Target-language culture in EFL

materials
Cem Alptekin

Expressing and interpreting meanings in a given language involves two

types of knowledge. Systemic knowledge refers to the forma/properties of
language, comprising its syntactic and semantic aspects. Schematic
knowledge, on the other hand, is socially acquired. It is an important part of
the ‘fit’ which exists between people’s culture-specific cognition and their
native language. In native language learning, the child’s schematic
knowledge and systemic knowledge develop concurrently. Given what is
known about the facilitating effects of familiar schemas (or schemata) on
foreign language acquisition, it is most natural for learners to rely on their
already established schematic knowledge when developing new systemic
knowledge. For this reason, foreign language teaching materials which
make use of target-language culture elements to present the systemic data
are likely to interfere with this natural tendency. It is argued here that such
teaching materials are actually detrimental to foreign language learning for
a variety of reasons. The article discusses the problem in question in the
context of EFL materials, yet with English as a lingua franca in mind.
Pedagogic suggestions are then offered to make smooth transitions from
familiar to unfamiliar schemas.

Introduction Culture, aside from its reference to the artefacts of a given community,
involves socially acquired knowledge. This knowledge is organized in
culture-specific ways which normally frame our perception of reality such
that we largely define the world through the filter of our world view. Put
differently, schemas, which are cognitive structures through which we
interpret information, evolve largely as part of a society’s imposition of its
own differential view of reality on its individual members. Culture, then,
as ‘socially acquired knowledge’, can be said to play a central role in
cognition.1

Schematic and Widdowson (1990) refers to socially acquired knowledge as ‘schematic

systemic knowledge’, which he contrasts with ‘systemic knowledge’. The latter, in
know/edge his view, is the knowledge of the formal properties of language, involving
both its semantic and syntactic systems. In native language learning, the
child’s schematic and systemic knowledge are said to develop
concurrently, each supportive of the other. However, as Widdowson
states, the foreign language learning experience is quite different: ‘Here
learners have already been socialized into the schematic knowledge
associated with their mother tongue: they are initiated into their culture in
136 ELT Journal Volume 47/2 April 1993 © Oxford University Press 1993

articles welcome
 the very process of language learning’. For example, while a child from
the Anglo-American world will normally think of a dog as ‘man’s best
friend’, Middle Eastern children are likely to perceive it as dangerous and
dirty. Similarly, whereas the image of the secondary-school teacher in
Japan is one of an intelligent, high-status, authoritarian, and humble male,
the image of the typical Anglo-American teacher does not necessarily
match these traits. It follows that when learners confront uses of the
foreign language they are acquiring, ‘their natural inclination is to
interpret them in reference to this established association’ (Widdowson,
1990: 110).

The role of The ‘fit’, or consistency, between the culture-specific aspects of cognition
schematic and the native language undergoes a substantive degree of conflict when
knowledge in one begins to learn a foreign language. The acquisition process causes
language learners’ schemas to be subjected to novel cultural data whose
acquisition organization for purposes of comprehension and retention becomes
difficult or even impossible to achieve. As a case in point, a learner of
English who has never resided in the target-language culture will most
likely experience problems in processing English systemic data if these
are presented through such unfamiliar contexts as, say, Halloween or
English pubs. Even if these are explained, the learner may still fail to
perceive Halloween or the pub in the same way in which they are
normally evoked in the mind of the native speaker of English, as one’s
natural tendency is to assess a novel stimulus with respect to one’s own
cultural system. As such, it is possible that the learner in question will
react to Halloween or the pub context with less than full comprehension,
regardless of how much explanation is provided. And if one cannot fully
access the schematic data, one can hardly be expected to learn the
systemic data with any ease.
One area where the violation of the ‘fit’ is shown to influence foreign
language learning negatively is that of reading comprehension. It is well-
established that readers make use of culture-specific schemas in relating
input to what they already know and, consequently, construct the writer’s
intended meaning. When the relevant cultural background assumptions
and constructs are missing, however, reading tends to turn into a time-
consuming, laborious, and frustrating experience (Brown et al., 1977;
Steffensen et al., 1979; Reynolds et al., 1982; Nelson, 1987). In fact,
familiarity with the dictionary definition of the lexical items and
knowledge of the sentence structures in a text do not seem to be enough
for learners to comprehend new information. Wallace (1988) attributes
this problem to the learners’ lack of what she calls ‘cultural competence’,
that is, ‘a very complex package of beliefs, knowledge, feelings, attitudes
and behaviour’ (Wallace, 1988: 33).
Given that culture plays a major role in cognition, which in turn
significantly affects comprehension and interpretation, one of the salient
issues in foreign language pedagogy is the determination of the type of
schematic input to be presented to the learners. This article aims at
discussing target-language culture elements learners often face in EFL
Target-language culture in EFL materials 137

articles welcome
 materials, the practical and theoretical rationale for the use of such
elements, and the social and psychological problems which ensue.
Following the discussion, certain suggestions concerning the use of
different types of schematic input in English language teaching are
offered, with a view to facilitating the language learning process.

Elements of the Writing operates in terms of schemas moulded by the social context in
target-language which the writer lives. Writers not only construct mental representations
culture in EFL of their socially acquired knowledge, but such schematic knowledge also
materials influences their writing in various areas such as the rhetorical
organization of a text, audience awareness, topical priorities, etc.
Numerous studies in contrastive rhetoric (e.g. Clyne, 1981; Hinds, 1983;
Koch, 1983; Kobayashi, 1984; Norman, 1984; Matalene, 1985;
Johnstone, 1986; Nishimura, 1986; Connor and Kaplan, 1987; Alptekin,
1988) demonstrate how thinking and writing operate in terms of culture-
specific schemas. As a case in point, Clyne (198 1) shows the fundamental
contrasts between English rhetorical patterns - which are generally
characterized by linearity in the presentation of ideas - and German
rhetorical patterns - which are marked not only by digressions, but also
digressions from digressions. Similarly, Koch (1983) points out that,
unlike Western modes of argumentation, which are based on a syllogistic
model of proof, Arabic argumentative prose makes use of repetition as a
device for textual cohesion and rhetorical effectiveness. In the same vein,
Jenkins and Hinds (1987), speaking of audience awareness skills, indicate
that while American business letters are reader oriented, the French ones
are writer oriented, and the Japanese ones are oriented to the space
between the writer and the reader. Finally, it is no secret that topical
priorities change from one culture to another. For example, while the
White House seems to be a favourite topic with American EFL textbook
writers, the British Royal Family appears to be a popular topic with
British EFL writers.
Such examples show that EFL textbook writers, like everyone else, think
and compose chiefly through culture-specific schemas. Because native
speakers have face validity in EFL circles (Alptekin, 1990; Phillipson,
1990), most textbook writers are native speakers who consciously or
unconsciously transmit the views, values, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings
of their own English-speaking society - usually the United States or
United Kingdom. As such, when learners acquire a new set of English
discourse as part of their evolving systemic knowledge, they partake of
the cultural system which the set entails.

Rationale for One reason for EFL textbooks focusing on elements about the American
using elements of or British culture stems from the fact that it is generally not cost-effective
the target- for publishers to set materials in the learner’s society, as such a decision
language culture would cause other learners from other societies not to make use of the
Commercial materials in question on account of their irrelevance to their own cultures.
considerations Furthermore, the schematic focus on the target-language culture may
offer a lucrative deal to the writer(s) as well as the publisher in those cases
where the textbook is made use of in both EFL and ESL contexts.
138 Cem Alptekin

articles welcome
Author preference Another reason is that native-speaker textbook writers, who normally
reside in their own Anglo-American culture, find it hard to compose data
that go beyond their ‘fit’. By contrast, the presentation of the ‘fit’ through
sets of discourse particular to the target language culture is relatively easy
and practical. They write about their own culture and in tune with that
culture’s formal schemas, where they are ‘at home’ so to speak.

Target language in Apart from such mundane matters that affect the determination of the type
its own culture of schematic input in EFL materials, one witnesses theoretical claims
about the necessity of teaching the target language in relation to its own
culture. In fact, various sources on the subject repeat the orthodox yet
unsubstantiated notion that language and culture are inextricably tied
together, and that it is impossible to teach a foreign language without its
culture base. Stewart (1982), for instance, regards the target-language
culture as an essential feature of every stage of foreign language learning,
and asserts that teaching the formal aspects of the foreign language while
referring to the native culture of the learner is virtually useless. Valdes
(1986: 121) considers the use of the native culture in foreign language
teaching a ‘trap’, leading to a ‘gross misfit’ or an ‘impasse’. Besides, she
claims that it is virtually impossible to teach the foreign language without
its cultural content. Byram (1988) generally supports the belief that a
language cannot be taught separately from its culture. If this is done, he
says, it would lead to a denial of a purported fundamental purpose of
language learning, namely, giving learners the opportunity to cope with
experience in a different way.

Problems with Although practical advantages do exist in teaching and presenting the
the rationale target language in relation to its own culture, there are several problems
Lack of experience associated with this approach as well. To begin with, it forms part of the
‘strange paradox’ that, while in mother-tongue teaching the clarity of
children’s ability to express themselves is emphasized, in foreign
language teaching learners are forced to express a culture of which they
have scarcely any experience (Brumfit, 1980: 95). Secondly, developing a
new identity, or what Byram (1989: 57) calls ‘otherness’, as a result of
one’s sudden exposure to the target-language culture, is likely to cause a
split between experience and thought which is conducive to serious socio-
psychological problems affecting the learner’s mental equilibrium
negatively. Anomie (Alptekin, 1981), regression (Green, 1977), and
schizophrenia (Clarke, 1976; Meara, 1977) are perhaps the worst of such
problems in that, among other things, they are associated with reluctance
or resistance to learning.

Alien modes of Of course, not all culture-specific schematic knowledge leads to such
behaviour serious problems. Most often, the effects are more subtle. Edge (1987),
for example, points to one such area. He says that the task-based
and problem-solving activities which characterize communicative
approaches and materials are not value-free modes of behaviour. Rather,
they involve Western modes of communication which may not be in
harmony with the traditions of some cultures - including learning
Target-language culture in EFL materials 139

articles welcome
 conventions. Hence, argues Edge, learners from those cultures cannot
learn English properly by behaving in ways which are both alien to their
educational culture and proscribed in their daily life. Little wonder then
that Chinese EFL teachers, for instance, seem to shy away from
communicative procedures and materials (Bumaby and Sun, 1989);
Chinese EFL students prefer teacher-centred instruction over task-based
learning involving the contribution of peers (Young, 1987). After all,
Chinese students are accustomed to simple transfer of information from
the teacher and to retaining such data through rote learning.

Ownership of Another problem concerning the use of target-language culture elements

language has to do with the fact that such a position equates a language with the
combined uses and usages of its native speakers, thus making them not
only its arbiters of well-formedness and appropriacy but, more
importantly, its sole owners. Yet, as Paikeday (1985) notes, the notion that
the native speaker is the arbiter of well-formedness and appropriacy is
incorrect, as there are educated as well as naive native speakers.
Differences among such native speakers in matters relating to well-
formedness and appropriacy in a given language are only differences of
degree. As such, some non-native speakers of the language may be more
entitled to arbitrating well-formedness and appropriacy than some
putative native speakers. In the case of English in particular, it is virtually
impossible to think of its native speakers as the only arbiters of
grammaticality and appropriacy and consequently as its sole owners,
given the lingua franca status of the language. To cite Smith (1987: 3),
‘English already represents many cultures and it can be used by anyone as
a means to express any cultural heritage and any value system’. In fact,
different norms of communicative competence have evolved for English,
including those of indigenized varieties such as Indian English (Kachru,
1985). Hence, rather than indulging in an over-simplification such as the
inseparability of language and culture, it would be more realistic to speak
of one language which is not always inextricably tied to one particular
culture, as is the case with English.

Acknowledgement Finally, the position relating a language and its culture appears to ignore
of learners’ needs the positive effects of familiar schematic knowledge on foreign language
learning. Familiarity with both content and formal schemas enables the
learners to place more emphasis on systemic data, as their cognitive
processing is not so much taken by the alien features of the target-
language background.2 Moreover, familiar schematic knowledge allows
the learners to make efficient use of their top-down processing in helping
their bottom-up processing in the handling of various language tasks.3
Needless to say, familiarity in this context refers to schemas based chiefly
on the learner’s own culture.
Numerous examples exist in the literature, in fact, on how familiar
schemas facilitate foreign language acquisition and, in particular,
comprehension. Johnson (1982), for instance, shows that, in reading
comprehension in the foreign language, syntactic and lexical
140 Cem Alptekin

articles welcome
 simplification can be far less important than familiar content schemas.
Similarly, Nunan (1985) suggests that more than the provision of systemic
knowledge, what makes a foreign language text easier to process is the
learner’s degree of familiarity with its content schemas. Based on the
findings of her own extensive research on the subject, Carrel1 (1987)
concludes that good reading comprehension in the foreign language
entails familiarity with both content and formal schemas. Winfield and
Barnes-Felfeli (1982) stress the cognitive processing difficulties
encountered by foreign language learners not only in reading but also in
writing activities involving unfamiliar content schemata. In the same
vein, Friedlander (1990) indicates that foreign language learners’
planning and writing are enhanced when they are asked to write on topics
related to their native language background. Hinds (1984) points to
another interesting aspect of the positive role of familiar schematic
knowledge in foreign language learning through his discovery of a
relationship between the degree of the learners’ familiarity with formal
schemas in essays and the degree of their ability to retain information
from such essays.

Stereotyping What further exacerbates the problem of presentation of the target

language in relation to its own culture is the generally stereotypical
representation of that culture in much instructional material. Hartmann
and Judd (1978), for example, show how many American EFL materials
present stereotyped portrayals of men and women (often to the detriment
of the latter), through one-sided role allocation, overt put-downs, or
simple omissions. Likewise, Clarke and Clarke (1990) point to numerous
instances of stereotyping in British EFL materials in areas of gender, race,
class, and religion. In general, the authors argue, Britishness seems to be
the standard, and cross-cultural perspectives in communication are de-
emphasized or denied.4

Pedagogic Language has no function independently of the social contexts in which it

implications is used. In the case of English, as a lingua franca, such contexts are as
varied as they are numerous. Similarly, the schematic knowledge of the
speakers of such contexts is quite diverse. Hence, to confine English to
one of its native settings and, what is worse, to present that setting in a
stereotypical manner is not only unrealistic and misleading, but also a
disservice to EFL learners in that they are likely to find themselves in the
undesirable position of tackling unfamiliar information unnecessarily
while trying to cope with novel systemic data.
Instead of diving simplistically into the narrow confines of a given target-
language culture, in a manner devoid of comparative insight and critical
perspective, EFL writers should try to build conceptual bridges between
the culturally familiar and the unfamiliar in order not to give rise to
conflicts in the learner’s ‘fit’ as he or she acquires English. Such bridges
can be built, among other ways, through the use of comparisons as
techniques of cross-cultural comprehension or the exploitation of
Target-language culture in EFL materials 141

articles welcome
 universal concepts of human experience as reference points for the
interpretation of unfamiliar data.
Finally, given that the traditional notion of the communicative
competence of the native speaker is no longer adequate as a goal to be
adopted in an EFL programme, the transition from familiar to unfamiliar
schematic data should not necessarily be thought of as moving from the
learner’s native culture to the culture of the native speaker of English.
Even though this still remains a strong option, other options may involve
transitions from the learner’s native culture to the international English of
such areas as pop culture, travel culture, and scientific culture, or the
culture of one of the indigenized varieties of English (e.g. Indian or
Nigerian English).
Received September 1992

Notes Brown, A., S. S. Smiley, J. D. Day, M. A. Townsend,

1 Of course, not all knowledge is culturally
determined. Cognition further involves ‘shared
non-cultural knowledge’ as well as ‘non-shared
non-cultural knowledge’ (Hudson, 1980: 77).
2 Content schemas refer to a person’s background
knowledge of the content area of a piece of
discourse. Formal schemata, on the other hand,
refer to a person’s background knowledge of the
organizational structure of a given piece of
discourse (Carrel1 and Eisterhold, 1983).
3 Bottom-up or data-driven processing involves
activities derived from the nature of an incoming
stimulus and nothing else. By contrast, top-down
or cognitively driven processing involves activities
influenced by factors not present in the stimulus
itself. Such factors include the learner’s general
knowledge of the world or logic and inference
competencies.
4 Even if textbook writers make serious efforts to
eliminate stereotyping by striving for authenticity
in the construction of teaching materials, it should
not be forgotten that such efforts, in the final
analysis, are normally based upon a selection
process which is bound to be, at least, partially
subjective. Thus, as Nostrand (1989: 50) indicates,
the selected texts are not likely to present authentic
reality but the writer’s own artefact.
References
Alptekin, C. 1981. ‘Sociopsychological and
pedagogic considerations in L2 acquisition’.
TESOL Quarterly 15/3: 275-84.
Alptekin, C. 1988. ‘Chinese formal schemata in ESL
composition’. British Journal of Language
Teaching 26/2: 112-15.
Alptekin, C. 1990. ‘A look into the use of native-
speaker teachers in EFL programs’. TEFL Turkey
Reporter l/l: 5-9.
and S. C. Lawton. 1977. ‘Intrusion of a thematic
idea in children’s comprehension and retention of
stories’. Child Development 48:1454-66.
Brumfit, C. J. 1980. Problems and Principles in
English Teaching. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Burnaby, B. and Y. Sun. 1989. ‘Chinese teachers’
views of western language teaching: context
informs paradigms’. TESOL Quarterly 23/2:
219-38.
Byram, M. 1988. ‘Foreign language education and
cultural studies’. Language Culture and
Curriculum l/l : 15-31.
Byram, M. 1989. Cultural Studies in Foreign
Language Education. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Carrell, P. L. 1987. ‘Content and formal schemata in
ESL reading’. TESOL Quarterly 21/3: 461-81.
Carrell, P. L. and J.C. Eisterbold. 1983. ‘Schema
theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly 17/4: 553-73.
Clarke, J. and M. Clarke. 1990. ‘Stereotyping in
TESOL materials’, in Harrison, B. (ed.). Culture
and the Language Classroom. Hong Kong:
Modern English Publications and the British
Council.
Clarke, M. A. 1976. ‘Second language acquisition as
a clash of consciousness’. Language Learning
26/2: 377-90.
Clyne, M. 1981. ‘Culture and discourse structure’.
Journal of Pragmatics 5/1: 61-6.
Connor, U. and R. B. Kaplan (eds.). 1987. Writing
Across Languages: Analysis of L2 Text. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Edge, J. 1987. ‘From Julian Edge’. ELT Journal
41/4: 308-9.
Friedlander, A. 1990. ‘Composing in English:
effects of a first language on writing in English as a
second language’, in Kroll, B. (ed.). Second
Language Writing: Research Insights for the

142 Cem Alptekin

articles welcome
 Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Green, M. F. 1977. ‘Regression in adult learning of a
second language’. Foreign Language Annals 10/2:
173-83.
Hartman, P. L. and E. L. Judd. 1978. ‘Sexism and
TESOL materials’. TESOL Quarterly 12/4:
383-93.
Hinds, J. 1983. ‘Contrastive rhetoric: Japanese and
English’. Text 3/2: 183-95.
Hinds, J. 1984. ‘Retention of information using a
Japanese style of presentation’. Studies in
Language 8/1: 45-69.
Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jenkins, S. and J. Hinds. 1987. ‘Business letter
writing: English, French and Japanese’. TESOL
Quarterly 21/2: 327-49.
Johnson, P. 1982. ‘Effects on reading
comprehension of building background
knowledge’. TESOL Quarterly 16/4: 503-16.
Johnstone, B. 1986. ‘Arguments with Khomeini:
rhetorical situation and persuasive style in cross-
cultural perspective’. Text 6/2: 171-87.
Kachru, Y. 1985. ‘Discourse analysis, non-native
Englishes and second language acquisition
research’. World Englishes 4/2: 223-32.
Kobayashi, H. 1984. ‘Rhetorical patterns in English
and Japanese’. TESOL Quarterly 18/4: 737-8.
Koch, B. J. 1983. ‘Presentation as proof: the
language of Arabic rhetoric’. Anthropological
Linguistics 25/1 : 47-60.
Matalene, C. 1985. ‘Contrastive rhetoric: an
American writing teacher in China’. College
English 47/8: 789-808.
Meara, P. 1977. ‘Schizophrenic symptoms in foreign
language learners’. Paper given at the BAAL
Annual Conference, Colchester.
Nelson, G. L. 1987. ‘Culture’s role in reading
comprehension: a schema theoretical approach’.
Journal of Reading 30: 424-9.
Nishimura, Y. K. 1986. ‘Prose-organizing strategies
of Japanese college students: contrastive analysis’.
Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 19: 207-18.
Norman, N. 1984. ‘Contrastive analyses of
organizational structures and cohesive elements in
native and ESL Chinese, English and Spanish
Target-language culture in EFL materials
writing’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Fordham
University.
Nostrand, H. L. 1989. ‘Authentic texts and cultural
authenticity: an editorial’. The Modern Language
Journal 73/1: 49-52.
Nunan, D. 1985. ‘Content familiarity and the
perception of textual relationships in second
language reading’. RELC Journal 16/1 : 43-51.
Paikeday, T. M. 1985. The Native Speaker is Dead.’
Toronto: Paikeday Publishing Inc.
Phillipson, R. 1990. English Language Teaching and
Imperialism. Tronninge, Denmark: Transcultura.
Reynolds, R. E., M. A. Taylor, M. S. Steffensen,
L. I. Shirey and R. C. Anderson. 1982. ‘Cultural
schemata and reading comprehension’. Reading
Research Quarterly 17: 353-66.
Smith, L.E. (ed.). 1987. Discourse Across Cultures.
New York: Prentice-Hall.
Steffensen, M. S., C. Joag-Dev, and R. C.
Anderson. 1979. ‘A cross-cultural perspective on
reading comprehension’. Reading Research
Quarterly 15: 10-29.
Stewart, S. 1982. ‘Language and culture’. USF
Language Quarterly 20/3: 7-10.
Valdes, J. M. (ed.) 1986. Culture Bound: Bridging
the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, C. 1988. Learning to Read in a
Multicultural Society. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Widdowson, H. G. 1990. Aspects of Language
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winfield, F. E. and P. Barnes-Felfeli. 1982. ‘The
effects of familiar and unfamiliar cultural content
on foreign language composition’. The Modern
Language Journal 66/4: 373-8.
Young, R. 1987. ‘The cultural content of TESOL: a
review of research into Chinese classrooms’.
RELC Journal 18/2: 15-30.
The author
Cem Alptekin, Associate Professor of Applied
Linguistics at Bogazici University (Istanbul),
publishes internationally in the areas of second
language learning and teaching, neurolinguistics, and
contrastive rhetoric. He has also taught ESL in the
United States, and EFL in Turkey and North Cyprus.
143
articles welcome