphasis is the authors’). This again underlines the grammatical
aspect of the course which encourages a meta-linguistic understanding of language in
opposition to a more holistic learning process.
The Teacher’s Book states that ‘the design is completely new, (...) cleaner, fresher, and more
modern and lively’ with photos and illustrations ‘to inform and stimulate students’ (J. & L.
Soars with A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s Book 2006: 5). The authors thus portray the course as
contemporary and motivating, designed for students who are themselves motivated, full of
energy and ready to absorb the new language. The title Headway and the red and yellow
colour of the cover underline this image of progress, energy and vigour. The colourful vectors
or arrow-heads on the Student’s Book4, dotted with images and photos of CDs, smiling
people, camera lenses and inline skates reinforces the (supposedly) modern and lively course
content. Given that the design is meant to stimulate learners, the authors evidently assume that
4
Angela Pickering’s analysis of the Headway Upper-Intermediate course in 1992 already concentrated on the
vectors and arrows of the front cover as a sign of progress (Pickering 1992: 42). Since then, the front covers have
become more modern and contemporary with every edition, yet the arrow-heads and vectors have remained as an
illustration of the ‘headway’ in language learning that the course promises.
47
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
learners prefer modern material that is influenced by technological advances and
development.
The overall layout as well as the focus on photographs and illustrations ‘carefully
chosen (...) to enhance and clarify activities’ show that the New Headway Elementary course
has been developed for a particular type of student, namely one that is motivated by the
modern design and the visual input provided throughout. This construction of an ‘ideal
student’ who responds well to the grammar-based instruction and who welcomes the
contemporary layout of the course is based on an ideal or standard that is portrayed to be
universal.
Most of the features attributed to the ideal learner as outlined by the NHE course are
clearly based on Anglo-Saxon cultural standards of learning and teaching. For instance, the
great emphasis on pair-work activities suggests that students like sharing information with
peers and that they enjoy a student-centred approach to learning. Such a socio-constructivist
ideal of learning is necessarily found in a social structure with small power distance where
students and teachers interact on equal terms and where peer interaction is valued just as
much as teacher-student exchanges.
Moreover, the sharing of personal information with the teacher and peers implies that
learners value their individuality and enjoy communicating their experiences. This is an
attitude found mainly in individualist societies since, according to Hofstede’s definition,
students in collectivist societies would probably not enjoy drawing attention to themselves in
that way. Sharing personal data and doing open-ended activities that involve a kind of ‘risk of
the unknown’ (pair-work information exchange for instance), are also a characteristic to be
found in Anglo-Saxon societies where people do not experience a great amount of uncertainty
avoidance and where students generally enjoy the relative freedom and autonomy granted by
tasks that do not have one correct outcome.
The NHE course thus clearly favours motivated, hardworking, visible and individualist
students who enjoy interaction in class. All of these values that define the ideal student are
shaped by western Anglo-Saxon values, yet they are propagated as being universal ideals
applicable around the world, just like the coursebook itself. Choices of method and approach
48
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
are thus clearly culture laden decisions that necessarily carry a deeply ideological message. In
the case of NHE, the underlying message seems to be that there is one correct approach to
teaching and learning English, i.e. one correct culture of learning, namely that employed in
the coursebook.
In spite of this, there are substantial tensions between the dominant approach of the
coursebook based on the ideals of CLT (interaction, personalised speaking, open-ended
activities, etc.) and the grammar-based structure of the Student’s Book. I have argued earlier,
in the light of Pickering’s argument, that these tensions are probably intentional in order to
fulfil the needs of a large ELT market.
Tensions can however also arise with regard to the construction of a so-called ideal learner if
it conflicts with learner identities that diverge from the NHE standard. Luxembourg’s society
can certainly be considered to be individualist at base (in opposition to collectivist) in
Hofstede’s terms, yet the large amount of immigrant children5 who receive their education in
Luxembourg, do not necessarily ‘correspond’ to these social values if they (and/or their
families) often come from societies with different social values. In most countries, the overall
sum of learners with a migrant background does not affect the structure of the education
system considerably; in Luxembourg, however, the number of immigrant children is
substantially higher and therefore needs to be taken into account if the appropriate method of
foreign language learning is to be analysed.
In Luxembourg’s ELT, the combination of students equipped with varying sets of
cultural and social values thus inevitably affects classroom structures and learning processes.
Most students do not share a common set of previous knowledge or values, a cultural
component which cannot be ignored. One can therefore not claim that learners in
Luxembourg are determined by individualist ideals and consequently respond well to the
teaching methods in NHE. The varying learner needs, based on the pupils’ respective cultural
5
In 2009-2010, 41.5% of pupils registered in Luxembourg had a migrant background. In the cycle inférieur of
the EST, the percentage was 45.7% in 2009-2010. (Source: http://www.men.public.lu - see appendix 2)
49
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
upbringing, must not be disregarded. As a result, the CLT methodology of NHE cannot be
applied indiscriminately. Students from societies with great uncertainty avoidance are likely
to be alienated or even anxious when faced with open-ended tasks whereas other students in
the same class might respond very positively to such challenges in foreign language learning.
In addition, the fact that English language learning is compulsory for most learners in
Luxembourg implies that not all the learners will feel intrinsically motivated or respond
positively to the approach of the coursebook which takes learner motivation for granted. A
learner who is compelled to interact in class even though they do not want to share or
cooperate with peers does not fit the image of the ‘ideal student’ as outlined by the
coursebook. At first, then, the NHE course seems appropriate to the needs of Luxembourg’s
ELT students, yet a closer look at the learner population reveals underlying conflicts between
learner needs and backgrounds and the ideals regarding methodology and learning styles
propagated by NHE.
2.3.5 The Ideal Teacher
The construction of a preferred set of practices that can be observed with the notion of the
‘ideal student’ is developed further with the concept of the ‘ideal teacher’, who is expected to
follow the overall coursebooks guidelines and deliver the students’ wish list (Pickering 1992:
31). This teacher should be flexible enough to adopt a variety of roles as required by the
different learning situations without questioning the validity of a task or activity. The ideal
teacher is thus portrayed as an uncritical disciple of the coursebook who implements the
syllabus according to the instructions provided.
This idea that the teacher can easily adapt to the needs and requirements of his/her
students implies a teaching approach that puts the student at the heart of the language learning
process, again an underlying cultural prerequisite influenced by western teaching ideals that is
propagated by NHE as a universal truism. Yet Pickering claims that principles of practice are
‘grounded in social and cultural beliefs about teaching and about the world, and are
ideologically driven and therefore subjective’ (1992: 22). The fact that certain methods are
50
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
presented as universal reinforces the notion of shared norms or ‘good’ and ‘bad’ teaching
practices that reveal a set of ‘taken-for-granteds’ of curriculum and method conveyed by the
coursebook and supported even further by the authority transmitted by it (Pickering 1992: 3032).
2.4
Language in New Headway Elementary
After having analysed the methodological makeup of NHE, I will now proceed to a closer
examination of the language used in the coursebook, both written and spoken. As seen in
chapter 1, language is a means of identification and an indicator of a culture’s social realities
(DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 25). Therefore an analysis of the accents and language
norms used in NHE will reveal some of the underlying cultural preconceptions of the course
as a whole.
2.4.1 Accents and Varieties in NHE
First of all, global coursebooks like NHE, which are situated in an English-speaking country
and are written by native speakers of English, tend to privilege certain accents (Gray 2010: 3).
The Teacher’s Book explains this as follows:
We acknowledge that speech prosody (the patterns of sounds and
rhythms in speech) varies depending on accent, register, the message,
sentence length, etc.
Nevertheless, we have made the conscious decision in the third edition
of New Headway Elementary to offer more guidance to students in
this area of their English pronunciation. We have done this in two
ways:
51
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY


stress highlighting: When beneficial to spoken tasks, we have
indicated through highlighting where the main stress falls to help
students sound more natural. On many occasions a recorded model
can be used for listen and repeat. At times, we have chosen one stress
pattern over another/others in an attempt to offer a sensible model for
students to follow.
Music of English focuses on word and sentence stress, world-linking,
and intonation patterns in high-frequency everyday expressions. It
reminds teachers and students to listen for and practise all the
elements in spoken English. The accompanying records exaggerate
intonation, stress and word-linking to help students hear and follow
the patterns. Students, in turn, should also aim to exaggerate the
patterns in practice exercises.
Some students will struggle more than others with pronunciation and
Music of English. However, with plenty of encouragement, and the
higher incidence of practice given to these elements of spoken English
in New Headway Elementary – the THIRD edition, students’
awareness and subsequent delivery of spoken English should
gradually improve (J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s Book
2006: 4).
This statement shows that the NHE authors consciously selected certain accents and forms of
pronunciation over others, which is meant to offer students a ‘sensible model’ to follow. As
NHE has an English-speaking country as its main setting, this explains why the authors
favoured a localized form, namely in this case British Received Pronunciation (see Gray
2010: 3, 49, 137). The models or examples provided in the ‘Music of English’ sections to help
students sound more ‘natural’ evidently support the native-speaker model since they are
delivered by native speakers of the language who almost exclusively favour one accent and
variety over others.
The ‘Music of English’ sections in the third edition are meant to raise the students’
awareness of intonation and stress, yet they also reinforce and drill standard English accents,
especially since the teachers are invited to provide ‘plenty of encouragement’ to ultimately get
their learners to deliver the required patterns accurately. The teachers are thus reduced to a
instrument meant to reinforce a particular variety of pronunciation, yet the fact that many
teachers are not native speakers of English (NNESTs), or native speakers with varying
52
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
regional accents, is neglected here, while the hierarchy between authors (or ‘mentors’) and
teachers as users (or ‘mentees’) is emphasised once more. At the same time, the variety and
accent used in the coursebook is presented as more ‘worthy’ since the students and teachers
are invited to imitate the models from the ‘sound bites’.
The Teacher’s Book states that the material used comes from a wide range of sources
and features both British and American English (J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s
Book 2006: 5); however, such choices openly favour particular varieties or accents and
establish them as the only ‘correct’ and therefore universally applicable forms (see Pickering
1992: 21). The fact that the representation of English in NHE does not reflect variables such
as geography, gender, age, L1 or ethnicity for example, implies that there is one single model
of English (or two in the case of NHE) appropriate for students in any context (Gray 2010:
136). This ‘myth of universalism’ which regards a particular set of accents and varieties to be
universally appropriate, however, emphasizes a strict linguistic hegemony as it positions
standard British and American English above all other varieties. This can be seen as a form of
linguistic imperialism, initially supported by colonisation and now continued through the
standardisation of language use in EFL coursebooks (Pickering 1992:21; Kramsch 1998: 7477).
The fact that NHE is a ‘global coursebook’ which is used all over the world reinforces
this form of linguistic imperialism even further because the selected varieties, with all their
cultural implications, are shown to students from all contexts as being the correct form of
English to be used. The potential problems associated with teaching English worldwide with
the Eurocentric baggage attached to it can have ‘the effect of legitimizing colonial or
establishment power and resources’ and can thus reinforce cultural inequalities or hegemonies
(Brown 2007a: 206). If British or American English is portrayed as a universal form of
English, it will inevitably be seen as being a more desirable form or variety and,
consequently, the cultural values and beliefs attached to it will at the same time be transmitted
as being dominant and more sought-after. The authors of NHE, as native-speakers of English,
thus embody this power attached to their language because they are not only equipped with a
form of authority due to their L1 knowledge of English, but they also seem to have great
pedagogic expertise, as seen above (see Pickering 1992: 21).
53
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
The lack of varieties and accents in NHE outlined above is, according to Gray, a way to create
a ‘tidy’, stable and simplified form of English that is easier to be taught. Such an invariant and
homogeneous form or ‘norm’ thus remains free from the changes and ‘untidiness’ which
could result from the use of the language by native speakers with varying accents or by nonnative speakers (Gray 2010: 137). This creates an idealised and non-realistic kind of language
which is presented to learners across the globe and also echoes the delusive idea of a ‘generic
native speaker’ whose language use is seen as representative of a country, language or culture
(see Kramsch 1993a: 180).
In fact, in NHE, L2 or L3 speakers mainly appear in the first units of the coursebook
whereas there are fewer and fewer speakers of English as a second or a foreign language
towards the end of the coursebook. The variety and accents used by L2 or L3 speakers
appears to be less desirable while native speakers are seen as the ‘norm’ (norm of
monolingualism), which, however, deprives learners of the opportunity to hear realistically
varied samples of English. Gray states that exposing learners to a multitude of speakers with
varying degrees of competence ‘could be seen as increasingly essential to the development of
appropriate receptive skills for students in many settings’ (Gray 2010: 137). Particularly in the
case of English, which is often used as a lingua franca, the ability to understand and interact
with non-native speakers is a crucial skill for learners to acquire. In the light of the
intercultural communicative competence, which aims at equipping students with the necessary
skills to allow communication with people from all sorts of contexts and backgrounds, it
seems inappropriate for a coursebook to systematically exclude L2 and L3 speakers the way
NHE does.
An example from NHE Third Edition is the character of ‘Marco’, who reappears
repeatedly at the beginning of the coursebook (units 1 and 4). As an Italian language student
in the UK, Marco is an L2 speaker6 and in the various contexts in which he appears, he
interacts with the people around him, mostly with L1 speakers of English. The same is the
6
Marco, as a beginner, has a very strong Italian accent. In the tapescripts, his character appears to be interpreted
by a native-speaker actor putting on a particularly strong accent.
54
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
case for the character of ‘Danka’, a Polish language student in Brighton who is staying with
an English family while in the UK. Danka’s character returns frequently in units 1 to 4, yet
disappears completely until the very end, in unit 14, when she re-emerges in an activity about
writing emails to thank people, her host family in Danka’s case. Both Marco and Danka, as
L2 speakers of English, are very visible at the beginning while there are fewer and fewer
appearances of these characters towards the end of the coursebook. The coursebook thus
slowly establishes native speakers of English as the norm while L2 speakers are gradually
faded out, suggesting that language learners should aim at reaching native speaker level
themselves.
Furthermore, both characters mostly interact with native speakers and there are hardly
any conversations between L2, let alone L3 speakers in NHE Third Edition, which evidently
does not encourage the use of English as a lingua franca. The UK setting of the coursebook
can explain the high frequency of interactions with native speakers, yet the fact that most of
the L1 speakers use Received Pronunciation certainly does not reflect the large variety of
(regional) accents found in the UK. There are, for instance no speakers with Indian accents in
the third edition of NHE; this large social group is openly neglected and the multicultural
character of British society is ignored (Pickering 1992: 5). Danka, Marco and the lack of
Asian speakers in NHE are examples that illustrate the attempt the portray English as a ‘tidy’
and homogeneous language with few, if any interferences and varieties. Portraying English as
stable and unchanging certainly does not do justice to the dynamics of the language and
conveys a false and meticulously constructed ideal that is propagated across the globe with
the help of coursebooks like NHE. Similarly, the fact that native-speaker actors imitate second
language users like Marco for the listening activities emphasises once more the inauthentic
and reduced view of language ‘advertised’ in NHE.
In the context of ELT in Luxembourg, using NHE as a coursebook at elementary level thus
implies that students should aim at becoming virtual native speakers of English at some point.
Yet, if we bear in mind Luxembourg’s multilingual context, such a goal is not only overly
ambitious, but clearly impossible since, as Brown argues, learners in foreign language
55
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
learning contexts do not normally have the opportunity to be exposed to the target language
outside of the classroom.
In the same vein, attempting to eventually reach native speaker level prevents learners
from finding their own voice in the target language as it encourages linguistic schizophrenia
which implies replacing a mother tongue with the new language (Byram 1997: 11). NHE thus
sets impossible linguistic goals and focuses almost exclusively on learning English for
purposes of interaction with native speakers. For students in Luxembourg, this seems
contradictory since English is often used as a lingua franca, or tool for interaction, with other
L2 or L3 speakers. If we remember that learning a foreign language should ideally allow
learners to develop an intercultural communicative competence without trying to create
alternate cultural identities, achieving native speaker level and all the cultural baggage that is
attached to it should therefore not be the ultimate goal, be it in Luxembourg or anywhere else.
2.4.2 Accuracy and Fluency in NHE
The significant focus on grammar learning in NHE reveals that the overall aims of the course
clearly emphasise accuracy over fluency. By structuring the different units around
grammatical elements, the authors attribute an inferior position to spoken English and fluency
work. This may seem contradictory in the light of CLT, yet it reinforces the hierarchy
between authors and users once more since the writers seem to have all the ‘precise’ grammar
knowledge. Again, the fact that a pure CLT course might alienate customers less used to CLT
can be seen as an explanation for this dominant focus on form.
The discrepancy between accuracy and fluency becomes most obvious in the
‘Everyday English’ sections at the end of each unit, which are, according to the Teacher’s
Book, ‘focus[ed] primarily on spoken English’ (J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s
Book 2006: 4). Their position at the end of the unit not only suggests that these parts of
language learning are not as important as the grammar features at the beginning; it also
implies that they can be left out in case of time pressure. They are presented like an ‘optional
extra’, an ‘afterthought’ outside of the core syllabus (Pickering 1992: 27). Yet, despite their
56
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
secondary position in the coursebook, these ‘Everyday English’ sections contain most
valuable language items necessary in day to day interaction, be it with native, second or
foreign language users of English. ‘Everyday English’ sections are dedicated, for example, to
social expressions (‘Excuse me’, ‘I’m sorry’, ‘It doesn’t matter’ in unit 4), telling the time (in
unit 3), or shopping dialogues in units 11 and 13. All of these are certainly important language
items necessary to improve learners’ fluency, yet the NHE Student’s Book only allots them an
inferior position.
Similarly, in unit 5, a listening and speaking exercise called ‘Homes around the world’
initially seems to concentrate on students’ skills to listen for detail and exchange information
since they are expected to complete a chart with the relevant information which they later
share with the group. The Teacher’s Book, on the other hand, coerces the teacher to ‘mak[e]
sure students produce the correct third person singular forms when talking (...)’ (J. & L. Soars
with A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s Book 2006: 43). Here, the initial focus seems to be on fluency
and interaction, yet the instructions for the teacher reveal the underlying focus on form.
Particularly in the light of the intercultural communicative competence, an excessive
focus on grammar can be regarded as detrimental to learners’ development of fluency, a
crucial element for natural interaction. Like the focus on interaction with native speakers, this
emphasis on grammar does not encourage fluency or natural exchanges among learners and
here the question arises whether such a course is really adequate for ELT students in
Luxembourg.
As mentioned earlier, NHE Third Edition presents English as a uniform and homogeneous
language, free from interferences and varieties by favouring a limited range of accents. In the
same vein, the focus on discrete grammar items which encourages learners to fill gaps and
learn ‘snippets’ of language also presents the language as tidy, describable and easy to
theorise (Pennycook 1994, as quoted in Pickering 1992: 22, 28). Students are consequently
only exposed to a limited amount of language in very precise contexts, which does not allow
them to interact in real life; in other words, it does not prepare the learners for ‘survival’ in
authentic contexts (Pickering 1992: 28).
57
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
In NHE, the way in which the language is presented allows for the items to be
categorised and organised according to a strict system. This system of rules and norms
appears to be universal and therefore neutral; hence the language can be seen as isolated and
removed from social, cultural and political influences (Pennycook 1994, as quoted in
Pickering 1992: 22). This separation of language and context, however, also implies breaking
the link between language and culture, since, as seen in chapter 1, language and culture are
intrinsically connected. In the same way as speaking a language does not mean understanding
the cultural implications, understanding the grammatical makeup of a language therefore does
not allow the speaker an insight into the cultural values and beliefs of a group of people.
Even if coursebooks attempt to show grammar as a neutral ground, the fact that a
particular standard variety of written English is taught over any other also carries cultural
meaning. In fact, the neutrality of grammar is a myth (see Pickering 1992: 21-23) since the
variety taught to students across the globe is associated with the education system in Englishspeaking countries and therefore represents the variety used by ‘educated people’ (see
Trudgill 1995, as quoted in Gray 2010: 49). Accordingly, grammar learning is not a ‘neutral’
area of language; it carries a cultural and social message just as much as accents do. An
example of the implications of grammar teaching is for example the use of the present perfect
in opposition to the past simple. In the grammar reference for unit 14, NHE specifies the uses
of the present perfect in relation to indefinite past-time adverbs like ‘yet’ or ‘ever’ (J. & L.
Soars, NHE Student’s Book 2006: 147). This is of course the correct usage for British English,
yet in American English for instance, it is perfectly acceptable to use the past simple instead
of the present perfect in sentences that refer to the past and include an indefinite time
indication (see Swan 2005: 444). Decisions about teaching grammar thus also carry a deeply
cultural and social message and cannot be regarded as being entirely neutral.
2.4.3 Linguistic Capital and Empowerment
The global spread of English has led authors to argue that English can be regarded as ‘the
language of globalization’ (see Gray 2010: 16) that is used by a large number of people as
their working language, or as a lingua franca. In that sense, English can be considered to be a
58
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
linguistic capital which brings advantages to those who speak it. Consequently, fluency in
English allows for a kind of empowerment, yet authors like H.D. Brown have claimed that
the very act of teaching English may have the residual effect of
widening the gap between “haves” and “have-nots” by enabling an
elite class to distinguish itself from a less powerful group by the
ability to use English (Brown 2007b: 518).
As a result, if English is seen as an asset which guarantees empowerment and social
advancement, it can eventually also create inequalities and could even be used to reinforce
hegemonic and social ends. Teaching and learning English thus also carries a strong cultural
message because the simple fact that it is taught across the globe shows the political and
cultural importance attached to it.
Bearing in mind the various connotations and implications attached to uses of accent and
varieties, teaching English, particularly the norms in coursebooks like NHE, thus involves a
lot of covert messages regarding the value of the language and the uses it should be put to. All
of these implicit beliefs convey the ‘hidden curriculum’ of the coursebook, the implied values
that are transferred through choices of language and accent. At the same time, the very act of
learning and teaching (a particular accent and variety of) English also creates political and
social ramifications as it reveals the underlying assumptions of those who select course
material and syllabi.
59
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
2.5
Texts and Topics in New Headway Elementary
Given NHE’s focus on grammar and language forms, understanding texts and dealing with
topics generally remain secondary aims in the coursebook. For instance, unit 4 (‘Take it
easy!) is based on the theme of free time and leisure activities. In this context, the Teacher’s
Book claims that
this lends itself to much practice, personalized and otherwise, of the
main grammatical aim, which is the introduction of all other persons
(those without the –s!) of the Present Simple tense (J. & L. Soars with
A. Maris, NHE Teacher’s Book 2006: 28).
This shows that content and vocabulary development are subordinate to grammar features, in
this case the present simple tense. Learning about leisure activities is only a means to an end,
even though the title of the unit suggests otherwise. In fact, the units are usually named after
their main topic, yet the overall focus is always a grammatical one. NHE seems to structure
the units around contextual aims, implying a focus on fluency and communicative skills,
while the main underlying objective remains accuracy work. Nonetheless, as the contextual
basis for grammar learning, the texts and topics also play an important role when analysing
the setup of the coursebook as they carry a cultural message, too.
2.5.1 Materialism, Consumerism and Entertainment
The various topics in NHE can be summed up as concentrating on subjects such as family and
relationships, food and fitness, working life and leisure activities, famous people, shopping
and consumerism, travel and adventures. All of these make the realities in the coursebook
appear two-dimensional and overly homogenised because the topics often concentrate on
western (or Anglo-centric) values such as materialism and consumerism. The focus on the
production and consumption of food (units 9 and 2), international travel (units 10, 12 and 14),
urban living (units 2 and 5) and shopping (units 2, 11 and 13) creates an overly simplistic
world view in which people welcome the consumption of products and are able to spend
60
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
money casually (see Pickering 1992: 24). These recurring topics inevitably underline western
values such as individualism, cosmopolitanism, affluence and mobility (see Gray 2010: 3) and
establish them as the norm. The authors’ decisions and choices about the content position the
reader and imply preferred readings which ultimately project and confirm a set of norms or
ideals and ideological taken-for-granteds (see Pickering 1992: 16). The recurrence of several
topics suggests a common interest between authors and users across the world in such
‘universal’ subjects.
In addition, the western values exemplified by this selection of topics also portray a
world where people are constantly busy and never bored. Subjects such as working life (unit
3), leisure activities (unit 4), adventures (unit 12), and holidays (unit 7 ‘Describing a
Holiday’, ‘Filling in Forms – Booking a hotel’, unit 14) all illustrate this constructed reality
where people are constantly occupied, entertained and active. Ceri Bevan, the family lawyer
and semi-professional rugby player in unit 4 who does not have any free time, is probably the
most prominent example to underline this constant activity. Her statement ‘I work hard and I
play hard, too!’ sums up her life attitude and the persistent lack of boredom.
The fact that the NHE Student’s Book is full of stories about exceptional or famous
people and their achievements suggests that the users of the coursebook also require constant
entertainment. Examples of such reports are for instance Seumas McSporran, the man with
thirteen jobs (unit 3), Shirley Temple Black, the former actress and politician (unit 7), Joss
Stone, the white soul singer (unit 6), Tanya Streeter, the free-diver (unit 12), or Yuri Gagarin,
the first man in space (unit 7). Moreover, some of the stories about unusual people even
feature rather bizarre accounts such as, for example, the texts in unit 14 about two people who
refused to get a driver’s licence. The ‘consumers’ of the coursebooks for whom the topics
have been selected are thus characterised as uniformly eager for information and
entertainment. Angela Pickering therefore defines coursebooks like this as having a feel of
‘infotainment’ about them, focusing on information and entertainment in opposition to
education7 (1992: 26).
7
Incidentally, although Pickering’s critique of Headway Upper-Intermediate was written over a decade before
NHE (3rd edition) was published, and deconstructs a different level of the course, a number of her points are still
61
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
Because the coursebook is designed to appeal to a large international market, it can be
regarded as a mass media text meant to be consumed in a variety of contexts (Pickering 1992:
14). In such circumstances, the consumers are inevitably idealised or standardised, and in the
case of NHE, they are reduced to being consumers hungry for exceptional stories and texts
that are supported by a large amount of photographs and other visual prompts. Moreover,
given the fact that NHE is on based western values of individualism, consumerism and
entertainment, the users are inevitably also believed to share these principles. Consequently,
Gray defines global coursebooks like NHE as ‘constructed artefacts’ which address students
and teachers as consumers and which are created on the assumption that ‘one size fits all’.
This presupposition is based on the idea of a ‘standard consumer’ who welcomes the
constructed artefact which benefits the masses (see Gray 2010: 3).
Since the coursebook also transmits implicit cultural messages (the ‘hidden
curriculum’), be it by the language (variety/accent) or the methodology that is used, or by the
values transmitted, it can be said to convey covert ideological and economical content (Gray
2010: 3). In the case of NHE, the overall attitude towards money and the suggestion of
material comfort, for example, insinuate a capitalistic world view. Materialistic goods are
repeatedly portrayed as having an important value in people’s life. In the same vein, the
individual is given more attention than the group or community, which the various accounts
of famous or exceptional people underscore. Therefore, NHE clearly supports individualist
world views in which each and everyone is responsible for their own fate. In terms of
ideology, the capitalist message is certainly never openly acknowledged, yet the unspoken
values transmitted are nonetheless rather tangible.
Examples of this capitalist and individualist world view can be found for instance in
unit 3, where two successful businesspeople are portrayed, namely Iman and Giorgio
Locatelli. Both are foreigners who have managed to realise their (American) dream abroad, in
the US and the UK, respectively. As people who have left behind their home countries
(Somalia and Italy), they are portrayed as individuals who have become successful of their
relevant and applicable to the more recent version(s) of the elementary coursebook, which evidently shows that
the different levels and editions of the course include recurring approaches and topics.
62
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
own accord by realising the capitalist dream in the Anglo-Saxon world. Other characters in
the Student’s Book who have become successful through hard work are for instance Ceri
Bevan, the lawyer and rugby player, Tanya Streeter, the free diver or Seumas McSporran, the
man with thirteen jobs. All of these portrayals suggest that by exerting oneself, people will
eventually by successful, which reflects the principle of the capitalist world view.
2.5.2 Globalization, Internationalisation and Technologization
The predominant capitalist world view also strongly echoes globalised and internationalised
political ideals. The presence of brands such as Sony, Nokia, Vogue, Coca-Cola, Wrangler
Jeans, Palmolive and Walt Disney (see units 1, 8 and 13) exemplifies the dominance and
global spread of international companies. By featuring such products in an educational
coursebook, the authors overtly accept and affirm such political and cultural values. Through
the use of materials such as NHE, the teaching of English, the commonly used lingua franca
and the language of globalization, then turns teachers (and students) into allies of such neoimperialism in political and cultural battles (see Gray 2010: 16-17).
In terms of technologization, the Student’s Book is also biased towards highly
technologically advanced societies and cultures. In fact, the first double page of the course in
unit 1 already includes two large photographs of students inside a computer room or language
laboratory. Modern computer equipment, laptops, mobile phones, digital cameras, video game
consoles, DVD players etc. (see units 1, 4, 5, 14) in the coursebook are all proof of the
world’s technological development, which is shown as a global phenomenon in NHE.
Conversely, the coursebook also occasionally portrays people or societies excluded from such
technological advancements. In unit 7, for example, the text ‘Food around the world’ includes
pictures of food production and consumption from around the world. Some of the
photographic material (the nomadic people eating traditional food for instance) suggests a
world far removed from modern technologies. Another example is Alise from Samoa, in unit
5, who describes her traditional house without walls near the sea. However, these remain
exceptions in the coursebook; the fact that all other portrayals of people and situations almost
exclusively include pictures, references, or at least the suggestion of modern technologies,
63
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
thus establishes these as the norm. Consequently, those who do not have access to them are
depicted as an excluded minority.
2.5.3 Safe EFL Topics
As global coursebooks are designed to appeal to an international audience, the contents need
to be adapted to these purposes accordingly. Even though a lot of the stories in NHE are about
exceptional people and their (at times bizarre) stories, they still qualify as ‘safe’ EFL topics
intended not to offend potential customers around the globe. As mentioned above, the
selection of topics presupposes a common ground between authors and users/consumers and
the assumption of shared cultural norms or ideals. In fact, the Anglo-centric view of the world
as portrayed in NHE conjectures that the values attached to it (individualism, capitalistic
incentives, mobility, affluence, technology, etc.) are inevitably shared by all the users around
the globe. This assumption of shared ideals, however, only works to the point of not offending
potential buyers. Although NHE bears a strongly cultural message, some topics or ideals are
nevertheless deliberately excluded in order to achieve greater approval among consumers.
Obvious absences and silences in NHE prove this intentional adjustment of content to create
the illusion of a homogeneous world where people all share the same ideals and can therefore
all use the same coursebook.
Prominent examples of supposedly inappropriate topics which have purposely been
left out are often referred to by the acronym PARSNIP (politics, alcohol, religion, sex,
narcotics, isms and pork). These topics which need to be avoided at all cost, or should at least
not be mentioned explicitly, are based on perceived customer sensitivities and are
communicated to the authors according to the markets which each coursebook targets (see
Gray 2010: 119). Given the international presence of NHE, globally delicate topics such as
politics and religion need to be avoided just as much as for instance pork, which could offend
consumers in the Middle East. Political and ideological stances, or ‘Isms’, like feminism,
(neo)colonialism or nationalism are likely to cause debate and disagreement, which could
deter potential users and therefore need to be kept out of the coursebook, too. In fact, Luke
Meddings has argued that the ELT global coursebook has become ‘a victim of its global
64
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
success’ as it has been homogenised or ‘air-brushed’ as the result of being a ‘bankable
property’ (2006: ll. 5-10).
The result of this conscious adaptation of content is a series of absences and silences
which create a fake kind of reality, a sanitised and vacuous view of the world, as Angela
Pickering qualifies it (1992: 25). Although the content of NHE is clearly influenced by
Western cultural and ideological values, the fact that other ideals are evidently absent makes
the coursebook appear anodyne and devoid of context at times. The way in which British (and
American) culture is portrayed in NHE suggests a homogeneous form of culture in which all
members share the same ideals and values, and which represents a received (or traditional)
view of culture, as outlined by Atkinson’s statement in chapter 1. In reality, however, cultures
cannot be regarded as being uniform or homogeneous in this way because they all have
internal divergences, inequalities or disagreements which engender the creation of subcultures
or subgroups (see DeCapua and Wintergerst 2004: 12; Atkinson 1999: 627). By avoiding and
ignoring such differences, the authors attempt to create a supposedly neutral representation of
culture, a ‘cultural middle way’ (Pickering 1992: 27); the result is, however, in no way neutral
since it largely ignores internal nuances and differences.
With regard to the set of taboos that the PARSNIP outlines, NHE certainly avoids
some of these topics: politics, narcotics and sex are clearly left out although students in
Luxembourg will eventually need to deal with more political or social topics at upperintermediate or advanced level. Religion is never mentioned openly either; it only appears
under the cover of ‘special occasions’ or celebrations in unit 8. References to Christmas,
Halloween (or All Saints’ Eve) and Easter reveal a Christian world view, yet this is the only
time that the topic of religion is ever acknowledged. If we bear in mind the secularisation of
religious holidays in the Western world, and of Christmas in particular, the allusion in the
coursebook certainly does not risk causing a severe offence to people of other creeds.
Moreover, the pictures used to illustrate the religious holidays - a Christmas tree with a
snowman ornament and a set of coloured Easter eggs - also secularise the potentially religious
message since any references to the biblical meanings of these holidays have deliberately
been omitted.
65
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
Other supposedly taboo topics can also be encountered in the Student’s Book:
alcoholic drinks for instance, appear several times in different units (3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11),
usually in social contexts such as dinner at the restaurant or with the family. Another
potentially offensive topic, pork, also figures twice in the Student’s Book, both times in forms
of bacon: the first instance is a pizza with meat in unit 2 and the second example is a picture
of a full English breakfast in unit 9. Both topics seem to have made their way into the
coursebook because they play a significant role in British eating and drinking habits and
therefore apparently have the right to figure in a coursebook with an English-speaking country
as its main setting. In opposition to overly delicate topics such as politics or religion, food and
drink habits clearly represent a smaller potential for offence and can thus appear in a
coursebook as a legitimate part of the cultural baggage (everyday habits or culture 2, with a
lower case c) attached to the target language.
Other so-called ‘hot topics’ which do not normally find their way into coursebooks like NHE
are for instance gender, environmental action, discrimination or human rights, as these all
represent a great potential for conflict (Brown 2007b: 515). These can of course be regarded
as being part of the ‘politics’ topic of the PARSNIP, yet Brown focuses more on conflict
among members of the same learner group (or class) than on tensions arising due to cultural
differences between authors and users. In fact, Brown recommends great care when dealing
with problems such as discrimination in class since topics like these are likely to polarise
students and constitute potential for ideological dispute. Here, the fact that most texts in NHE
are strongly adapted or even pre-fabricated and written only for the course explains how the
authors manage to avoid ‘hot topics’ throughout (see Kramsch 1993a: 177). There are of
course authentic texts, for example the one about the man with thirteen jobs, which the
Teacher’s Book immediately identifies as such (see J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE
Teacher’s Book 2006: 24), yet this is definitely the exception rather than the norm and this
text does not qualify as containing a ‘hot topic’ either.
Artificial or strongly adapted texts in coursebooks allow for authors to construct their
own cultural reality, complete with idealised models and a culture which appears discrete,
66
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
predictable and homogeneous. The cultural and ideological choices made by the authors of
these texts consequently legitimise and normalise a set of attitudes while stigmatising others.
The texts then become a site of cultural politics and imply preferred readings and
interpretations (Pickering 1992: 1). However, such a discrete view of texts and their cultural
meanings ignores the fact that reading is deeply socially influenced, since the context in
which a reader interacts with a piece of writing is dependent on his/her background;
individual reactions or interpretations therefore remain personal and unpredictable. The NHE
Teacher’s Book states that ‘all the texts for listening and reading come from authentic sources,
and are simplified and adapted to suit the level’ (see J. & L. Soars with A. Maris, NHE
Teacher’s Book 2006: 4). Adjusting the language level of authentic texts for beginners at
elementary level is indeed a legitimate and necessary practice, yet by intentionally selecting
or modifying texts in order to avoid offence, the authors re-create a new kind of discourse
with preferred or fixed interpretations and understandings. Consequently, the fact that the
texts all have authentic sources does not mean that their message and content have not been
adapted irrevocably. Texts like those about famous or exceptional people, for example, which
may indeed have a genuine and real source, therefore do not necessarily qualify as authentic
anymore. In fact, the product found in the coursebook could be so deeply modified and far
removed from the original that it can be regarded as artificial.
Here, of course, the question arises whether the standardised context of a language
classroom can ever do justice to an authentic text which was written with a precise social
purpose (Kramsch 1993a: 177). As Widdowson claims, authenticity depends on the
appropriate response of the receiver, on the interaction between hearer/reader and the text,
which represents or incorporates the intentions of the writer/speaker (Widdowson 1979: 166,
as quoted in Kramsch 1993a: 178). At the same time, if authors of a course have considerably
adapted and changed a text to make it conform to a set of norms based on cultural sensitivities
of potential buyers, then the intentions of a writer/speaker have certainly been lost irrevocably
in the process. Even if one supposes that the authenticity of a text can survive simplification
of its language, a conscious adaptation of its content and purpose will almost inevitably
destroy its authentic character as the response of the receiver will be different. Particularly if
one bears in mind that the context of a particular text or discourse is created through the
67
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
dialogue between the reader and the text, this context is permanently affected if the nature and
message of a text have been altered. No interpersonal or authentic negotiation between
receiver and text can be established and in that case, the coursebook authors have managed to
impose their preferred readings and interpretations.
Consciously adapting texts thus also implies a preferred reader who responds to the
texts in the way that is intended by the authors. Particularly if texts have been chosen to
introduce certain grammatical structures, the purpose derived from them will remain purely
grammatical (Kramsch 1993a: 137). As the NHE Student’s Book tends to use small
introductory texts at the beginning of a unit to present new grammar structures, the desired
reader involvement is clearly not meant to go beyond a focus on form. Ceri Bevan, the family
lawyer and rugby player at the beginning of unit 4 is again a good example to illustrate this:
the instructions in the Student’s Book invite students to complete the text with appropriate
verbs in the correct form of the present simple before asking and answering questions about
Bevan based on the information in the text in order to consolidate the forms. The final use of
the text is to guide the students’ discovery of adverbs of frequency, yet the courseboook does
not encourage any further involvement with the content of the text such as analysing the
implications of Bevan’s overly busy lifestyle, for instance. The various instructions in the
Student’s Book, which guide teachers and students when dealing with texts and topics, show
that the coursebook often uses texts purely on a grammatical basis and does not promote any
form of deeper engagement with the content. In these cases, the preferred readings advocate a
focus on superficial interpretations of the text and consequently push learners and students to
adopt the readings and interpretations prescribed by the authors. Only a conscious divergence
from the coursebook structure will allow teachers to foster greater and more critical
understanding of a text among their students. This will give them the opportunity to respond
to a text based on their culturally influenced schemata, which might not necessarily concur
with those of the authors (see Kramsch 1993a: 152). If cultural differences emerge based on
varying interpretations of a text, then a dialogue between the learner and the text has been
created (Kramsch 1993: 177). However, this is not possible if a text is only used for its
grammatical structures. Hence, if coursebooks do not encourage a cultural reading and
interpretation, real exchanges and cultural learning cannot take place since the learners do not
68
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
compare their own schemata and world views with those encountered in the text. Trying to
avoid cultural exchanges and analyses of course also prevents potential for cultural conflict,
which could be one of the aims of the coursbook writers. In the case of Ceri Bevan for
instance, a cultural interpretation of the content might entail a debate on gender and women in
the working (and sporting) world, which is likely to cause (cultural) disagreement and is
therefore not necessarily a desirable outcome for the coursebook authors.
2.6
Representational Practices in New Headway Elementary
After outlining the commonly accepted guidelines regarding ‘inappropriate’ topics, I will now
proceed to an analysis of the representational practices which authors are meant to follow
when producing ELT materials (Gray 2010: 113). In general, coursebooks should have a nonsexist approach, both linguistically and visually, and fairness and balance should apply
regarding the representations of age, class, ethnic origin and disability (Gray 2010: 112-113).
In practice, this means that both men and women, as well as people of different social and
ethnic backgrounds should be visible in materials throughout. In contrast, stereotypical
characteristics and particular associations of jobs with men, women or ethnic groups should
be avoided. Moreover, authors must refrain from the use of sexist or racist terms just as much
as from the use of masculine generics (Gray 2010: 115).
2.6.1 Ethnicity and Multiculturalism in NHE
As seen in the analysis of language and accents used in NHE, the coursebook does not reflect
crucial linguistic variables such as ethnicity because important immigrant communities (e.g.
Asians) are excluded almost entirely from the tapescripts in the Student’s Book. However, this
is not the case in visually representative terms as there are numerous pictures of people with
migratory and varying ethnic backgrounds in the coursebook. Examples are for instance the
69
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
Asian and African families in units 2 and 8 respectively, or the eclectic blend of ethnicities in
the ‘Everyday English’ sections in units 6, 8 and 11. The coursebook thus makes a
considerable effort to use inclusive visual material in order to reflect the multicultural
character of British and American societies. In this case, the authors certainly followed the
guidelines for fairness and balance of representations of ethnicity throughout. However, the
fact that divergences of ethnicity can be discerned in the picture material but not in the
tapescripts suggests that there are no major language difficulties among immigrant
communities and that the people with migratory background can eventually only be
distinguished due to their physical appearance but not through their language use anymore.
This rather illusory assumption of complete and seamless linguistic integration is also
echoed by the overall depiction of multiculturalism in the coursebook. In fact, the peaceful
coexistence of several cultures and ethnicities is repeatedly underlined in the NHE Student’s
Book. The pictures showing people of varying ethnicities (often together) certainly underscore
this; multiculturalism is portrayed as being uniformly positive and empowering (also see
Pickering 1992: 26).
Even so, the fact that multiculturalism rather than the ideal of the melting pot is
portrayed also implies a clear distinction between the coexisting cultures. This is exemplified
by the different portrayals of families in units 2 and 8: they all have one precise ethnic origin
(Asian, African, Caucasian, etc.) which never mixes or overlaps with others. People of a
particular ethnic background do not seem to merge with members of a different community;
the separation between varying groups of people appears to be rigid and rarely overcome. The
cultural message borne by these representations of people is undeniable yet never openly
acknowledged; cultural difference or isolation seems to be a silently accepted but
inexpressible condition.
2.6.2 Age and Disease in NHE
The NHE Student’s Book predominantly portrays young, dynamic and healthy people
throughout. The visual material almost exclusively shows active, hard-working, sporty and
70
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
successful people, mostly adults between the ages of twenty and fifty. This is illustrated well
in units 3 and 4, which focus on working life and leisure activities. Nearly all the
corresponding photographs and text references point to rather young and active people who
enjoy sports, hard work and a healthy lifestyle. The only exception to this rule is Seamus
McSporran, the 60-year-old Scotsman with thirteen jobs, yet even this slightly older man is
still portrayed as very healthy, dynamic and active (he has thirteen jobs, after all). In general,
if elderly people do appear in NHE, they are all characterised as fairly healthy, active and
integrated. At times, they are shown as slightly strange, but their incongruities are
nevertheless always portrayed as very endearing, as shown by the two people in unit 14 who
refused to learn how to drive: both are portrayed as very energetic people who share a dislike
for cars, a landmark of mobility in our modern lifestyle.
Moreover, elderly people in the Student’s Book are always part of their family or
surrounding community; as grandmothers or grandfathers, they are never shown as isolated or
excluded (see units 2, 8 or 9). Disabilities or disease, among young or old, are completely
disregarded and this obvious absence in the coursebook exemplifies the sanitised and
‘airbrushed’ view of the world presented. The kind of illnesses that do appear are trivial
things like colds or headaches that can be cured with painkillers (see unit 13: ‘At the
chemist’s’), while more serious conditions like cancer, mental health problems or physical
disability are completely excluded. This kind of discrimination through omission in NHE is
very subtle since the elderly and the sick are never openly disadvantaged, yet their absence
and resulting silence is nevertheless rather obvious.
2.6.3 Homosexuality in NHE
Another absence in the NHE course which could qualify as a form of ‘sanitisation’ of the
content is that of homosexuals. Gay or lesbian couples are never portrayed openly while there
are, however, numerous references to and photographs of heterosexual couples (see for
example Luc and Dominique in unit 1, Carly and Ned or Eric and Lore in unit 8). In unit 1,
the two young Hungarians, Zoli and Kristóf, are examples of the kind of covert allusion to
homosexuality in NHE because, as the two appear in an exercise on country names, they do
71
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
not necessarily strike the user immediately as a gay couple. Yet, the fact that all the other
characters are either on their own or shown with their family, suggests that the two men are
connected by more than mere friendship. This kind of concealment of homosexuality, in
opposition to the obvious presence of heterosexual couples, suggests that relationships
between males and females still qualify as the norm whereas homosexuality is regarded as
posing a potential for conflict. As a result, open references to homosexuality seem to have
been left out intentionally because they could offend users in countries where homophobia is
still a predominant problem.
Regarding the fair and balanced portrayals of people in the coursebook, NHE certainly
does not reflect an accurate image of contemporary British (or American) society since
homosexual couples are openly disadvantaged in comparison to their heterosexual
counterparts. What is more, this unbalanced representation does not reflect the general
tolerance towards homosexuality in the Western world and, consequently, an important
feature of modern Anglo-Saxon culture has been falsified in order not to affront possible
buyers. In that sense, core values of modern Anglo-Saxon cultures such as the tolerance of
difference and the desire for equality among people have been diluted once again in order to
appeal to a wider, more global audience.
2.6.4 Families in NHE
The predominance of heterosexual couples in NHE is reinforced even further by the presence
of traditional nuclear families. In opposition to the extended family, which characterises
cultures with collective ideals, NHE includes smaller nuclear families almost exclusively.
However, this disregards the large number of immigrant communities (Indian or African for
instance) whose sense of belonging is frequently defined by their family structure (see
Hofstede 1991:67). As a characteristic of individualist societies, nuclear families illustrate the
focus on smaller groups or the individual, and given their presence in the Student’s Book, this
kind of domestic structure is established as the norm while important immigrant communities
and their cultural make-up are ignored. Thus, in NHE, cultural and social values attached to
the target language are portrayed as being homogeneous, predictable and discrete, without
72
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
interferences (Pickering 1992: 24); yet this rather nostalgic, if not prejudiced, view of AngloSaxon culture clearly represents a form of constructed culture, a sanitization of reality.
Moreover, the nuclear families found in NHE are all shown as intact and happy. There
are few, if any, references to divorce or deaths; children generally grow up in a protected,
steady and unbroken family environment. Some fitting examples of this are the Irishman
Patrick Binchey and his family from Cork, or Danka’s host family in Brighton (both in unit
2). In fact, the deplorable number of broken homes and families in the UK, for instance, is not
mentioned openly, which exemplifies the obvious adaptation of the content and the
constructed cultural reality communicated to the users through the coursebook material.
2.6.5 Education and Employment in NHE
Similarly, the people presented in the Student’s Book all tend to have steady and generally
well-paid jobs. They are for example teachers, journalists, accountants, doctors, nurses or
businesspeople, who all love their jobs and are motivated to work hard. Their ambitions and
aspirations never seem to be thwarted and setbacks are usually just minor ‘bumps’ on their
road to success. Out-of-work people or members of the community living from benefits, on
the other hand, are never mentioned; they do not seem to fit into the image of a world where
hard work inevitably leads to success. The only example where poverty is mentioned openly
is the story ‘The Christmas Presents’ in unit 13 where a poor young woman sells her long hair
to buy a Christmas present for her beloved husband. This rather nostalgic and romantic
portrayal of poverty suggests that lack of material comfort can be entirely compensated by
love and devotion, but it does not touch upon social issues causing poverty or the devastating
consequences of having to live in dire need.
Poverty, unemployment or lack of education do not have a place in the world
portrayed in NHE, which is thus another example of the polished content and constructed
culture conveyed to users around the world. By depicting a majority of people as educated,
middle-class and fairly well-off, the coursebook creates a norm which excludes individuals
from different educational or social backgrounds and disregards influences from the higher or
73
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
lower ends of the social continuum. This importance of the ‘ordinary’ stands in stark contrast
to the numerous portrayals of extraordinary people and their respective achievements. As seen
above, the latter seem to be used in the coursebook in order to entertain the users, who are
more likely to identify themselves with ordinary people and the norms conveyed through
them.
This analysis of the representational practices which dominate the NHE Student’s Book
illustrates how certain social realities such as divorce, age and disease, poverty,
homosexuality or inter-cultural tensions have been consciously adapted or – more frequently omitted in order to create a homogeneous and distinct form of constructed reality which is
meant to reflect a neutral image of British (or American) culture. The result, however, is an
oversimplified, distorted and veneered caricature which is in no way neutral or representative
of the target cultural reality anymore.
Including differences and internal divergences would certainly allow for a more
balanced and realistic portrayal of the target language culture, yet one should nonetheless also
avoid a representation of culture based exclusively on difference. As seen in chapter 1, people
of a same culture tend to share similar views of life and ways of thinking without necessarily
having all the cultural markers in common. Subcultures and subgroups are an essential part of
every culture and deserve at least some attention in coursebooks claiming to provide an
accurate portrayal of the target culture.
74
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
2.7
New Headway Elementary Culture and Literature Companion
In 2009, OUP launched a complementary Culture and Literature Companion (CLC) for the
elementary course, sold together with the Student’s Book in Luxembourg and containing
twenty ‘interesting texts relating to the culture and literature of the English-speaking world,
including the UK, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada’ (Barker and Mitchell 2009:
back cover). According to the authors, features such as the ‘What do you think’ sections
provide impulses for class discussion whereas the ‘Project’ sections provide real-life writing
tasks for the students connected to the theme of each text (Barker and Mitchell 2009: back
cover). By its very nature, however, the CLC is disconnected from the main course since it
comes as a separate booklet. As a ‘companion’, it appears to be a source of extra material to
be used at the teacher’s discretion rather than being an integral part of the course.
2.7.1 Tourist Information in NHE CLC
Several of the articles in the CLC contain information similar to that found in booklets or
leaflets from tourist information centres because they are merely accumulations of facts, or
‘fact files’, which foreign visitors to the respective country might appreciate. The first article
illustrates this rather well since it is an introduction to the countries in the UK (Barker and
Mitchell 2009: 2-3). First, it outlines the differences between Great Britain and the UK before
going over the capitals of the different countries. The article then continues by introducing the
currencies used, the different populations and the languages spoken in the various areas, yet it
does not include any other information besides general geographic, political or touristic
details.
Other texts in the companion carry on in the same vein, such as for instance the article
on New Zealand, which describes the climate, wildlife and other geographical details about
the country, or the article on London (‘A walk through London’) which focuses exclusively
on sightseeing and the historical background of the featured tourist attractions (Barker and
Mitchell 2009: 26-27 and 30-31). While all of these articles are certainly informative, they
75
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
are, however, also rather superficial and unappealing. In the light of Hofstede’s view of
culture, they certainly qualify as articles on culture 1 (or objective Culture with a capital C)
since they do not go beyond the visible features of the target culture. In fact, these articles do
not invite the students to deal with cultural aspects in any great detail. The ‘What do you
think?’ and the ‘Project’ sections do not encourage a critical analysis of any pertinent cultural
feaures, they merely ask students to choose their favourite sight to visit, for instance and
invite them to compose similar fact sheets about their home country. A deeper, more thorough
kind of intercultural investigation of difference is not promoted. While an outline of the target
country’s political, geographical and linguistic features may certainly be of great value for
foreign language learners, it does, however, not replace an intercultural exchange. These
articles in the Culture and Literature Companion only allow learners to survive as tourists,
which could be seen as a first step towards intercultural communicative competence, yet they
never go beyond that level. The fact files on different countries or the maps in the sleeves of
the companion are certainly valuable tools to locate and identify certain geographical or
political traits, but they should not be regarded as a way to encourage greater intercultural
understanding. The kind of superficial comparison that they invite does not pose potential for
conflict and hence does not alienate possible buyers. In that sense, the fact files avoid the
‘hot’ topics defined by the PARSNIP and can consequently be marketed to a large
international public.
2.7.2 History and Festivals in NHE CLC
Another dominant topic in the CLC for the elementary course is the focus on festivals and
their historic origins such as for instance Bonfire Night, Halloween, Hogmanay or the
February festivals Shrove Tuesday and Valentine’s Day (Barker and Mitchell 2009: 8-9, 1011, 14-15 and 22-23). These articles are also fact files including detailed historic information
about the origins and practices regarding the various festivals. This again qualifies more as
details for visiting tourists than it fosters intercultural exchange or understanding. Festivals do
indeed reveal a lot about a people’s cultural beliefs since the various practices are part of the
historic and cultural heritage. The excessive historic details, however, do not necessarily aid
76
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
the learners’ understanding of the cultural values underlying these festivals. Even the text
itself states that, today, many British people are no longer aware of the history surrounding
Bonfire Night; it thus seems rather unnecessary to include all of it in a text for elementary
foreign language learners. A limited amount of historic information about a subject is
certainly beneficial for foreign language students as it allows them to view a festival in an
adequate context. As Kramsch has stated, culture provides the members of a group with some
historical coherence which creates a sense of belonging, yet the overly detailed articles aimed
at the foreign language learners do not foster greater understanding of the target culture
beyond a very superficial level.
Moreover, the article on Bonfire Night also gives a detailed explanation of the
different kinds of fireworks that are used as well as their respective names. Again, the overly
detailed information does not promote intercultural understanding as it merely functions as a
transmission of miscellaneous facts rather than an exchange of ideas and practices. The same
is true for the article on New Year’s Eve in Scotland (Hogmanay) and the different possible
origins of the name: Old Gaelic, Norman French, Old Dutch or Old English. Excessively
specific etymological and linguistic details of this kind certainly do not foster learners’
understanding of the cultural background surrounding the New Year’s celebrations in
Edinburgh but might even cause boredom or incomprehension.
The ‘What do you think section’ for the article on Bonfire Night is a good example to
illustrate the often fairly superficial kind of engagement with the topic that the companion
tends to further. The students are invited to think about fireworks and what they do or do not
like about them. This type of activity seems rather pointless since it does not ask the students
to think about the political and historical importance of civil disobedience or uprisings against
the powers that be in the light of Guy Fawkes’s attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
Although this section is meant to provide points for class discussion, a debate about the
students’ likes and dislikes of fireworks certainly does not qualify as a deep discussion about
cultural practices.
However, the project work for this article goes further since the students are invited to
think about celebrations involving fireworks in their country; they should also write an email
to an English friend about it. The kind of reflection and analysis involved in such an activity
77
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
certainly allows for greater cultural exchange to take place since the learners analyse and
compare their own celebrations to those of the target culture. In the light of Hofstede’s onion
diagram, Bonfire Night, as a cultural ritual, is a collective activity which is visible to
outsiders, yet it does not reveal any detail about the values of the culture as they are
unconscious and can consequently not be discussed (Hofstede 1991: 7-9). Nonetheless, the
project invites students to compare celebrations involving fireworks, which allows them to
reflect on the origins and meaning of their own festive occasions and the underlying meaning
of the latter. In this process, the students are confronted with their own cultural values and
rituals and can analyse and evaluate them from a new perspective. In the light of the
intercultural communicative competence, such an article and activity allows students to
collect information about the target culture and to ‘decentre’ their worldview while examining
and evaluating their own rituals from a new angle (savoirs about a social group, savoir être
and savoir s’engager).
Similarly, the text about Christmas around the world (Barker and Mitchell 2009: 1213) also tries to foster an exchange between the learners’ and the target culture. By giving
various ways of celebrating Christmas and the rituals attached to it, the authors intend to
foster an insight into the various practices attached to the holiday season before asking the
students to reflect on their own way of spending Christmas in a letter to an English friend.
This article certainly takes into account different cultural practices yet it fails to consider other
creeds and their end-of-year celebrations such as the Jewish celebration of Hanukkah, for
instance. In that sense, the article is very religio-centric as it concentrates exclusively on
Christianity and does not include references to other beliefs. Nonetheless, the article still gives
learners an insight into the cultural programming and collective learned behaviours of the
target group of people and thus grants the students a deeper look into the subjective culture or
culture 2 (with a lower case c) of the target people.
2.7.3 Heroes in NHE CLC
As seen in chapter 1, a second level of Hostede’s onion is that of ‘heroes’ who serve as
models due to their characteristics which are highly prized by a culture (Hofstede 1991: 8).
78
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
An example in the CLC is the text on Robin Hood, ‘England’s most famous folk hero’
(Barker and Mitchell 2009: 28-29), which describes the historical background of the figure
and the debate about the origins of the name and the different versions of the story. Again the
companion provides the students with an arsenal of detailed historic information which is not
necessarily useful in understanding the role and importance of Robin Hood in British culture.
A deeper insight into Robin Hood’s character, be it his courage, his sense of justice or his
righteousness is not given; the students are left to read between the lines and deduce these on
their own. Although the learners are invited to reflect on a folk hero/heroine of their choice,
they are not provided with a precise description of the qualities which made Robin Hood
become an immortal folk hero in the first place. Consequently, the resulting cultural exchange
is bound to remain fairly superficial; however, the fact that the students learn about a folk
hero of the target culture can still promote their understanding of the values and practices that
constitute it.
2.7.4 Symbols in NHE CLC
Symbols, as a superficial expression of culture, form the outer layer of Hofstede’s onion and
are ‘words (...) or objects that carry a particular meaning which is only recognized by those
who share the culture’ (Hofstede 1991: 7). In the companion, the article about tea in Britain is
an example of such a symbol (Barker and Mitchell 2009: 24-25). The practice of drinking tea
in Britain is indeed a kind of symbol familiar only to those who know the culture fairly well.
It is of course a known fact that the British love their cup of tea, but the more detailed
information about which kind of tea is drunk and at what time of day, as well as younger
people’s resistance to drink it gives a more thorough picture of the importance of tea in the
target culture. As symbols are, according to Hofstede, transient and therefore superficial, the
importance of such a symbol is consequently diminished (see Hofstede 1991: 7) but learners
can still gain a useful, albeit short, insight into the day-to-day collective and learned activities
of the target culture. This text thus allows learners a brief insight into British culture by giving
them a template for social behaviour (see Brown 2007b: 133). Unfortunately, the text on the
79
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
following page on the history of tea in the UK is another example of the overly detailed
approach to background facts that can be found throughout the CLC.
The consumption of tea, as a cultural practice, reveals part of a collective, everyday
behaviour and can thus qualify as a reflection of C2 or culture with a lower case c, which
should provide learners with a better understanding of the target culture. Ideally, this kind of
knowledge will allow learners to interact better with members of the British culture and will
also enable them to interpret experiences and relate them to their own background. This type
of article thus supports the development of an intercultural communicative competence
because it helps students first to understand and interpret (savoir comprendre), and then to
compare and evaluate experiences of - or knowledge about - the target culture from a new
point of view. Ultimately, this might support the learners’ application of their new knowledge
in real-life interaction with native speakers and could help them to understand them better in
the process (savoir apprendre/faire).
2.7.5 Literature in NHE CLC
To this point, I have only analysed texts from the ‘culture’ section in the CLC and I will now
proceed to an examination of the literary texts which are assembled at the end of the
companion. The texts are by authors who are either of British (McGough, Cope, Cooper
Clarke), Irish (Wilde, Stoker) or American (Twain) descent, which already underlines the
ethnocentric perspective on literature in the elementary companion. Although the back cover
claims to include texts from around the English-speaking world, countries such as Canada,
Australia and New Zealand are disregarded in the literature part.
Even though the literary texts in the companion emanate from a limited geographic
scope, they are not exclusively canonic in their origins. The excerpts by Mark Twain (The
Adventures of Tom Sawyer), Oscar Wilde (The Canterville Ghost) and Bram Stoker (Dracula)
can of course be viewed as conventional and time-honoured texts of English-speaking
literature, whereas the poems by John Cooper Clarke (‘I wanna be yours’), Roger McGough
(‘Mafia Cats’) or Wendy Cope (‘The Orange’, ‘Valentine’ and ‘Kindness to Animals’) do not
80
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
necessarily qualify as typical examples of long-established ‘highbrow’ literature. This rather
eclectic blend shows the effort made by the authors of the companion to find an inclusive and
varied selection while avoiding a one-sided and overly traditional choice of texts.
Literature itself, however, always qualifies as an instance of culture 1, or Culture with
a capital c, because it is seen as ‘refinement of the mind’ (Hofstede 1991: 5) and is not
associated with people’s mental programming. In that sense, literature is objective and visible
because it can be described and analysed, in opposition to the elements referring to culture 2,
which are not easily perceived. As a result, based on the dichotomy between culture 1 and
culture 2, the literary texts in the CLC do not aid learners’ understanding of the target culture;
in other words, the articles do not foster greater awareness of the ways in which the people of
the target culture view or interpret the world.
What is more, including literature in the companion also implies that the learners will
be able to understand the texts and the implied meanings in the way that a reader from the
target culture would. However, discrepancies may arise between the interpretations of the
culturally-intended reader and the culturally-foreign reader. For instance, silences in a text
could be filled in unintended ways as the latter do not read between the lines in the same way
as the former would.
The foreign language learners’ personal and cultural context of
reception is inevitably different from that intended by the author; hence misunderstandings
may arise due to the reader’s and author’s difference in knowledge and experience (or
schemata) (Kramsch 1993: 126-128). Mismatching schemata may cause frustration among
students when reading literature since they are likely to feel ‘confronted with a ready-made
world of meanings upon which they have no control’ (Kramsch 1993a: 105). Moreover, the
socio-historical connotations of many known words used out of context in these texts are
likely to be unfamiliar and intimidating for foreign language learners. Therefore, reading
literary texts in communication-oriented classes can be problematic since teachers need to
familiarise their students with the universally-shared meanings of everyday language while, at
the same time, working with texts in which ordinary language is used in unexpected ways
(Kramsch 1993a: 105-106).
Nevertheless, one should not forget that, as seen in chapter one, meaning is created
when readers negotiate with a text based on their own background and experience.
81
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
Interpretations deviating from the author’s intended understanding of the text do not
necessarily have to be regarded as flawed; they merely elucidate different perspectives and
readings of a particular text. However, these interpretations, albeit influenced by the learners’
background, do not necessarily support their understanding of the target culture and their
validity in communication-oriented classes or courses which aim at developing an
intercultural communicative competence may be questioned.
In addition, from a purely language-oriented point of view, reading literary texts in an
elementary class, whether simplified or not, is likely to confront learners with a large amount
of unknown lexis, which could stifle motivation, particularly among weaker learners.
Analysing and unpacking meaning is consequently a tedious task which does not allow
learners to develop competences or skills that will help them understand and communicate
with people of the target culture. Therefore, the use and effectiveness of dealing with literary
texts in elementary classes need to be reconsidered.
After having analysed a variety of articles from the Culture and Literature Companion, it
becomes obvious that the kind of culture presented mainly qualifies as objective culture or
Culture 1 with a capital C, since the articles rarely focus on daily practices or cultural
phenomena that characterise a particular group of people. Because they do not convey any
information about the values or beliefs of the target culture, they can be seen as devoid of
context. Very few texts support the learners’ development of an intercultural communicative
competence and thus most of the CLC content does not really qualify as beneficial for foreign
language learners. Most of the articles are certainly interesting and informative from a
historical or tourist perspective since they provide a lot of factual details. On the other hand,
as they only contain declarative knowledge, they do not promote the development of an
intercultural communicative competence, which is, however, crucial for learners to
understand and effectively communicate with native speakers.
82
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
2.8
NHE - Conclusions
The analysis of the New Headway Elementary (third edition) course has revealed a number of
ways in which the authors have created a homogenised and reduced image of Anglo-Saxon
culture. Approaches to language and accent, methodology, texts and topics, representational
practices as well as the make-up of the Culture and Literature Companion all expose an effort
to generate a constructed form of culture which is meant to appear uniform, inoffensive and
unbiased. The end result, however, is often a bland and vacuous portrayal which even
discriminates covertly by omitting essential elements of the target culture. This impression is
supported even further by aspects such as language use and methodology which might not
immediately be connected to culture, yet conscious choices of accent, variety and
methodology complement the intricately constructed or manufactured representation of
culture which can be marketed to customers around the globe. The values communicated by
the supposedly neutral topics and approaches to learning show a deeply culturally reduced
world view which is broadcast as universal and therefore neutral.
NHE (third edition) has been a popular coursebook in Luxembourg for years, yet based on the
aims outlined by the Ministry of Education, its appropriacy needs to be questioned not only
because of the dominant focus on grammar, but also because of the culturally biased message
that it sends and which does not comply with the needs of language learners in Luxembourg.
In the next chapter, I will examine the connotations attached to English as an International
Language (EIL) to see if a model of instruction based on that notion could be more
appropriate and beneficial for the Luxembourg context.
83
CHAPTER 2: CASE STUDY
84
Chapter 3: EIL - an Alternative
for
Luxembourg ?
3.1. Definition
3.1.1 What is EIL (not)?
English as an International Language (EIL) takes into account the rapidly growing number of
people who speak English as a foreign or additional language, rather than focusing only on
mother tongue speakers; hence, it reflects the recent global reach and uses of English
(Thornbury 2006: 74, Gray 2010: 17). EIL does not refer to a particular variety of the
language and should therefore not be confused with ‘International English’, which is one
specific variety of English. In fact, EIL ‘rejects the idea of any particular variety being
selected as a lingua franca for international communication’ (Sharifian 2009: 2, italics are the
author’s); it is not built upon monocentric ideals of British or American English, but it offers a
pluricentric view based on local norms (see Jenkins 2006: 160).
The term EIL is often used interchangeably with the acronym ELF (English as a
lingua franca) (Jenkins 2006: 160), yet some differences are nonetheless worth noting: ELF
research excludes data relating to native speakers while the EIL paradigm problematises the
polarisation of the English-speaking world into native and non-native speakers (NS – NNS).
In fact, EIL tends to focus on communication rather than speakers’ national or linguistic
background and it is thus regarded in terms of interaction in opposition to identification
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
between speakers coming from different cultural and national backgrounds (Alcón Soler
2008: 27 and Sharifian 2009: 3-5).
ELF, on the other hand, is defined as a ‘contact language used only among non-mother
tongue speakers’ (Jenkins 2006: 160) and therefore concentrates exclusively on the non-native
uses of the language. EIL is less limited in its scope as it takes into account the fact that
English has become a global language which exists in many different forms, be they native or
not. Consequently, excluding native speakers ‘is to limit our understanding of how English
operates globally as Europe’s and the world’s primary lingua franca’ (Modiano 2009: 58)
because it implies that native speakers cannot use their language as a tool for communication
with speakers of other languages. Modiano argues that a lingua franca used for cross-cultural
communication, whether within the EU or internationally, should always be inclusive rather
than exclusive. In other words, ELF should not deliberately omit data originating from native
speakers if it wants to do justice to the current global uses of English (Modiano 2009: 62). In
my analysis, I will therefore use EIL as an inclusive term encompassing all speakers of
English with their varying degrees of proficiency.
Although native speakers are not disregarded in EIL research, they do not represent its main
focus. However, this does not imply that they cannot take part in intercultural communication.
The primary aim of EIL (and ELF) projects is to identify frequently and systematically used
forms that do not cause communication breakdown; these forms need to be ‘widely used and
intelligible across groups of English speakers from different first language backgrounds’
(Jenkins 2006: 161). The purpose is not to describe and codify one single EIL variety, and
native speakers taking part in EIL interactions will ultimately have to adapt and follow the
norms of EIL speakers, rather than vice versa. Until now, particularly in English foreign
language teaching (EFL), the aim has been to teach learners to adapt to, and ultimately
imitate, native speakers1. However, with EIL, the latter are invited to accommodate nonnative speakers by adjusting and using their native language in ways that ease interaction (see
1
Scholars like PB Nayar, for instance, claim that ‘the goal of EFL is frequently taken to be oral communication
with native speakers of English’ (Nayar 1989, as quoted in Pennycook 1994: 167).
86
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
Jenkins 2006: 161). Rejecting native speaker norms here implies that mother tongue speakers
of English should not have any advantage or dominance over non-native speakers purely as a
result of their proficiency in the language that is used as a lingua franca (Byram 2008: 10).
3.1.2 EIL and ELT in Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, the English language learning situation can be defined by the term EFL
because the learners acquire the foreign language in a context where it is not part of their
everyday life. With regard to the aims of EFL, the analysis of New Headway Elementary (3rd
edition) has shown that the course is certainly adequate to fulfil the objective of preparing
learners for interaction with native speakers, above all those who use Received Pronunciation
and the language variety of the educated middle class. The linguistic norms and cultural
practices taught in NHE thus reflect the limited spectrum of interaction for which the course
prepares the students. The aims of English language learning in Luxembourg defined by the
Ministry of Education also underscore these ties to Britain and British English based on
arguments of geographic proximity, cultural affinities and the possibility for learners to access
other Englishes through the learning of Standard British English2.
However, authors like John Gray, for instance, state that a more pluralised exposure to
varying accents and varieties has become a key element in English language teaching since
learning one particular accent or variety of English is not enough to equip learners with the
necessary skills required for real-life use of English (2010: 184-185). Yet, in most ELT
contexts English is still taught according to native speaker standards (usually based on either
British or American English) using coursebooks set in English-speaking countries that include
a limited choice of local characters and cultural topics (see Matsuda 2003: 720). As
previously seen, English language teaching in Luxembourg is no exception, especially at
elementary level, since the syllabus is mostly implemented using coursebooks set in Britain.
The use of the New Headway Elementary Course encourages such an approach because the
2
The document stating the aims of English language learning at elementary level in Luxembourg can be found
online: http://www.men.public.lu > horaires et programmes > enseignement secondaire > division inférieure >
enseignement moderne > 6M Intro (see appendix 3).
87
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
learners are exposed almost exclusively to language used by native speakers and are rarely put
in contact with the language being used in EIL contexts. Here the question arises to what
extent this is actually useful for learners in Luxembourg since they are more likely to be
exposed to other non-native users of the language than to native speakers given the fact that
the number of English non-native speakers is four times higher than that of native speakers
(Alcón Soler 2008: 27). Students can consequently be expected to use English repeatedly in
an EIL context for transactional purposes and meaning-oriented interaction ‘where topic
development gains importance over form-related or context-related issues’ (Alcón Soler 2008:
27). Due to the linguistic diversity in Europe, EIL has become an essential tool for
communication, where notions such as speech community or native speaker standards
consequently do no longer apply. Because the language is used at supranational level, it no
longer serves as a form of identification or association with a particular country or group of
native speakers; EIL has thus become detached from target Anglophone cultures (see Alcón
Soler 2008: 26-28).
At this point, it must also be said that EIL does not discourage learning and using particular
varieties in local communicative contexts if the students are likely to be exposed mainly to
this variety (Jenkins 2006: 161). In a wider European context, however, teaching and learning
a localised variety with particular accents (RP for instance) does not seem appropriate due to
the interlocutors and exposure that the students are likely to meet. In addition, if students
exclusively encounter native-speaker English in their classroom, they might feel confused
when faced with other types of English outside of their learning environment. They could
ultimately resist or even reject (speakers of) other Englishes that they are confronted with.
Teaching and creating an awareness of different varieties and accents thus helps learners
develop a more tolerant and comprehensive view of the English language (see Matsuda 2003:
721). In this light, the British native-speaker model transmitted throughout the NHE (3rd
edition) course seems ineffective and arguably even obsolete in the Luxembourg (or
European) context because it teaches a limited variety and accent that is not necessarily
conducive to intercultural or supranational communication and equips our learners only with
the idiomatic language skills required to exchange ideas with a very limited group of target
88
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
people. Interestingly, the same document on the aims of ELT in Luxembourg which advocates
the proximity to Britain and its localised variety also underlines the varied international or
global uses of English in the world of technology, commerce, science or academia, and the
large number of people using English as a lingua franca (approximately 1 billion). However,
the British English Standard that the document advocates as a main point of reference is not
questioned in the light of the data on the global uses of English that it presents.
3.2
Which Standard to Use?
3.2.1 Fear of Degradation of Standards
The debate about standards is generally fuelled by disputes about the ‘ownership’ of English
since those who claim to possess the ‘pure and true version of a language’ inevitably assume
to have the right to decide upon standardisation or supposedly unacceptable variations (see
Widdowson 1994: 377-379). Seidlhofer has claimed that ‘English is being shaped at least as
much by its non-native speakers as by its native speakers’ although ‘there is still a tendency
for native speakers to be regarded as custodians over what is acceptable usage’ (2005: 339).
This shows that the high number of non-native speakers of English is often considered to be
using English as an interlanguage, an incomplete version of a particular standard accessible
only to native speakers (see Davies 1989: 447). The idea of a standard presupposes authority
of the native speakers (Widdowson 1994: 377) and consequently, most EIL scholars have
claimed that the native speaker model needs to be replaced either by a new standard, or by a
variety of norms.
Bearing in mind that the aim of EIL is not to teach one particular variety of English
over another, the question of which standards or norms should be taught will inevitably arise.
If the native speaker model is no longer seen as the norm which needs to be followed, fears
about a degradation of standards may emerge (Pennycook 1994: 9). If norms become vague
89
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
and obscure, teachers and students might feel disorientated and apprehensive towards
questions of intelligibility and description (Pennycook 1994: 10-11). Particularly if the
language is taught almost exclusively with the aim of communicating with other non-native
speakers, issues of grammaticalness, pronunciation and correctness can arise (see Brown
2007b: 136-137).
3.2.2 An Alternative Approach
Authors like Coperías Aguilar have argued that teaching and learning EIL does not imply an
intentional and systematic degradation of standards, but that it simply represents a more
relaxed and realistic view of aims which allow learners to keep their social, linguistic and
cultural baggage (2008: 63). The VOICE project (Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of
English), for example, is a corpus of L2 (or L3) speaker data reflecting the practical uses of
the language by non-native, mainly European, speakers. Mostly in the light of mistakes which
do not lead to miscommunication or communication breakdown, a corpus like this reflects a
less purisitic view of language learning. Such an approach may allow for learners to become
more fluent and effective in the use of the language for communicative aims and ultimately, it
also reflects the increasingly plural character of English (see Gray 2010: 182; Brown 2007b:
136-137).
As mentioned earlier, EIL takes into account both native as well as non-native
speakers with varying first language backgrounds (see Seidlhofer 2005: 339), yet coursebooks
such as New Headway Elementary (3rd edition) tend to teach idiomatic English based on
specific local varieties (mainly British English in the case of NHE). Problems can thus arise if
one speaker uses EIL while the interlocutor uses idiomatic language based on a native speaker
model; this ‘unilateral idiomaticity’ can then of course lead to miscommunication (Gray 2010:
183). As Jenkins has suggested, native speakers should be invited to adapt their language
when communicating with EIL speakers of English while the latter should no longer be
required to learn localised varieties.
EIL thus encourages the creation of a so-called ‘third space’ which implies that
language can be used in a variety of ways and does not necessarily need to conform to a
90
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
standard derived from native speaker models. In fact, this third space rejects the native
speaker idiomaticity which is found in most global coursebooks as it does not prepare
students for real-world interactions with English speakers from various backgrounds (see
Prodromou 2007:10, as quoted in Gray 2010:186). This third space thus represents a hybrid
form of communication where native speaker norms have been suspended in favour of a more
democratic exchange in a language that requires for its interlocutors to adapt their speech, be
they native or non-native speakers of English.
In this light, Alan Davies claims that the main keystone should be intelligibility and
that various standards can be compatible as long as the key features of similarity and
adequacy are guaranteed (1989: 457-459). In other words, intelligibility and functional
success are the key elements of EIL. Its wide range of uses, academic, economic, political etc,
illustrate the multifunctional character of EIL; therefore, Davies states that there can be no
one ‘right’ model for teaching English (1989: 456). He sees EIL as a continuum ranging from
the fluent and educated L1 user to limited and reduced codes. In this line of thinking, EIL
encompasses all uses of English for international purposes, while most EIL uses nonetheless
involve standard educated English, the more formal code in its written mode (Davies 1989:
460). For Davies, native speakers represent the far end of the continuum, which, however,
does not imply that this should be regarded as the norm to be achieved by the foreign
language learner.
In view of these varying interpretations of EIL standards, one could argue that a less purisitic
view of English promoting a so-called ‘third space’ for interaction not based on the nativespeaker model can be recommended in the Luxembourg context. This is particularly the case
for spoken interaction at lower levels. Since most learners are more likely to be confronted
with other non-native speakers of the language, a strict adherence to Received Pronunciation
and the British variety as promoted by the New Headway Elementary course does not seem
appropriate anymore. Especially if one bears in mind the need for adequate fluency in
everyday interaction which is not encouraged by the NHE course due to its focus on grammar,
this choice of material should be reconsidered. As our learners will most likely use English as
a contact language (or lingua franca) meant as a means of communication, they require a
91
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
more pluralised form of exposure (to different accents and varieties) valuing fluency rather
than accuracy. A second document published by the Luxembourg Ministry of Education
which outlines the different skills that learners should acquire at elementary level 3 also
underscores the importance of fluency over accuracy and suggests that teachers should avoid
stifling learners’ spoken production with an excessive focus on form and accuracy.
On the other hand, one must not ignore the fact that the large continuum of EIL
encompasses different levels of proficiency, not all of which are adequate for the Luxembourg
context, especially at higher levels. In written production at an advanced stage for instance,
one could aim for the higher end of the EIL continuum. Davies, for example, recommends the
standard of educated written English, the more formal code in its written form, which he
claims can be found in most EIL uses (Davies 1989: 460). However, the problem with
‘Standard English’ is that, although it is not connected to pronunciation or accent, it is
nonetheless again one particular variety which originated in the southeast of England (see
Trudgill 1999: 118-122). It is this variety that Davies suggests as a possibility to cover all EIL
needs. Yet, as seen earlier, EIL is meant to have a pluricentric focus based on local norms
which suit the needs of a specific language learning context. If Standard English is considered
as a possible norm, a reduction of language would nonetheless need to take place with regard
to idiomatic expressions which can only be used in very limited contexts. In this way, the
miscommunication caused by unilateral idiomaticity could be reduced because learners are no
longer exposed exclusively to a localised variety. A description or characterisation of possible
EIL uses thus needs to take into account that idiomatic expressions need to be excluded if it
wants to do justice to the aims that have been defined in relation to EIL. The VOICE project
of the University of Vienna, for example, in its attempt to compile a corpus of language use
by non-native speakers, tries to ‘balance the extensive corpus-based descriptions of English as
a native language (ENL)’, yet a lot of work still needs to be done in this area of EIL corpus
collection (Gray 2010:. 182).
Although the British (or American) native speaker model would, in the case of an EIL
corpus, no longer serve as the standard to be achieved or adhered to, this does not imply that
3
http://www.men.public.lu > horaires et programmes > enseignement secondaire > division inférieure >
enseignement moderne > 6M Intro (see appendix 4).
92
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
the level of proficiency that the learners will have to achieve needs to be lowered. Concerns
about a degradation of standards are thus unfounded since the aim is still to equip our learners
with the necessary skills to become proficient writers (and speakers) of English. The students
would merely be exposed to a larger number of varieties because, after all, ‘language
proficiency is what really matters’ (Davies 1989: 465). Especially if one considers the fact
that a lot of teachers of English in Luxembourg are not native speakers themselves, it seems
suitable to teach uses of language based on EIL4 as they are detached from particular native
norms and offer learners a wider area for use. Moreover, local teachers would no longer have
to teach a variety and accent which they might themselves not be entirely familiar with.
3.3
Implications of EIL
3.3.1 Political Implications of EIL
The debate about which standards should be used in English language teaching also reflects
the issues surrounding the spread of English in relation to Britain’s colonial past. For a long
time, the global spread of English has been regarded as being neutral, beneficial and natural,
yet the political implications cannot, and should not, be ignored. In The Cultural Politics of
English as an International Language, Pennycook argues that the spread of English has been
regarded as neutral because it has become detached from its original British and American
contexts. This view evidently maintains that a language can be free of cultural and political
influences and that its international status can raise it above social, cultural, political and
economic concerns (1994: 10, 12 & 23). However, one must not forget that English is still the
language of global capitalism and therefore creates structures of dependency; in fact, there is
still a tendency in many countries to use British or American language norms in order to show
4
In current EIL research, ‘moves are only now underfoot to compile a database of international English’
(Roberts 2002: ll. 14-15), yet any attempt to describe EIL will prove difficult due to its inherently plural nature
(Gray 2010: 183).
93
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
political and cultural allegiance (Byram 2008: 9). According to Pennycook, even EIL carries
the assumption of shared norms and values, a feeling of community and commonality
illustrated by the shared language use (see Pennycook 1994: 22, 28).
In Luxembourg’s ELT, the focus has long been on the culture of Anglophone
countries in order to familiarise learners with the various aspects involved5, which could be
interpreted as a post-war allegiance to both the UK and the US. Modiano, for example, argues
that Europe’s World War II legacy has led many countries to remain under the influence of
Anglo-American domination due to political, economic and cultural forces emanating from
these countries (2009: 67).
Moreover, regarding the spread of English as the natural result of dominant global forces
implies that English as an International Language is a positive phenomenon, yet it denies the
fact that its spread originated due to earlier colonial imposition (Pennycook 1994: 10, 23).
This idea of a positive development also explains the view of English as beneficial to the
world since the language, and hence also ELT, are seen as inherently ‘good’ forces that try to
promote peace and understanding (Pennycook 1994: 9-11). This fairly naive approach ignores
the dominance of English in political, academic and cultural matters. Although English was
initially always associated with Britain, the link has shifted towards the US due to the
country’s powerful role in popular culture, international relations and academia. The view of
the spread of English as natural, neutral and beneficial thus assumes that countries are free to
decide whether or not they want to opt for English, yet it ignores the hidden constraints and
power inequalities that have led to these choices.
In the Luxembourg context, the issue whether or not English should be taught is, of
course, not under debate or relevant within the scope of this discussion. Instead, the question
is how the language can be taught without succumbing to these political, social and cultural
implications that Pennycook outlines. His view problematises the (neo-)colonial tendencies of
EIL which other authors such as Alcón Soler and Jenkins do not consider as a threat as they
5
http://www.men.public.lu > 6M Intro (1) & (2) (appendices 3 & 4)
94
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
see EIL as existing outside of the ideological constraints of EFL. In the next section, I will
return to this dichotomy in order to discuss it in more detail in the context of target culture.
3.3.2 Implications for Target Culture
Pennycook’s view of EIL as a deeply ideological language evidently contrasts with that of
many other authors who have argued that the language can very well exist outside of any
specific cultural, political and social connotations, especially if one concentrates on the purely
pragmatic uses of the language, for instance for academic and technical purposes. These thus
highlight the non-stigmatised uses of English where the cultural identity of the language lies
beyond countries such as the UK or the US (Brown 2007b: 136-137; Alcón Soler 2008: 27
and Jenkins 2006: 160). At the same time, the strict practical view of English can also be
regarded as context-deprived as the language has been reduced to a superficial tool for
communication.
While both these views might seem mutually exclusive at first, EIL does not need to
be interpreted as either completely ideologically engrained, or purely pragmatic. In fact, the
following statement by L.E. Smith shows the deeply pluralistic feature of EIL:
English already represents many cultures and it can be used by anyone
as a means to express any cultural heritage and any value system
(Smith 1987: 3, as quoted in Alptekin 1993: 140).
This interpretation of English then sees the language as no longer inextricably tied to one (or
two) particular target culture(s), but as an instrument to express whatever (cultural) meaning
is intended by the speaker. The basic inseparability of language and culture outlined in
chapter 1 thus needs to be adapted in order to include the various cultural contexts in which
the language is used (see Alptekin 1993: 140). In this light, the term ‘target culture’
encompasses multiple cultural backgrounds, namely all those determined by the speakers
involved. While the link between the English language and one specific culture has been
loosened, it has not been broken; in fact, the connection now represents far more cultural
contexts and meanings than before. This certainly echoes the multiplicity of context which is
95
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
based on the fact that context is always created anew whenever the language is used in written
or spoken dialogues (see Kramsch 1993a: 67).
3.4
EIL in the Classroom
3.4.1 EIL and Coursebooks
With regard to language learning and teaching, Alptekin’s view evidently implies that using
particular target culture elements or culture-specific coursebooks in order to convey systemic
knowledge about the language is no longer adequate because it can create substantial
difficulties for learners and is therefore seen as an impediment (1993: 141; Cunningsworth
1984: 62). Alptekin deconstructs the received view of the link between language and culture
by stating that
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 (...) 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 (Alptekin 1993: 141).
The author suggests that coursebook writers should attempt to promote comparative insight
and critical perspectives by building ‘conceptual bridges’ between culturally familiar and
culturally unfamiliar elements. He argues that learners would benefit from comparisons as
techniques of cross-cultural or inter-cultural comprehension (Alptekin 1993: 141-142).
In the light of this ideal, the culture specific coursebook material of New Headway
Elementary (3rd edition) can be seen as an obstacle for learners because new forms are
introduced based on culturally unfamiliar contexts. Furthermore, the intricate link between the
language and the (constructed) culture does not allow for the language to be used in the
96
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
instrumental ways which EIL aims for. This does of course not imply that there should be no
focus at all on target Anglophone culture in coursebooks; it simply means that the students
should be exposed to a larger variety of cultural contexts. At the same time, these contexts
should be presented in ways which do not hinder language acquisition but which encourage
cross-cultural perspectives. Such an approach thus also leaves room for an investigation of the
ideological implications of the language which Pennycook has outlined, while, nonetheless
not reducing the language exclusively to these political and cultural meanings.
Less culturally specific material could then encourage the creation of the so-called
‘third perspective’ or ‘third space’ that allows learners to explore differences and similarities
while taking an insider’s as well as an outsider’s view. This could ultimately even allow them
to function as mediators among cultures (see Kramsch 1993a: 234; Coperías Aguilar 2008:
69). Since language users always remain ‘individuals-in-context’ who cannot suspend their
cultural learning and heritage, they are bound to use their own cultural experiences as
reference points to understand and interpret new situations (see Atkinson 1999: 642). Thus, by
not encouraging learners to copy behaviour and language structures from others (Kramsch
1993a: 181), the ‘third perspective’ or ‘third space’ enables learners to use the language to
express their own opinions and experiences. Because language and culture are not so closely
interlinked that sharing a language inevitably implies sharing a culture (Hofstede 1991: 214),
the language can then be used to refer to a large variety of cultural contexts intended by the
different speakers. Although EIL is often seen as detached from target culture, this does not
mean that it is completely devoid of cultural meaning; it has just been disconnected from
native speaker groups and their specific culture(s). It serves as an instrument or platform for
cross-cultural exchange among users since it can, at the same time, transmit the message of
different interlocutors with varying cultural origins.
As a possible alternative to the constructed ‘cultural artefacts’ that are global coursebooks,
using EIL-inspired materials in the classroom would reject the artificial cultural content that
these books contain in favour of a mediating and reconciling role of language between the
intercultural speakers’ native culture and the new culture. Hence, the need arises for
coursebooks which take into consideration the regional variation in material requirements.
97
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
Gray states that ‘more regionally based publishing projects involving teachers themselves’
can be an alternative to the ‘‘one size fits all’ principle on which the global coursebook is
based’ (2010: 188).
Moreover, textbooks based on EIL should ideally include a lot more speakers who use
the language in an ELF context to show the diverse uses of the language and to make learners
aware of the fact that English is in no way limited to native speakers. With its emphasis on
many varieties, EIL underlines that English, as a language for international communication, is
therefore also the language of intercultural exchange (Sharifian 2009: 2). Such an approach
could create a greater understanding of the multiplicity that English represents and might even
promote tolerance among language learners (see Matsuda 2003: 721).
The material used in class should ideally also ‘move(...) away from a framework of
four skills (...) where the focus is on language as a system to be acquired’ in order to focus ‘on
what can be accomplished through a foreign language’ (Byram 2008: 7). The main stress is
therefore no longer simply on the linguistic competence, but on intercultural communicative
competence. Byram argues that this is also reflected in the CEFR (Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages), which offers an approach based on how languages
are used for communication by focusing on the functions, notions and tasks completed while
using the language (2008: 19, 8). Bearing this in mind, the course material used in class thus
also needs to be adapted to these purposes, while global coursebooks like NHE, which
concentrate on the rather artificial separation of the four skills, need to be reconsidered in
their use and usefulness.
3.4.2 EIL and Topics
If coursebook content is reconsidered in the light of EIL, this will of course also have an
impact on the texts and topics dealt with in class. Particularly if English is taught in order to
develop intercultural communicative competence among learners, a critical approach to
textual elements needs to be aimed for. The material in NHE has shown that context-deprived
texts do not lend themselves to promote analytical skills among learners; therefore, the
content of the coursebooks needs to be adapted in order to support the aims of intercultural
98
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
communicative competence development. If the goal is to turn learners into mediators among
cultures who are able to reflect critically upon their own and other cultures, then the topics or
the content discussed in class need to be more stimulating and authentic. In opposition to the
artificial and constructed realities found in global coursebooks, the material used in EIL
classrooms should ideally allow learners to relativise their own cultural values, beliefs and
behaviours and investigate ‘otherness’ (Byram et al. 2002: 13-33 and Byram et al. 2001: 3, as
quoted in Coperías Aguilar 2008: 69). This of course implies that texts are dealt with not
(only) to introduce form-related language features, but that they are examined for their own
sake. Consequently, the content of a course needs to be adjusted in order to correlate with the
context and the aim of a particular language learning situation (see Gray 2010: 186).
In view of such a critical pedagogy, the so-called PARSNIP or ‘hot topics’ like
globalisation, power inequalities, nature or human rights could be, or should be, addressed at
times as they give students the opportunity to compare and evaluate key elements of a target
culture with their own background. Such topics would support an examination of similarities
and differences from the so-called ‘third perspective’ where students are conceived as
independent of their own and the target culture, which can allow them to link, empathise,
mediate and reconcile (House 2008: 14-15). This of course also involves introducing elements
of the learners’ own culture as well as other cultures to allow for processes of comparison,
contrast and reflection to take place. Teaching materials therefore need to address particular
communities rather than large international markets (Coperías Aguilar 2008: 72-73; Gray
2010: 186-188).
3.4.3 EIL and Intercultural Communicative Competence in the EU
The fact that English is taught in 90% of secondary schools in Europe shows the dominant
need for a common lingua franca to cross cultural and linguistic barriers (Alcón Soler 2008:
24). With its expansion, the EU has also developed a new identity that is defined by diversity.
In this respect, a common lingua franca needs to allow its speakers to convey local values,
identities and interests accordingly without superimposing culture-specific elements attached
to the language that is being used. While sceptics might consider English as posing a threat to
99
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
plurilingualism in Europe, this is certainly not the case for Luxembourg where English is not
likely to replace any of the official languages. In fact, the EU has been concerned with the
promotion of European languages alongside English to support multilingualism in the EU
(Modiano 2009: 73).
EIL thus seems adequate in the European context as it allows speakers to convey their
very own cultural meaning and identity. According to Modiano
the new Europe, under the banner of ‘unity through diversity’,
requires an internationally oriented lingua franca which has the
potential to support the acquisition of cross cultural communicative
competence, act as a counter-weight to Anglo-Americanization and
operate as a carrier of a common European culture (2009: 75).
This kind of lingua franca thus needs to reflect the cultural diversity of its speakers in
opposition to the monocultural orientation of British or American English. Due to its lack of
culture-specific norms, EIL can in this case function as an ‘auxiliary language’ which is ‘not
intended to be the voice of a monocultural and monolingual Europe’ (Modiano 2009: 75).
Evidently, this means that this new version of English used in mainland Europe, as a
reflection of a European identity, would have to adapt to the socio-cultural conditions in
which it is used. Modiano calls this Europeanised variety ‘Euro-English’; a version based on
the pluricentric EIL framework and viable throughout the world. In opposition to Standard
British English, which Davies suggests as a norm for all EIL uses, Euro-English does not have
its roots in the UK and it does not try to represent a norm for all EIL purposes. Euro-English
indeed fulfils the requirements of EIL as it is a local variety used for communication, not
identification, among speakers of different first languages, and is not based on a particular
native speaker model. In this sense, because it originates from the needs of a community for a
lingua franca that can convey the varying cultural identities and meanings of its speakers,
Euro-English represents one possible way in which EIL can be implemented in a specific
context.
100
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
3.5
EIL: A Feasible Alternative?
If EIL, or Euro-English, is to be considered as a possible alternative for Luxembourg, it is
important to remember and consider a few key points. First of all, using EIL would imply a
pluricentric approach where one variety of English is no longer seen as a way to cover the
needs of all language learners around the world. In the case of Luxembourg, Euro-English
could be regarded as a way to replace the native speaker model which has long dominated our
classrooms. However, such a variety would only make sense if it is taught systematically
throughout the EU and if a corpus of Euro-English is released which defines the different
aims and acceptable uses.
Secondly, using an EIL inspired approach would mean that global coursebooks like
NHE would have to be replaced in order to make room for learning material which allows
learners to analyse, compare and contrast their own culture with a variety of target cultures,
not only Anglophone ones. Pluralised exposure to different forms of written and spoken
English would provide learners with a more realistic view of English uses around the globe
and would ideally allow for the creation of a so-called ‘third space’ where cultural differences
are examined and negotiated. The focus would have to shift away from forms and skillsoriented classroom practices towards objectives motivated by intercultural awareness and
understanding. The material used to implement these goals would have to take into account
regional variations since the learners’ own culture would always be part of the intercultural
learning process. Especially in the Luxembourg context, the texts and topics would have to
allow learners to connect their own backgrounds to the target culture while considering the
heterogeneous make-up of our society at the same time.
Thirdly, using EIL with the aim of developing intercultural communicative
competence does not imply that the linguistic aspects of English language teaching in
Luxembourg would lose their significance. In fact, intercultural learning can only take place if
it is based on a sound knowledge of the English language and if the learners’ ability to use the
language as well as their awareness of the specific meaning, values and connotations of the
language is guaranteed. In fact, language proficiency represents the linguistic basis that
101
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
students need to understand texts and negotiate meaning (see Coperías Aguilar 2008: 65). In
that sense, developing intercultural communicative competence by using EIL-inspired
material does not replace form-focused instruction, it merely means that no disproportionate
or unwarranted amount of time should be dedicated to context-deprived accuracy work.
Finally, as intercultural communicative competence goes beyond an understanding of
language as skills accompanied by some factual knowledge about the country where the
language is spoken, it does not suffice to provide students with mere information about the
target culture. The focus is not on the amount of information that can be transmitted, but on
the attitudes and critical awareness that the students develop. Tasks should be designed in
order to develop both the learners’ proficiency as well as their intercultural skills such as
empathy, tolerance of ambiguity, cooperation and understanding of cultural values (Coperías
Aguilar 2008: 68-75).
At this point, the question of implementation and evaluation arises and needs to be
addressed. Unfortunately, discussing how intercultural communicative competence can be
taught and assessed systematically goes beyond the scope of the thesis and will have to be
investigated elsewhere6. Evidently, a change in material would also, at least partly, involve a
different form of assessment. According to Matsuda, traditional tests are not likely to be
adequate to evaluate intercultural communicative competence; the focus would have to be on
students’ communicative skills, strategic competences and effectiveness rather than on the
grammatical accuracy of their production. Some teachers, students and parents might find this
alienating and outrageous, and a lot of work would also have to be done in teacher training
programmes in order to prepare future practitioners for the challenge (see Matsuda 2003:
723-724).
Either way, at a time when a corpus of either EIL or Euro-English has yet to be
defined, it will be difficult to implement learning situations inspired by these concepts.
However, this does not have to prevent teachers from using the material at hand in ways that
6
In publications like Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence or Developing
Intercultural Competence in Practice, authors like Michael Byram, Adam Nichols and David Stevens have
written extensively upon these issues and their work is certainly relevant in the Luxembourg context.
102
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
go beyond the coursebook-defined uses. In their everyday teaching practice, teachers have the
possibility to adapt, reinterpret, contest and replace material in order to develop intercultural
communicative competence among their learners with the means available to them. As
‘consumers’ of coursebooks who create a demand for certain products, teachers and students
could even have to power to influence the market of ELT material (see Gray 2010: 190).
103
CHAPTER 3: EIL – AN ALTERNATIVE FOR LUXEMBOURG ?
104
Chapter 4: Conclusion
4.1
Looking Back
4.1.1 Culture and New Headway Elementary
Various interpretations of culture as either the ‘mental software’ of our brains (Hofstede 1991:
235) or the ‘set of lenses’ with which people perceive the world (DeCapua and Wintergerst
2004: 13) show its importance, especially in connection with language, as a factor of social
cohesion, inclusion or exclusion. In the context of English language teaching, my focus
remained on ‘culture two’ (with a lowercase c) as it refers to the acquired notions of a group
of people and offers a template for social behaviour (Hofstede 1991: 5; Brown 2007b: 133).
In opposition to ‘culture one’ or ‘highbrow culture’, it reveals more about a group of people’s
values and beliefs, although the kind of ‘collective identity’ that it provides should not blindly
be applied to all members of that group as this would essentially deny them any individuality.
As a result, I have established that culture is neither an absolute nor a static concept because it
is permanently subjected to changes and demonstrates inherent divergences.
The analysis of NHE (3rd edition) in chapter 2 has shown that the content (topics and
texts), methodological approach, representational practices and language selection (accents
and written varieties) of the series do not reflect this multifaceted and heterogeneous character
of the target culture(s). Moreover, the kind of culture portrayed in the coursebook can
generally be qualified as a form of constructed reality, a homogenised and veneered
representation destined to attract buyers from all over the world. The aim of the case study
was of course not to refute the value of cultural learning, but to question the ways in which
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
global coursebooks like NHE present learners with an oversimplified and therefore distorted
view of the target culture(s).
My decision to analyse the third rather than the fourth edition of NHE was motivated
by the fact that the former is still used in most schools around the country. However, although
the fourth edition claims to be ‘totally new’ (J. & L. Soars, NHE Student’s Book 4th ed. 2011:
back cover), the overall makeup of - and ideology behind - the series remains basically the
same. The changes that have been brought to the Student’s Book, for instance, are all merely
cosmetic: Danka from Poland has been replaced by Annalisa from Italy (unit 1) while Marco
has had to make room for Hakan. Oprah Winfrey and Bollywood Star Shilpa Shetty have
taken the place of Shirley Temple Black and Joss Stone respectively (units 6 and 3), while a
text about three young men who travel through the UK and live off their singing (unit 11) has
substituted the article on the two incongruous old people who refused to learn to drive (unit
14). Hence, the obvious dominance of exceptional, young, healthy, educated and above all
successful people in the Student’s Book intended to entertain the ‘consumers’ is still found in
the latest edition. Similarly, the basic underlying tensions regarding topics, representational
practices, teacher / learner roles or methodology have not been resolved. Therefore, I believe
that a large part of my critique of NHE (3rd edition) is readily transferable to the more recent
fourth edition. The fact that a lot of Angela Pickering’s argument from 1992 is still relevant
for my case study already shows that the fundamental setup of the course does not necessarily
change in the new editions of the Headway series.
4.1.2 EIL and Intercultural Communicative Competence
In the context of EIL, I have attempted to provide a less limited and more inclusive
interpretation of ELT and target cultures which could replace the narrow ideals of the native
speaker model as well as the focus on the UK or the US as the only cultural domains to be
investigated. However, my discussion has shown that EIL as an alternative model of language
teaching cannot be implemented in the Luxembourg context at this point in time, although it
might represent a possible future option once a number of issues, such as for example the
standard to adhere to or the ways to assess EIL, have been resolved.
106
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
Teaching practices informed by an EIL corpus could provide learners with genuine
rather than invented examples of English, thus eliminating the ‘considerable mismatches
between naturally occurring English and the English presented in EFL (...) teaching materials
(textbooks, grammars)’. In that sense, ‘revised pedagogical language descriptions that take
corpus findings into account’ can ‘present a more adequate picture of language as it is actually
used’ (Römer 2010: 22). Hence, EIL-inspired teaching material allows for a more realistic
portrayal of language (and culture) as it is based on actual rather than constructed examples of
language in action.
EIL, as the ideal of English language teaching which paves the way for the development of
intercultural communicative competence, could mark a new era in ELT where the aim should
be to prepare learners for interaction with all kinds of users of English, including native
speakers. Similarly, socio-cultural competence, which assumes that language learners should
learn the language to understand and use it with native speakers in their one specific native
context, can be replaced by intercultural communicative competence (Byram 2008: 57). The
latter allows for a variety of cultural contexts to be presented in class, all of which can be
investigated and negotiated in the target language, independent of the speakers’ first language
background.
In view of the analysis of both EIL and intercultural communicative competence, I
have advocated a new understanding of target culture and English language teaching in
Luxembourg, inspired by a critical pedagogy which aims at investigating similarities and
differences between cultures. The kind of intercultural communicative competence which is
fostered in the process is characterised by the different savoirs determining affective,
cognitive as well as behavioural factors such as attitudes (savoir être), knowledge (savoirs),
skills of interpreting and relating (savoir comprendre), skills of discovery and interaction
(savoir apprendre / faire) and critical cultural awareness and political education (savoir
s’engager) (see Byram 1997: 31-54, as quoted in Byram 2008: 69).
As a result, even if EIL cannot be readily implemented in Luxembourg (yet), the
objectives defined in our syllabi for ELT could nonetheless include aims based on linguistic
proficiency as well as ICC. This would ideally allow for a more open, inclusive and
107
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
heterogeneous view of target culture(s) taking into account cultural variations. In this case, the
objectives defined by various courses should of course not be designed exclusively around a
particular coursebook, but would have to take Luxembourg’s cultural and linguistic context
into consideration.
The current lack of EIL-inspired teaching material and coursebooks does not have to
prevent teachers from working towards a more culturally inclusive and linguistically varied
teaching practice. By adapting the available resources accordingly, teachers can work towards
achieving these new aims without having to revolutionise the entire foreign language teaching
system in place. At the same time, they could promote a sense of critical understanding
among students. Moreover, including tasks to promote ICC does not necessarily require a
completely different methodology; a mere change in activities and overall objectives can
already pave the way for intercultural exchange in the classroom.
4.2
Looking Ahead
4.2.1 Possible Outcomes of ICC
Up to this point, a lot of work has been done on how intercultural communicative competence
can be implemented and assessed accordingly (see for example Byram: 1997, or Byram,
Nichols and Stevens: 2001). It is interesting to note, however, what can be achieved if the
aims of English language teaching are redefined in order to include intercultural
communicative competence as one, and possibly a main, component. I previously suggested
that English language learning in Luxembourg should ideally take place with a European
context in mind as students are likely to use the language as a lingua franca with other
(frequently European) non-native speakers. With the introduction of language learning aims
based on the different levels of the CEFR, Luxembourg has already taken a major step in the
right direction; including ICC in ELT more deliberately could now be seen as the next step
towards a more culturally informed type of foreign language education which could further
108
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
correspond to the intended aims of the Council of Europe. Particularly in times of great
mobility of people between countries, a European perspective inspired by ICC could provide
learners in Luxembourg with a more nuanced outlook and understanding of the cultural
values, beliefs and behaviours going beyond mere stereotypes.
As ‘a contact zone where people with different cultural identities meet’, (...) the EU
can be seen ‘as a space of intercultural exchange’ where ‘mutual entanglement of cultural
practice’ is bound to take place (Alcón Soler 2008: 28). In this light, English functions as a
medium of communication among cultures, yet in order to preserve the ethnic, linguistic and
religious diversity in Europe, the lingua franca should never be imposed either by direct or
ideological force. If English represents an additional language without posing a threat to
language diversity, it can be regarded as promoting plurilingualism (see Alcón Soler 2008: 28,
34, 36). In that case, the exchanges favoured by its use allow for the production of new
cultural forms and identities such as, for instance, a plurilingual or European identity.
According to Byram and Risager, ‘such identities are not only self-ascribed but also a
function of how people are seen by others, by ‘outsiders’’ (1999: 2). A European identity
could thus serve as a marker of inclusion, yet it should of course not replace but merely
complement national identities in the same way that English is not intended to substitute other
languages in the EU (see Byram 2008: 125-126, 139). Consequently, by advancing cultural
exchanges, ICC can allow learners to develop a more comprehensive and tolerant view of
European cultural diversity and plurilingualism.
As Byram states, the Council of Europe believes that encouraging plurilingualism should, in
turn, even promote open-mindedness and respect for others and ‘otherness’; however, the
author also reckons that more is required to create respect and understanding of difference
than the simple fact of being plurilingual (2008: 128-129, 140-141). He endorses critical
cultural awareness or political education (savoir s’engager), a central component of ICC, as
the key to fostering and developing a sense of criticality or even critical agency among
learners (2008: 150-151). However, this stage always needs to be preceded by knowledge
(savoirs), the ability to interpret (savoir comprendre) and the capacity to observe and interact
(savoir apprendre / faire).
109
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
Hence, based on Byram’s interpretation, intercultural communicative competence and
critical cultural awareness do not only promote an ability to question, analyse and evaluate
values, behaviours and beliefs, but also imply a potential for transformative action, for
learners to become active citizens who engage with issues and respond by acting on the world
(Byram 2008: 146, 150). Byram’s case to turn learners into critical intercultural agents of
change certainly creates new demands for teachers as he believes that ‘language teaching as
foreign language education cannot and should not avoid educational and political duties and
responsibilities’ (2008: 149). This does of course not need to be exclusive to ELT, but could
ideally also be applied to the Luxembourg curriculum as whole, especially since aims such as
educating learners to promote critical thinking and agency are components of numerous other
subjects, too.
Combining political education with foreign language learning and intercultural
communicative competence would definitely take classroom practices beyond a mere focus
on linguistic skills, yet it also raises questions of ethical justifiability. Byram believes that the
purposes of foreign language teaching should include objectives similar to those of education
for citizenship because he regards the ability of students to identify with people beyond their
national borders to be crucial in a globalised and internationalised world (2008: back cover).
This view of language teaching is certainly closer to CLIL (Content and Language Integrated
Learning) than it is to the pure transmission of linguistic skills, which might not be a readily
acceptable option for Luxembourg at this moment or in the near future as a lot of teachers are
likely to feel uncomfortable with the task of communicating content through the English
language. However, taking a few small steps towards more culturally informed ways of
transmitting language aims can nonetheless open new horizons to our students.
Similarly, but probably less radically, H. D. Brown pleads for teachers and students to
implement a critical pedagogy by questioning and subverting attitudes and beliefs that
ultimately impede the attainment of goals such as equality, justice, freedom and opportunity
(Brown 2007b: 513). Like Byram, Brown sees the predominant goal of English language
teaching in turning students into critical thinkers who will eventually be able to question and
reflect on social, cultural and political issues independently. He advocates a view of ELT
which aims at fostering a sense of criticality and social responsibility among learners. The
ultimate goal is of course to equip learners with the skills to judge their own as well as foreign
110
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
cultures or societies analytically and objectively, from the so-called ‘third perspective’,
untainted by their own background or by stereotypes about the target culture.
4.2.2 Repercussions for English Language Teachers
Implementing ICC-informed goals as suggested by Byram, Risager and Brown evidently also
results in a lot of new responsibilities for teachers of English. The latter should ideally have
the capacity to transmit knowledge about target cultures in ways that simultaneously foster
empathy as well as observational and analytical skills. This would, in turn, result in a new
professional identity for the teacher as a ‘mediator’ between cultures, languages and learners,
which takes the aims of language learning beyond the mere transmission of linguistic skills
(Byram and Risager 1999: 58, 61). Moreover, the teacher would need to negotiate the
international or cross-cultural influences on the national cultures of their students who are
likely to be of fairly heterogeneous origins. At times, such a development might also need to
be followed by a change of method since developing ICC involves learner-centred tasks that
assign new roles to both teachers and students (Byram and Risager 1999: 78). All of these
issues can lead to apprehension or even rejection among those teachers who are used to regard
themselves as mere conveyors of linguistic competences and facts about the target culture.
Besides, pupils who prefer a more traditional teacher-centred approach might not feel
comfortable with such a learner-centred method, and their learning process could be affected
as a result.
Similarly, the lack of a fixed framework of reference for teachers regarding the skills,
tasks and aims of intercultural learning may also lead to scepticism, concern or even refusal to
cooperate. Addressing prejudices, stereotypes and cultural difference in class can lead to
emotional responses among learners and this potential for conflict should not be
underestimated. Taking into account the constraint to ideally conduct the exchanges in class
in the target language, one may conclude that all these requirements can therefore amount to a
lot of pressure for teachers (see Byram and Risager 1999: 106, 112). Teachers and learners
would thus certainly require a period of adaptation, which, however, should not prevent us
from working towards an ICC-informed practice. Teacher education as well as teacher
development courses could for example help reduce negative attitudes among practitioners if
111
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
they present teachers with practicable and flexible methods to implement ICC and reach new
goals.
Ultimately, achieving goals based on EIL and intercultural learning can mean a lot of novelty
and may take some time for teachers, students and parents to get used to. Yet in spite of the
potential difficulties, the need to replace the culture-specific coursebook material should not
be disregarded as the latter does not allow our learners to develop a realistic and balanced
view of target culture(s). ICC and EIL may offer an alternative approach, but they must not be
regarded as flawless options which can be implemented unquestioningly and without any
adjustments beforehand. These concepts could function as a basis for renegotiation in order to
move away from the constructed and limited cultural realities that can be found in courses
such as NHE, and towards a more inclusive and tolerant perspective on language and culture.
112
Appendices:
APPENDIX 1: Coursebooks for 8ePO, 9ePO, 8eTE, VIe mod. & Ve cl.
113
114
115
116
Source: http://www.men.public.lu
117
APPENDIX 2: Distribution of Learners According to Nationality (2009-2010)
Source: http://www.men.public.lu
118
APPENDIX 3: Document (1) about the aims of ELT in VIe mod. & Ve cl.
Source: http://www.men.public.lu
119
APPENDIX 4: Document (2) about the development of skills in VIe mod. & Ve cl.
Source: http://www.men.public.lu
120
BIBliOGRAPHY:
ALCÓN SOLER, E., SAFONT JORDÁ, M. P. (eds) (2008). Intercultural Language Use and
Language Learning. Castelló, Spain: Springer Science + Business.
ALPTEKIN, C. (1993). ‘Target-language culture in EFL materials’. ELT Journal, 47(2): 136139.
APPLE, M. W. (1990). Ideology and Curriculum (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
BARKER, C., MITCHELL, L. (2009). New Headway Elementary Culture and Literature
Companion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BROWN, H. D. (2007a). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th edition). White
Plains, New York: Pearson Education.
BROWN, H. D. (2007b). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy (3rd edition). White Plains, New York: Pearson Education.
BYRAM, M. (1988a). ‘Foreign language education and cultural studies’. Language, Culture
and Curriculum, 1(1): 15-31.
BYRAM, M. (1988b). ‘Politics and language teaching’. Curriculum, 10(1): 45-50.
BYRAM, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
BYRAM, M. (2008). From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural
Citizenship: Essays and Reflections. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters.
BYRAM, M., GRIBKOVA, B., STARKEY, H. (2002). ‘Developing the Intercultural
Dimension in language Teaching: A practical introduction for teachers.’ Council of
Europe. http://lrc.cornell.edu/director/ intercultural.pdf, accessed on 26.6.2011.
BYRAM, M., NICHOLS, A., STEVENS, D. (2001). Developing Intercultural Competence in
Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
BYRAM, M., RISAGER, K. (1999). Language Teachers, Politics and Cultures. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
CAMPOY-CUBILLO, M. C., BELLÉS-FORTUÑO, B., GEA-VALOR, M. L. (eds) (2010).
Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching. London: Continuum.
COPERÍAS AGUILAR, M. J. (2008). ‘Communicative Competence and the Native Speaker’.
In E. Alcón Soler and M. P. Safont Jordá (eds) (2008) Intercultural Language Use and
Language Learning. Castelló, Spain: Springer Science + Business.
CUNNINGSWORTH, A. (1984). Evaluating and Selecting EFL Teaching Materials.
London: Heinemann Educational Books.
DAVIES, A. (1989). ‘Is International English and Interlanguage?’ TESOL Quarterly, 23(3):
447-467.
121
DECAPUA, A., WINTERGERST A. C. (2004). Crossing Cultures in the Language
Classroom. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
EVERETT, D. (2012). Language: The Cultural Tool. London: Profile Books.
FENNER, A.-B., NEWBY, D. (2000). Approaches to Materials Design in European
Textsbooks: Implementing Principles of Authenticity, Learner Autonomy, Cultural
Awareness. Austria: Council of Europe.
GEORGIEVA, M., ALEXANDROVA GROZDANOVA, L. (2010). ‘Creating a Corpus of
EIL Cross-Cultural Interaction in the Public Domain’. In M. C. Campoy-Cubillo, B.
Bellés-Fortuño, M. L. Gea-Valor (eds) (2010). Corpus-Based Approaches to English
Language Teaching. London: Continuum.
GRAY, J. (2000). ‘The ELT coursebook as cultural artefact: How teachers censor and adapt’.
ELT Journal, 54(3): 274-283.
GRAY, J. (2010). The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the
ELT Global Coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
HALL, J. K. (2012). Teaching and Researching Language and Culture (2nd edition). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
HALL, S. (1992). ‘The Question of Cultural Identity’. http://www.csuchico.edu/~pkittle/ 01/
hall. html, accessed on 16.6.2011.
HARMER, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd edition). Harlow:
Pearson Education.
HO, S. T. K. (2009). ‘Addressing Culture in EFL Classrooms: The Challenge of Shifting from
a Traditional to an Intercultural Stance’. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching
2009, 6(1): 63–76. http://e-flt.nus.edu.sg/v6n12009/ho.pdf, accessed on 26.6.2011.
HOFSTEDE, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: Profile
Books.
HOLLIDAY, A. (1994). ‘Student culture and English language education: An international
perspective’. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 7(2): 125-143.
HOLLIDAY, A. (2005). The Struggle to Teach English as an International Language.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HOUSE, J. (2008). ‘What is and ‘Intercultural Speaker’?’. E. Alcón Soler and M. P. Safont
Jordá (eds) (2008). Intercultural Language Use and Language Learning. Castelló, Spain:
Springer Science + Business.
JENKINS, J. (2006). ‘Current Perspectives on Teaching World Englishes and English as a
Lingua Franca’. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1): 157-181.
KILICKAYA, F. (2004). The Internet
http://iteslj.org, accessed on 26.6.2011.
TESL
122
Journal.
X(12),
December
2004
KRAMSCH, C. (1993a). Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
KRAMSCH, C. (1993b). ‘Language Study as Border Study’. European Journal of Education,
28(3): 349-358.
KRAMSCH, C. (1998a). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KRAMSCH, C. (1998b). ‘Teaching along the Cultural Faultline’. D.L. Lange and R. M. Paige
(eds.) (2003). Culture as the Core: Perspectives on Culture in Second Language Learning.
Greenwich, Connecticut: IAP Publishing.
KRASHEN, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York:
Longman.
LARA GARRIDO, M. F. (2010). ‘Developing Intercultural Competence using the
Textbooks’. http:// assets00.grou.ps/0F2E3C/wysiwyg_files/FilesModule/bep_network/
20101007140608gbrwfopegcjijlzjm/ICinTXTBOOKS.pdf, accessed on 26.6.2011.
LITTLEJOHN, A. (1998). ‘The analysis of language teaching materials: inside the Trojan
horse’. http://www.andrewlittlejohn.net/website/art/arthome.html, accessed on 22.9.2011.
LUKE, A. (1988). Literacy, Textbooks and Ideology. London: Falmer Press.
MEDDINGS, L. (2006). ‘Embrace the Parsnip’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/
jan/20/tefl4, accessed on 4.1.2012.
MODIANO, M. (2009). ‘ EIL, Native-Speakerism and the Failure of European ELT’.
Sharifian, F. (ed.) (2009). English as an International Language: Perspectives and
Pedagogical Issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
PENNYCOOK, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.
Harlow: Pearson Education.
PICKERING, A. (1999). ‘“Headwayland”: an interpretation of the etiquettes and ideologies
of an EFL coursebook “genre”. (EdD: Language and Education thesis)
PULVERNESS, A. (1995). ‘Cultural Studies, British Studies and EFL.’ Modern English
Teacher, 4(2).
RAY, J. J., DORATIS, D. (1972). ‘Religiocentrism and Ethnocentrism’, Sociological
Analysis 32(1): 170-179. http://jonjayray.tripod.com/doratis.html, accessed on 13.2.2012.
ROBERTS,
P.
(2002).
‘Set
us
free
from
standard
English’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/jan/24/tefl.wordsandlanguage, accessed on
22.3.2012.
RÖMER, U. (2010). ‘Using General and Specialized Corpora in English Language Teaching:
Past, Present and Future’. In M. C. Campoy-Cubillo, B. Bellés-Fortuño, M. L. Gea-Valor
(eds) (2010). Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching. London:
Continuum.
123
SALUVEER,
E.,
‘Teaching
Culture
in
English
Classes’.
http://www.lara25.com/mywebdisk/CI-EP/Saluveer.pdf, accessed on 26.6.2011.
SEIDLHOFER, B. (2005). ‘English as a lingua franca’. ELT Journal, 59(4): 339-341.
SHARIFIAN, F. (ed.) (2009). English as an International Language: Perspectives and
Pedagogical Issues. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
SOARS, L., SOARS, J. (2006). New Headway Elementary Student’s Book (3rd edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SOARS, L., SOARS, J. (2011). New Headway Elementary Student’s Book (4th edition).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SOARS, L., SOARS, J., MARIS, A. (2006). New Headway Elementary Teacher’s Book (3rd
edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
THORNBURY, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT: A dictionary of terms and concepts used in English
Language Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan.
TRUDGILL, P. (1999). ‘Standard English: what is isn’t’. T. Bex & R. J. Watts (eds.) (1999)
Standard English: the widening debate. London: Routledge.
WIDDOWSON, H. G. (1994). ‘The ownership of English’. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2): 377389.
WIDDOWSON, H.G. (1997). ‘EIL, ESL, EFL: Global issues and local interests’. World
Englishes, 16(1): 135-146.
ZÜLKÜF ALTAN, M. (1995). ‘Culture in EFL contexts – classroom and coursebooks’.
Modern English Teacher, 4(2).
124
125