Intercultural Dialogue: A Framework for Understanding and Promoting Cultural Sensitivity in the EFL Classroom

Posted on Aug 2, 2024 in Social sciences

White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue

1. responds to the cultural changes due to globalization, specif. adressees European’s increasing cultural diversity.
2. Cultural diversity happens through cross-border migration -> cultural identity of individuals -> domains (s,p,t) , brings new changes
3. changes -> may  trigger fear and rejection
4. if not addressed throughintercultural dialogue -> stereotyping, racism, xenophobia, intolerance, discrimination, violence.. -> threaten peace of European citizens. 

Intercultural dialogue

• the oldest and most fundamental mode of democratic conversation.
• aims to enable people to live together in a peaceful community 
• helps people to function in a world that is becoming more and more multicultural

Criticism White Paper

• says ICC “should be part of citizenship and human-rights education
• says public authorities and educational institutions, should design and use curricula and study programs in such a way that they promote the learning of ICC
  • however, only includes proposals for action, no “a detailed road map” (2008: 51) that would allow teachers to undertake specific steps needed to cope with cultural diversity
  • Therefore, it is important to create meaningful tasks that focus on developing ICC in students -> also invloves the use of complementary tools that help students to reflect on their attitude towards other cultures.

ICC

Aims

• “learn how to live together” in a multicultural world
• promote intercultural dialogue

Bennett’s Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS)

• Bennett’s scale, developed by Dr. Milton Benett • Provides Framework for understanding individual development and awareness • When faced with cultural differences, people go through two main stages: ethnocentric (denaial stage)  and ethnorelative (acceptance stage)  • Organized into six stages

Ethnocentric stages

• 1. Denial stage = One’s own culture as central to reality ○ end up being socially isolated from other cultures, inability to see cultural differences and individuals tend to ignore reality of diversity, characterized by stereotyping, superficial statements = Stoopid questions syndrome-> Thailand, do you eat taiwanese food?
• 2- Defense stage One’s own culture is considered “the best” Characterized by denegation, superiority, reversal, negative evaluations of other cultures
• 3. Minimization= recognizing superficial cultural differences  Believe that all humans are essentially equal, make no differences between cultures  However, people at this stage see the tip of the iceberg only  Therefore, difficult to make  aware of little-c culture bc they ignore it All people have the same needs,everyone is just like me Fail to understand the value of cultural differences

Ethnorelative stages

=> transfer students from one stage to another • Is in contrast to the ethnocentric stages • search for ways to adapt to the ever-changing world and try to adapt to its changes • Are able recognize cultural differences and accept them

• 1. Acceptance • Accept differences • Ability to recognize and appreciate different values and behavior • “not good or bad” just different • They don’t have to agree, it’s more about understanding other cultures
• 2. Adaptation • begin to see  cultural differences as more flexible • Also includes adapting to cultural and behavioral differences • More competent to deal with them and communicate their views across cultures • That’d be the aim of the white paper- Results in better teaching, cognitive empathy, seeing the world through the eyes of others • become multicultural, frequently interact with other cultures -> able to “walk the talk”
• 3. Integration • Final stage of this model • Able to bridge differences, become cultural mediators => this is what teachers should be like • Cultural integration • Rarely reached  • Can move freely within more than one cultural group (they’re marginal, not central), Easier for them to establish relationships with other cultures

Pros

• Understanding and integrating about ICC and sensitivity into the EFL classroom helps to develop cultural sensitivity
• can be used as an assessment tool -> observe which stages students go thorugh
  • creative toll -> create lesson plan
• One main aim of teaching ICC should be to move students from the ethnocentric stage to themore ethnorelative stage

Cons, limitation

• just a model
• difficult to assign stages to people and asess them in terms of the given critera that Byram gives
• final stage is rarely reached

Phrases

• – at this stage
• – stage is characteriszed by
• – you often hear peole saying
• – people at this position
• – stage during which
• – individuals at this stage

Key terms

• Multiculturalism = specific policy approach, term denotes that different cultures exist and may interact with a given space or social organizations
• Social cohesion = the capacity of a society to ensure welfare of all its members
•  Stakeholders = individuals or groups of minority that are interested in intercultural dialogue
•  Public authorities = national government, political, administrative bodies who perform public functions
• Integration = two-sided process, capacity of people to live together on the basis of mutual respect and understanding, ability of immigrants to participate in all areas of life, integration policies or strategies are needed to cover these areas.
• Positive action measures = disadvantages arising from a person’s cultural background (related to gender, ethnicity, etc. )
• Pluralism = presence of a range of cultures in Europe, the belief that people of different cultures should live together in a society, but continue to have and to practice their own culture

The relationship between language, culture and thought

• many different notions of the relationship

1. Chris Barker

= “no “correct or definitive meaning attached to it” (2008: 39) because its usage and meanings change. 19. He also recommends that we should not ask what culture “is”, but how the language of, but how the language of culture is used

• • -> relationship between culture and language is interdependent

2. Kramsch = l. is used to express and creates categories of thought that are shared by members of a social group -> language  therefore responsible for the attitudes and beliefs of a culture.

• young field: important to mention, the relationship not been until the 1990s until the field of applied linguistics explored it – growing interest bc of advances in cognitive linguistics, linguistic anthropology attracted the

Linguistic Relativity

1. German philosophers Johann Herder and Wilhelm von Humboldt = first expressed the relationship Herder = stated that a nation’s language would reflect people’s thought Wilhelm von Humboldt = “Weltanschauung” hypothesis, language and thought are inseparable, language determines thought

2. The Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis (Linguistic Relativity)= 

• developed by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf
• Def.: holds the view that the structure of language or grammar -> the ways in which speakers perceive and conceptualize the world Example: some cultures don’t have words to describe certain colors
• different cultures = because different  linguistic categories or grammar for cultures, therefore every culture perceives the world differently
• Example: Analyzed Hopi language and compared it to the European languages Hopi have an entire different concept of time compared to European languages concept of time is conditioned by language itself
• concluded that language influences our acitivites
  • Consequences = direct translation isn’t possible, thoughts and views can’t be shared

2 versions

Strong: The first version holds that language alone determines thought (language determinism), alle people think the same way

Criticism: bilingual people don’t think the same way; Kramsch: translation doesn’t change thought or meaning -> debate Whorf

Weak: language partially influences thought/is part of thought/ or linguistic categories and their usage influence thought and certain type of non-linguistic behavior (= Majority of linguists support this theory)

3. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity

• debate between William Labov and Bernstein
• Bernstein suggested that middle-class workers use more elaborated codes = assume less prior-knowledge from other people. Working-class people assume more prior-knowledge of their listeners, and thus use more restricted codes.
• Labov criticized Bernstein, NYC adolescents -> elaborated codes

Lucy

• 3 levels of relativity
• how languages -> thought on the semiotic/cognitive level

1. Semiotic/cognitive level= symbolic system transforms thinking 

2. Linguistic/structured level= particular languages influence thinking about reality because of linguistic configurations of meaning 

3. Functional/discursive level= use of language in a particular domain influences thinking 

Dan Slobin (1994,97)

• revisited LR in terms of grammar
•  only tiny bits of the complete concept we have in mind are expressed through language because the brain is selective and doesn’t allow to consider all aspects of the mental image
• Replaces Sapir&Whorf’s phrase “language-and-thought” by his phrase “thinking-for-speaking”
• His findings focus  temporal and spatial orientation
• Satellite languages

SEMIOTIC RELATIVITY

• By contrast, SR holds the view that signs determine thought and make up language. However, words are signs too -> theories overlap each other
• symbolic system affects thought
• biological anthroplogist Terrence Deacon (1997) 

iconic reference= ability to distinguish signs and objections (relation of contiguity

indexical referecne= ability to distinguish between iconic and indexical signs

symbolic reference= animals don’t have these references

…is part of  Structuralism

• Chris Barker (Cultural studies): language is based on structuralist principles human relations, material objects, images are analyzed through the structures of signs
• Lévi-Strauss (1974) declares that “it’s better to think of food than to eat it
• Signs -> thinking, end up being surprised about our thoughts if they differ from what we had imagined previously

…social context plays a role in SR too

• Vygotsky
  • stated that language as a social activity woult affect thought
  • Children learn language through internalization the speech of others, are on on the social plane, therefore language socialization happens

• also, Cartesian view holds the view that that symbolic activity depends on social interaction -> two planes=social and the psychological plane -> child’s cultural development
• Discussion: if language is internalized =  strong argument for linguistic relativity/for why language patterns influence the way children perceive the world?
• Whorf and Vygotsky share the same view: language as a social&cultural phenomenon However, they use different contexts Whorf Vygotsky Synchronic – compares worldviews of speakers of different languages – how language becomes culturally contextualized Diachronic – focuses on the cognitive development of a child – how thought becomes transformed through speech and how it’s related to the ability to combine signs – sees language as a semiotic system, that is symbols need to be conventionalized by a shared community to understand their meaning. 4. 2

• Lakoff&Johnson (1987) argue that symbols -> imagination and emotions that lead people to action
• semiotic relativity deals with linguistic and discursive constructs, known as metaphors Metaphors cause people to do actions because they’re natural, e. g.

Difference between Vygotsky and Whorf